Following up on the posts about Phil Agre's article, I must admit I haven't read it all the way through, but I have the feeling what he's talking about is actually not modern conservatism at all, but classical (Burkean) conservatism. As Patrick said, the word is often used to mean things that are a lot more benign, and I think there's some value to that usage -- i.e., some value to rescuing the term for an ethos which, if I don't necessarily subscribe to it entirely, could use some stronger voices in our political sphere. I.e. conservation as caution and thoughtfulness, resistance to change for its own sake (which often might mean resistance to certain of the effects of unfettered capitalism - i.e. hyperindividualism and consumerism), conservation of natural resources -- etc. There are plenty of people who identify as Republicans and hold some or all of these values, who it would be nice to see splintered off from what is now a truly radical party. At this point it might actually be conservative (small c) to have respect for democratic values...

Sorry for all the distracting "i.e."s in that post. Didn't proofread...

I've often thought that if all the conservatives who weren't religious nuts, and the liberals who weren't P.C. nuts, would speak up and get active, we might have sane politics in this country again.

...and then the sun hits my eyes and I wake up to the real world.

WRT the problem of Nader, these folk believe they have a solution. Condorcet voting.

Mind you, I think it's a nice system for small-scale elections (a friend is using it as the basis of an online voting system for student government). Imagine the chaos if we had to resolve a "cyclic ambiguity" on a national scale.

Let's leave aside the notion that Americans would never embrace a voting system named after a French mathematician...

It seems to play out pretty easily in practice, but the explanation is murder. The Hugo voting system is hard enough to explain to the uninitiated, and that's a lot simpler. And wouldn't the results be the same?

Jeff, they'd never realize it was named after a Frenchman. Most of them probably would think a condorcet is a baby condor.

This comment by "sturgeonslawyer" about "Calimac," over in an earlier thread, brings to mind something that's been increasingly bothering me, which is that some people in these conversations are using the names under which they're generally and publically known, and others are using nonce pseudonyms. I know which acquaintance of many years "Calimac" is because I clicked through to the LiveJournal linked from his comments here and deduced it. His real name isn't evident on his LJ, but his initials, his friends list, and his subject matter made it possible to deduce. And yes, I grant that at least "Calimac" does use this pseudonym in part of his life, the LiveJournal part. By contrast, I have no idea whatsoever who "sturgeonslawyer" is. Similar clouds of ambiguity surround many people who post here under made-up names.

This isn't a huge issue and I'd really like to avoid having a giant pissing match over it, but I do find myself bemused and sometimes uncomfortable about being a public figure in conversations with people who wholly or partly withhold their identity, particularly when I have reason to suspect (as in the case of "Calimac," and who knows, maybe "sturgeonslawyer") that I actually do know them.

(And before anyone starts, no, this has nothing to do with with what it says on your passport or driver's license.)

Well, you know who I am, but maybe others don't. It's in my bio in my LiveJournal, but I don't appear to have put that in my information on Electrolite; I'm fixing that with this post.

Not that my name means much to anyone; I'm known in certain bits of the Pagan community, but that's about it. But if I want anonymity, I'll use a pseudonym, as opposed to Xopher, which is a nickname. I've not done that here, or only with humorous intent (posting as Sokrates, or Ghu, or something, I don't remember what).

For me, using my real name is a matter of honor in a weird way. It indicates that I stand by what I say, and that I'm not afraid to have people know what Christopher Hatton thinks, or that I'm willing to talk about it. I refuse to be ashamed of my opinions or statements; if they're bullshit, and I realize it, I change them.

I realize that getting me to explicitly identify myself wasn't the intent of your comment; it just made me notice.

I liked Phil Agre's essay very much.

But I have very large bones to pick with his reification of conservatism as the animating ideology of whatever "nascent aristocracy" exists in this country, because he does not say who the conservatives are.

He defines conservatism using a dictionary and grammar that I share. His language is clear there - we know what conservatism is and what its end goals are. We know that it seeks to destroy rationality and substitute for it the authority of engrained, customary hierarchy. We know they like to destroy language by using words to mean things in contradiction of consensus dictionary definitions. We know that they lie, they appeal to false images, they try to obscure and make irrelevant the consequences of ideologically pure brainwaves, because they are serving no greater truth than their own evanescent exaltation above us forelock-tuggers.

Sure.

But who are the conservatives? WHO ARE THEY, according to Phil Agre?

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
...
Conservative rhetors, for example in the Wall Street Journal
...
rhetors such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter
...
Newt Gingrich's (then) organization GOPAC
...
The Wall Street Journal's opinion page
...
the Wall Street Journal's editors
...
[Wall Street Journal] late editor Robert Bartley
...
[Present Wall Street Journal editor]Daniel Henninger
...
conservative think tanks
...
conservative public relations
...
George Bush.

This is my problem. Figureheads. Symbols. Irrelevancies. Who are the nascent aristocrats? Are they members of an economic class? Are they members of a particular religious affiliation? Are they professionals? Are they the sad benighted Skinner-trained-to-pull-the-lever-for-a-Republican-peanut dupes?

Is it the class of people who believe in conservatism? Well, it might be nice to have some kind of systematic zoology by which one can identify the people who believe in conservatism? Is it their circles of professional or civic affiliation? Is it their geneaology? Is it their magazine subscription list or their home libraries or the fact that they can pay to send their kid to Andover?

That is a crucial and critical flaw in Phil Agre's essay, because while I receive very well his wonderfully cogent exegesis of conservatism and its threat to our culture; we end up struggling against an idea, and not struggling and confronting the people who hold that idea.

They have unifying characteristics beyond their desire to institute unthinking heirarchy? I'm sick and tired to shadowboxing the umbrous nascent aristocrats and their lackey toady conservative rhetors

Name them - do it - name them!

Say that people who believe in a militant evangelical faith that respects no bounds between public and private, between the parochial and the secular - that people who behave as though human law is subject to Divine Law are anti-democrat.

Felt good, right? Rationalist bonafides are secure!

Next!

Darn, well, since Phil said that the conservatives are the people who are trying to turn themselves into aristocrats, and they are also the people who are trying to extinguish rational thought, and they are also the people who achieve these things by lying about true things and making words mean the opposite of what they were originally supposed to mean... I guess every single group or class of people that engages in rhetorical dishonesty to advance its own condition, and every single group that unilaterally renegotiates the boundaries of "legitimate" debate to shape that debate toward selfish ends, well, darn it, they are all conservatives.

Oh, wait. There's that caveat about attempting to cement aristocracy - so clearly, the nascent aristocracy must have some congruence with the class of folks that have more (of something: wealth, influence, power, land, beneficiaries of non-reciprocated social obligations) than anybody else but are scared that they won't be able to hold onto the more without rigging the game.

Who are these people?

My point is This is hard. You can single out the conservative politicians, and you can put yellow hats on the loony conservative rhetors (pesky silly rhetors, kicks are for trids), and you can go target shooting in religious wackoland, and you are no closer to identifying the reasons why a particular individual might be attracted to the banner of a regressive and selfish cause. Iffn you is for democracy, you gots ta look to the individual who does pull the lever, and that person's pulling that lever up or down based on what that person believes.

