spill it!

Gavin always has a bunch of beans around just waiting to be spilled but he never does. He’s careful that way.

Ees eet legeet to out on de outers, hombre? Then me an’ all my Messican amigos weel make their Go-Go Taquitos creamier than they remember!

¡Vamanos!

I have nothing against gays (my uncle and sister are both gay) but I DO have a problem with the idea that someone has a “right” to conceal the truth about themselves, or that revealing this concealed truth is somehow unethical. I’m under no obligation to help you fool others into thinking you’re something you’re not.

I’m willing to fight for the right of gays and lesbians to be who they are, but I’m not willing to fight for their “right” to pretend to be something else.

but I’m not willing to fight for their “right� to pretend to be something else

Funny, but you didn’t post that under your real name. And, since you don’t have a right to pretend to be something you’re not, ergo, you’re legitimately outable?

Well then. Since we have no right to pretend to be what we’re not (whether that be not gay, not ill, not addicted, not grumpy, not in possession of stolen property, et cetera ad infinitum), we can do away with such pointless abstractions like the 4th and 5th Amendments. Throw HIPAA out too, while we’re at it.

And here’s a big “so what” about the massive VA data-theft case–PFC Hypothetical Wintergreen has no right to pretend that he doesn’t live at 666 Spearmint Lane in Waukesha, after all. And Valerie Plame? That’s what you get for leading a double life, right? Right?

I thought it was his identity, not his sexuality, that was revealed?

At any rate, gays who don’t announce they’re gay online aren’t “pretend[ing] to be something else” unless they actively claim to be heterosexual or attack homosexuality. Just not talking about sexual preference is not pretense; one’s sex life is a matter some feel is private business that they have the right to keep private, whether they’re gay or not.

you’re legitimately outable

Sure am. Knock yourself out. My site is designed so anyone with a three-digit IQ can easily figure out who I am and how to get in touch with me.

If I want to maintain an alias, it’s my responsibility to maintain it. It’s not your job to help me do so. If you figure out my secret identity, more power to you.

Realist, I think you missed the point.

The point is more about whether you have the right to keep that info secret should you so choose, and whether NRO or anyone has the right to spam that info of yours everywhere they please. It has nothing to do with anyone “helping” you retain your anonymity.

You may not care if they spread your name everywhere; that’s your choice. Armando no longer has that choice; it was stolen from him.

You may not care about your name getting out, but what if it was more than that? Unless you’re wearing a shiny gold halo, there’s probably something about you that you’d prefer people not shout from the rooftops. Your first post indicates that you don’t think you have the right to prevent that.

Don’t go here: http://www.myspace.com/sspruiell

There is absolutely nothing for you to see and certainly no photos which you could alter in mischievious ways, were you so inclined.

point is more about whether you have the right to keep that info secret should you so choose

You can certainly try. But you DON’T have the right to expect others to assist you in your efforts, unless you’re paying them to do so.

Armando no longer has that choice; it was stolen from him

Oh, please. If he’d been serious about keeping the information secret, it wouldn’t have been there for someone to find and reveal. The only thing “stolen” from him was his naivety, which he’ll be better off without.

You’re right about one thing – like most people, I DO have a thing or two about me I’d prefer people not shout from the rooftops. I prevent that from happening by NOT TELLING ANYBODY ABOUT THOSE THINGS. If someone finds them out, it’s because I SCREWED UP AND DIDN’T KEEP THEM SECRET. That’s not anyone’s fault but mine.

I don’t have anything to add to the conversation about the ethics of blogging anonymously, but I would like to point out that this controversy raises other issues. Specifically, what does it say about work in America that people fear the loss of their jobs and/or careers if they are “caughtâ€? engaging in political speech?

I don’t know the details of Armando’s situation, since I don’t really care for or about him, but I’m sure I’m not the only person who lives and works in a so-called “at-willâ€? state. That means that my boss can fire me for no reason at all, at any time she chooses. That’s why I would prefer that she not read my blog – if it pissed her off so much that she wanted to fire me, she wouldn’t have to fire me for having a blog she didn’t like. She can just terminate my employment. And this is hardly the only example of the undue power employers hold over their employees. Our bosses are variously entitled to our urine, blood, hair, retinal patterns, credit records, email, phone calls, and (through the miracle of making everyone a “manager”) unlimited quantities of our time.

