If you were linked to this page because you were asked to leave v5k2c2, then good news! There is another blog on the internet where you will be welcomed with open arms! You’ll find people with whom to openly commiserate, its comment section populated by people I’ve been 86ing since the first days I opened this blog to discussion.
Back in September of last year, an anonymous critic who calls himself ‘Jack’ dedicated several paragraphs to me, over on his ‘Sigma Frame’ blog. I didn’t intend to ever give Jack any publicity for his looney rant, but he continues to post here, so I suppose it’s time. Let’s see what he had to say:
Perverts and degenerates can’t express themselves without throwing a bunch of sexually-charged and infernal terms into their prose. (coven, speculum, etc.) Freud called this parapraxis, and it’s an amazingly stupid mode of writing to slip into, when you’re playing at rhetoric.
Continuing…
Aside from bastardizing and sexualizing his articles, Jack uses third-rate neologisms (churchianity, converged, etc.) which are little more than floating signifiers, and ultimately meaningless.
Jack’s overarching contention seems to be an attempt at a defense of his religion: Christianity. Jack is offended by my lack of faith, and my propensity to criticize Christianity when its adherents make fools of themselves. Jack is absolutely correct, that I consider the average Christian to be an immoral scumbag, and given that Jack has volunteered himself as a typical Christian, we can immediately segue into a list of his lies:
- Jack suggests that I am an agent provocateur, who tries to get men in the manosphere into legal trouble.
- Jack suggests that I am attempting to get Dalrock’s real-world contact information, for publication on the internet.
- Jack claims that I have been banned from the Dalrock blog.
- Jack claims that I resent people for their anonymity.
Given that no screenshots were forthcoming, it is easy enough to dismiss this nonsense out of hand. Even so, here are my answers:
- I have always encouraged men to stay away from drugs and alcohol, shun organized crime, and eschew radical politics (including the pathetic antisemitism that is a regular feature on sigmaframe). A man’s general orders are to increase his net worth, his personal options, and his circle of friends.
- Back in 2017, someone posted Cane Caldo’s legal name in a comment here. Posting real-world contact information has always been a violation of the comment policy of this blog, and that gentleman was immediately asked to leave. People occasionally write me private emails, and they do so with the confidence that I will zealously guard their details until I am dead.
- I have never been banned, “ostracized”, or otherwise made unwelcome on Dalrock’s blog. Here’s a recent comment I left over there, less than two weeks ago.
- I have always encouraged men to remain anonymous while they expore antifeminist content on the internet. I think that Dalrock exercised a very healthy level of prudence in keeping his blog separate from his real life.
Jack can continue to complain about my lack of respect for Christianity, even as he behaves as a typical Christian (i.e. a dishonest piece of shit.) He shouldn’t wonder about my distaste for the type, and neither should anyone else.
If you have been asked to leave my forum, please post the details of your eviction over on Sigma Frame. There you’ll find a number of unhinged whackjobs, ready to lend their shoulders to cry on, most of whom were already banned before you, and can never seem to get over this.
“Can’t we all just get along?” .. bwhaaaaa.
I get along with everyone, man. Some peeps just aren’t a good fit over here.
Still laughing at “Boxer and his crew…” comments. As though I could order Derek or any of you other guys around.
Whether or not we’re called MGTOW or Red-Pill-Men or Manosphere .. etc. .. By OUR nature .. we are independent men .. and thusly .. not be-holdin’ to any man .. just a collection of words and ideas thru shared experiences. Some folks can’t handle difference in opinions on what path we should take .. or can’t control others. Hence the projection.
And you’ve never tried. In fact you have goat-ed Derek to differ with you regularly and then invited him to guest post. Which he has done.
As someone who has sent you a personal email with my real (email) name .. I’ve never had any worries about you doxxing me. Now that’s trust earned!
I comment regularly on both v5k2c2 and SF. I’ve never been censored at either place. I disagree with the hosts of both often enough, yet I’d happily guest post at either address. The notion that I’m in full intellectual agreement with Boxer on everything is obviously false. I’ll state my piece in peace as long as I’m permitted. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me.
