Sunday, June 07, 2009

Busy Weekend/Mask

So posting has been very light to non-existent. Hope to get my act together tomorrow.

Most interesting thing I've seen on the blogs this weekend is the dustup concerning the propriety of outing anonymous bloggers. Ed Whelan, a fairly prominent fellow who blogs at National Review, decided to "out" an anonymous blogger who goes by "publius" at the Obsidian Wings blog, mostly because Whelan became annoyed at some of publius's comments. There's an excellent roundup over at Instapundit.

My two cents: I have a pseudonym for my blog, but I blog under my real name for the most part. It seems like the right thing to do. However, I understand why some people choose to remain anonymous. I think Whelan made a mistake in outing this guy, because I'm not sure it really solved anything and made Whelan look petty in the process.

What you do think?

3 comments:

Gino said...

i've already explained to you why i take certain privacy measures in what i do.

and i tend to agree with the those who think whean is out of line, which he is. too bad he cant be outed. (or, maybe he can. often times, those with much to hide are the first to launch attacks on others)

my name is Amanda said...

There are too many links on the Instapundit post. I can handle maybe one link per post, and it's a miracle if I click on that to begin with! So since I didn't read the amalgamation of bazillion articles that apparently make up the whole story, I will assume this Whelan dude is on the Left and the outed dude is on the Right. ;)

Outing a blogger - In general I would say this is a (expletive) move. And it does speak more to the pettiness of the outer. (Although I personally find anonymity to be a tad cowardly.)

I noticed a linked story about how "outing gays is bad but outing bloggers is good." (I did not click on it.) Well, I would argue the following for both situations: Politicians who do things like support/create legislation that denies homosexuals civil liberties (I don't just mean marriage) or even whose language supports the anti-gay movement in general: when their own homosexual behavior is discovered, they absolutely deserve to be outed. The public deserves to know the full extent of the character belonging to someone who is bound to represent them. Outing someone superficially famous, like an actor, is just, like I said - a d*** move. Not nice. Who is anyone to interfere with someone not hurting other people, someone living their private life privately? You know?

In the blogging world, likewise, if that blogger is living one thing and preaching another, then their hypocrisy deserves to be outed. If they were just expressing opinions that someone didn't like, it was wrong of the outer to expose them.

Mark Heuring said...

Amanda,

For the record, Whelan is on the right and has subsequently apologized for what he did.

My two cents -- I don't like outing in any circumstance. And that's one reason why I don't blog anonymously; my views (such as they are) are out there for everyone to see. Sometimes it's just easier to hide in plain sight.