We'll Have To Disagree

Back on the Whelan post there's still some discussion over outing. I haven't changed my mind. I'm still against it in this case. But as I said in an email to Jules, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Eric Florack disagrees with me, as well.

Trying to hide one’s identification while spreading one’s ideals seems to me inherently contradictory. Our politics are supposed to be a reflection of our most personal values and beliefs. So, in a free society, how seriously can we take an argument about one’s most cherished beliefs, if they won’t even sign their name to them?

And I don't buy the argument from Beck here - who transposed my name btw - it ain't rhiel. No big deal, just pointing it out. However, I was also on USENET back in the day - now that was audacious! But if he's suggesting I'm a "noob," he's as clueless as he is presumptive. If what was going on with Beck was going on, he was entitled to out the guy in my view. I'm not saying the rule is etched in stone, never to be ignored. And if Publius were impersonating Whelan, he'd be right to out him, as well. That wasn't the case.

There was a period when I published a half-dozen times a day the name, address and telephone number of one xxxxxxxxxx, because the commie rat-bastard was using my name as his Usenet userid and I was the only person in the world who could and would do anything about it.

Apples and oranges, as far as I'm concerned. 

Comments

[Ran]

"how seriously can we take an argument about one’s most cherished beliefs, if they won’t even sign their name to them" ... It's a patently silly question, or am I missing something obvious?

One must take such an argument most seriously indeed. Cowards who hide behind aliases are free to perform vile truth-dumps with relatively little fear of reprisal. [Duncan Black freaked-out when he was identified with "Atrios" by Perry and a few others.]

Granted, being aware of having one's identity attributed to a thought does reinforce care in expression.

I don't know how to judge the main question, though. For me, I assume that everything I post could and would jump-up to bite me in the arse. Unlike Duncan Black, I won't give a flying fuck.

[ajacksonian]

The original Publius: Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

There are still arguments about who wrote which article under that name... I guess they just were contradictory about their personal beliefs...

Really, how anyone can say that in America after seeing how the arguments about the Constitution went on by a large number of people who can't be identified is just nuts. But then the points were brought up not to center on an individual but to bring up points to the public for discussion. That happened on both sides, Federalist and Anti-Federalist and is the basis for the founding of the Nation under the Constitution. Some folks have to get off of their moral high horses and understand that anonymous writers could be 'called out', not 'outed', back then.

That meant you gave up the right of choosing weapons and ceded that so you could bring the scoundrel out into the open or see him whine and slink away. We are far too civilized for our own good... we used to know these things, but no longer it appears. That used to keep things civil, that 'calling out' for a duel business. Made you think twice about what you said and published, so that folks learned civility the hard way by seeing what happened when you weren't civil.

[Dan Riehl]

The fact is, I thinkwe do have rules - more SOP. There are people who come out her, toss up a blog and, for lack of a better term, jump the shark everyday.

They marginalize themselves rather quickly. People stop linking and engaging them, if they ever start. Clearly Publius wasn't doing that, or many more people would have heard of it before this.

IMO If someone isn't mature enough out here to ignore or blow off an idiot they disagree with out here, they should grow up - not sniff around to get something on the person from their RL.

Otherwise, as I said in an email a bit ago, if you do want to slice and dice out here and can't do it with a smile on your face - you don't belong in the game. I've been insulted, impugned, maligned far worse than I bet Whelan ever was by Pulius in my own comments area. I could care less about trying to "get" these folks, somehow.

We fence with words routinely - sometimes harshly out here, and I'm not buying the "my good name" argument. If your name isn't good enough with the people you know in your life and work with to withstand some mostly silly blog spats, you have bigger issues than your blog.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Paul at Powerline says it much better than I ever could

" Ed Whelan has apologized to John Blevins, the nasty law professor who blogs as "Publius," for disclosing his identity. Ed must be a better man than I am.

I don't read many blogs and those I read regularly, though they sometimes disagree with me, almost never attack me. But if I came across an anonymous blogger who said of me "he just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue" or who accused me of "bringing the full crazy," I'm pretty sure I would "out" the jerk if I had the opportunity. Either that or ignore him, but certainly not engage the guy while allowing him hide like a coward behind a pseudonym."