Phil Agre's prescription list: pssh....

Rebut conservative arguments
Benchmark the Wall Street Journal
Build a better pundit
Say something new
Teach logic
Conservatism is the problem
Critically analyze leftover conservative theories
Ditch Marx
Talk American
Stop surrendering powerful words
Tipper Gore is right
Assess the sixties
Teach nonviolence
Tell the taxpayers what they are getting for their money
Make government work better for small business
Clone George Soros
Build the Democratic Party

Dear god almighty! Let's divide these prescriptions into categories:

1) Rhetorical toolkit general improvements:

Rebut conservative arguments
Build a better pundit
Talk American
Tipper Gore is right
Stop surrendering powerful words
Benchmark the Wall Street Journal
Tell the taxpayers what they are getting for their money

Basically, fight back by engaging enemy statements in detail while being more persuasive, fluent, unassumingly confident, concisively firm and combative, and not using rhetoric that implicitly or explicitly accepts the legitimacy of particular taboo subjects -- ie avoid things that are obscene or can be construed to be obscene by grandma-hard-of-hearing. So, basically, learn how to present your case better while simultaneously negotiating the irrational minefield of the shifting consensus view of obscenity?

2) Be better thinkers. Spread better thinking.

Assess the sixties
Ditch Marx
Say something new
Teach logic
Critically analyze leftover conservative theories
Conservatism is the problem

Oh, golly gee, think about what you believe, and think about it in a way so you believe it more and persuade more people to the truth in the way that democracy asserts can be the only way things are virtuous and true. Warms the cockles of me heart.

OF COURSE WE SHOULD HAVE A COHERENT SYSTEM OF BELIEF RESPONSIVE TO EXTERNAL CHALLENGE AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO SKEPTICAL IMPROVEMENT BY PEOPLE OF GOODWILL.
Like, duh. Sign me up to the lecturn! I'm gonna do the thinking, and then I'm gonna speechify!

3) Learn how to win in ways that don't include being persuasive, but do include being more competent:

Make government work better for small business
Clone George Soros
Build the Democratic Party
Teach nonviolence

Getting resources to improve doing things that help us win elections. Sounds good. Strengthening institutions that help us to organize to do things like get better press and win elections. Sounds good.

What about things forgotten like running for office and convincing friends and organizing parties and driving people to the polls and collecting donations, and voting yourself, and doing more than bellyache and complain about the water filter? What about knowing the law and organizing human effort and association on many levels, so that the individual efforts of mirror-opposite conservative organization can be nullified, or even co-opted? What about developing a political culture that desires and understands winning, because of the stakes of losing, and fixing that awareness in our organization building?

What frustrates me about these things is that in the end, not enough people are going to go door to door in East Flatbush registering voters and running vans. Not enough people approach the political project as a permanent part of their lives, so that they might look to the personal, the professional, the private, the religious, and the political with equal weight, because, frankly, we're not scared enough to get off our fat, lazy, consensus-accepting asses. When in a single week, I am contacted by more panhandlers, conartists, and grifters in the public space seeking my personal engagement in social matters than I have ever had try to engage me in political association building *in* *my* *entire* *life* (note, present NYC resident professional, there is lots of solicitation in my public space now, former reporter, formerly a student of a liberal Ivy), well, damn, we just don't care enough to take the war out of the parlors, the journals, and the coffee shops.

My point is, I guess, if you want to win in a democracy, you make sure you are part of a majority group, and you make sure your group is the majority by working to bring everybody you can into your group, and then you do everything within your legal power to see your coalition to a majority or plurality count at the polls on election day.

Being true feels good. Saying the right thinks and elaborating the great rational project is uplifting. Running a collection of people bent toward the same goal, and achieving that goal with flair, finesse, competence, shrewdness, planning, and clear-eyed organization, seeing through to the goal over and over again - that's f_____g exhilarating.

That's how you win in our "democracy" (democratic republic), but most democracies operate under proportional representation, so being in the minority doesn't mean you're not represented. Under proportional representation, if registered voters were 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, 10% Green Party, and 10% Socialist, the House would also reflect the same proportion of Representatives.

It's a pretty well-known fact in sociological circles that all societies form elites. The US is no different and has always had an elite group. I'm careful to not call it a "class" since economic class isn't necessarily congruent with elite power, although there's clearly a correlation.

The question for any society is whether there are barriers to entering the elite. Barack Obama is now (or by January 2005), by any measure, a member of the elite; he has many orders of magnitude more power than the average citizen. But his parents weren't, and this is the sign of a society with some measure of mobility. On the other hand, the number of people (from both parties) who gain elite membership through family history (e.g., Bush, Gore, Herseth, Taft) show signs that elite status can be inherited as well.

I think Agre is right that there are people who want to decrease mobility into the elite, for any number of reasons, but largely because new blood in the elite threatens the power base of the existing elite members.

We can't banish the elite and shouldn't even try. We should expand opportunities for mobility, and restrict benefits to the elite that enhance the ability to pass elite status to your children. Bush's call to abolish "legacy" admissions may be the issue with which I have most agreed with him, but of course even without legacy admissions, most children whose parents have Ivy League educations can get into an Ivy League school, for all sorts of socioeconomic and genetic reasons.

Some of us use pseudonyms because our real names indicate our gender, which, on the internet, is a potential source of harassment and trivialization.

But aside from that, isn't part of the point of this medium the fluidity of identity? If this makes one uncomfortable, one might set up a comment system that requires registration (and thereby impose some measure of consistency, if not necessarily accuracy).

Bush has called for the elimination of legacy admissions? How about retroactively? Take away his Yale degree!

What a fucking hypocrite.

On a separate topic... Patrick, for your "World Map in 2100" panel, here's something that gets you half-way there:

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/Content/ContentGroups/Datasheets/2004_World_Population_Data_Sheet.htm

It has stats for 2050 for all countries. Short version: I don't think there will be a Bulgaria in 2100. And Japan will be a bunch of cranky old people living in Philippine nursing homes. And if I lived in the Russian Far East, I'd be taking Chinese lessons.

This isn't a huge issue and I'd really like to avoid having a giant pissing match over it, but I do find myself bemused and sometimes uncomfortable about being a public figure in conversations with people who wholly or partly withhold their identity, particularly when I have reason to suspect (as in the case of "Calimac," and who knows, maybe "sturgeonslawyer") that I actually do know them.

Patrick, with a little canoodling (and if you were willing to force all your readers to go through the Typekey registration process my friends at Six Apart have set up, something I'm not currently willing to do), you could probably force your commentors to give you a (non-revealed) actual name. I think that's probably a bad solution, but it may be out there if you ever want to turn to it.

Blogs are not LiveJournal and LJ customs, like usernames, can be an uneasy fit. Chad & I both have a few commenters who use LJ names; two specifically come to mind. I think with one, I'd linked to something under the LJ-persona; and with the other, I believe the person came to the blogs via LJ, so it's actually a useful identifier.

If someone is doing all their writing on their LJ, it doesn't surprise me that they might want to put that address in the "web page" field. But the little "do I know you" dance is an odd thing about LJ and I think it's entirely to be expected that people would have varying degrees of patience with it.

