We’re a partially pseudonymous blog (it’s an open secret that I write all Ari’s posts, for example, and mine are written by a collective of political prisoners forced, a la Clockwork Orange, to consume Atlas Shrugged and Pat Boone around the clock). So we have a stake in the outing of publius by Ed Whelan.
But the case looks pretty clear: Whelan, cross that Eugene Volokh had shown him wrong and noticing publius agreed with Volokh, outed publius—after publius told him he had professional and personal reasons for wanting to remain pseudonymous.
There isn’t even the problematic case for outing as presented in Outrage to justify this; publius’s secrets had no bearing on the argument at hand. I can see no reason at all except the desire to strike at an antagonist.
You can make a case for pseudonymity from first principles, and maybe our philosophers here would like to do it, but you know, if it’s good enough for Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, I guess it’s good enough for us historians.
25 comments
June 7, 2009 at 4:07 pm
kid bitzer
so do you think brutus was yates?
if so, was it wrong of me to out him like that?
and–switching countries–who was junius?
June 7, 2009 at 5:07 pm
SEK
Even worse, one of those reasons was precisely what conservatives are always bitching about:
So, in addition to demonstrating himself to be world champion pettyweight, Whelon’s outed himself as a hypocrite—and not a very bright one at that, what with his inability to differentiate anonymous from pseudonymous.
June 7, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Levi Stahl
What always surprises me in back-and-forths about anonymity on the Internet is how rarely people make the distinction between serial anonymity and reliable, pseudonymous anonymity. If a person is commenting or writing under the same name every time and everywhere, I just don’t understand why anyone would have a legitimate objection: either their words stand up or they don’t, and you can judge those words against their whole body of work and against changing circumstances over time.
But I guess I’m the fool, hoping for logic in an online attack . . . ?
June 7, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Jonathan Dresner
Levi,
I’ve made that point many times, including in the letter I just sent the NRO, which reads, in part:
June 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
jazzbumpa
I don’t know nothin’ ’bout firstin’ no principles. I blog under a pseudonym because there are wingnuts in the world, and they are the ones who tend to have guns. I’m really not interested in them know my name and address.
June 7, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Q
My favorite aspect of the “debate” is that comments are not allowed on Whelan’s rantings, an offense that in my view is far more egregious than pseudonymity (yes, even given the uselessness and bombast of most blog comments).
June 8, 2009 at 9:16 am
Wrongshore
Pain in the ass for him, but it was fun to find out that I knew publius in college.
June 8, 2009 at 9:26 am
N. Merrill
We’re all wrong, for reasons Jonah explains.
June 8, 2009 at 9:26 am
ari
It’s always all about you, Wrongshore.
June 8, 2009 at 9:28 am
ari
Jonah’s gift for argument by assertion is truly awesome to behold. And my point stands, Neddy! (Even if I’m wrong.)
June 8, 2009 at 9:48 am
kid bitzer
it’s always already all about you.
it had to be you.
June 8, 2009 at 9:51 am
eric
… and?
June 8, 2009 at 9:55 am
rea
… and?
As far as I can tell from his usual opaque prose, Jonah seesm to be saying: (1) it’s okay to out pseudonymous amateurs, but not professionals, (2) unless the amateurs are Hamilton, Madison or Jay, which the Obsidian Wings Publius is not.
June 8, 2009 at 9:56 am
eric
it’s okay to out pseudonymous amateurs, but not professionals
… because?
June 8, 2009 at 10:05 am
N. Merrill
Because publius isn’t a revolutionary!
June 8, 2009 at 10:06 am
rea
… because?
Aparently, because the Obsidian Wings Publius is an amateur who is not a founding father. :)
I mean, don’t ask me to rationalize something the man said–I’m a juris doctor, Jim, not a miracle worker . . .
June 8, 2009 at 10:11 am
eric
After all this time, Jonah Goldberg retains the capacity to baffle.
June 8, 2009 at 11:51 am
Ahistoricality
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay weren’t amateur pundits.
You mean they got paid to be Founding Fatherstm, Inc.?
June 8, 2009 at 11:52 am
Ahistoricality
Sorry, that should be “Founding Fathers™, inc.”
June 8, 2009 at 12:26 pm
tomemos
Ooh, Goldberg’s posted an update:
“The second point [i.e., that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were indeed amateurs] is technically fine, but misses the larger and more important point. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were anonymous not because they wanted opine on the news of the day for fun. They were anonymous because they were heroically successful revolutionaries trying to secure a republic and a constitution.”
In other words, “The point that my point is inaccurate is correct, but misses my larger point, which is a completely unrelated point to the point I made above, which turns out to have been inaccurate.”
June 8, 2009 at 12:33 pm
dana
They were anonymous because they had ideas that they thought would benefit the public discourse, and they had personal and professional reasons for dissociating their names from their political writings.
June 8, 2009 at 12:35 pm
ben
But they weren’t anonymous because they were successful revolutionaries. That is not the reason they were anonymous. That might be the reason Goldberg thinks it’s ok that they were anonymous, but that is (obviously) different.
June 8, 2009 at 2:50 pm
bitchphd
All the damn arguments against pseudonymity are freaking irritating, and stupid to boot.
Also, Jonah Goldberg sucks.
June 8, 2009 at 7:12 pm
rea
All the damn arguments against pseudonymity
Oh! and to think all this time I thought you posted under your own name . . . :)
June 8, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Bitchphd
I do! My interest in pseudonymity is purely altruistic, unlike Eric’s and Ari’s.