Now this…
…may not be true. By all appearances, it is just a response to myself, Sharkly, and those like us (a very small group). While I hold a number of nuanced views of anonymity, the I vigorously defend the idea that Christian leaders must not be anonymous, because anonymity is a lie and Christians must not lie. Anonymity of Christian leaders.like Dalrock or Jack.should not be. While I don’t agree wholeheartedly with this…
…I do think that anonymity is immoral for a Christian leader. As a Christian on the web, I take very seriously accusations of lying. Once in a while Boxer accuses me of lying (whether seriously or just to troll) and that bothers me more than anything else.
It has always been my stance that Christians should repent of anonymity. If anything, this is self-doxxing, but I would rather think of it as obedience. I have never betrayed anyone’s trust by doxxing them. I know personal information about some anonymous bloggers, but you won’t see me publishing that information.
You should keep doing it. As a married father who doesn’t curse his wife or fuck other women, you’re a needed role-model everywhere.
And you don’t “guest post” here. You’re an author, with your own account.
In some places it’s directed at you, and in others, we read stuff like: Could Boxer and Derek be converged agent provocateurs, going undercover as abrasive Manospherians to undermine Dalrock.s influence and/or doxx him which name me and my supposed motivations. I’m sure it’s news to Dalrock that I was somehow cozying up to him to get the name of his boss, despite that never happening.
The whole thing was so disjointed and absurd that I didn’t originally consider responding.
This is laughably false. Your Christian brother ‘Jack’ is a flagrant and unrepentant liar. None of the other Christians he talks to has any problem with this whatever. Dishonesty appears to be a Christian sacrament.
We’re never going to agree on this. I realized that long ago. Even so…
I hope you’ll consider seeing the situation from the perspective of the average young guy who might be posting here. This is particularly relevant if said young fella has a wife and kids. The fact that we’re immune (at least in the U.S.) from prosecution (for the grievous crime of laughing at idiot feminists) doesn’t mean that other hassles don’t exist. Having some fat bull dyke scream in the checkout line might seem humorous to you, but if it were one of your kids it would be a different matter.
Our enemies are more petty and vile than you apparently realize, probably because you’re a decent guy, and you project your own attitude on everyone else. I think this level of solipsism is a personal weakness on your part. The people we mock are nothing like you or your wife, and you shouldn’t fault anyone else for being reluctant to deal with them.
I was banned at Dalrock, but that was more of me “daring” him to. He did. I have been banned at Deep Strength’s page, and that doesn’t bother me. I have been banned at a Welsh Language page, because I wasn’t “militant” enough for their sensibilities (must. hate. the. English.) that bothered me because I didn’t bring up politics…they gdid….they wanted some sort of Welsh ‘blood oath’ about your personal stances to the English. Blow that. I’m more ENglish than many of the English today. I also speak Welsh and that is more that can be said for many Welsh nationals who don’t know the language of the Druids.
I’ve posted at Jack’s site here and there………he has never replied but he doesn’t have to. He had a post recently about using “frame” to get his wife to allow him to put live plants in the house. It was a bit…..well…….blue pilled actually.
If I was married, and I wanted a live plant in the house, I would get a live plant and bring it in the house.
Some of these “red pilled-rock-solid-Frame guys are like feminists…..you know the old saying “How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?”
The answer. “100. One to actually DO IT and 99 to make a documentary about it.”
These Frame guys (including deep strength) are kind of like this.
Whatever.
I realize this and I accept the reality of your criticism. Most of my posts on anonymity reside on my own personal blog and here I try to limit my anti-anonymity stance to Christian leadership only.
No, it is just an error in communication. By “Christians must not lie” I mean “Christians are enjoined [by God’s law] against lying”, not “Christians don’t lie” (see below).
Well, you’ve made the accusation. As he will undoubtedly see it, he now has the opportunity to repent or refute. Let’s see what, if anything, happens. Have you banned him from commenting here?
In 2018, I got into an argument with Christian Wintery Knight and others over whether lying was always wrong (read the comments here). Not only are a great many Christians liars, but they will strenuously argue that lying is okay.
