I suppose my main point is why? The only reason that strikes me is that #2’s are especially afraid to be criticized personally and prefer to have their alter ego’s in the line of fire. Some may just be shy but I suspect that a majority wish to save themselves hurt feelings or bruised ego.
Is that a good reason not to use your own name?
The reasons are many and varied, from being rooted in the realm of psychology (like "ego", as you say) to the practical (things like this).
Personally, I've never viewed this as that big of a problem for bloggers. There are many available ways to deal with it; anything from requiring registration to deleting/banning offenders to abandoning a comments section altogether. Other sites use third-party commenting systems (like Disqus), which make it easy to track a particular commenter's shenanigans.
Ultimately, I think a high-profile blogger (pseudonymous or not) has to develop a thick skin, and get used to brushing off the stuff that's short of outright personal threats of violence and the like. Petty Ad hominems are logical fallacy, after all, and the way I look at it, the commenter lost the debate on the opening salvo. In fact, instead of giving someone the honor of me engaging in such things, I let the comment stand....with a sort of Scarlett letter. ( It worked much better than I expected; no one wanted that little white flag by their comment. lol)Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 9.06.2009 @ 11:48
Rick, I think it should be pointed out that there are few basic types of blog commenters:
1. those who are completely anonymous , i.e. those who shift handles from site to site and/or use something generic that could be tied to anyone (like "anonymous"). These people people may go so far as to post using a proxy (thereby hiding their IP) and use a phony email address.
2. those who are pseudonymous, but are strictly commenters. They use the same alias on every site they visit, may even use legit email addresses, but have no publicly viewable site of their own tied to that handle (leaving no avenue to "follow up").
3. those who are pseudonymous and also blog under the same pseudonym. They use the same handle throughout the political web, and provide a link back to their own blog wherever they leave comments. Often, the use of an recognisable avatar is used (on sites that enable it). This level of transparency provides a sense of accountability to the particular netizen, as there is a sort of "brand" established that is worth maintaining and defending. Many netizens, including myself, fall into this category.
4. those who post under their real-life name
Of course, there are grey areas above and certain people may spend time online using a combination of any of those (depending on the website being visited), but I think that's the basic breakdown.
That's a good breakdown. My concern is that most commenters fall into categories 1 and 2. #1's are invariably trolls while #2's can be thoughtful and reasonable but also have their fair share of bombthrowers.
I suppose my main point is why? The only reason that strikes me is that #2's are especially afraid to be criticized personally and prefer to have their alter ego's in the line of fire. Some may just be shy but I suspect that a majority wish to save themselves hurt feelings or bruised ego.
Is that a good reason not to use your own name?
ed.Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 9.06.2009 @ 10:57
Re: not Bush's fault
Do you think the nation would be poised to sweep in Dems right now if Kerry had won in '04?Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 2.11.2008 @ 12:02
Political correctness is obviously alive and well in the right wing, but it has to do with patriotism rather than racial sensitivity. A person has to be very careful about how he phrases any criticism of American society or government if he doesnâ€™t want Republicans to freak out.
Excellent point.Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 18.03.2008 @ 23:00
Clio is a mischievous mistress and works very hard to make those who try and predict her verdicts look like fools.
Nice reference to Greek mythology. Of course, speaking of predicting, Clio is not to be confused with Miss Cleo. lolComment Posted By ChenZhen On 16.03.2008 @ 18:24
This is the conundrum largely created by the Democrats to answer the GOPâ€™s huge advantage on the issue of terrorism. Apparently, it has now come back and bit them in the ass.
BTW- I think that's been sort of a self-perpetuated myth in the media and the blogosphere. In the most recent polls, the Dems have the slight edge, actually:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE Â± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
"Who do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Options rotated. Half sample.
Bush Democrats Both (vol.) Neither (vol.) UnsureComment Posted By ChenZhen On 29.02.2008 @ 19:28
39 % 52% 2% 5% 2%
And it looks like Atlas has been off the rails for some time now.Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 24.02.2008 @ 20:59
I'm not sure what to make of Thompson's comments. On the one hand, it'd be nice to know that a candidate for the toughest and most important job in the world at least has his/her heart in it. On the other, it is a virtue to have motivations that aren't based in a primal thirst for power.
But saying "not particularly interested" might make contributors to his campaign wonder why they are sending him their money. I think that Fred could have made the point better by phrasing the response differently. (this would bring up another knock on Thompson; he isn't a talented communicator). Maybe that's the takeaway.Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 30.12.2007 @ 15:23
Holy cow...it looks like your suggesting the same thing I offered last night:
http://chenzhen.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/for-the-love-ofjust-ignore-ann-coulter/Comment Posted By ChenZhen On 3.03.2007 @ 23:45
Pages (1) :