Letters to the Editor
Canuckistan Bob
Published Letters: 787 Editor's Choice: 70
-
Oh Dear
[Read the article: Who are you, Anonymous?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Make a comment on a Broadsheet article, go off-line for a day, and all hell breaks loose. Well, I'm far enough down the list (200+) on a now old topic that probably no-one will read this.
I did post a comment in Broadsheet to the effect that I was confused by all the different anonymouses, some of whom seemed to be trolls (which is not an attack; some people - my mother for example - just like to have a good argument, and will provoke one, taking any side available, just for recreation: trolling, a description of behaviour, not an ad hominem). I got a pretty good reaction too, which included anonymous insults, anonymous put-downs, and anonymous taunting, which I thought was pretty funny.
(I have been awfully tempted to start appropriating various anonymous voices as a point of ridicule, as someone did on this thread, but really, it would have little class.)
Anyway, certainly numbering anonymous posters within a particular article would be a good idea, at a minimum. If not, I think that from now on I am going to work on the assumption that all argumentative anonymouses are the same person and are responsible for all comments appearing under that handle, and comment accordingly. They don't want to be a clear and accountable voice? Fine.
I don't know about the Since You Were Asking comments, I don't read them, but Broadsheet is a mess. Pretty much the only reason I started posting was to counteract some of the crap, I thought that reason & decency ought not to be drowned out, especially by overwhelmingly male voices, a few of us with Y chromosomes actually try and have some class. (My dear dad, god bless his soul, born when he was, was pretty sexist I suppose, but he was also a gentleman. I don't know where modern conservatives lost that.)
I think anonymity to protect personal information is a good idea. I've posted anonymously for that very reason myself (though not, so far as I can recall, on Salon, but I would if it seemed merited). But personal information and argument are two different things.
I think anonymity to protect your job whilst engaged in strong or violent debate is debatable or arguable (I think it probably isn't a good idea, that having a handle provides anonymity enough, but I can understand the thinking).
I think anonymity to confuse and belittle other people is wrong, and I also think that anonymity to prevent knowledge of your other vile and vicious posts from contaminating the pure intellectual beauty of your current put-down is also wrong.
I mean really, I'm sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, but would you seriously maintain that each of Hitler's speeches should have been considered in pure isolation from the others and from the rest of the man's life?
I suggest that the anonymous feature should be maintained, with within each article numbering to sort out who's who, and a special required field be added, visible to readers, detailing why the poster wishes to use the feature. (I for one will immediately skip all the anonymice who wish to have their ideas admired for their pure intellectual rigour, free from all knowledge of what else they have said before.) And the editors should have a much lower standard for deletion on the grounds of abuse in the case of anonymous posts (revealing deeply personal information or whistle blowing is hardly likely to be seem abusive, I would expect).
Because really, Broadsheet commentary in particular needs to be fixed. The viciousness, wingnuttery, and obsessive hatred of authors (and the blogroll of all things!) is completely out of hand.
-
Child Care Realities
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Amongst other things, I actually manage some child care programs.
Healthyskeptic is right about one thing anyway: money to pay her can only come from parents' pocket-books and the quality of care for the kids. As well, it can be pretty tough, even in a big operation, to hold positions vacant, childcare economics being what they are.
(Incidentally Healthyskeptic, do you think you could lay off the highly personal potty mouth a little? And play nicer with the other posters? They have feelings too, how do you think you made JoeDurian feel? How would you like it if someone made fun of your name? See, I told you I work in the biz.)
However, the thing raises some doubts in my mind too, as a good place to enroll my child. Corporate culture applies at all levels; the kind of organization that would fire a domestic violence victim by fedex does not seem to have the caring, supportive, humane attitude I would want to pervade any organization taking care of my child.
I mean, ever heard of a phone? If this happened to me (and several very similar things have), I would, you know, actually talk to her. Find out when she could come back. Explain that we couldn't pay for sick time, and couldn't guarantee to keep a job for her, because we need someone right now (its not like the kids can wait), but when she got better we would try, and see if there was something we could do. Oh yeah, and we were very sorry, and is there anything that I myself can do for you?
You know, like that.
So Ms. Lloyd is right to have some doubts on those grounds. I must say though, I can assure you that child care workers pretty regularly have stresses and distractions in their lives, as we all do. Very frequently this almost makes us better employees, as we throw ourselves into our work to forget about our troubles. And being bandaged-up in front of the kids is not a bad thing. Its what we call a "teachable moment" folks, and no a 4 year old is not too young to get the basic issues.