I would suggest that one of the reasons why more Americans aren’t more agitated over BushCo’s violations of our privacy and our liberties is that most working Americans are already quite accustomed to having their privacy and liberty trampled upon…by their employers. The Orwellian tendencies of the current government were entrenched in the American workplace long before Bush came along. I suppose it’s no coincidence that he’s an MBA.

I prevent that from happening by NOT TELLING ANYBODY ABOUT THOSE THINGS. If someone finds them out, it’s because I SCREWED UP AND DIDN’T KEEP THEM SECRET. That’s not anyone’s fault but mine.

That’s why we let thieves to run free and laugh heartily at the jolly scamps and their exploits: it’s the property-holder’s fault.

Motherfucker. Can’t even write a sentence to properly.

I hope everyone who thinks John Cole is some sort of “honest conservative” reads his comments in this thread wrt Thers’s outting.

Even the main post, in which he condemns NRO for the Armando outting isn’t as good as what it’ll be spun as — he had to fight himself to admit that the Armando outting was all the wingnuts’ fault.

I never ever understood why Cole is held in such esteem by any lefties whatsoever. But then they used to say the same good things about Tacitus.

I just dont understand it. I know the bar is set very low for expected decency among wintnuts but why the fuck should it be? It’s like people want to like Cole like the wanted to like Tacitus in the same way that people Norman Mailer used to want to like criminals and make excuses for them.

Fuck those guys, seriously. Outting is bad period; the only slightly mitigating stance I can see is when an outter is in turn outted by an outtee — a tit for tat sort of thing. Otherwise, it’s awful and evil and we shouldnt pat on the back and trip over ourselves to congratulate wingnuts who struggle to arrive at this conclusion (and THEN demonstrate that they have no fealty to the principle once one of their wingnut pals is a guilty party).

John Cole sucks.

Guh. Well, Bubba, you’re not the only one having problems with that, obviously. I shoulda used the preview.

The Orwellian tendencies of the current government were entrenched in the American workplace long before Bush came along.

Indeedy. And conservatives don’t care about corporate totalitarianism because it’s not the *government* doing it. But ultimately, from the end-user perspective–that of us little people–it becomes a distinction without a difference.

John Cole sucks.

What is “Balloon Juice” anyway? It sounds nasty.

In general I’m in favor of legalizing drugs and such but I think that if we outlawed the possesion and consumption of the stupid berry juice by one Realist the world would be a better place.

don’t have anything to add to the conversation about the ethics of blogging anonymously, but I would like to point out that this controversy raises other issues. Specifically, what does it say about work in America that people fear the loss of their jobs and/or careers if they are “caught� engaging in political speech?

No shit. You’d think we’d be past all that now. One of the things that kept me out of both the corporate world and the teaching profession was how much privacy one had to sign over just to get a paycheck. Now it’s filtered down to personal political opinions expressed online, which is some serious Joe McCarthy shit. Buy the ticket, take the ride, and all that, but it seems to me the whole “outting” thing is less an attempt to get to the truth of who’s saying what and more a way to silence potentially damaging voices. You’d think we’d be past all that, but no…

Now it’s filtered down to personal political opinions expressed online, which is some serious Joe McCarthy shit.

I don’t believe this is new, it’s just available. In the age before the modern ability to track down your every thought, The Man was none too pleased if you spent time anywhere talking about unions or unpopular politics, but it wasn’t breathtakingly easy to figure that crap out either.

Layers of management have an interest in justifying their own existence, and every policy they add means more work for them, some better, some worse. Fucking around on the internet and discovering something somehow “enforceable” is a pretty awesome gig compared to trying to get the idiot in receiving to stop smashing the light-bulbs with the forklift.

John Cole sucks.

I concur.