(I suppose all of this could apply to pseudonyms in general.)

We should ALL be taking Chinese lessons.

Blogs are not LiveJournal and LJ customs, like usernames, can be an uneasy fit.

I'll go along with that. I set up a livejournal simply so I could comment on some LJ's I read without having to be anonymous. Thing is, I registered it using my actual name rather than a pseudonym like Moon_cat or LibrarianBoy, and it felt very weird, even tho' I use my real name every place else online.

It was, in fact, this blog that led me to start posting as "Jimcat Kasprzak". Jimcat is a nickname I've had for over fifteen years now, and there are people who know exactly to whom the name refers. But there are a lot of people on a blog like this to whom the name means nothing.

The last name, and the link to my web site, provide enough information for those who care to find answers to questions like "who is this guy and what's he all about?"

For voting methods the most amusing discussion I've seen is in Duncan Black's book. Black includes in the appendix an explanation of strategic voting on the faculty where Dodgson (Alice in Wonderland) persuaded the voters to successively adopt his preferred voting scheme of the moment. In each case apparently Dodgson proposed a new improved voting scheme that had the side effect of producing his preferred result when the previous one would not. Given Arrow we can take it there is no social welfare function that always works and is non-dictatorial (for a definition of dictatorial) and so on. Being a conservative I am incined to apply a test I consider pragmatic - whatever works - rather than idealistic - meets the highest standards.

Jon Hansen: hah, that's exactly how I got sucked into LJ. I didn't have a general-purpose blog before that, though, so you're probably safe.

I didn't find it weird to use my real name as a username, but then I was after being recognizable. Besides, nothing else came to mind; I could never run away to the Border, because I'd get stuck with a horrible use-name by someone else when I couldn't make up one of my own. No, wait, I think once I said I'd use Kade Carrion (after _The Element of Fire_), but I take it back.

well as I have a long history of aliases I'm really confused as what to do now.

"For voting methods the most amusing discussion I've seen is in Duncan Black's book"

Is this the Duncan Black that's also known as Atrios?

That is a . . . somewhat unusual . . . use of "canoodling," unless the specific implication is that Teresa is the one to be persuaded to set up TypeKey.

Yes, I know. The only excuse is that I was working very late last night.

This comment...brings to mind something that's been increasingly bothering me, which is that some people in these conversations are using the names under which they're generally and publically known, and others are using nonce pseudonyms.

It bugs me, too. For what it's worth, you don't know me personally, Patrick. My full name is Andrew Evan Perrin, although I dislike 'Evan', and nobody who knows me calls me Andrew. I study fluid mechanics at Penn. Do not confuse me with Andrew J. Perrin-- there's one out there, but he is not me.

Well, I've got a pseudonym, and I've just gone through a bruising weeklong round of posts and comments defending my position (start here and on my blog if you really want to read more -- it's this week and last week), so I don't know what I'm doing commenting on this here, but...

Why does it matter so much what my real name is? I can see that if someone you know in "real" life is posting pseudonymously without telling you, it could be a bit creepy. (You don't know me; if you did, I'd send an email telling you.) But my real name would tell you nothing of note, while exposing me to the vagaries and whims and casual voyeurism that makes up the web at large, an audience that includes stalkerish former boyfriends, potential employers in a very tight job market, and fretting-prone parents, all with ready access to Google. (Lest you think I'm being paranoid, let me point to the fate of bloggers like Heather dooce.com and The Sarcastic Journalist who got fired because of their blogs.)

Now, I suppose one could argue that if one isn't willing to take the risk, one shouldn't blog. That seems a rather high-handed approach (and not one I see you making, necessarily, but...) and raises the question of who sets the standards for blog-appropriate behavior. I'd rather leave that decision open to the commons, which includes people blogging using pseudonyms.

I've also seen the argument made that unless we all blog openly, the danger of being punished for blogging under our legal names will continue. This strikes me as a red herring; it presumes that the primary risk is being discovered _as a blogger_ versus the wider range of risks, such as exposure to random nutjobs, known threats, and so on. Again, I'm not claiming you're making this argument, just that it is one I see a lot.

Similarly, I see the claim made many times that pseudonyms provide a shield from responsibility, that anonymous posters and bloggers are more free to write slander and the like, since they feel free from retribution. I don't feel persuaded by this argument for two reasons; first, if one's legal name is very common, like "John Smith" or "Eric Anderson" I can't see that it offers any more accountability than a pseudonym, especially if the real name poster offers just a name, while another pseudonymous poster is reachable via his or her email, blog, etc. Second, it presumes that there are no checks on the pseudonymous poster. There are at least two that operate in my own case: I value my online reputation, and don't want the various people who see me posting as Rana to see me as a ranting whackjob who insults people -- if I do post like that under this pseudonym, it WILL come back to haunt me. Second, I have my own standards, and they operate irrespective of the name I use. So I would argue that the issue is not the name per se, but rather what mechanisms can be used to keep posters accountable, which may include the use of real names, but not necessarily.

A final observation: I've never seen a blogger who uses a pseudonym complaining about the names other bloggers and posters choose to use. It's only those who choose to use their legal names that raise this question. Why is that?

Rana, in answer to your final observation/question: maybe because the people who choose to use their real names can't imagine blogging pseudonymously. Or maybe because for the pseudonymous bloggers to complain in that fashion would be hypocrisy.

Or maybe it's simpler than that: you don't have to ask why someone would do something (or wonder unasking about their motivation) if you do it yourself. They may do it for different reasons than you, but you know there's at least one good reason - yours - and so you assume there may be others.

Xopher, I think you're correct in that assessment, but your response indicates that my last question wasn't entirely clear. I'm not asking why pseudonymous folks don't question the pseudonymity of others; I'm asking why named bloggers do, given that the pseudonymous don't seem to question naming practices AT ALL -- one might assume, by the logic you lay out, that there would be pseudonymous posts wondering why some people post under their own names or expressing frustration with those who do -- but I haven't seen it. (Of course, if you can offer a counter-example, I'd be willing to reconsider this.)

Jon Meltzer ::: Is this the Duncan Black that's also known as Atrios?

Almost certainly not given the vageries of getting on line in this world let alone the next.

The process began in the early 1950s when a Glasgow economist named Duncan Black (1908-91) stumbled on the lost works of C. L. Dodgson on the theory of voting. Black, himself one of the two mathematicians who formalised voting theory this century, immediately recognised the lonely greatness of his predecessor. Dodgson was the first person writing in English to point out that sometimes there is a majority for A over B, for B over C, and for C over A - all at the same time! He also wrote pamphlets about proportional representation and about tennis tournaments. Not until a century after he wrote them did anybody realise their importance. Duncan Black spent thirty years writing a book on Lewis Carroll and proportional representation. But it was unfinished at his death.

If you don't know Duncan Black you don't know voting. I do have a Duncan Black connection that would be worth mentioning only as something to Post.

Probably because the vast majority of the pseudonymous bloggers have experience with — what’s the word I’m looking for? — “nymity” in their off-line lives, whereas pseudonymity of any kind is new to the nymous.

(Sorry — cross-posted. That was meant to be a response to Rana.)

