The man in question here *specifically* says, "If my patients read my writing it would make it hard for them to listen to me, and that would impact my business." Folks nod like this is fair, but is it actually fair to patients to suggest they're not allowed to know this?
-
-
I guess my thinking is you can't arbitrarily demand not to use your full name when you've used it in the past unless you have very good reasons
-
Why not? I know people who've done just that and then worked and managed to bury their legal name for breathing room. Every tiny bit of friction helps. It's ridiculous but it's true. A two-step link really decreases the loon showing up at your doorstep, no joke.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think the ease is relevant too, however, because "de-anonymizing" implies that the anonymity was existent.
-
Friction absolutely helps. Public and private are not binary just like the loon that shows up at your doorstep is not binary.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well, I'd like to point out then that even if we do hold the bar that this is "de-anonymizing" then yes, there are good reasons. He moderates a reddit that advocates for racist social policies. He's written stuff supportive of eugenics and racist social policies.
-
He has said, "UBI as an incentive for Eugenics Programs is better than what we have now." He's recommended folks read Curtis Yarvin essays, and cited them. He defends widely discredited bad science and bad policy book "The Bell Curve."
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.