I love Dr. Peterson. He's helped me greatly in my life. That being said I do have some strong disagreements with him, this being one of them.
Maybe it's because he's Canadian, but our founding fathers intention (one of them) with our 1st amendment was to essentially to protect those who contribute to public conversations privately/anonymously. They knew back then that not all people had the luxury of being able to attach their name to things and maintain a level of personal safety.
The first amendment says nothing about anonymity. And rights can only be asserted by identifiable individuals. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe in anonymity. That is a craven view of defending liberty.
Because he recognizes that our moral struggle is with The Lie (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it---one of Peterson's guidestars). Having no identity is a halfway house to falsehood, encouraging us to operate under false pretenses.
I post on Facebook under my real name. I can't say there is much difference in how I post there vs. here, aside from the fact that Facebook typically does not entertain much discussion that is the main fare here. Here, I recognize that the handles are whimsical, and take some ironic humor in the notion that the one I picked is completely truthful. Even that part of the truth bugs some people here.
I would like to know what the "Dark Tetrad" is, however. I haven't heard that before from him.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation.
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
Most social media companies may technically be privately/ publicly owned, but in reality they are extensions of the government/mainstream media.
Your system does not directly prohibit censorship, nor does it even guarantee that anons stay anons if the CEO changes his mind at the behest of his Congressional pals.
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.
Dr Peterson: communists and government censorship are bad.
Also Dr Peterson: no one should be anonymous on the internet.
Why is he like this?!?
He isn't right in the head. Par for the course for his "profession"
I love Dr. Peterson. He's helped me greatly in my life. That being said I do have some strong disagreements with him, this being one of them.
Maybe it's because he's Canadian, but our founding fathers intention (one of them) with our 1st amendment was to essentially to protect those who contribute to public conversations privately/anonymously. They knew back then that not all people had the luxury of being able to attach their name to things and maintain a level of personal safety.
The first amendment says nothing about anonymity. And rights can only be asserted by identifiable individuals. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe in anonymity. That is a craven view of defending liberty.
Definitely not meth.
Because he recognizes that our moral struggle is with The Lie (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it---one of Peterson's guidestars). Having no identity is a halfway house to falsehood, encouraging us to operate under false pretenses.
I post on Facebook under my real name. I can't say there is much difference in how I post there vs. here, aside from the fact that Facebook typically does not entertain much discussion that is the main fare here. Here, I recognize that the handles are whimsical, and take some ironic humor in the notion that the one I picked is completely truthful. Even that part of the truth bugs some people here.
I would like to know what the "Dark Tetrad" is, however. I haven't heard that before from him.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Anon, our anon is more potent now.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.