David, that makes sense. Occam's Razor and all that.

As I suggested, I've been feeling somewhat pressured for having made the choice I did; there are some people out there who are not merely puzzled by the pseudonymous, but offended and disapproving. So I'm having to remind myself that y'all haven't been part of what has at times been a very acrimonious discussion (not discounting a few of my own comments) and to pull in my claws and smooth my hair back down a bit.

That is a . . . somewhat unusual . . . use of "canoodling," unless the specific implication is that Teresa is the one to be persuaded to set up TypeKey.

Umm. Errr. Well. Yes, I suppose it is. I don't know what I word I meant, but that is certainly. Ah.

...

LOOK! OVER THERE! A DRUNK BEAR! And even drunk bears don't like Busch.

Waitaminnit. I thought the only people who used their real names around here were sad wannabe-writers shamelessly toadying to the Nielsen Haydens in the hopes of getting their bad fat fantasy novels published.

I mean, come on. That's obvious, right?

Dan -

I wish. Maybe someday...

I thought the only people who used their real names around here were sad wannabe-writers shamelessly toadying to the Nielsen Haydens in the hopes of getting their bad fat fantasy novels published.

Hmm. For this strategy to work, first I would have to write said novel.

You don't, Jon! That's the beauty of it. All you have to do is be clever enough to make it obvious you could write one. And then the Prominent Editors from the Big Publishing House will say Damn, you sure have a way with words, have you maybe written a novel? and you say Well, I've been thinking about it and they say Great, here's a big advance! See how easy it is?

That's the way it works. Everyone knows that.

Not me. I don't even have the energy to stay up late enough at Worldcons to get to the fun part of the Tor parties.

Dan, let me know if you become Ruler of the Multiverse anytime soon.

Rana, I don’st have strong opinions about it myself — except that it’s sometimes a little awkward when you know and are used to calling someone by their name but on line (without any intent to conceal) they tend to only use their handle. (Hello Rob, if you’re following this one. :) )

Re: Jesus: [in terrible anguish] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Augustus Le Plongeon (who was the first to excavate Chichen Itza) thought Jesus said, "Now, now, sinking black ink over nose." In Mayan.

[/random comment]

Jon, I expect that shall happen any day now.

(As if. With my work ethic, I'll be lucky if I get named Bitch-King of Angstmar. Still, a man's reach, &c, &c.)

I use this nym because it is my fandom nym, born from fandom, used in fandom and among most fannish friends, and it maps trivially to my aim and lj usernames (it is, in fact, the initials of my full nom de fanatique, variations of which I tend to use in places where my full, legal name is either overloaded or not the best choice for autodisplay (of course, note my email...).)

Not all of us who post under our legal names are sucking up in hopes of getting something published.

The whole question of pseuds online is something I've been thinking about for a long, long time. I decided 20 years ago (ack! 20 years ago!) that I'd eschew handles and just go with my real name. The trickiest I ever got was to use my initials. Lots of people told me that it wasn't a good idea, because...well, booga-booga! But in all this time, I have never had a single problem or even unpleasant encounter arising from being visibly myself online.

Recently, I started a livejournal, and did it under a pseud. Not a very opaque pseud, to be sure, but still. I bowed to peer pressure, trying to fit into the lj culture. But it feels funny. I'd take it back if I could.

Beth, you can change your livejournal name at any time. There's a way to get it to just automatically switch over, so your current pseudonym will be replaced by "bethmeacham" (say) on everyone's lists. And then you just put a note in your journal saying so, in case anyone is confused. Alas, I don't know how to do this, but I'm sure practically anyone there but me could help you.

I've wondered at the prevalence of pseudonyms on LJ, as they seem far more common there than on other blogs. And also whether it's common all over LJ, or just among the circle of people whose journals I read. Those would be mostly writers, fans, and writers who are fans, but I've read that most people on LJ are high school students.

I didn't use a pseudonym for my journal because I couldn't think of a sufficiently clever one-- no, really I never even considered using one. I have no reason to be pseudonymous-- no one is stalking me and nobody at my day job, which is flex-time and run out of my home, cares that I have one-- and if I'm going to bother to say something, I want people to know who's saying it, so their hate mail, marriage proposals, or offers of employment can be directed to the appropriate party. Also so that when they see my book in the stores, they can think, "Say, I know that woman from the net, perhaps I should read her book, if only to get grist for my planned hatchet job."

As for the prejudice against women on the net, it reflects prejudice in the real world. I can see why one might want a break from it, but personally I would rather present myself as the woman that I am because of it, so that the people who hold weak prejudices can be enlightened. The people who are convinced that women are five foot leeches will never change, but in real life I've seen lots of people alter less strongly-held opinions when they meet a woman who, say, can beat them in a fight or has a doctorate in mathematics or can handle a circular saw. So by being myself on the net as well as off, perhaps I will be one of those women they meet.

Similarly, girls learn what they can do when they see women who are doing it. Again, on the net as well as off...

None of this is meant as a put-down to people who use pseudonyms for anything other than drive-by trolling. It's just why I wouldn't use one.

(who was the first to excavate Chichen Itza)

Every time I see that name, I misread it as Chicken Itza. Which would be a great name for a Mexican chicken chain, you have to admit. "What's that bird? Itza Chicken! Get a giant bucket of Special Mayan Recipe Chicken for just $9.95! This week only at Chicken Itza!"

There's a joke about never having heartburn again in there, too, but I'm too tired.

I was on ARPAnet to start with, so I've always used my real name. Frequently in the mjlayman variant, but there are a number of places where "Marilee" is sufficient.

I had a brief period on AOL with a pseudonym. When I found the then-teeny SF forum, I realized that the men weren't really reading the women's posts and vice versa. I set out to make an androgynous name: Patterner. Turns out everybody thought it was male (one later said she thought I was a particularly *sensitive* male). Allen Steele was particularly ticked when he found out I was female, he insisted I should have used Patterna or Lady Patterner or something. I think there's still some stereotyping by name use this way -- names are default male unless they somehow have a female element in them.

But once I was done with that, I was back to mjlayman. That's my name and I take responsibility for my words, even if sometimes they're wrong or stupid.

"Here at Chicken Itza, we use only the finest chickens, winnowed down to the very best via a grueling stone-basketball competition. No one prepares chicken (by carving heart out with obsidian knife on top of chunky-looking pyramids) like Chicken Itza!"

The strangest reaction to Internet anonymity (imho) are the kids who email me believing I am some computer analogue set up to answer their questions. They absolutely refuse to believe that it is, indeed, me. Nothing I say convinces them.

Jane

Dave - yeah, i'm still following along. :) I've been 'aphrael' online for twelve years, so I often forget that people don't know me.

Patrick - this is your website, and I am a guest here; is the level of discomfort involved sufficient to constitute a problem? If so, i'll try to remember to use my 'real' name here henceforth. :)

Beth Meacham: The sucking up thing was a joke, in case I wasn't sufficiently clear.

(Because I post under my real name here, see. And it's an accusation that gets made every so often by some hostile asshat, especially on Making Light. And since the NHs don't know me from Adam, and from time to time I chime in on the threads about writing, and one might assume... Um, well, it all seemed terribly funny last night.)

