Granados Column: Who is the commenter behind the anonymous name?
Published: October 11, 2009
The further away from yourself you get, the crazier you become.
At least that has been my observation while perusing online comments to articles on our Web site. It seems that anonymity can be a dangerous thing.
While I have always noticed that commenters on some of our stories, editorials, columns or letters sometimes tend toward the acerbic, I became more aware after our article about school uniforms at
Fred Lynn Middle School.
The comments flowed fast, free and mean, enough to draw the notice of many at our newspaper.
I have also noticed that on that article, and others, those who post anonymously tend to write with less respect and more vitriol. That makes sense. In the absence of accountability, people will do the
nuttiest things.
On the editorial page, we require first and last names of all letter writers. This promotes a certain amount of thoughtfulness on their part, as they know their opinions will be traced back to them. Of
course, that doesn’t mean that the letters are always models of modest discourse — they can be over-the-top as well — but I hate to imagine what they would look like if they could run without names.
For a variety of reasons, including how the site is set up and the limit of our staff resources, anonymous posting is allowed on our Web pages.
Perhaps that should not be the case. I have my opinions, but that is not what this column is about.
Web posts without names are not the only way in which people manage to be anonymous. The Internet age has allowed us to remove ourselves from the direct line of rhetorical battle — we can hide
behind the safety of the computer screen.
Even using one’s name, it is easy to observe the difference between how some people act on the Web and how they act in person.
Take bloggers, for example. A blog is often a sort of persona or character that the writer takes on when sitting at the keyboard, though that character may share the same name as the writer.
From the computer desk, bloggers are often incautious, outrageous and seemingly unhinged. However, from personal experience, I can tell you that at least some of them, when met in person, come
across as quite the opposite — respectable even.
Anonymity isn’t just about a name; it’s about exposure.
Similarly to bloggers or online commenters, someone who writes a news article, an editorial, a column, a book, etc., can gain some safety from the distance put between themselves and their readers by
the written word.
I have no trouble writing my columns, but sometimes when somebody recognizes my picture from the newspaper and says hi, for a moment I wonder if they are going to be friendly or nasty. It is at that
moment that I feel the connect between what I say and those who read it.
Here from the computer, I feel no fear. Out in the public, I’m more wary.
So, the written word alone serves as a barrier to consequences, and that barrier only solidifies more when a name is taken away.
And that is what we have on our Web site. People are already emboldened because they are writing words on a computer and nobody can see them, but then they are even more incautious when they
realize they don’t even have to include their names.
A co-worker, a store owner, the guy walking down the street — any one of them could be the person who was anonymously yelling at you in the comments section of one of our articles. But though you
may see them every day in the real world, you would never know what lurks behind their eyes.
In an editorial earlier this week, we urged readers to act like adults when commenting on the Web site. In this column, I would urge instead that people consider their desire to be anonymous. There are
good reasons for it, true, but ask yourself next time you comment: Do I have any good reason to hide my identity?
Alex Granados is the editorial page editor and reader representative for the News & Messenger. Or maybe not. Perhaps his name is a pseudonym and his picture a fake. He could really be 50 years old
and writing this from a beach in Florida. The world may never know.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Charles,
I think older couples are wise to discuss what would happen if one of them should die and to make plans accordingly. My parents did. All men must perish and it is in the natural order of things. Hopefully, our children and grandchildren will live good lives and be able to pass the torch to future generations when their time comes. Not a cheery thought, but a necessary, realistic, and responsible one…
This is much different than discussing the violent destruction of our country and planning to be part of that destruction. This is not the Apocalypse, the End of Days, and only egotistical kings like Louis XV go around saying things like “Apres moi le deluge (After me the flood).“ To say that current conditions in the U.S. are tyrannical or that the current administration is guilt of tyranny is total nonsense, completely out of touch with reality, history, and conditions elsewhere in the world. It is madness to have something good, to profess to love it, and to want to destroy it. The only sense I can make out of James Simpson’s random rants is that most of his opinions seem informed by a profound hatred for our world, our country, and our community. He can’t wait to see it all go down in flames; he relishes the thought. Make plans, but make good and responsible ones. The good we do lives on beyond us.
Al Mostonest
He who is blinded by the rain will one day see.
rain3fly,
I’m hardly worried about hurting my country’s feelings by discussing the possibility of armed rebellion.
On the other hand, I don’t discuss divorce because there’s no chance I’m going to get a divorce. However, being on the old side of life, we DO discuss what happens if one of us dies in the near future, even though we both hope that doesn’t happen for a long time.
I’m guessing most people who have kids have some sort of will, which they’ve discussed with their spouses, to take care of the kids if they die.
If we don’t consider how we can be equipped for an armed rebellion, we’ll never be able to mount one should the need arise.
Of course, as I said before, this isn’t our founding father’s time, when armies scarcely had better weapons than individuals and towns. We’re not going to have people bring out their personal guns and take back the government from some tyrannical dictator who has used the military to overthrow the elected government.
But, a set of well-armed state militias, with citizens who have been encouraged to own and become proficient with weapons available to fight in the militia, might well save our nation someday.
Fortunately, we can overthrow the current tyranical government simply by voting more wisely in the next two elections.
I take it that James Simpson has never had a girlfriend.