One of the cornerstones of my series is how bureaucracy has infected everything and everyone. Dishonesty is essential to it. Christianity is dishonest and corrupt, as are basically all institutions and their members. What makes Christianity the target of the highest level of criticism is that its adherents should know better. Christians don’t view bureaucracy (and lying) as inherently evil. If Christians truly despised lying, they would have to be consistent and oppose bureaucracy.
Would it?
My kids are sometimes the subject of racism or disability discrimination. Now, I rarely get angry. I once got angry when my wife’s coworker told her she should have adopted “our own kind” (a white kid, not an Asian kid). Another time, I got very angry when one of my children got “carded” for being Asian. Still another time I got even angrier when an ignorant lady at Subway tried to assert that my daughter wasn’t disabled enough for the handicap parking spot we were legally entitled to. I got into a shouting match inside the restaurant. Had I not disengaged, someone probably would have called the cops.
These are just a few examples of what I’ve dealt with. While I’ll accept a great many slights to myself, I defend my children with nearly extreme prejudice if and when it is required.
Yes, I acknowledge this. I’m also cognizant that I stand alone on almost everything. It’s quite the contradictory juxtaposition.
Of course I did. I don’t care what he does or says, but he can say it on his own Christian blog. Hopefully the lies will be more creative and entertaining this time ’round.
I read the whole thing (quickly, but completely.) I’m not the Kantian you are, but you freakin’ owned the lot of those guys.
It’s actually a really interesting ethical argument that people toss back and forth. We should discuss it here some day.
@Boxer
You’re so very, very wrong about this. Perhaps you are the naive one.
My children are protected, but they are not sheltered. I have multiple foreign adopted children, multiple children with special needs, and children that attend public school. On a daily basis they witness first-hand the kind of problems discussed on this site. My wife and I have, quite literally, had to employ legal means to battle against these forces. We have even legitimately worried that the police would harass us. Every day is a struggle, usually with multiple concerns.
One of the reason I blog so inconsistently is because my time is spent on these things. One of the reasons I blog at all is because it is a form of support. It helps me reduce stress. It helps to know that there are others out there who oppose these things.
I get that you think anonymity is a safe space. I’m not sure there truly exists a safe space. But even if there is, I have a serious theoretical question: do you (plural) have the right to hide while the rest of us have no choice but to fight it personally every day?
Why must you con-tro-dicked yourself ..
You may not have heard but a certain blogger closed her blog because of the vile creatures you claim aren’t a problem .. but that you’ve had nothing but trouble with .. very interesting ..
Apparently you missed Judgy Bitch Blog (aka Janet Bloomfield .. not her real name) and how it ended .. they targeted her kids. She closed up shop.
Derek you’re the nigh-eve one my friend.
I made no such claim.
Are you aware that Janet Bloomfield strongly advocates for doxxing (see here)?
That is the only site I have ever been completely banned from commenting. Apparently I disagreed with the host one too many times.
Yes, it is very interesting. I enjoy your posts on philosophy and hope you write more. I don’t know anything about Kant, having never studied him and only recognizing his name, but we seem to come to similar conclusions. I recently made a related ethical argument on my blog and Twitter (see here). I see lying, bureaucracy, and utilitarianism as inextricably linked to modern feminism. Without the former, the latter doesn’t get off the ground. To defeat the latter, you attack the former. How can anyone successfully criticize feminism while embracing the things that fuel it?
Derek……you were banned from commenting Wintery Knight? YOU?????????? Now I am very suspect of of ‘christian red pilled writers / thinkers’
Yes, I had the temerity to agree twice with Lexet on the topic of Iran (who, by the way, was also banned, despite his personal and academic expertise on the topic). There wasn’t anything uncivil about it either. It was censorship of ideas, pure and simple. Read the details in “Is Wintery Knight a Snowflake?” (the first in a three-part series on my blog).
I….. it shocked me. I had trouble sleeping that night.
I should have known. Read that 2018 link and you’ll see WK defending lying. It is well-documented how Dalrock lied during the Warhorn debacle. See how Lexet defended Dalrock’s lies (see the comment thread here). See how Jack at Sigma Frame defended Dalrock in the very article referenced in Boxer’s post here.
