More on Pseudonymity

Otto:

I am against pseudonymous and anonymous blogging because it is impossible to have an equal debate with people refusing to give their real names and credentials. They can look up my publications, but I can not look up theirs. It really is the blogging equivalent of "fighting out of uniform." In real life this last practice is often referred to as terrorism. If you personally, not some character you made up, have to take responsibility for your words then and only then can there be honest debate. Otherwise you are just being a troll.

I'm sure Otto has been in a debate about this before, but I obviously disagree.

I think what matters is the manner in which each person carries out the debate. For example, I disagreed with your contention that race is not a social construct and is defined by state violence, and offered a reasonable explanation for why. That argument stands on its own irrespective of my nonexistent credentials and publications. As long as the debate remains free of ad hominem attacks, I'm not sure what relevance somebody knowing the other's real identity matters.

However, you are correct that a person who chooses to be anonymous has the ability to be a troll. A person whose name is public is constrained in a way that somebody who is pseudonymous or anonymous is not. However, I don't think that being pseudonymous is per se fighting out of uniform. If the pseudonymous blogger debates and argues reasonably without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then I don't see the issue. Unless, of course, one side wants to appeal to their superior authority as evidenced by credentials and publications.

I try to keep the debate here civil, and as well as when I leave comments on other blogs. Some anonymous and pseudonymous commenters are less respectful to be sure, but I don't think this delegitimizes pseudonymity in and of itself, but rather simply those actions. Ironically, the person I am least respectful to and most troll like with is Alan, who knows me personally.