"Name them - do it - name them!"

Does anyone else find it odd that the lengthy comment that included the above was posted by
"A New York City High School Math Teacher"?

I have never considered using an pseudonym in the 10 years I've been online. I think part of this stems from the difficulties I had as an adolescent establishing an identity which large parts of my family and community found unacceptable. I'm me dammit and I want you to know it. It is not impossible that ego is involved as well. I dithered a long time about joining Live Journal becaue pseudonymity is so pervasive there. I'm not comfortable with it, but that's my problem. I did finally join and my lj user name is marykaykare. My email is marykay@kare.ws. My typepad site is marykay.typepad.com/gallimaufry. It's important to me on a very deep level. Other people vary enormously. I do think though that the dangers are overrated. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there, but there are nutjobs out there when I walk the street or shop in the mall or go to the grocery store. Shrug.

I also do happen to believe that names and naming are very very powerful magic (for lack of a better term) and I get slightly itchy about someone who wants to conceal his or her identity. This is of course my problem, but pseudonymous/anonymous posters will have to deal with my reactions if we interact at all.

MKK

Dan Layman-Kennedy,

Waitaminnit. I thought the only people who used their real names around here were sad wannabe-writers shamelessly toadying to the Nielsen Haydens in the hopes of getting their bad fat fantasy novels published.

You left out "alcoholic". Otherwise, okay, so...what else are we supposed to do? :)

In "sad wannabe-writer," "alcoholic" is of course implied.

Xopher: There's a joke about never having heartburn again in there, too, but I'm too tired.

Scroan. (I also called it Chicken Itza for years, until I met someone who had actually worked there.)

Obviously, I do not use a pseudonym -- I think I could come up with a better one than this. (I am actually the third male in a row in my family with the name -- I call it the familiy curse.) In my late teens i finally learned not to lie or even exagerrate too much. The simple truth is just easier to deal with over the long haul, despite the immediate tempations. Pseudonyms are just too complicated for me to live with.

Mr. Arthurs;

My pseudonym is for my personal and professional protection. I have a valid email address attached to the posting, and I daresay that I can be identified ultimately with a little work. I have posted to Crooked Timber, to Brad DeLong's weblog, to Halfway Down the Danube, and to John Quiggin's weblog with the same pseudonym.

The people who might care who I am already know who I am. Those who may come to care who I am can certainly contact me should they come to desire that.

BTW, I have been a poster to Usenet for almost twelve years, and during that time, I never posted pseudonymously, nor did I ever engage in sockpuppetry. I always have posted under my full name, using my full - and unmunged - email address, and I have always been responsible for the content of my communications.

As I am now.

My beef with Phil Agre is that he finds "conservatism" to be a sentient, active, and unitary thing, and not as a label descriptor of a political movement of people who believe in "conservative" things for idiosyncratic, personal, and other reasons besides the philosophical, social, and economic.

It makes me a little angry that he does that because it is a little dehumanizing and when he goes off on conservative rhetors and conservatism it denies the fact that our modern collective conservative movement is an aggregate epiphenomenon of a bunch of groups composed of an elective membership of free people who believe in things for a reason, and not necessarily just because they heard it on Bob Grant or on Limbaugh in the morning.

Whatever, your comment about pseudonyms was a typically lazy, jokey, and fannish way of dismissing what I said.

Back in 1994 or 5 when I first had a quirky website that encouraged participation (it was a collaborative writing site, and used my first name--female), I had some entries that talked about the various things the authors wanted to do to my naked corpse. So that made me a little leery of using my real identity in "unofficial" contexts.

Truth be told, I also have students, and would rather not have them come upon my blog blatherings, just as I don't really want to run into them in the gym.

When I set up a livejournal, I used a pseudonym -- partly because it appeared to be the custom of the country, and partly because I've also got a web page with my real name on it. I'd just as soon not have people who are trying to look me up for professional writing-type reasons getting sidetracked into personal natterings about daily life up here in moose country.

It was never meant to be a particularly opaque pseudonym -- anybody who ever knew me while I was active in the SCA would spot it at once -- and I've never bothered using it anywhere else on-line. And for whatever it's worth, I've always posted here under my own name . . . again, the custom of the country and all that.

Bruce, at first I thought "A New York City High School Math Teacher" was JVP, but it wasn't self-congratulatory enough.

I used a pseudonym on LJ. Then I was outed, without my permission, on Usenet. It's not like the pseudonym was completely opaque: it's the username part of my email addy.

The thing is, in the near future (sometime in the next 60 days) I'm changing my legal name. I'll still be the same email addy and LJ, though.

I first started participating in a group called Dawn Patrol and it was indicated pretty much to all that having a 'handle' was cool, a lot of the folks were ham radio users and pilots, and liked a 'handle' or pseudonym.

When I inched my way to my LiveJournal I set it up that way too, as well as when I post to several other things that require ID. I do not pretend to be anyone else when I post to people's blogs, etc. And oddly enough in a lot of venues (ebay for one), someone else is using dragonet, so I have to be dragonet2.

One of these days (in my copious free time) I'll have a Web site, but it will be under Paula Helm Murray.

I know lots of people have old scars around the psuedonymity issue. I mean none of the following in a moralizing way.

I think this issue is tied up to our differing reactions to the compartmentalization of our lives that is so much a part of the modern world. When we mostly lived in small communities of course the teacher ran into the students at the gym, or at least the metaphorical equivalent. There was no way to avoid it.

Over on live journal someone was talking about wanting to switch coffee shops becaus the barrista knew her regular order, and a lot of people empathized with her. I like being a regular. Not so much that I go out of my way to always go to the same gas station/restaurant/grocery store etc, but I understand people who do.

I remember a friend who was outraged when a coworker showed up at a science fiction convention she was attending. She hated when separate parts of her life came in contact. I on the other had get a warm feeling when various disparate parts of my life come in contact.

I'm not saying this is THE explanation of the psuedonym/real name dichotomy, just that it's part of the explanation.

New York etc: I can't find sufficiently vigorous words for your Whatever, your comment about pseudonyms was a typically lazy, jokey, and fannish way of dismissing what I said. One point: your use of "fannish" shows the same dismissive aggregational behavior you say is improper in Agre's essay.

Patrick, I believe I have some of your email:

To: mjlayman@erols.com
Subject: INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR LATE RELATIVE MR HAYDEN
From: "MR.FRANK NICHOLAS"
Date: 21 Aug 2004 02:55:51 -0000

I didn't know you had relatives in Nigeria!

I took Patrick's comment to mean something like "If I know you in another context, please let me know who you are, so that I can match these comments with those". At least that's what I usually mean when I grouse gently about opaque handles. I don't really care about "real" identities in the sense of biographical data, I just want to be able to tie together the things people say in contexts where they aren't deliberately wanting to obscure their identities.

(Some folks do post under handles to get away from routine pressures. I've done that myself. I consider that something different - a handle isn't necessarily intended to conceal an identity.)

Speaking of alcohol: Telepotation: hope for the future?

To me, the article raises more questions than it answers. How long before the process scales up to human drinkable quantities? Should we be concerned about quantum entanglement of our favorite beverages? How do we stop people from confusing qbits with cubits?

