It's saying that if they Google his name and find his blog and read his own words as he posted them for consumption by the public, this will harm his reputation That they're too dumb/ignorant/crazy/brainwashed by wokeness to make that decision, they must be protected from it
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
It is astonishingly condescending and hypocritically self-serving It's a disqualifying position in and of itself
1 reply 2 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
If you prefer to write pseudononymously you should have that option. Is that seriously the point being debated here?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabrielObray @arthur_affect and
If the argument is "the media has the right to publicly identify anybody who writes anonymously, anybody who doesn't want to be identified just fears accountability," then what are we even doing here?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabrielObray @arthur_affect and
do you realise how fucking little effort he actually put in, and that he got his friends to vanish his surname from their blogs just days before he posted his "I AM BEING SILENCED!!!!" post
1 reply 2 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @davidgerard @GabrielObray and
You are a black and white thinker and have exactly the kind of attitude that I reject: that Scott was fair game because his OPSEC wasn't perfect. Also, do you have evidence for your claim?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @davidgerard and
If his name was such a big secret then why have I, someone who has never been within 100 miles of him irl and openly despises him and most of the people he knows, known it since 2014
3 replies 2 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
Anyway this, itself, is black and white thinking, absurdly so Extrapolated even a little way out it makes the concept of journalism impossible - "You're NOT ALLOWED to say things about me I don't want said"
3 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
Talking about things people don't want talked about is a delicate matter Doing it for its own sake is, sure, just being a jerk But there obviously exists a countervailing ethical pressure where you have to ask "How many people would be upset to know they were ignorant of this"
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
It's normally no one else's business if someone cheats on their spouse, but if that person is famous, if they're a church pastor, if they write self-help books about relationships, if they get praised as a "role model" Then it starts being other people's business
1 reply 1 retweet 37 likes
You start to have to wrestle with the fact that you are, in fact, committing a sin of omission and helping deceive people every time someone decides to give that person their trust or admiration they wouldn't if they knew the whole story
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.