I find myself mostly in agreement with it. Although I allow people
to post anonymously (albeit with at least an alias) I would prefer that people
stand by their words and not be afraid of them.
But as Rabbi Menken pointed out there are sometimes repercussions
to using your own identity that can harm you professionally. Which has nothing
to do with standing by your view.
There are some Charedi people who comment anonymously on my
blog who are prominent personalities. And their views are almost always among
the more intelligent ones. But often they go against conventional wisdom of
that community. Had they identified themselves, it could hurt them professionally
in their own community. I am not talking about members of the Agudah Moetzes or
the like. But they are nevertheless well known Charedim who could be hurt if
their identities were to be made known.
I understand that and respect it. But that is different from
a rabbinic leader whose very identity is defined by membership to a group that
has “Gedolim” in its title. There - anonymity has no place.
The fact is that Rabbi Menken never did defend the anonymous
rabbinic personality spoken about by Rabbi Adlerstein in the original post that
eventually generated this one. In fact his own silence on the matter actually
seems to endorse my own view of the matter. Professional harm was not likely
the case with this individual.
When it comes to commenting on a blog being anonymous in
your comments is a double edged sword. On the one hand it allows you to say
what you really think without suffering any personal consequences. If truth is the main concern one might think
that anonymity is the best way to get it. You can speak your mind without fear.
This is the way to know what people really think. There is no holding back or
mincing words.
The problem is that there are unintended consequences to
that type of candor. Anonymity allows mean-spiritedness and coarseness of language
without the slightest care about how that affects the people you are
challenging. It was almost as if there
were elements of hatred about the person you are attacking.
Making vile comments instead of arguing on merit may be cathartic. But it is also harmful. Abusive language
is harmful not only to the victim of the attack but to the attacker.
Freeing up rage is not a good thing. It also shows a flaw in
your character. A flaw that needs to change. Sadly it is revealing that there
are so many people who are vile and disgusting by nature but hide it in their daily
lives. (That they keep it under wraps and hidden is good. But that their nature to be vile and disgusting is not good.)
But isn’t a civilized society all about taming the savage beast
in all of us? Civilization (not to mention a Torah Hashkafa) should teach us to hold back these negative impulses
and treat every human being with dignity. Even when we strongly disagree. That
is the kind of person that is respected among peers. When people want to continue
to get that kind of respect they do not speak in vile and insulting language.
They speak in respectful tones.
But the inner beast in some of us wants to let it all hang out.
Anonymity on the internet provides an opportunity.
The desire to insult people you disagree with is an ugly character
trait. Those who are predisposed to it would do well to learn to control those
impulses and never let them see the light of day. The best way to do that online is to use your
real name when you comment. In that way civil discourse will be furthered. And
your own character will continue to be refined.
If one must remain anonymous even for legitimate reasons,
they should write their comments as though they were using their real names.
Dovbear - who himself chooses to be anonymous - is a good
example of why he shouldn’t be. His writing is sometimes very nasty. A luxury he affords himself because of that anonymity. While I may agree or disagree with
him, I find it very distasteful when he writes that way - and that occasionally it crosses the line of respecting human dignity. I would be
willing to bet that this is why he guards his identity so religiously. He does
not want people to think of him the way they do about “Dovbear”.
In a very self-serving way he thus tries to actually
make an argument for anonymity as a better way of communicating ideas. Anonymity - he says - forces respondents
to consider the argument rather than focus on the identity. That would be true
if it were not accompanied by the insults that frequently come with anonymous
comments.
He makes note of the fact that Rabbi Menken actually misused
the knowledge he thought he had gained googling a commenter who used his real name. Rather than focusing on the content of his message he focused on the individual and used it to discredit him rather than respond to comment. But googling that name prodcuced information about someone else with that name.
Dovbear is right about that. Rabbi Menken was wrong. But
that does not diminish his point about lowering the level of discourse
when the comments are made anonymously.
I believe Dovbear is wrong
in the argument he makes favoring anonymity. He says that anonymity forces you
to respond to content instead of focusing on the individual. That is a specious
argument. If you have something to say it doesn’t make any difference if you
know the identity of the commenter or not. If you want to attack a commenter
with vile insults instead of responding to their content - you can do that
without knowing their identity too.
Bottom line for me is that if one wants to argue with me or
some of the other commenters, please do it as respectfully as you can. It will generate
a far better discourse, make for a lot less hurt feelings, and make you a better
person. And it will make my life a lot easier.