Al Mostonest
To follow James Simpson’s very own analogy down a rat hole, I suppose that, for him, being an American is like living with a “ho,“ and he wants a divorce. I don’t know… Me, I still love the place. Stupid analogies aside, and having spent the lion’s share of my adult life overseas observing first-hand a lot of great places and hard situations, I find no reason to walk out on the street and feel the urge to tear the country apart. I have the experience and imagination to know that there are better ways and that extreme, violent solutions are the realm of fools. I mean, really, what is James Simpson’s problem with America that he spends so much time dreaming up scenarios for its destruction? This is a great place, despite its problems. And it does have a cost (problem with that?), as all great places do… I know that James Simpson is frantic to put this behind him, but he has really stepped over the line here.
Al Mostonest
By the way ... freakazoid ... when you call the Department of Homeland Security to demonstrate what a moron you are ... you may want to give them another tip about the State of Virginia. Let them know they need to go arrest the Governor and all Virginia elected representatives ... heck ... might as well get a gigantic set of handcuffs and slap em around the entire state. After all ... the state motto is “Sic semper tyrannis” - Thus always to tyrants. Which actually sums up my position pretty accurately. You may be able to win a Nobel Peace Prize for letting them in on that secret. They probably had no idea that the State of Virginia called for (God forbid) “armed rebellion” against tyrants!
Oh ... and one more thing.
If you care to actually read the article ... rather than just misquote me on it ... you will note that I never (as you continually and ignorantly repeat) suggest “armed rebellion” “in response to the current administration” ... but as I have pointed out before ... you would rather put words in my mouth and attack those false claims than take the time to quote my statements in context (which of course would leave you without anything to hate and attack).
I can’t think of any way to explain things any simpler, so I will try one last time - and only one last time - by using *your* analogy.
I stated that if we continued to rack up trillions of dollars of debt it could lead to a scenario where the government has no choice but to become oppressive and tyrannical. When inflation causes tens of millions to lose their jobs, and taxes are increased to the point that even honest people are cheating the system, when food is so scarce that people steal or even kill for it, then the government will - by default - create a police state. We are running headlong into this situation as the government (both Republicans and Democrats) have given up any pretense of fiscal responsibility and are now pushing as much of the problem into the future for others to take care of.
TRY TO KEEP UP ... FOCUS … FOCUS … FOCUS!!!!
I said IF THIS WERE TO BECOME REALITY then it would be ethical and within the rights of individuals to use force to oppose tyranny.
Using your analogy it would not be like saying: “Hey, honey, let’s sit down an chat about a possible divorce” without any reasoning behind it.
It would be like saying: “Hey, Honey, if you go out and cheat on my like a drunken hoar I will demand a divorce”
Even this discussion with one’s wife would only have been prompted (as my July 3rd column pointed out) due to factors that indicate that it might become a reality. In this analogy the husband would be sitting down to talk to his wife after he caught her flirting with men at bars repeatedly. (i.e. Our government continuing to rack up debt and create laws that take away more and more freedoms and liberties.)
If you still can’t get this idea through your thick skull I will conclude that you are just incapable of understanding the most rudimentary of concepts.
If you think this is the same as a call for the overthrow of our current government then like newsome said … call the Department of Homeland Security and turn me in. Of course, they will review the commentary on these message boards – see that I am advocating nothing more than the principles that our founding fathers built this nation upon (tyranny and oppression should be opposed) – and put your case in the “crazy old crank” file.
Jim Simpson
Opinion Columnist
Newsome,
Thanks for your compliment. I agree that political opinions are individual choices and I have help party affiliation against anyone, especially not my old service buddies. I was appalled by Swiftboat (Kerry was there in harm’s way) and the Bush bashing of his reserve service (he could have been called up and some were). But bringing up the subject of armed rebellion as a response to the policies of the current administration (as does James Simpson) is way out of line.
Charles,
And thank you for the kind compliment. But your arguments are more rationalization than reason. In the first place, why does James Simpson bring up armed rebellion as a response to the current administration’s policies? Oh, it isn’t a real plot. Oh, it is hypothetical. Oh, it’s only a possibility. Oh, he doesn’t mean it… Try this with your spouse, if you dare. Talk about divorce, something that happens to 50% of us in the U.S. “Hey, honey, let’s sit down an chat about a possible divorce.“ You might break your spouse’s heart or even deal a fatal blow, because marriage is built on trust and love. Or try inserting the “possibility” of domestic violence if things don’t go better in your marriage. That would be tantamount to a threat and might get you an appointment with a divorce lawyer before you know it. Teachers are legally bound to report talk of suicide, sexual abuse, and violence, though they don’t always do it (think Virginia Tech). Sure, James Simpson has the legal right to casually bring up the possibility (“God forbid”) of armed rebellion, but why in response to the current administration, why now, and really, WHY? What is he thinking? And, Charles, what are the things that you have seen in your life that gets you thinking about an armed revolution in this country. Do you really want this? I can think of a lot of things we can be thinking about, talking about, and trying to accomplish that would be a lot more beneficial. We have gained so much by the peaceful transfer of power over the centuries and we have so much to lose by this sort of nonsense. You cannot rationalize your way out of irresponsible talk like this, and James Simpson has not even tried. He’s just trying to weasle out.
Al Mostonest
Posting in the opinion section of this site is what it is, opinions are optional, you do not need to like what you read. Why is that so complicated?
Did you feel that censorship need be applied when the writer is of the same viewpoint as your own?
You have problems with his message, you think he’s planning a hostile government takevoer?
Call DHS, otherwise, move on.
Advertisement