Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Anonymity
I've been putting up some posts because I have a minute to breathe. It dawned on me as I was doing so that I've kept my identity anonymous in this blog. This is something that I've heard criticized (not specifically about me) by Gangadeanians. They sometimes find fault in anonymous criticisms particularly online. I suppose I get some of the sentiment behind it. We want to know something about our discussion partners. And one might worry that anonymity provides one with something like a cover to say whatever one wants to say without having to live up to the consequences. But I don't find it essential to philosophical discourse that one disclose one's identity. Further, people have different reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. At the end of the day it's the ideas and arguments that matter in a discussion and provided that there are overriding (legitimate) reasons for wanting to remain anonymous, I think it can be appropriate to do so. As I said, I have my reasons, but I'm hesitant to share them because I don't want to come off as insulting to my interlocutors or hurt the feelings of those of my friends (few as they are) that are still members of WF. Just know that my choice to remain anonymous has nothing to do with my feeling as if anything I have said is controversial or not worth standing behind. I wholeheartedly endorse everything I've said. Further, I will be willing to engage with anyone in dialogue about its contents either through this blog or via email (you can email me at reasoniidoubt at gmail dot com).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Would you be interested in taking over the DSG Facebook page? I have cleared it of content that some have found to be personal or hurtful in nature. It is the top link in the search results for this subject matter. I can be reached at iamestrella@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteHi J,
ReplyDeleteHow would you respond to the criticism that remaining anonymous is unethical because you are not just criticizing arguments, you are criticizing alleged bad behavior on the part of Gangadean and Anderson? Does your audience not have the right to know the name of the accuser, and more details about your excommunication?
What do you think?
Thanks,
Gareth
Hi Gareth,
ReplyDeleteThere are two related points to the criticism.
1) That I am violating an ethical norm in remaining anonymous while alleging bad behavior
and,
2) That my audience has a right to know my identity.
But neither of these is obvious to me. Since 2) seems a partial justification for 1), I'll comment on it first. What exactly about the nature of rights suggests that my readers have a right to know my identity? I'm writing on a volunteer basis---my readers are free to come and go as they please and can determine for themselves how much credence to place on my remarks. It's certainly not a basic human right--(e.g., right to life)--such rights aren't that demanding. So maybe my criticizer needs to get clearer on what kind of right it is and hope they don't sound too entitled in the process.
As to 1). If there isn't such a right on behalf of my readers to know my identity (and more of my story), I can't see what about the nature of moral obligations suggests that I am being immoral in remaining anonymous.
Best,
J
Hi J,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding. Here are a couple thoughts.
First, I, personally, see at least one potentially unethical thing going on, which is you post private emails publicly for all the world to see. The one between you and Gangadean is relatively short, but the one between you and Anderson is quite long. Did you get permission from either of them to post private emails?
The other thing I want to say is that everyone at WF at this point knows who you are. (I don't attend WF, and haven't for a long, long time, but I am in contact with them.) If you stopped being anonymous, you would give the Gangadeaneans one less argument not to engage with your blog. They could no longer say "J is being unethical, so we and you [you = imagined interlocutor] have an obligation not to give an ear to unethical discussion." Why not take that rationale away from them?
Best,
Gareth
DeleteGareth,
Thanks for offering your thoughts.
Do you really think it's a problem to post those messages of which you speak, without permission, given their content? You're making it sound like I'm airing dirty laundry "for all the world to see". But these are nothing more than express philosophical/theological views that these persons hold to and have taught or expressed in public forums. So I guess don't see the harm. On the other hand, I have refrained from sharing exchanges of a more personal nature (remember I was once close friends with some of them) not only for lack of relevance, but because it would be a violation of privacy.
As to taking away an obstacle, I'm not sure this makes sense. You say that everyone at WF at this point knows who I am (I'm neither affirming nor denying this point, but rather taking it as assumed premise). If that is so, then how could my *anonymity* be a reason for them not to engage. In other words, if they know who I am, then in what *important sense* am I anonymous? It must be my anonymity with regard to my audience. But why would that be a reason for them not to engage with my challenges to their worldview? Again, it's simply not obvious to me that there is anything problematic going on here--maybe they need to explain clearly what the issue is.
Secondly, if you're thinking it would be pragmatically advantageous to take away a rationale for engaging with Gangadeanians, then we've moved away from ethical talk (or talk of rights). More importantly, as I've said before, I gave up on engaging with Gangadeanians a long time ago. I want to help those on the sidelines ore those that have felt marginalized or ostracized by Gangadeanians for disagreeing with them (I continue to get messages from people attesting to this phenomenon). It is my opinion that Gangadeanians will always find a reason not to take my ideas seriously because they haven't got the resources to deal with them head on. In short, I'm simply not interested in playing that game (I've jumped through Gangadeanian hoops before and it proved pointless). If they want to critically analyze their basic beliefs then they should engage with my objections--and it's merely a red herring to insist that my (what is on their view) unsavory behavior is preventing them from doing so.
