OTOH, cybervigilantism

Rod,

I don't necessarily agree with you that people wouldn't say things face to face. I certainly have never had any compunction about confronting people face to face on the gay issue when they feel very free to say to my face that my relationship is comparable to having sex with babies, rape, child molestation, incest, beastiality and necrophilia. People can be, and often are, nasty in person, even self-proclaimed Christians, among whom were people saying those very things.

In fact, one time, when I reminded the Parliamentary Committee Chair during the hearings on same-sex marriage that saying those things would not be allowed to be said of a black person's relationships since they would rightly be considered hate speech, the Chair put an end to such comparisons. They were hurtful and hateful because they were false.

The Chair and the people present knew my name. I am not ashamed of my name. I choose to post anonymously here because of your predilection for 'outing' people and shaming them on your blog when they have posted under pretext of privacy.

they feel very free to say to my face that my relationship is comparable to having sex with babies, rape, child molestation, incest, beastiality and necrophilia. People can be, and often are, nasty in person, even self-proclaimed Christians, among whom were people saying those very things.

"Alleged" Christians.

freddy, you've nailed the major demon of internet discourse. Perhaps we who are Christians need to think that Christ will read all our postings before they make it to the internet; and that's no fantasy either. He does read them.

Ponder this issue, as I will try to do also. I'm certainly no better on this one than anyone else. Since this posting goes directly to Jesus' computer, do I want to re-think it before I hit "Post"?

Double doggone darn Susan, do you really believe HE does?

Personally I think of my grandkids and kids. HE's a maybe, they aren't.

Hey, also, if Rod is violating privacy as Recovering alleges, I'd like to know about it. If this is a baseless charge, well then, it won't be followed up by evidence will it.

Rod doesn't have the luxury of anonymity. We all know his real name and city of residence; we all know where he works.

If Recovering has good reasons for using the cloak of anonymity, as he alleges, I'd like to hear what they are. That's all. Perhaps I should change my current policy.

I'm not anonymous in the slightest. I'm using my real name, and anyone can trace my email address, above, and find out who I am. I have no idea who you are, Will. There are lots of "Will"s in the world.

Susan,

There was just that one incident I think R-e-P refers to where a reader was particularly abusive to Rod in email, accusing him of censoring her, etc. etc., and he included her name in the post.

It was probably from August if I recall, but anyway ....

R-e-P, why go after Rod on this? He's one of the fairer managers of comboxes I've run into. Sure he states his opinions hard and fast, but he let's us do the same. Seems fair to me.

I would hate for this combox to degenerate into the usual blather that less monitored comboxes seem to head toward. If it takes the occasional proverbial tongue-lashing to keep the collective us in line, well OK.

REP: I choose to post anonymously here because of your predilection for 'outing' people and shaming them on your blog when they have posted under pretext of privacy.

I'm trying to think of what you're talking about, but I'm sure this is your usual groundless hissy-fittery. Perhaps it was GIITV, who had been banned from this site, but who kept coming back and posting really offensive, often profane, things. I warned him to stop, and when he didn't, I told him I was not going to let him get away with abusing this site and its readership under the cloak of anonymity. I knew his real name (because he'd written to me before), and was going to reveal it. Somebody who's enjoying coming onto the site and talking trash about f--k the Pope, etc., is not going to do that if he's going to be held accountable by people for it by having to own his filthy rhetoric.

He got the message, and went away. I don't think there was a thing wrong with that, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Your position is senseless, REP. You don't use your real name because you're afraid I'm going to out you? Huh?

Susan, I took the iMac to the store last night, and am waiting to hear from them. I'll update the room when I know something else.

The anonymity can be liberating in a positive way; sometimes you'll see a post in these comboxes from someone who writes as "Anonymous This Time," when he or she has something personal to disclose that adds to a discussion, but that's too personal to admit. But mostly I think it brings out the worst in people. Rod Dreher

It's simple humanity one oh one. When we can condense the relationship down to a single issue it's alot less complicated. We saw it in the way the Jews were treated during WWII. It's what enables Shias to slaughter Sunni and vice versa. The same thing happens in the comboxes and internet forums. We don't see a person, we see a position or perspective and we lose the constraints imposed by a normal relationship.

I don't like aliases. But I accept them as part of the wonderful world of the internet.

"We don't see a person, we see a position or perspective and we lose the constraints imposed by a normal relationship."

"Religion is bad."

Rod:

Bravo, bravo, on multiple counts:

1. Cyberstalking is what drove Megan Meier to end her life in the first place. As much as I (not with feelings of Christian forgiveness, I admit) hope the Drews end up in a new 10th circle of H*ll ... here on Earth, two wrongs don't make a right.

2. I'm like Rod (no, not politically, obviously, as he would be the first to point out!) in being a writer, albeit a much less professionally successful one. So I too have that "writer's confession" instinct that he spoke of a few weeks ago. I have no problem signing my name to my posts.

However, I also get no credit for it. Which means when I relate personal anecdotes here on CC, I'm basically treated by most comboxers like I'm Art Bell talking about UFO's or something. Don't know whether that's because people suspect "Larry Parker" is a false name (it's not; you can google me) or that I don't share the ideology of the vast majority of CC regulars; I suspect it's a mix of both.

