Or, why censorship is harmful
This is a follow-up to my last post, “Sectarianism,” where I first discussed the censorship that I reference below. As is my common practice when a comment of mine is censored and/or deleted, I respond here.
It’s always a bit of extra special irony when you get accused of refusing to be transparent when the anonymous person making the accusation refuses to engage with you on your own blog and you are censored on the only blog that you could, hypothetically, directly address that accusation. So, I guess my blog on the corner of “nowhere” and “never heard of it” is the only option left for me. Let’s go!
Here is the context:
Jack has a very active imagination to go along with the flowery prose. Over the last few years he has said a number of things about my family that are inaccurate, incomplete, or simply not true. He has created a mythological strawman. Almost everything Jack thinks he knows is what he infers in his own mind from my evasive comments here and there.
Apparently unbeknownst to Deti, long ago I had mentioned on Sigma Frame that I won’t disclose certain details of my marriage because that would violate marital trust. I’m pretty sure Jack remembers that and has been quietly, gently, and repeatedly trying to goad me into revealing more ever since. So I—indirectly—referenced that again:
Yeah. That’s true. I’m sorry about that.
This is also true and it not going to change. If I either confirmed or denied any of it, it would leak true information and violate trust. I won’t do it. This is very important to me.
I’m on the record stating that anecdotes are of limited use. I don’t often find much positive value in people bringing their personal baggage into a discussion about ideas, and that includes me as well. For this and other reasons, I’m under no obligation to correct his errors or otherwise provide private information (including doxxing someone else).
I highly recommend that Jack go into any reference he has made about my marriage in his articles and purge most of those references as baseless speculation, removing any anecdotal reference and replacing it with a discussion of ideas. If he were a truth-seeker, he’d feel personally obligated—eager even—to take down such claims. The fact that he has not only justifies my evasiveness: representing me fairly is plainly not the primary concern. He’s never reached out to me privately to comment on such things.
From this explanation alone, it should be obvious that Thedeti’s objection is spurious, having nothing to do with transparency vs anonymity, but here is my (censored) comment anyway:
I do not demand. Rather, I conclude from scripture that this is what God wants of Christians and state this. Each person has their own discernment, so I must recommend against anonymity.
Not all bloggers, but Christian teachers specifically, those explicitly speaking on behalf of God and His Word.
Using your real name isn’t about transparency, per se, except to the extent that the Bible forbids deceiving. It is more closely associated with authority. Perhaps that difference in understanding is why you see no reason to believe me.
Here is a sampling of what I have said in my various works on the subject:
So it is ironic that an anonymous man states the importance of a woman taking a man’s name and does not stand up for his own name. It is ironic that manosphere is full of anonymous patriarchal men who are afraid to stand up and be themselves. They’ll (correctly) call out other men time and again, but hide behind a pseudonym.
In the Bible one’s name is, idiomatically, one’s authority. To set aside one’s name is to set aside one’s claim to one’s own authority. Pseudonyms—even when morally and ethically permissible—are nonetheless antithetical to patriarchy and (church) leadership.
…and…
The Bible—and Christians in general—widely believe that withholding information is not a lie, but giving false information—with intent to deceive—is.
Do you want to go online and criticize someone? Do it in your own name.
…and…
This is why we cannot give oaths: God is our witness and we represent him. If we were to ever lie, we would be misrepresenting God. If we were to give an oath or someone were to require us to give an oath, this would be to question God’s authority because we are God’s agents speaking on his behalf whenever we speak. Our “yes” must be our “yes” and our “no” must be our “no” because we represent God.
How can I fully represent God, under the authority of Jesus the Christ, if I hide myself and misrepresent who I really am? There cannot be a trace of a lie or deception, for those things are the antithesis of God. If I cannot put my reputation behind my words, is it because I fear and am ashamed to take a stance for Christ? If so, then anonymity is a sin. If I need anonymity because I am speaking words that don’t represent God, that is also a sin.
…and…
I believe I have acted in accordance with these beliefs.
In case it isn’t clear, I’m not putting myself out there as an authority on marriage. With only a few categorical exceptions (e.g. move), I almost never give direct advice on marriage. I’m certainly not promoting anything that requires personal anecdotes to defend. If I were, I would expect my readers to summarily reject it in favor of the ideas and arguments presented.
It’s worth noting that this censored “blog length comment” is, by that blog’s standards, an otherwise moderate length comment, hardly of note. The difference is that it also contains many long quotations. Had Deti actually read my blog, it would have completely eliminated the need for those quotations and a “blog length comment” because I already completely addressed this issue there.