If you look at my blogroll on my website, you’ll see I ‘promote’ (with an asterisk) four anonymously authored sites: Lexet, Sigma Frame (Jack’s blog), Christianity and Masculinity (Deep Strength’s blog), and this blog. Despite my view that anonymity is a lie, I still list three anonymous Christian blogs. Maybe I shouldn’t (I ‘promote’ this site because Boxer is not a Christian: Christians should be leading the way). The irony is that supposedly I should be able to judge people based solely on their words and not their identity, but their (lack of) identity is exactly why I apparently need to judge them.
Jason, I argue with you more than anyone else, but you are guileless. For that, you have my deepest respect. I afraid that I can’t say.with confidence.the same about many of the Christian red pill voices. My naive trust has been shaken by this.
Apologies for not closing the HTML tag. I can’t edit my comment to fix it….
I wish I were a philosopher. They’ve had me teach philosophy classes in the past, but they’ve always been shit like propositional logic, rather than ethics.
Kant’s basic contention seems to contradict Aristotle’s. Aristotle was all about imagining the theoretical “good man” and modeling yourself after him. Modern Americans would probably default to Jesus as “good man,” but Aristotle likely saw “good man” as a Socrates character.
Kant’s position was that ethical laws probably exist as absolutes, much like the law of gravity. A decent person can’t lie for a good reason, for the same reason he can’t jump off a building without falling to the ground. Certain acts are simply evil, lying being one of them, and one shouldn’t do such stuff, regardless of the situation.
Specific to your example over on the Cruxtoid blog, Wintery Night, if you were to lie to protect someone from a murderer at the door, you become a party to the evil that the murderer intends, and thus you share in the moral responsibility of his actions. If you lie about the victim, hiding in your cellar, and the murderer later finds your victim and kills him, you have effectively entered into an evil dialectic that has made you part of the situation, and morally you are a co-conspirator.
Deontology is pretty brutal stuff, but it makes some sense.
Click to access varden-2010-journal_of_social_philosophy.pdf
I tried to close it. I think wordpress is serving a cached image. It looks OK in the comment editor.
Boxer, looks good. Thank you.
I’ve been banned from places. The Spearhead, David Futrelle (who banned me after he explicitly invited me to comment – lol), Lori Alexander’s facebook group, etc. etc.. Derek’s friend Lexet called me “human garbage” without ever (to my knowledge) having a single conversation with me. Certain people simply won’t like you in this world. And some places aren’t a good fit. Fortunately, there are billions of other people and countless other fora where you’ll have a good time.
If you guys are ever really upset about being banned, just post an article on this blog, saying what you want to say about your experience. Provided you don’t go Cane Caldo, and make up a bunch of nonsensical homoerotica about your target, I won’t care.
For the record, the main reason Derek’s pal Jack isn’t welcome here is due to the (((bullshit))) on his blog. I’m not Jewish and don’t care about Judaism, but this is a site for men, and Jewish men ought to be able to come here without being hassled by conspiracy kooks. If I were to allow that stuff here, I may as well go all the way and ban Earl for being a xxxCatholicxxx and you for being a ***Libertarian***. If anything, I have more sympathy for Jewish dudes than most others, given that I’ve dated their women, who I find really attractive, but extraordinarily awful to deal with.
Ah, now that explains a lot. So my question…
…is a variation on the same thing. The answer depends on your choice of moral framework. That clears things up quite a bit and explains a bit why we disagree.
LOL!!! At least get it right:
I am consistently none of the above. I hate politics and I don’t vote. I am apolitical except to the extent that I often criticize the hypocrisy of those who are political and irrationality of their positions. I am an Anabaptist Christian, husband, and father.
I was responding to Jason. He has claimed to be a Libertarian in the past, anyway. No idea what he’s registered as today.
Ah, fair enough. I once thought I was libertarian. Perhaps I was for a little while. I gave that up.
Wow. That was a fantastic read. I had no idea that Kantian philosophy cohered so well with Anabaptist theology. I’ve been making related theological arguments for decades without any idea that there was a corresponding formal philosophical framework. I am sincerely grateful.
