Comment by arkades
6 years ago
> Do you feel that that addresses your concerns?
Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."
That's pretty dismissive. I read what he said. I was not convinced. For him, this is an illogical, emotional, and disingenuous move. I fully believe this is about a personal slight by the reporter, who did not accede to his request.
He's taking his ball home.
You must agree there is a difference between, "if I know this person's blog I can find their real name in under an hour", and "if I search this person's real name I can find their blog instantly on the NYTimes".
The first type of anonymity he does not currently have. But he does have the second type.
And it's true there is some truth to him being emotional. If he didn't possess any anxiety or fear then he wouldn't be worried and scared that if it's easier to find him more people will harass him (which has already happened). Lots of people have lost their jobs because they said something people didn't like on the internet so this seems like a reasonable fear.
Nothing about this seems illogical or disingenuous about this. What part of this fairly simple straightforward explanation doesn't make sense to you?
I’d say the dismissiveness is well warranted since you are impugning Scott’s motives without justifying yourself, or any of your claims. If you make poor faith assumptions about others, you can hardly complain when others are dismissive of what your write.
I think I've justified my opinion well enough. And I still hold it.
I'm not concerned with people dismissing what I say on its merit, only presuming that because I wasn't convinced by his explanation that I hadn't read it which is dismissive.
3 replies →