When a person exposes corruption and gives factual information that is irrefutable the establishment will ignore the information and attempt to discredit the person. If the persons identity is anonymous one is forced to confront the information. You can attempt to distract from the information by discrediting the post on the bases of the anonymous has no credit, but the distraction is much more effective if it's an actual person your discrediting. Discrediting an actual person has more of an effect because you can create lies that are personal and generate emotional responses. Also, the persons tribal position can be leveraged as in they are extreme right, racist, Maga, boomer, etc. Anywho, that's my perspective for what it's worth.
What "factual information that is irrefutable"? A lot of people posting here are content with denying irrefutable information about Moon landings, contrails, and a round Earth. Why should some invisible anonymous nobody be more credible than a somebody with a past and a track record. Nothing is easier to discredit than a mask or a pseudonym, with supposition and "logical inference." Especially cowardice...which would be a vital strike, because true.
It seems that people don't understand the way that persons like Solzhenitsyn and Peterson survive the attacks on them is that they have chosen to operate in the spotlight, where they have plenty of visibility. You want to have a lot of eyes on you, in order to avoid being defeated by stealth.
A prime example of this is Trump, who is the most conspicuous person on the planet, by a strategic choice to be so. He has done things anonymously---and no one knows about them. That is fine. But what we need him to do for us cannot be done anonymously. Thank God he is willing to stand up for truth and put his name on it. Shame on any of us who think we can stand up for truth and put a lie on it.
I think I am calling into question what "effective" can mean. On this page, we are sometimes singing to the choir. Is that "effective"? Probably not, in the sense of making a difference. We are sometimes at odds with the crazy conspiracy hoaxers and may possibly clear their heads. In some indirect sense (dispelling folly), that may be "effective." At least it will make them less ineffective. But when we reach out to some actual person in our actual selves, we may be informing them or educating them. I think that is the best form of "effective," though it may not be perfect.
I guess I am thinking this environment (anonymous) is like a training gym, but the real contest occurs outside the gym. If we are to the point where people feel fearful of telling the truth, lest there be reprisal---then we are past the point where people should be telling the truth because our lives and freedom depend on it.
As an aside, do you realize that people today seem nervous about their names, addresses, and phone numbers being known and knowable to nearly anyone. They get all squinchy if their address or phone number is mentioned. I find this incredible, inasmuch as I grew up with CITY TELEPHONE BOOKS that consisted of an actual alphabetized list of EVERYONE IN THE CITY WHO HAD A PHONE, complete with street address and phone number. We didn't think anything of it. Nothing bad came of it. If you expressed any anxiety about this, you would be looked at like you were fresh from the looney bin!
When a person exposes corruption and gives factual information that is irrefutable the establishment will ignore the information and attempt to discredit the person. If the persons identity is anonymous one is forced to confront the information. You can attempt to distract from the information by discrediting the post on the bases of the anonymous has no credit, but the distraction is much more effective if it's an actual person your discrediting. Discrediting an actual person has more of an effect because you can create lies that are personal and generate emotional responses. Also, the persons tribal position can be leveraged as in they are extreme right, racist, Maga, boomer, etc. Anywho, that's my perspective for what it's worth.
Good point too, anonymous removes that vector of "oh look see! that person did did x y and z so we can dismiss them!" ad-hominems.
Well said! You nailed it in a nice short paragraph.
What "factual information that is irrefutable"? A lot of people posting here are content with denying irrefutable information about Moon landings, contrails, and a round Earth. Why should some invisible anonymous nobody be more credible than a somebody with a past and a track record. Nothing is easier to discredit than a mask or a pseudonym, with supposition and "logical inference." Especially cowardice...which would be a vital strike, because true.
It seems that people don't understand the way that persons like Solzhenitsyn and Peterson survive the attacks on them is that they have chosen to operate in the spotlight, where they have plenty of visibility. You want to have a lot of eyes on you, in order to avoid being defeated by stealth.
A prime example of this is Trump, who is the most conspicuous person on the planet, by a strategic choice to be so. He has done things anonymously---and no one knows about them. That is fine. But what we need him to do for us cannot be done anonymously. Thank God he is willing to stand up for truth and put his name on it. Shame on any of us who think we can stand up for truth and put a lie on it.
You make some good points. Are saying that it is more effective not to be anonymous?
I think I am calling into question what "effective" can mean. On this page, we are sometimes singing to the choir. Is that "effective"? Probably not, in the sense of making a difference. We are sometimes at odds with the crazy conspiracy hoaxers and may possibly clear their heads. In some indirect sense (dispelling folly), that may be "effective." At least it will make them less ineffective. But when we reach out to some actual person in our actual selves, we may be informing them or educating them. I think that is the best form of "effective," though it may not be perfect.
I guess I am thinking this environment (anonymous) is like a training gym, but the real contest occurs outside the gym. If we are to the point where people feel fearful of telling the truth, lest there be reprisal---then we are past the point where people should be telling the truth because our lives and freedom depend on it.
As an aside, do you realize that people today seem nervous about their names, addresses, and phone numbers being known and knowable to nearly anyone. They get all squinchy if their address or phone number is mentioned. I find this incredible, inasmuch as I grew up with CITY TELEPHONE BOOKS that consisted of an actual alphabetized list of EVERYONE IN THE CITY WHO HAD A PHONE, complete with street address and phone number. We didn't think anything of it. Nothing bad came of it. If you expressed any anxiety about this, you would be looked at like you were fresh from the looney bin!