So much for Jack’s claim that it would be better if I wrote my responses here. That’s a laughably ineffective idea. I write here knowing that it will be ineffective. I don’t delude myself thinking that people who have no interest in seeking out and learning what I actually believe are going to suddenly find value in me writing more articles that they won’t ever read.
Lastly, I guess Deti wasn’t hijacking the discussion when he made a personal accusation of hypocrisy, but I was hijacking the discussion by defending myself. After all, it’s the length that matters, not the content! Honestly, censorship really does result in stupid outcomes.
”It’s worth noting that this censored “blog length comment” is, by that blog’s standards, an otherwise moderate length comment, hardly of note. The difference is that it also contains many long quotations. Had Deti actually read my blog, it would have completely eliminated the need for those quotations and a “blog length comment” because I already completely addressed this issue there.
So much for Jack’s claim that it would be better if I wrote my responses here. That’s a laughably ineffective idea. I write here knowing that it will be ineffective. I don’t delude myself thinking that people who have no interest in seeking out and learning what I actually believe are going to suddenly find value in me writing more articles that they won’t ever read.
Lastly, I guess Deti wasn’t hijacking the discussion when he made a personal accusation of hypocrisy, but I was hijacking the discussion by defending myself. After all, it’s the length that matters, not the content! Honestly, censorship really does result in stupid outcomes.”
Jack nor Deti had a problem when NovaSeeker often had ”walls of text” comments for some unknown reason just as Jack and Sharkly have no problem with Chegue’d out /Spawny himself posting videos(of WW1 tanks/planes usually) or topless pics(w/o commentary to save civilization and women sports from the trans fed pillers even though the ‘sphere’s fed pillers are supposedly at war with) had nothing to do with craping on women or ”saving civilization”.
Or when Deti goes ”black pill, bitter and hopeless” it cheered as ”keeping it relz homies”,”& fighting da blue pill chumps on their home turf boyz” and ”keep bringing da Truth Saint the Deti bro of bros” but if MOD does even a little bit of ”black pill”, ”he keeps being in nihilism” as one sf commenter put it recently.
”I’m on the record stating that anecdotes are of limited use. I don’t often find much positive value in people bringing their personal baggage into a discussion about ideas, and that includes me as well. For this and other reasons, I’m under no obligation to correct his errors or otherwise provide private information (including doxxing someone else).”
The doxxing part for all the holy rolling ”jack”(& yelling about the fed) does with ”sanctified” and ”trust” and ”sharkly”(with his own well-known paranoia about the republican feds-who he should trust as he did before being ”redpilled”) does with ”lawlessness”,”holy de@th pen@(that’s right I’m holier than jack for the little kids out there reading)lty” and ”keeping the Noahide laws” let alone their fears of ”schisms” and ”divisions” they don’t speak on Susan Walsh dox xing Saint Rollo back in ’12 or that Matt Forney guy doxxed SSM in ’14 (who was a staple of the early successful years of Dalrock blog) then they wonder why you or anyone else won’t help them get info on others? Or why I think they’re double agents working for the fed to further discredit and destroy the ‘sphere?
”Jack has a very active imagination to go along with the flowery prose. Over the last few years he has said a number of things about my family that are inaccurate, incomplete, or simply not true. He has created a mythological strawman. Almost everything Jack thinks he knows is what he infers in his own mind from my evasive comments here and there.”
Apparently unbeknownst to Deti, long ago I had mentioned on Sigma Frame that I won’t disclose certain details of my marriage because that would violate marital trust. I’m pretty sure Jack remembers that and has been quietly, gently, and repeatedly trying to goad me into revealing more ever since. So I—indirectly—referenced that again:
”I highly recommend that Jack go into any reference he has made about my marriage in his articles and purge most of those references as baseless speculation, removing any anecdotal reference and replacing it with a discussion of ideas. If he were a truth-seeker, he’d feel personally obligated—eager even—to take down such claims. The fact that he has not only justifies my evasiveness: representing me fairly is plainly not the primary concern. He’s never reached out to me privately to comment on such things.
From this explanation alone, it should be obvious that Thedeti’s objection is spurious, having nothing to do with transparency vs anonymity, but here is my (censored) comment anyway:”
In case people don’t know ”Jack” partially doxxed someone recently who worked for him at his site ( supposedly a ”friend”=”ally”)-and” Sharkly” long ago doxxed at least two(-four really but two are dead, which is why I first said two) of his family members. (yet they prefer to stay anonymous while not allowing others that right)
So think the above in the post and my second comment on this post are jokes or jesting at your discretion.
Pingback: Anonymity and Plagiarism
Pingback: Habitually Being Wrong
Pingback: Repentance