And where would be a good bar to meet at, around Noreascon?

Being descended upon by a nasty pseudonymous bunch making death threats and the like under pseudonyms like "Iron Fist" and "Avenger of the Bones" soured me permanently on the idea of pseudonymous posting on the Internet. Before that, I had no particular objection. I just didn't do it myself. The experience convinced me that anonymity in the Internet is a Bad Thing.

When you post pseudonymously, you are posting with a hood on. Since it is so commonly done, 99% of pseudonymous posters behave themselves. But they provide legitamacy and cover for the small percentage who use their anonymity for harassment.

Having gone through the experience, I can tell you that it is, at least in this jurisdiction, very difficult to report crimes commited anonymously over the Internet. Law enforcement does not want to get into tracing someone whose name you don't know who is tracable only though dynamically asigned IP numbers unless they've killed someone or robbed a bank.

I personally discourage Internet anonymity at every opportunity within the bounds of tact. This is a situation that should be allowed to pass into Internet history.

Martin Schafer:

This is an interesting point, but, getting back to conservatism, the aspects of small-town life you mention are part of why I am still uncomfortable with small-c conservatism, that is, conservatism on my definition (not Agre's).

"Traditional" small-town life worked pretty well for a lot of people, but there were ALWAYS people for whom it didn't work at all. Gay people, women stuck in abusive marriages, misfits of all stripes. And for centuries some of those people have sought the relative anonymity of the city, or the solitude of living alone. Most people, maybe, loved being a "regular" in the place where they happened to be; some people hated it; some people left. When Nicholas Lehmann wrote "Kicking in Groups" in response to Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone," I imagined not soccer (his actual topic) but a group of people standing around kicking someone on the ground - the bad side of communitarianism.

Obviously, the mobility and hyperindividualism of (much of) modern American culture are unusual, and create their own problems -- perhaps worse ones, on balance. But I don't think it's the case that "back in the old days" everyone was comfortable with the fit between individual and community. I like being a regular too in certain contexts (but perhaps I like it best in its contrast with other aspects of my life).

This wasn't your whole point, of course...

"but I do find myself bemused and sometimes uncomfortable about being a public figure in conversations with people who wholly or partly withhold their identity"

Isn't this always a problem of being a public figure?

"When you post pseudonymously, you are posting with a hood on. Since it is so commonly done, 99% of pseudonymous posters behave themselves. But they provide legitamacy and cover for the small percentage who use their anonymity for harassment."

Anonymity is also protection for potential victims, however.

"it is [...]very difficult to report crimes commited anonymously over the Internet."

When the net was young and much smaller, and the world was new, sysadmins did a bit of policing as part of their job, but it was usually a matter of controlling the electronic equivalent of jaywalking. The internet has grown beyond any the ability of any small group of admins to police. The biggest commercial sites are not interested, it seems, in hiring people to deal with minor problems and the RL police usually just aren't interested, period. A big problem--the amount of fraud on the internet, as well as things that most of us agree on outlawing (spam, DDoS attacks) is staggering. PFIR addresses some of these issues, but I fear they are a voice in the wilderness.

Jon Hansen: Chad found a link to your Tales of the Plush Cthulhu from another site, and it was fabulous.

Also, what Bruce Baugh said.

Anonymity is also protection for potential victims, however.

It is the current conventional wisdom to teach kids to use some form of anonymity when posting on the Internet. I'm not even sure, in the long view, that this is the right approach: the same technique that may help keep away pedophiles is even more useful for bullying other kids or spreading nasty rumors about others at school.

...the same technique that may help keep away pedophiles is even more useful for bullying other kids or spreading nasty rumors about others at school.

I think Margaret Cho's example is spot on. After posting an anti-Shrub rant in her block, she was inudated with hate-email.

Her response was to post choice examples. Complete choice examples -- including headers and signatures. Most entertaing was the response -- she was then flooded with those same people pleading with her to pull those posts down.

They were fine with hate, until they were exposed. Then, suddenly, they're running. I know one person, who was stupid enough to post from a work account (the message was complete with the mail-server-auto-attached corporate disclaimer) who lost thier job over that.

I don't think that changing the prevailing custom to using one's legal name would really reduce harassment at all. First of all, it's not too tough to come up with "Taylor White" instead of "1337$up3r4$$4$$i|\|." Easier, maybe. Unless you require some sort of check-in, it doesn't really help the problem--and if you are requiring a check-in, who cares what name they post with?

Saying of those who post pseudonymously and responsibly that "they provide legitamacy and cover for the small percentage who use their anonymity for harassment" doesn't ring true. Do you think that they would stop if they were the only ones using pseudonyms? And do you really think that anyone at all is confused when a troll posts? Whatever name they post under, it's their behavior that identifies them.

When I first entered the blogosphere as a commentor on Eschaton about a year and a half ago, I chose a psuedonymn (Jorge, after J.L. Borges). It gives one a sense of distance from both the material world and the other pseudonymous writers posting their thoughts. But when I started my own blog, I decided to go by my real name. I did this for several reasons. My blog is, first and formost, a way for me to get my writing notticed and if one is going to self promote, one should do so under their given name. But going by my real name also means that I have to stand by what I write. It's a stamp of honesty. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Tom B,
And where would be a good bar to meet at, around Noreascon?

Well, let's see. Bukowski's is actually within sight of the convention center (around the corner)--but I've never been in there, so I can't vouch for it.

I can vouch for the excellence of Brasserie Joe, across Route 9 (or Huntington Avenue) behind the convention center. Superb selection of martinis--and worth the $8 to $9 price (last time I was there) because of the generous size. (meaning, you'll probably only need one). :)

I can also suggest going to the Top of the Hub next door at the Prudential Center for drinks, some nice live jazz music and a great view.

And since you brought it up--is this something Noreascon folks would be up for? Myself, with a one year old and 3 year old who expect to spend a lot of Labor Day weekend at the beach--and me in between jobs (which is a euphemistic way of putting it) I'm not at all sure I'll be able to day-pass even one day at Noreascon, and am not happy about that. (I mean, for Christ's sake-- I live here!)

Evenings however are another matter.

What I find upsetting about this discussion is the implication that those of us who use handles online are somehow automatically dishonest. Most of us, though, fully admit to our pseudonyms, and use them, not to disguise our identities, but to carry them from place to place. My own legal name, Rebecca Scott, is too common. Go on, Google it. The first few hits that come up are for a Playboy bunny. On the other hand, if you Goggle either of my current handles, Inaurolillium or ThePictsie, every single return is me. I have never denied a single handle or username, I will tell my name to those who ask, and I stand by everything I say or I retract it publicly.
Ms. Cramer would forbid anyone to use a handle because a few people abuse anonymity? Not only will this not work, for the reasons posted above and others (for instance, any sort of system that checks identity will be hackable), but that's the same paternalistic attitude that causes all sorts of idiot laws and most of the worst (IMNSHO) problems in the US today.
Yes, there are maniacs and morons out there who abuse anonymity. Most of us, though, don't even use any sort of anonymity. We have a handle that's easier to keep track of than our real names, or that describes something about us. We want to be known by those names. They become part of our identities.
Because I joined an online community which is based on a physical location, I am often introduced at parties or clubs as, "Rebecca, Inaurolillium on SeaGoth and LJ." No anonymity there. At this point, lots of people know who I am who have never met me face to face. And they remember what I have said, slights or praise I've delivered, and all of that has consequences.
Among those who know me, I've got a reputation for honesty and forthrightness, and I find the implication that I am somehow dishonest simply because I use a handle to be insulting.