The paper makes some key claims:
These mirror fundamental Anabaptist principles. We can informally sum them up in the theological notions that (1) one cannot sin in order to prevent sin (or “two wrongs don’t make a right”) and (2) God holds you responsible for your own actions, not those of others.
Now, consider the paper’s conclusion:
I could see myself or one of my ancestors arriving at the same conclusion, but by citing Bible verses instead of Kant.
Has been a dues paying /card carrying Libertarian since election day 1996
Yes .. yes you did.
You’re tone deaf brother.
I said she gave up blogging becasue they targeted her KIDS .. as in physically .. these swamp creatures are vile / evil and you don’t think we should avoid contact .. shameful.
You’re niave-ta is hopeless.
I never made that claim. Stop misrepresenting me.
I haven’t “mis-reprensented” you.
No sir. I know exactly what I mean by my words. I know exactly what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Here is your lie:
Here is my very clear stance: Anonymity is lying, lying is a sin, and Christians should not lie, therefore Christian leaders should not be anonymous. Not lying does not mean you can’t try to avoid contact with crazies. Nowhere did I say that a Christian is required to put themselves in a leadership role. Nowhere did I say that a Christian is required to publish a blog (or comment on blogs). Nowhere did I say that a Christian must put himself at risk.* If a Christian cannot accept the risk to his family he is not required to be a leader. Turns out, there is a big Christian denomination that requires its leaders to be unmarried. Ultimately, if you can’t afford to take the risk, don’t take the risk. No Christian is entitled to anonymity. There are a whole host of possible ways to avoid contact with crazies while also not being anonymous. If you put some thought to it, I’m sure you could come up with a few.
* Christian families have been at risk since the foundation of the religion. This is especially true since the founder of the religion, Jesus, explicitly stated that persecution would come and that it should not be feared. Jesus explicitly commanded his followers to be a bright light that is not hidden. Jesus also explicitly ran away to avoid putting himself at risk. If a Christian has to shut down their ministry because of threats to their family, how exactly is that any different?
Now, onto your second misrepresentation:
I don’t usually get personal here, because I should be able to make my arguments without doing so. But the accusation of naivety changes that. On a daily basis I have to deal with the problems that get discussed here regularly. I can’t just run away. The naive people are the ones who can hide away in safety and are not forced to confront these problems directly. Calling me naive, despite knowing almost nothing about me, is an assertion that I and my family are not in enough danger for me to speak authoritatively on the subject. Allegedly, we live such a cushy existence that I don’t understand the importance of protecting oneself. What utter nonsense.
If you want, like Boxer, to reject Christianity and hold to a different philosophical stance on the subject of lying, go nuts. But don’t call me naive because you think I don’t understand what I’m doing. If you really wanted to criticize me for naivety in an intellectually honest way, you’d advocate that Boxer ban me from this forum for (allegedly) being reckless with my family’s safety.
You’re funny.
You think that “Anonymity is lying” [sic].
We’re never going to find common ground if you use PERSONAL FEELINGS as fact.
I leave my feelings in a lock-box .. lost the key years ago. So, I don’t take anything personal. I advise others to do the same.
As for the accusation of being a liar [re: “Here is your lie:” .. I’m just observing what I see brother.
Post when you can find scripture that supports “anonymity is lying” and then we’ll talk.
Dear Honeycomb:
I’ve been wondering about this strange contention since yesterday. At first I found it easy to dismiss, because I assumed Derek was just goading me. (Sorta insulting how thorough he is on Wintry Knight with his arguments, and how he just flies off the handle here — but then maybe I deserve it, as WK and Lexet seem to devote several hours per day to the internet, and I just pop in to hit and run…)
If I had more time I’d dedicate a whole post to the topic, but I find his equivalence hard to justify. For example: I doubt Derek communicates strictly by post card. Is sending personal correspondence in a sealed envelope dishonest?
The reality is that people deserve their privacy, and I intend to encourage people to participate here without fear of having their families hassled. If anything, the right to express oneself anonymously is one way to allow people the freedom to tell unpopular truths in a hostile world.