There are many valid reasons for comparative anonymity on the internet. And I say "comparative" because it takes a lot of work to be truly undetectable, if someone is determined to find you.

Web identity can be particularly problematic for women. Look up "Kathy Sierra" for an example. Or, gosh, come to think of it, what happened to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon after she came to the attention of Bill Donohue and his merry pranksters. The anonymous swarm of attacks on her was approved by many on this site, as I recall. Such attacks can include the following: hundreds of obscene insults, threats of sexual attack, and in some cases, actual death threats spamming and jamming comboxes or boards. Breaking into other sites owned by the victim. Outing of private information such as phone numbers, addresses and names of family members, often with "joking" suggestions as to how the info might be used. Denial of service attacks, resulting in sites owned by the victim being taken down and destroyed. Women have had their businesses destroyed in this way, as well as being personally threatened. Some groups who specialize in doing these attacks for fun even refer to them as "raep."

The beliefnet areas seem comparatively safe. I don't think most people who post here, even under a pseudonym, would carry out such activity. But for every person who posts with a tag, there are a hundred lurkers who say nothing. And you really don't know who they are.

Of course, the weak protective measures most of us use are like locking the door at night. A determined home invader could blow right through your puny little lock. But it's still worth doing, to discourage the amateurs. I think a modicum of self-protection is a wise choice, under the circumstances.

Anonymous posting are both useful and problematic. Some things need the cloak of anonymity, but one should be very careful when using it. Be aware that the mask can be perceived as real, (just as "Josh" was by Megan.) Also be aware that wearing a mask also has some affect upon the person who wears it; (the Drews.)

There are legitimate reasons for anonymity, (legal, literary, social and psychological.) What anonymity is not, is a license for libel or to do harm without the constraints of law and society. Even in the vigilante mob, you still show your face, albeit hidden in the group. What collective anonymous action does is provide a means to express outrage and participate in the causing of harm at a distance. This is what the Drews did to Megan. It was vile. The deficiency of law may mean that some form of voluntary social censure is a moral good and necessary for the community. That, however, is no reason for a lynching by many who from the safe distance of their keyboards want to express outrage, an outrage that is conveniently provided by this dreadful narrative. Before you type in moral indignation, think hard: Am I using this justification to spew vile because I want to feel morally superior while projecting my anger and frustration?

You put that very well, Zero-Equals-Infinity. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a feature that would post my own words back to me so I could read them as if they were directed at me, and see if they still sounded fair, before I hit the fatal button.

"If Recovering has good reasons for using the cloak of anonymity, as he alleges, I'd like to hear what they are."

The last time I used my real name on a conservative blog - FreeDominion - I received death threats. Later, after the blog owner 'apologized' and removed my posts under my real name, I switched to a pseudonym, which some one with higher technical skills than I connected to my profile and 'outed' me once again. My name was traceable and remained searchable on the Internet for some time - could be still is, but that was about 4 years ago and other than the first 2 or 3 threatening e-mails, I stopped getting them.

As for Rod exposing his bloggers, it was in the previous incarnation of the B'net site. Jim confirms it in his post of November 30, 2007 6:17 PM. Even Rod seems to remember it ("I knew his real name (because he'd written to me before), and was going to reveal it.")

I personally disagree that Rod is "one of the fairer managers of comboxes". I think he allows some posts and disallows others based on their position. ("Donny" gets to use "Satan's minions" and "Sons of Molech" to describe a certain type of person here, for instance, yet I do not get to call someone who compares my relationship to beastiality or child-molestation an "idiot" and must stick to saying their opinions are idiotical.) Rod himself gets to accuse me of "usual groundless hissy-fittery", but I believe I have provided examples for every point I've made and thus feel that they are NOT "groundless". He gets to say, "Your position is senseless, REP." yet I believe I have much in which to ground my beliefs and comments. It's the "hissy-fittery" and the "lavender jackboots" comments of which he is so fond that irk me. But on that my opinion is irrelevant. It's his blog and he sets the rules.

However, when he asks: "You don't use your real name because you're afraid I'm going to out you? Huh?" he is right on the money. I'm not afraid of the 'outing' per se, but the death threats that have followed such outings in the past.

As Larry Parker points out, "Cyberstalking is what drove Megan Meier to end her life in the first place". Cyberbullying (and real life bullying) is a vital, crucial issue to GLBT people. Anti-gay people often quote the high rates of suicide among gays and I believe the bullying we recieve in disproportionate amount is a large contributing factor. Or is this fear "groundless", or "senseless" too, nothing more than mere "hissy-fittery"?

REP:

For myself, I've just had to accept that Rod is one of those bloggers who routinely blasts his own readers if they disagree with him. He himself admits he's hopelessly sarcastic.

At least I share that (and an admiration for his great writing skill) in common with him, even if we have nothing in common politically or religiously. Why else would he be a must-read given that he's zinged me many times (though not, I grant you, as severely as you)?

Half-full:

1) I'd rather see Donny's posts, and the usual lack of response to them, as a positive comment on how much his views are on the fringe.

2) I'd rather see Rod blast his readers, if only to show that he can be kept honest later on by referring him back to those blasts. I don't know about anyone else, but I see Rod as a basically honest and honorable man.

YMMV.