Moments of Permanence - On differences in oppression, derailment, and the hierarchies of hurt

From: tevriel.livejournal.com Date: April 6th, 2009 05:04 am (UTC) (Link)

No, that's fine; there's a giant conceptual gap between unsigned and signed with a name even if that name is unlinked to anything. I'd prefer a link to your blog or other journal, if you have one, but not everyone does, so a name will do.

Among other things, sarcasm comes across as significantly hostile in the absence of any kind of signing.

You are welcome to disagree with things ataxi has said, and even to be sarcastic, etc; I just reserve the right to define the terms on which I am happy for discussion to take place on my LiveJournal, and absolute anonymity is not welcome.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous) Date: April 6th, 2009 05:28 am (UTC) (Link)

You do indeed have absolute right to control what goes on in your space. Obviously there's a lot about livejournal culture I don't understand. Sorry again for the faux pas. But I hope you don't mind if I ask what the difference is between a signed and unsigned anonymous comment?

-Amanda (oops, I almost forgot to sign!)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: tevriel.livejournal.com Date: April 6th, 2009 05:51 am (UTC) (Link)

That's fine. I make strong allowances for cultural disjunction.

The difference, I think, is the way people perceive intent; with LiveJournals and OpenIDs being so easy to get, and therefore a means of attaching a consistent identity to comments being readily available, anonymous comments come across as trolling, or abusiveness, bereft of any kind of accountability.

Whereas signing your message, even if just attaching a name not your own to it, indicates that Anonymous Coward status is not your intent. Anonymice are usually just flaming.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous) Date: April 6th, 2009 05:59 am (UTC) (Link)

Ah, now I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me; this is all very interesting.

- Amanda

(Reply) (Parent)