Boxer
@honeycomb
No. You made a false claim: .you don.t think we should avoid contact [with crazies].. That’s not an observation because I never said that and I explicitly denied and refuted it. It is a falsehood. Pointing out that you have told a lie.complete with a refutation of your claim.is a matter of fact, not feeling. It is irrelevant that it happens to be personal.
Read your comment again .. the one in question ..
You go on .. and on .. about how you and yours value contact with the crazies and the rest of us should virtue signal just like yenz ..
You’re all over the map on this .. at least from what I’ve read ..
How’s that scripture coming (re: anon is lying)?
…
…
Observations are just that .. if two witnesses a mile apart watch the same battle and have differing reports .. is one lying?
Both observed the battle. Both are just stating what the witnessed .. calling one a liat for an observation is a bold statement .. if you wish to correct my observation so be it .. use fact and clear words please
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would anyone value contact with crazies?
The Bible is very clear that ultimate judgment is reserved for God to dish out. But God does require that Christians judge other Christians. However, we are instructed to, more-or-less, leave the non-Christians alone. Indeed, most of the atheists and agnostics that I interact with have a lot of bad experiences with judgmental Christians.
It never once occurred to me that you would be insulted that I don’t spend my time forming my best arguments to preach at you. I assumed that you don’t care what I think sin is since you are not interested in conversion. You generally tell me when you think my arguments are insufficient and challenge me to make better ones. If you haven’t noticed, I usually make a post or series when you do that. That method seemed to be working passably.
No insult was intended.
As previously noted, here I am making the more limited claim that Christian leaders must not be anonymous. I do so because it is easier to grasp the argument intuitively, while the more general claim is a harder argument to make. I don’t see the need to make it here, especially since I’ve already discussed the topic at my blog where any interested parties have already commented.
As I stated at WK, withholding information is not necessarily a lie. Privacy is permissible in many situations. Privacy can be used in a deceptive way, but there is nothing essential about privacy as a concept that requires this: some privacy involves lies, most does not. Someone coming here to interact with the content has a reasonable right to privacy.
This does not apply to Christian leaders (e.g. Dalrock, Lexet, Jack, DS, WK, Gunner Q, etc.). These are those who use their blogs to promote Christianity, to act as witnesses for Christ. None of these are shy about pushing Christianity (It’s called the “Great Commission” for a reason). They are not acting privately any more than the preacher standing on a box in the city square.
Authority is an essential feature of Christianity. In the Christian manosphere it is practically an obsession: wives must submit to the authority of husbands, men to Christ, Christ to God. I could cite dozens of Bible references, but I think we can agree that this is unnecessary. In the Bible, name is both a literal and a figure of speech for authority. We recognize this use in common English: “He speaks in my name” or “He speaks in the name of King So-and-So.” Those in authority are named and their identity is essential to their message.
Strictly speaking, a Christian leader may act anonymously, but only to the extent that the leadership responsible for him is not anonymous. And by anonymously, I mean their actual name, not their identity. It is essential that any anonymous Christian’s identity be known with respect to who is accountable for them. That street preacher I mentioned? If you ask him, he will tell you his name and/or what congregation he is is a member of.
Consider the Christian website GotQuestions. It is written anonymously. But if you read their “About Us” page, you’ll notice that the identity of the ultimate authority is known: S. Michael Houdmann is fully accountable for the content of the site.
The 9th commandment enjoins against “bearing false witness”. Unlike the mere legal setting, Christians are always witnesses for and of Christ. It’s not something we can just turn off when we are tired: Jesus is our master and we represent him at all times. It makes zero sense for a witness to be anonymous. A witness cannot be anonymous. Indeed, making a claim without putting your name (identity; authority) behind it would constitute a false witness.
On a more practical note, if one of these bloggers sins against someone, the dispute resolution process laid out by Jesus requires accountability by other believers, including bringing the dispute before the leaders of the church. It should be abundantly clear that an anonymous Christian blogger cannot be held accountable in the way that Jesus requires.