Oh, and nobody here but Will knows me at all, and he only knows me because we've debated theology a little through his blog, and because I'm with GMR, too.

I don't think (in part from a couple of years of observation) that Patrick cares about pseudonyms, per se.

His use of the term nonce seems telling. There have been times I thought I recognised the tone of typer of a name I'd never seen before, nor again.

That seems strange to me.

I have an LJ, it has my name on the splash page.

I use my intitials when I make a comment, because I'm not worried about people finding out I said something. Heck, a lot of the time I want them to know who I am, so my expertise/experience/what have you, can be factored into how they judge my opinions.

I have also used a pseudonym. That was interesting. I was asked to join a BBS game, with a persona. I was absolute in not admitting to any name other than the one I has (it was normal enough... not Mystic Darkwater, or some such), because that was who I was; there.

A name is how people know one, if it's consistent, then it doesn't matter. It's the people who come in, use a name once, and then fly away who irk me.

TK

A name is how people know one, if it's consistent, then it doesn't matter.

I mostly agree with that statement, but I have some questions. Doesn't that assume a complete disconnect between one's online and offline personae? (I'm talking about the use of a consistent online pseudonym unrelated to anything offline.) When we talk about being responsible for our words, don't we mean that there should be offline consequences for online comments? There are obvious steps (already mentioned) for dealing with those objections, like posting one's real name on one's blog. I think those are steps that ought to be taken in most cases.

There will be exceptions. True anonymity is obviously necessary for those living under repressive regimes. (Ok, so that's a chestnut, but one that needed to be roasted.) Supply your own additional scenarios.

Overall, I still think that going by the offline name is the simplest thing.

It's the people who come in, use a name once, and then fly away who irk me.

Me too. Would you call such a name a 'nominal name?'

I've signed a bunch of posts to NH blogs as just "Vicki", but that's just laziness--I seem to be the only Vicki posting here, and it's 11 fewer characters to type.

I don't remember, offhand, why my LJ is under an online nickname; it made sense when I signed up, a couple of years back. I suspect "Vicki" was already taken, and I've too much experience with people misspelling "Rosenzweig" even when it's right there in front of them to count on my friends, let alone anyone else, finding an LJ account under "vickirosenzweig".

Andy Perrin--I figure consistent means "the name the person uses in all contexts," not whether it's what they got from their parents, or even whether it's their legal name.

"A New York City High School Math Teacher" wrote:

"Whatever, your comment about pseudonyms was a typically lazy, jokey, and fannish way of dismissing what I said."

I merely pointed out the joke. The straight line (the portion of your message I quoted), and the punch line (your online name), were written by you.

If you don't want your balloons popped, don't tape pins to them.

Vicki-- I agree that it doesn't matter if the name is the legal name or not. I said 'offline name' not 'legal name.' I also said 'real name,' which I'll parse as 'offline name' too. I'm 'Andy Perrin' offline and on, but that's not my legal name. I read Terry's 'consistent' as 'consistent in a given forum on the Internet.'

The only time I post anonymously is when I haven't yet created an account on a service and am using a guest / anonymous idiot account. (e.g., on Plastic until a month or two ago, and on Live Journal still.) But I take care to put my name at the bottom of these posts.

The only time I've used a pseudonym was when I posted especially rank captions on "Dysfunctional Family Circus."

Stefan

In completely different news, Ron Reagan is unhappy with George W. Bush.

"What I find upsetting about this discussion is the implication that those of us who use handles online are somehow automatically dishonest."

Nobody implied this. Quite the contrary, everyone discussing the issue has been pretty careful to avoid exactly that kind of categorical statement.

"Ms. Cramer would forbid anyone to use a handle because a few people abuse anonymity?"

What Ms. Cramer wrote was "I personally discourage Internet anonymity at every opportunity within the bounds of tact." That's quite a distance from saying that something should be "forbidden."

I recognize that you have reasons for feeling strongly about this issue, but so do other people, and the variety of human experience being what it is, those other people may come to different conclusions than you do. It seems to me that most people in this discussion have tried pretty hard to avoid offensive generalizations and recognize that there's more than one side to the issue. I suggest you could try a little bit harder to do the same.

Bruce Baugh wrote:

"I took Patrick's comment to mean something like 'If I know you in another context, please let me know who you are, so that I can match these comments with those'. At least that's what I usually mean when I grouse gently about opaque handles. I don't really care about "real" identities in the sense of biographical data, I just want to be able to tie together the things people say in contexts where they aren't deliberately wanting to obscure their identities."

And Terry Karney wrote:

"I don't think (in part from a couple of years of observation) that Patrick cares about pseudonyms, per se. ...His use of the term nonce seems telling. There have been times I thought I recognised the tone of typer of a name I'd never seen before, nor again."

Spot on in both cases. I've got nothing against pseudonyms. What bugs me is identity-hacking.

If you're active in some context we share (for instance, online, fandom, the publishing world) as "Atrios" or "David Gerrold" or "Stanley from Beneath the Earth," that's your identity and it's fine with me. I don't care or need to know what it says on your paycheck or your driver's license. What bugs me, as Terry grasped, is the adoption of nonce pseudonyms for the sake of a particular interaction. While I'm very sympathetic to Kathryn's unhappiness--the stream of liquid pigshit that got directed her way was really quite something--I would argue that the misbehavior in question is specifically an instance of the "nonce pseud" phenomenon, and that it's not especially useful to lump it together with what, for instance, Rivka does.

And Bruce Baugh is right too. I don't think "Calimac" meant any harm, but it really was offputting to have to figure out that this was actually somebody I've known for a long time and who (this is the important part) uses his real name in fandom and as a reviewer. When I say it was offputting, I don't mean that everyone should immediately change their behavior just to suit me. I mean that it was offputting; that--while I happily grant that their are many good reasons to maintain multiple identities in different contexts--there are second- and third-order effects that we didn't necessarily plan for and might not always prefer.

By the way, I quite enjoyed A New York City Math Teacher's long post about the Phil Agre essay. And I know how annoying it can be to write something complicated and get almost no reaction save for a gibe. But Chip Hitchcock is right about the dismissive use of "fannish."

In fact, if we want to generalize, my experience is that science fiction fans are more likely to read, think about, and intelligently engage with a piece of writing like A.N.Y.C.M.T.'s post than are people from the general population.

I don't know who Calimac is, but Sturgeonslawyer has a LJ as well.

I have an LJ name, "Papersky" which I regard as being the name of my LJ, the same way "Electrolite" is the name of your blog. I find the LJ cutesy pseudonymity mildly annoying, and though identifying one's actual friends by clues like their preferences in dictionaries can occasionally be fun, it can also mean I have no idea if someone is someone I know or not. I have my name on my info page. This does mean that my LJ is the second hit on my name in Google, which means I have to consider how public it is and not post obsessing about the pimple on my nose, but in the end that's probably a good thing.