Finally, there are a number of reasons as to why I want to remain anonymous. To hint at one: a couple of years ago, I received a phone call from the police because a Gangadeanian accused me of stalking them. Of course, it was entirely unfounded and nothing more than a scare tactic to silence me, but certainly you can appreciate why I might want to protect my identity given such an episode. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Best,
J
Hi J,
ReplyDeleteSorry about my long absence. I will not promise to respond more quickly in the future, but I hope to.
I have at least one problem with your anonymity, which is you are giving Gangadean et. al. a tool against you. In an ongoing correspondence I'm having with a Gangadeanean, this person has challenged me to stop reading your blog because you are being unethical by remaining anonymous. If you WEREN'T anonymous, neither this person nor any other Gangadeanean could make this point. You would be taking one weapon out their hands. And this would help people "on the sidelines", because they might then feel comfortable reading your blog.
Let me make this point another way. Right now there are these people "on the sidelines", as you put it, who are being told not to read you blog because its unethical due to your anonymity. It is plausible that some of these people are buying that argument, and then not listening to your criticisms and getting sucked in deeper into Gangadean's philosophy. Is that what you want? If you stopped being anonymous, it is at least possible that more people would take your criticisms seriously.
And do you really think Owen or anyone else would accuse you of stalking them again? The police found nothing the first time; I doubt any Gangadeanean would accuse you again.
Thanks for engaging,
Gareth
Welcome back, Gareth. As always, I appreciate your thoughts. I would love to have those "on the sidelines" as it were, to engage with the substantive contents of my blog, but I'm not willing to incur the potential costs of breaking my anonymity. Maybe things would be different if I thought the likelihood of those persons fairly/charitably engaging with my arguments was sufficiently high if only this roadblock of my anonymity were removed. But I really don't have any reason to believe that. In fact, I've got reason to suspect just the opposite given my past interactions with team Gangadean. As I mentioned, I've jumped through hoops with Gangadean before, only to find that he doesn't hold up his end of the bargain. Further, the very fact that these persons you have in mind would fall for an ad hominem (attack the arguer as a means of dismissing the substance of the argument) is evidence that they don't sufficiently care to know or that they lack the intellectual integrity to grapple with my arguments, charitably. Finally, I, am, in effect, refusing to play the game by their rules. Gangadean and his followers after him are very much about control. They like to control the contours of the conversation/interaction---they set the rules of the game and frequently find ways to disqualify those with whom they have substantive disagreements. I witnessed this occurring on more than one occasion when I was among their fold. Label this person a "reason-denier" or that person as being "immoral" for objecting to the church anonymously. It was never said explicitly that therefore, their objections should be dismissed (because as noted above that's an obvious fallacy), but the inference was left tacit, in the ether, as it were. If someone is sincere about wanting to "critically analyze their basic beliefs" then I've made this resource available for them and am always willing to chat with them. That's the length of the olive branch I'm willing to extend. In a way, I'm not willing to dignify the ridiculous Gangandeanian claim that my arguments are bad because I'm not sinless.
DeleteGareth, since you seem so confident that no significant harm will befall me and my family, if I were to publish my name, are you willing to pay for any costs that might arise, if you're wrong? I hope this finds you well.
J
J,
DeleteThat's an interesting question, to say the least. Allow me to answer with more questions: Do you believe the Gangadeaneans would stoop so low as to cause "significant harm" to you or your family? I don't think any would cause physical harm; the worst I can see is ending friendships, which I acknowledge can be very hurtful.
Furthermore, since those in power and probably a good many lay folk at WF already know who you are, and they haven't done anything to you or your family, why would that change once you reveal your identity? (I know Owen had the police investigate you for stalking, but has he tried anything since?)
Peace,
Gareth
Hi Gareth,
DeleteThe risks of significant harm (though not necessarily, physical harm) are high *enough* (even if not high simpliciter) so that remaining anonymous maximizes expected value over the alternative. I'm just using standard decision theory under risk, here.
Best,
J
If you say so, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are, after all, in a better epistemic position to know.
DeleteBut keep in mind I learned your identity, or rather had your identity proposed to me, thru them (and I'm sure the leadership knows your identity, so any lay folk can find out thru them.) So, again, it's difficult believing anything would drastically change if you revealed your identity. But I don't know that for a fact, so I will defer to your judgment. Would you be willing to share in more detail, either on this blog or via private communication, in more detail what you think the dangers are?
One last thing. I am not a member of "team Gangadean". I was kicked out of WF back in 2007, and it is very unlikely I will ever return. I am, however, on friendly terms with some of them. But I am not going to share with them anything you dont want me to.
Peace,
Gareth
Gareth,
DeleteIf what you say is true, then in what important sense is my identity anonymous? Why are the Gangadeanians so intent on my making my identity known before they'll take my ideas seriously? If they know and can make it known to anybody as you propose. This conversation just isn't making a lot of sense to me.
J