Now, let’s try a more direct approach. I’ve made this argument before on this forum. Perhaps you have forgotten it. If one is anonymous because they want to deceive others as to their identity, that is, by definition, a lie. Concealment and privacy are fine, but not a lie. The Nazi-at-the-door example is a good example. You can conceal the Jew, even refuse to say something, but you can’t lie and say something that is not true. How can you tell if an anonymous blogger is deceiving you by faking their identity? Easy: they have an online identity, an online persona. A truly anonymous writer has no identity (like the writers of GotQuestions). You can’t identify them in any way and they are not concerned with their anonymous identity. Their identity focus in their writings is entirely on their source of authority (Christ). Indeed, their words can rightly be considered the property of their authority (Christ), not themselves.
Boxer sez ..
Derek responds ..
First ..
Personal choices .. to out yourself .. and .. to include the expectation that non-believer’s follow the convictions of believer’s is fool harder at best .. irrational if not checked .. and unscriptural at worst.
Second ..
The above is some kind of virtue signaling or purity test. And, it’s all your own PERSONAL CHOICE that you and yours must suffer (unnecessarily) from it.
Did God’s men lie / disobey in the OLD TESTAMENT .. hmmm .. me thinks so. So take your purity test and virtue signaling and make it into a paper airplane.
King David could’ve taken his time and said the same thing.
Though we agree .. brothers should correct each other when they are wrong. And, you are wrong .. being anonymous is not evil or even sinful or sinister .. and it’s certainly not in the scripture that you must remain anonymous. Making the jump to being anonymous is the same as lying is an insult indeed.
To sum up .. you’re a great guy .. but, you’ve swung and missed on this topic.
… you must NOT remain anonymous …
Dear Derek:
I’m just goading you for laughs. Relax. Seriously though, I’ve always envied your ability to communicate in print. You seem to write at least as well as I do, in half the time.
What actually does annoy me is your uncanny ability to tempt me to spend three weeks talking to you on the internet, full time. I do have some very general comments about your rebuttal, but I’m going to have to leave it at that. I’ve been meaning to write something meaningful, and I’ve been meaning to do this for at least two years. I think I finally have the time to do this; and, we know we won’t both agree with each other, anyhow.
I understand that you think men like Dalrock, Jack, Lexet, and the other guys you have mentioned are “Christian leaders”. I think it’s difficult to justify this, without you demonstrating 1. each one of these individuals assuming the mantle themselves, or 2. a large flock of Christians taking orders from them, as their de facto leader.
While I don’t think that 2. is accurate, it may be that one or more have declared themselves Christian leaders in writing. If this is the case, I’ll concede your point. I don’t read those blogs, but what I know of these people is that Dalrock is more like a journalist, Jack is more like a self-help guru, and Lexet is running a vanity blog, where he pretends to be some legal scholar. On the one blog I know well (Dalrock), I never see the author soliciting people to confess their sins to him for absolution, for example, or trying to convert anyone (I have posted there for a full decade, and Dalrock and I have had a few sidebar conversations in email, and to his credit, he has never badgered me to be baptized or confess a faith in Jesus as God.)
While I can see your point, re: a subtextual command that Christian missionaries and priests be open about their identities while preaching or converting folks, I don’t agree that any verse in the New Testament suggests its a sin not to wear a name tag, while doing one’s hobby or everyday job. I work with tons of Christians, and none of them try to convert me.
There’s a more general problem re: names. Frege, Russell and Kripke will back my play on this.
When I was a little boy, my father called me JoJo
When I’m at work, my students call me “Professor J.” or “Mr. J.”
When I was on my high school football team, I was called Scrotum (long story, and not even kidding).
I’m known as Boxer here, and while you and I have never met, I’ve met several manosphere figures in meatspace.
I have a full legal name, that’s on my birth certificate and passport.
I also have two nine digit numbers, issued by two different countries (SSN and SIN)
Future Possibilities:
If I decide to convert to Judaism, I’ll probably adopt a Hebrew name for use when praying. (I’m considering doing this, just for the jokes.)
If I decide to emigrate to China, I’ll probably adopt a Chinese name, to appear in Pinyin characters, and I’ll probably get yet another ID number to go with it.
