After my post in support of online anonymity, I heard someone make what seems to me one of the dumbest statements against online anonymity I can imagine.
This person was saying that he automatically discounts everything which comes from anonymous accounts.
Really? Their anonymity renders him incapable of weighing the truth of a statement? That's incredibly dumb and pathetic.
I've said in the past, and I stand by it to this day: it doesn't matter who said something, truth is truth. It's why I don't really care if a supposedly historical quote wasn't really said by the person it is attributed to. If it's true, I'll gladly claim the orphaned quote as my own.
Everyone is capable of saying true, and smart, things. Just give them time.
Hitler said some true things that anyone would agree with if they didn't know the source-- I don't know of any off-hand, and I don't feel like digging for a quote, but I guarantee you it's a fact. Even if it was just "Die meisten Menschen mögen Hunde als Gesellschaft" or "Most people like dogs for companionship" (according to Google translate anyway).
As hard as it may be to believe, every politician occasionally says something true. Yes, even Maxine Waters must have done so at some point.
Sure, anonymous accounts are as likely to spew nonsense as "real journalists". Don't automatically write them off just because you dislike their anonymity, though. Judge the words, not the source.
If you discount truth because of the source-- because it's one you don't like or because the source prefers to remain anonymous for reasons that are none of your business-- you are shooting yourself in the foot. Or brain. You are handicapping yourself for no good reason-- for your feelings.
That's your choice, of course, but it's not smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment