Please visit our new site at

Wednesday, June 14, 2006



Please don safety goggles and hard-hats. We are spelunking for Josh Trevino's ethics.

Tac begins this fascinating post by explaining that he was pseudonymous from Oct 2002 to Aug 2004. He then quite placidly admits that during much of this period he was a hypocritical asshole:
For my first several years of blogging, I believed that the cons outstripped the pros, and I acted accordingly. Anonymity and pseudonymity struck me mostly as a means for base people to do base things. The ranks of those who had sincere and defensible reasons for the practice seemed thin. Of course, I included myself in those ranks: even Peter Singer admits to some justification for personal partiality. In the past year or so, though, my views have slowly changed — particularly as I’ve met more professionals who must engage in pseudonymous blogging by dint of their professions.
What he means is that he was pseudonymous, but thought other people who made that decision were jerks, so in several cases, he outed them. But the irrelvant aside about Singer makes that all OK. Magically.

The guff about whether or not anonymity or pseudonymity is a net benefit to blogging and bloggers in general is stupid. The reason you should not so it is that people get insane and self-righteous about this crap, and at some point somebody is going to go too far and hurt someone or get hurt. Period.


thees Treviño...

she was the fellow that started thees
whole "cee-vee-lee-ty" theengy, no?

So now she has seen the errror of her bloggienda malita ways, eh?

Somehow, I do no theenk so.


No to mention that thees Treviño does no even bother to make the point that one's argument should stand on eet's own merits,
despite the assumption or no of any pseudonym.

(por ejemplo, thees grrreat nation's how-joo-say "Federalist Papers")

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?