NYC HS Math Teacher wrote:

I liked Phil Agre's essay very much.

But I have very large bones to pick with his reification of conservatism as the animating ideology of whatever "nascent aristocracy" exists in this country, because he does not say who the conservatives are.

That is because he is not giving any ideological ground over the word "conservative." Agre's essay is not perfect. It is written for leftists, not for liberals and certainly not for conservatives. But it is a good start. It is headed towards a time when we won't have to say who the conservatives are, because hardly anyone will want to admit being one.

The right wing has been overusing and misusing the word "conservative" for years. If we are to try identifying who the conservatives are, we can't use the right's definition because that definition is so incoherent and often misleading.

Many people in the center think of themselves as conservatives without much real understanding of what that means. Those people can be split off from the right, and Agre's essay is the point of the wedge. They will have to find something else to call themselves. I don't care what that is, as long as it doesn't cause them to keep running with the wrong crowd. "Centrists" would be fine.

Then there are the people who call themselves conservatives as a smoke-screen: the plutocrats, the dogmatists, and the racists. They are never going to give up. But the more we can do to clarify "conservative" as what these people really stand for, the less effective it is as a shield. By the actions of the perfidious tyrants who have been using it, "conservative" deserves to become a word nearly as odious as "fascist", and I hope that some day it will.

Agre's essay is focused almost entirely on political and economic conservatives, the self-appointed aristocracy who have controlled most of the resources in our societies for millennia. That is reasonable as a first approximation, because fundamentally conservatism is always about the power of a few over the many. But Agre, or someone, needs to consider next the religious and ethnic bigots who call themselves conservatives, who have allied with the wealthy elite, to get the power to push their narrow-minded agendas upon the rest of us.

Now that "conservative" is on its way to becoming a lost word in everyday language, a word that can be safely used only in historicals and academia, what can we call those who wish to protect and continue the ancient aspects of our cultures that are wholly good and harmless? I think there are words enough: traditionalist, preservationist, conservationist. We just need to be careful with our language, so we don't accidentally label decent people as conservatives.

-- Tom

A few comments from a long-time pseudonymous blogger:

First off, on my own motives: I talk mostly on the blog about politics. Now, the psuedonym won't keep me from being on the receiving end of a stream of liquid freepshit (please, let's not insult the poor pigs). But if I keep the identities separate enough that a search engine can't connect them, it will probably keep it away from the mailboxes I use for my job. Fortunately, this hasn't ever happened (though that's luck, in part -- Kathryn's political posts are, I think, milder if anything than mine), but I have had a few really strange correspondants. However, it has lead to a few rare situations in which I've wound up introducing myself to people by the pseudonym -- precisely because my "real name", in that context, would be a meaningless nonce.

That said, it's also the case that a requirement for "real names" can just lead the sleazeballs to adopt real-looking fake names. Here's a case study, in which a company's employees were astroturfing forums related to their product to create the illusion of a large, happy customer base, and to take nasty potshots at their critics. (About a week after that blog post, the head of the company in question released a statement which didn't acknowledge ever doing this sort of thing, but promised never to do it again).

Now, I obviously don't mean to defend astroturfing. (In fact, I generally avoid blogging on anything related to my professional life at least in part because I don't want to wander into it by accident). But it does point out in pretty stark terms that there's no way to actually require a current, legal name on the internet; it's at best a convention of etiquette. And folks who are inclined to take part in these sorts of attacks are probably not the sort to be deterred by knowing it's poor etiquette...

"It is the current conventional wisdom to teach kids to use some form of anonymity when posting on the Internet. I'm not even sure, in the long view, that this is the right approach: the same technique that may help keep away pedophiles is even more useful for bullying other kids or spreading nasty rumors about others at school."

This is a problem, to be sure--the internet can be one more channel for the distribution of malicious gossip. On the other hand, I've also known abuse survivors--sometimes even current victims of on-going abuse--to discuss their problems under pseudonyms. And let's not forget "Salaam Pax". Anonymity has virtues as well as failings.

C. Dodgeson said: And folks who are inclined to take part in these sorts of attacks are probably not the sort to be deterred by knowing it's poor etiquette...

I agree about the lack of deterrence, but where are you going with that statement? If we give up etiquette because many people are rude, then we'll all be rude.

I agree about the lack of deterrence, but where are you going with that statement? If we give up etiquette because many people are rude, then we'll all be rude.

I don't think anyone is calling to give up etiquette. I completely sympathize with Kathryn. It is only proper for her to demand responsibility and decency from those who have been threatening her. It really is the right position for her to take, and I hope it will make a difference, I just can't expect that it will make much of one. The people who have been attacking her are not ones who care about etiquette or are willing to listen to reason.

Free speech is rough. Many of the letters and broadsides published around the American revolution were nasty, brutal, and utterly false defamations of political opponents. I don't think that has changed.

I do think that anonymity should be generally protected on the internet. It has always been an essential part of the right to free speech. That doesn't mean that threats should be tolerated. When political speech goes over the line into violence and intimidation, it has crossed a line, regardless of the medium.

Again, this is not a call for rudeness, or giving up on etiquette. It's just that we can't completely stop all rudeness without giving up on every other principle we have.

I'm with you, TomB. I think we need to protect the right to anonymity. I also think that we are better off not making use of that right most of the time, because it leads to so many complications. I'm worried about a "what's said online, stays online" ethos, in which the worst that can happen to a poster (for, say, making a death threat) is to be booted out of a particular online community. If you connect your online self to your offline self, it's one way of making a statement that you support personal responsibility. (There are others, natch.) You're right that we can't stamp out rudeness (or worse), but we can go on record against it.

C. Dodgeson: That said, it's also the case that a requirement for "real names" can just lead the sleazeballs to adopt real-looking fake names.

There was an article in the WashPost yesterday about Teddy Kennedy and other non-terrorists getting caught by the TSA no-fly list. The TSA advised them to change the way they use their names, for example, to use their middle initial when booking flights.

Just to clarify, I don't forbid pseudonymous posting, not even on my own blog. Rather I discourage it. Abandoning anonymity on the Internet is a social change that must be arrived at voluntarily and by consensus. Otherwise it doesn't work because as someone above points out, people can and do come up with plausible-sounding fake real names.

Regarding the use of extremely common real names: Have a blog; give your blog your extremely common name (Kathryn, for example); the Gods of the Internet will smile upon you and Google will love you and soon you will be the top Kathryn or whatever on Google. I'm not kidding. (This works until Goggle changes the formula.) Also, real people who write books cope with this problem all the time. Add your middle name to your byline if necessary. This problem is not unique to the Internet.

The key is that people feel that they are responsible for their actons online. Anonymity pushes people in the wrong direction.

I should add that there are certain subjects that I can't writie about under my own name and have more or less decided not to write about on the Internet. I don't find this burdensome, but I do keep an internal censor on one shoulder maknig sure I don't post anything that would, say, cause unreasonable embarassment to my children when their friends are old enough to use Google, or that I wouldn't want one of my kids' friends' mothers to read when deciding