Some of these names I use aren’t rigid designators. They point to my full legal name. But, some of them are. They necessarily point to me. If you start thinking about the naming process, and what a name actually is, you’re going to rapidly come to the conclusion that your requirement, even for Christian leaders, is too complicated to be a practical requirement. One thing I like about St. Paul is that he seemed to want the lives of his believers to be easy, rather than difficult, on unimportant matters (circumcision, kashrut law, etc.), so this requirement seems unlikely even judging by the general direction of the text.
Best,
Boxer
Good luck with that: it is nearly impossible. If you pull it off, you’re either (1) a master troll with little left time to live or (2) a government shill not worth talking to ever again.
Maybe you should save your time and not go down that road. It is interesting, but it likely doesn’t directly refute what I’m saying, so it won’t prove anything:
1) Using a pseudonym can be deceptive in certain contexts, but the context matters, not the name. You’ll note that I post articles under a weak pseudonym.
2) The Christian is restricted in how they can conceal their identity. Again, this is contextual, but more importantly, it’s broader than just a moniker. Consider the role of priestly garb.
3) Anonymity does not require a name. Indeed, in the fullest implementation of anonymity, there is no pseudonym. A name is, at best, a useful proxy for discussing the philosophical and theological legitimacy of anonymity. Discussing pseudonyms vs real names simplifies the discussion of the broader issues.
@honeycomb
There are no examples in the Bible (OT or NT) where God approved when men lie. None. There are a number of examples where someone lied and was not explicitly condemned for it. There are many, many where men are explicitly condemned for their lies. Read the comment thread on WK, where I discuss all the ones raised by Christian lie apologists. But it goes beyond that. The Bible is unequivocal on the subject that lies come from Satan and truth comes from God. I quoted a dozen scriptures on that thread showing all of this, and there are many, many more I could have chosen.
See? That wasn’t so hard. You can disagree with me without misrepresenting me. That’s all I ask. I respect that you don’t agree with my position.
No, it isn’t. I was accused of being naive, that is, not having the personal experience to understand the issues and experiences of those truly at risk and not truly being a part of the aggrieved group. I disproved that by my personal examples. It’s ludicrous that a refutation/defense is used as evidence of virtue or purity. The person guilty of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is the one making the accusation of naivety, not the one defending themselves with evidence.
Really? Victim blaming? You should be much better than this. Moreover, it is completely false, but I’d have to divulge much personal information to show it. I don’t owe you that.
I don’t doubt that’s true. Getting back to Honeycomb’s point, I can’t find any examples in the Bible where anyone is condemned simply for using a pseudonym, either. Can you point to some verse where a pseudonymous character is condemned for his dishonesty in the text?
You didn’t disprove anything. The young men I see on a daily basis have been raised by single moms (many of them hardcore feminists) and they hate themselves by default. Sites in the manosphere are their first (perhaps only) opportunity to hear opposing views. You have no idea what this is like, and neither do I. You have no idea what sort of pressure these young brothers are under, and even if I think I might have some idea, I probably don’t either. You have no idea the consequences of them being found out (losing family members, being thrown out of their house, ending up homeless, being branded a domestic violence perp are all on the table in current year.)
You’re an older guy who grew up in a stable family with a supportive community. I had many of those same advantages myself. We have security and jobs and money and friends. Some of the manosphere dudes probably don’t have any of these things, yet. With that in mind, I’m careful not to call every dude who wants to keep a low profile ‘dishonest.’ I’m sure many of them have to deal with craziness I can’t even fathom.
That said, I really am done now. Feel free to have the last word, and thanks for an interesting discussion. You’ve given me a lot to think about (and whether they admit it or not, I bet the other peeps are grateful for your patience also.)
EveryONE (except our Lord Jesus) of the men of God (in the bible) .. disobeyed Him at some point .. Peter denied our Lord thrice .. was that a lie?
The Bible is a great example of an examined life. None of us are perfect hence our need for a perfect substitute.
I’ve said all I’m going to say about this subject .. and as usual .. when is all said and done .. more will need to be said and done.