[Ran]

Dan,
If memory serves, Black had screamed that his job was indeed in jeopardy. It isn't about your rep with co-workers, it's about a hostile boss looking for an opportunity. [Heh... When word got around my architectural office that I had used math to debunk "global warming", I knew was toast.] That said, the lesson from Atrios was that one is likely at some point to be "outed" by a hostile, right or wrong. It's like a hard-drive crash... happens.

One would think that a law prof would know better.

[Dan Riehl]

"It's like a hard-drive crash... happens."

Well, people probably don't realize I'm not a huge fan of anon blogging. That's why I use my name. I do think it's better and can be important. But the convention has been SOP since I got here - otherwise outing wouldn't even an issue. And seeing someone caught out by something commonly accepted and historically respected by the community strikes me as wrong.

If someone doesn't want to accept anon blogging, don't engage or link anon bloggers. Seems simple to me.

[Eric Florack]

"how seriously can we take an argument about one’s most cherished beliefs, if they won’t even sign their name to them" ... It's a patently silly question, or am I missing something obvious?

It's called a rhetorical question, and the obvious answer is no we can't take them seriously. So yes, you missed something obvious.

Dan; I respect your view on the matter and to a large degree I don't care if somebody decides they want to go under the non De plume of Mickey mouse. No skin off my nose. Until, that is, they start attacking me personally , at which point all bets are off. That's precisely what happened with Blevans, and he got called on it, and correctly, in my view. That's the deal breaker for me. Once that line gets crossed, .....End of conversation, Scooter. And I've run into a few such back in the USenet days... I was involved with a couple "outings" myself. Gandalf and Banjocat are two names that I think some of you will probably recognize. I'm sure the Beck does, and I think possibly Dan does as well. Given the same circumstances I do the same thing all over again, As straightforward as a thrown javelin.

Go and read ...

"the education of ed whelan" (System is tossing the link back for some reason...)

... and tell me you don't think it's way out of line. I figure around half of Blevans defenders aren't even aware of this post. It's impossible to apply principles to an event you don't have all the facts on.

[Dan Riehl]

Okay, I did, Eric. Seems to me the worst of it by far was a snippet from Anonymous Liberal, not Publius himself. I still disagree. But if I responded seriously at all as Whelan, I might say some anonymous possibly un-law-educated clown was playing games and he should either step forward and ID himself, or go away. But frankly, I didn't find teh item any more or less offensive than one can find all over the place out here routinely - and from anon bloggers to boot. That said, if outing should be the payback, perhaps WHelan targeted the wrong guy?

Anyway, people can judge for themselves:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/the-education-of-ed-whelan.html

From AL, not Publius, who simply agreed with it with a "yep":

"This is Whelan's role in the conservative world, his niche. He's the guy Republicans look to when they need to discredit a Democratic legal or judicial nominee. He pores over their record, finds some trivial fact that, when distorted and taken totally out of context, makes that person look like some sort of extremist. Whelan knows this is what he's doing. It's willful. He's essentially a legal hitman, someone who provides the "expert" opinion that the right wing echo chamber then uses as the basis of its attack campaign."

[Dan Riehl]

Oh and I did click through and read the Volokh item. While Publius is hyperbolic in rendering his interpretation, Volokh clearly took exception to Whalen's initial posting - and also did after Ed's editing of the text.

"UPDATE: Ed Whelan e-mailed me to note that he has revised his post in light of this one, to say (italics indicates new text):

So Sotomayor thinks an unobjectionable and apt description of what is most distinctive about the role of Supreme Court justices in making decisions involves is “ponder[ing] about ... policy implications.”

I much appreciate the revision, which does make Whelan's point narrower. But I think that on balance the criticism still isn't quite apt."

[Eric Florack]

That said, if outing should be the payback, perhaps WHelan targeted the wrong guy?

Obviously, Dan, one of the lessons in that specific (Note the words used, there ) is if a liberal... any liberal... hollers loud enough, enough people will fall over. We've both seen it often enough to validate the general concept. I'm suggesting this is one application of such.

I think the point, though, has been amply made that what we are talking about was not nearly so unreasonable or cut and dried as some have made it out to be. ANd hence the broadbanded discussion... even among folks who usually agree on much.

[Dan Riehl]

Yeah, I think the discussion has been mostly good for blogging all around, Eric.