"I've never done that. I disapprove of it. When CH attacked you as a teacher, I defended you."
Catching up to this thread has been an amusing, but an unpleasant experience. I am sufficiently perplexed to put my own opinion on the line...
I thought someone had made it clear: "That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." Does it matter whether I call a poplar tremuloids as that--or as a trembling aspen? Perhaps it does to the poplar, but it does not erase the nature or existence of it.
A name is not the person. A person may be a referent of many names and descriptors. It is representative of the entity to which it refers. Generally, an entity may be referenced by countless names or descriptors--all of which may serve to identify it precisely.
Many people use several names or "aliases". Many use one name for formal relationships, but use another alternate name or alias amongst friends.
It is a reasonable inference that people who post on SI are people who post on SI--and are thus "real". They are real regardless of what handle they choose to use. Just as people on the telephone are "real" regardless of what name they use-if indeed they divulge any name at all.
I believe Neocon has just entertained Twofowler for dinner. Perhaps in that more personal setting they used different names than they use on SI. But, in any case, according to both their testimonies, they are each real people. And when they discussed other personages on SI, they plainly considered them to be "real" as well.
Most of the people I meet in my home community withhold their personal information (address, bank account, birth date, etc.). Sometimes they give me a name, which may or may not be their birth or "legal" name, but in all cases (just as on SI) the name is a REAL name and refers to a REAL person.
Aliases are alternate names, sometimes used to disguise physical privacies such as address, school, place of employment, etc. This is sensible when ones conversation is being recorded in front of scores of strangers--many of whom may have interests antagonistic to ones own. People generally exercise some discretion and caution until some trust on a "need to know" basis has been established.
This is no different than on SI where many people choose to be cautious about personal information (hardly surprising when such information is going out to scores of people at once, and leaves an ongoing posting record for all to read).
In the normal course of events, many on SI do develop more informal relationships and do decide to share physical data with that particular person. But as to their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, values: People have already been sharing these with the entire SI community to whichever level they feel comfortable.
It is ironic that people on SI are able to share many more intimate facts (and to a far greater number of people) than would normally be recommended in a situation where they could be "followed home" for instance. Persistent contact and ongoing sharing allows SI members to share more of their genuine natures than does "3d" where discretion must be exercised to a greater degree to avoid offending people who can harm you. I will say things to lawyers and bankers and police officers on SI that I will not say in my own community where they have the power to harm me for speaking truthful (as I see it, of course), and where, in any case, disagreement and dissension always have potential for involving self and loved ones in unpleasantness at a face to face level.
Sometimes when people agree to share personal data with people on SI, they may come to regret the decision. It is extremely important to note on SI (where people will commonly share many more intimate and honest details of their feelings, beliefs and values), that they use an excess of caution before giving out their phone number or address. Having shared in a much more intimate manner than people normally do in "3d" except for the few special relationships of friends and family), we have all given potential leverage to those on SI whom would seek to take advantage of the information divulged.
There is nothing less "real" about people by virtue of the name they choose to use in various settings, or the level to which they choose to divulge privacy data of the physical kind (address, phone number, employment, etc.).
When people on SI develop conflicts in the emotional, intellectual, romantic, or other arenas of interaction (as is bound to happen in a forum where shielding of address encourages a more personal level of intercourse), their open and honest sharing may turn around to bite them--as we have seen here on SI
All in all--Aliases (for those whom use them here) are real names which refer to real people, and the real legal name of that person--and are registered as such with SI administration. This allows people to address one another without giving out their address and thus enables all to share private beliefs, feelings, concerns, likes and dislikes in a far freer and more genuine fashion than they could face to face where they would be vulnerable on a material level rather than simply on an emotional one.
SI posters are liable to share much more intimate thoughts and feelings here than they normally would in face to face encounters. As well, they are sharing with a large number of people simultaneously; and they are exploring divisive and controversial subject matter such as religious or political beliefs. These are usually avoided in face-to-face encounters due to their inherent capacity for creating dissension and trouble.
Such personal information is routinely shared here, however; and strong feelings are provoked. It is thus sensible to use an alternate name (as many do) in order to disguise identity and to minimize the possibility of unwanted attention from those who are unhealthy or unstable.
It has been noted that one should be extremely careful in what they divulge on SI, and ought to proceed slowly and carefully (just as in all other relationships) before sharing intimacies which may be used (or threatened) against one. CH has made it clear that he feels no ethical pressure to respond to people on SI in any decent fashion as they are "artificial" and mere shadows without true feelings...LOL!
Anybody who believes that people are less "real" because they have disguised their address is mistaken. Most of us withhold personal information from one another unless there is a need to know, or a minimum level of trust established. I know the names or addresses of very few of the myriad people I casually interact with in a day--not check-out personnel, and not the gal who cuts my hair (yes, I still have some). Nor do I know their religious beliefs or political leanings--or any other of their deeply and personally held feelings or convictions. Yet they are nevertheless "real" people, whether I see them (as I often do), or whether I interact with them via phone, letter, or computer bulletin board.
The tremuloid poplar is a trembling aspen, and a rose by any other name still smells as sweet. It made sense to Shakespeare; it makes sense to me. |
