> The only thing I'm upset about is what I perceive to be a large case of groupthink. I have no other dog in this fight.
Suuuuuure. Please link to your many other posts (on a wide variety of topics) complaining about groupthink, especially ones where you don't open by complaining about how much you have to hear about these darned women and their abuse. And then follow up with a defense of how you totally deserve to be free to be an anonymous dick without consequences, no matter what cost there is to others.
> Weev posted a response that contained specific assertions. If he is lying then rebutting them should be quite easy, yet the only responses are ad hominem dismissals.
Weev is a famous troll, willing to say literally anything for entertainment and/or his own convenience. There is no point in refuting him. If you do, he will ignore you or come up with another set of lies. It's like trying to engage with a tobacco company PR rep. Reasoned dialog is a privilege earned through demonstration of responsible use of dialog.
> I could expound on the necessity of anonymity and lack of centralized control, but it would fall on deaf ears here. The same argument would be well-received in a Snowden thread.
Which is odd given that Snowden didn't actually make use of anonymity. He used the traditional method, which was journalist-mediated anonymity.
Look, your precious anonymity is safe. Nobody will end that. It's not even possible. For at least our lifetimes, literally anybody will be able to rent a server and open a website. What people want is to prevent anonymity from being used as a platform for abuse, harassment, and threats.
If you want to preserve the socially valuable sorts of anonymity, the best thing you can do is to condemn the abuse and work toward limiting it, while providing those who need anonymity with hard-to-abuse flavors of it. That will work a lot better than coming here and being anonymously shitty while demonstrating zero empathy for victims of abuse.
Suuuuuure. Please link to your many other posts (on a wide variety of topics) complaining about groupthink, especially ones where you don't open by complaining about how much you have to hear about these darned women and their abuse. And then follow up with a defense of how you totally deserve to be free to be an anonymous dick without consequences, no matter what cost there is to others.
> Weev posted a response that contained specific assertions. If he is lying then rebutting them should be quite easy, yet the only responses are ad hominem dismissals.
Weev is a famous troll, willing to say literally anything for entertainment and/or his own convenience. There is no point in refuting him. If you do, he will ignore you or come up with another set of lies. It's like trying to engage with a tobacco company PR rep. Reasoned dialog is a privilege earned through demonstration of responsible use of dialog.
> I could expound on the necessity of anonymity and lack of centralized control, but it would fall on deaf ears here. The same argument would be well-received in a Snowden thread.
Which is odd given that Snowden didn't actually make use of anonymity. He used the traditional method, which was journalist-mediated anonymity.
Look, your precious anonymity is safe. Nobody will end that. It's not even possible. For at least our lifetimes, literally anybody will be able to rent a server and open a website. What people want is to prevent anonymity from being used as a platform for abuse, harassment, and threats.
If you want to preserve the socially valuable sorts of anonymity, the best thing you can do is to condemn the abuse and work toward limiting it, while providing those who need anonymity with hard-to-abuse flavors of it. That will work a lot better than coming here and being anonymously shitty while demonstrating zero empathy for victims of abuse.