One of the essential distinctions between this and what, say, Raichik does (or used to do; I think 1/2 or more of her videos are staged now by her drooling simps), is that dipshits like her and Stonetoss and Carpe Donktum have power, encased in these fake identities, while the people they put targets on don't. Exposing them as regular scummy people snatches some of that power away bc it shrinks the impunity those identities afford them. It ain't much but it's something.
The people I'd like to see really de-anonymized are the millionaires and billionaires that pay for Kirk's platform and the other vectors that brainwash ordinary folks into the right-wing duckspeak you'll hear at the supermarket or the family reunion or on the job.
People like Trump's owners Bob Mercer, Carl Icahn, Wilbur Ross, Diane Hendricks, etc. They have power, their affairs are dirty as hell; and yet no one touches them or makes choads like Kirk or Hanania or Gutfeld or Trump defend them and their massive con game hidden behind this culture-war bullshit.
Excellent report. You raise some very good points. The internet allows bigots and racists not only anonymity but also a "village" of like minded scum to praise, support, and elevate each other. Nothing good can come from that๐
That's the thing - this is happening because we now have *an entire media ecosystem* dedicated to the worst people on God's grey Earth, celebrating them as brave members of The Resistance because they're "not afraid" to deal in bigotry, slurs, and paranoia. "Congratulations!" they say; "here, take your seat at the Grown-ups' Table!"
Thank you for the conclusion. That these misanthrope are doomed to forever the mold they made of themselves. There is some satisfaction in that. Remember Ann Coulter? Exactly!
Ugh I was disgraced with Coulter's awfulness when my wife stumbled upon a clip of her being interviewed by vivek (aka that techbro twerp who tried to win the gop primary as brown trump). It was an unfortunate reminder that she and ghouls like her still exist.
Thereโs a difference between some random chud yelling racist epithets on a college campus and Raichik who already had a massive following when she was exposed despite trying to remain anonymous. Itโs the latter folks who should be outed. The longer sheโs been out there talking and being interviewed the more sheโs been exposed as a complete whack job. Eventually her day will have passed. That has value. Even if in the short run she has some financial gain. A lot of that is just people showing support who wonโt purchase again.
Another very thoughtful essay which I largely agree with, Peter. You continue to be one of the writers I most look forward to reading on Substack.
I would just offer this dissent, though.
Question: if you were Black or Jewish (or perhaps both since there certainly are Black Jews!) and your doctor was exposed as someone anonymously posting Neo-Nazi content, would you keep going to that doctor? Would you trust a person whose ideology wants you to dead to make the right decisions with your medical care?
And in turn, might you then value the work that was done to expose that you had a doctor who may not really be keeping you safe?
Anyway, you make good points, and I'm really not a fan of this variety of activism, but there are arguments in its favor too which are not easily dismissed.
If for example Stonetoss did turn out to be someone with any real world position of trust, like a doctor especially or an educator, then if would absolutely be in the public interest to expose that. I'm coming into a fairly consistent "case by case basis" philosophy on most things. Like I don't think Stonetoss deserves anonymity, but upon the discovery that he was a random incel rather than anyone in a position of power over anyone, it might have been better just to let him have the anonymity. I dunno, I like to stress at all times that I'm a descriptivist and not a prescriptivist--god help anyone who puts me in charge. I appreciate the kind words!
I can relate to that more closely than I wish I did.
Circa 2018-2021 I was the director of research at a start-up Zionist activist non-profit. We focused on anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia - I actually spent fuckin' 20 hours a week just on that. But whatever - that's where they wanted me to research and I needed a job and cared about the subject (the anti-Israel content, not Wikipedia specifically) so I went for it.
I researched all sorts of stuff related to Wikipedia and ideological bias on it for years. I considered all sorts of methods for potentially countering it -- almost all except for the most difficult being dead ends.
However, one of the potential methods of countering it which my boss (who died in Summer of 2021) was really hot to pursue was unmasking who the worst of the worst anti-Israel editors actually were - thus as a way to scare them into not continuing with their anti-Zionist activist editing.
I really was not a fan of this activist-research approach at all - it didn't strike me as all that ethical or that effective. But whatever - I knew that I was unlikely to actually unmask who these people were, even though I used to be a professional skip tracer for a debt collector and have some online research skills. I literally got to spend more than 2 weeks - over 40 hours - trying to hunt down the identity of just one anti-Israel editor.
Ultimately, I was able to find a guy who I was reasonably sure was the Wikipedia editor. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence. However, I did not have 100% conclusive evidence. And I was actually glad that I did not and thus we couldn't really move forward with writing anything about him. Why? Because from what I saw the guy had serious mental health problems. I realized that outing him might result in him doing something self-destructive. He may have been a big man in the Middle East and Left/Right political sections of Wikipedia, but in the real world he was a tremendously small man who I felt sorry for, having struggled with my own mental health challenges.
I don't recall all the details of the discussions with my boss that followed - I explained all this to him about my suspicions of who this guy was and the potential consequences of outing him - but afterwards I didn't have to do much skiptracing and investigating of anonymous Wikipedia editors.
So yeah - I know exactly what you're talking about here...
One of the essential distinctions between this and what, say, Raichik does (or used to do; I think 1/2 or more of her videos are staged now by her drooling simps), is that dipshits like her and Stonetoss and Carpe Donktum have power, encased in these fake identities, while the people they put targets on don't. Exposing them as regular scummy people snatches some of that power away bc it shrinks the impunity those identities afford them. It ain't much but it's something.
The people I'd like to see really de-anonymized are the millionaires and billionaires that pay for Kirk's platform and the other vectors that brainwash ordinary folks into the right-wing duckspeak you'll hear at the supermarket or the family reunion or on the job.
People like Trump's owners Bob Mercer, Carl Icahn, Wilbur Ross, Diane Hendricks, etc. They have power, their affairs are dirty as hell; and yet no one touches them or makes choads like Kirk or Hanania or Gutfeld or Trump defend them and their massive con game hidden behind this culture-war bullshit.
Excellent report. You raise some very good points. The internet allows bigots and racists not only anonymity but also a "village" of like minded scum to praise, support, and elevate each other. Nothing good can come from that๐
That's the thing - this is happening because we now have *an entire media ecosystem* dedicated to the worst people on God's grey Earth, celebrating them as brave members of The Resistance because they're "not afraid" to deal in bigotry, slurs, and paranoia. "Congratulations!" they say; "here, take your seat at the Grown-ups' Table!"
Unfortunately, true๐
Thank you for the conclusion. That these misanthrope are doomed to forever the mold they made of themselves. There is some satisfaction in that. Remember Ann Coulter? Exactly!
Ugh I was disgraced with Coulter's awfulness when my wife stumbled upon a clip of her being interviewed by vivek (aka that techbro twerp who tried to win the gop primary as brown trump). It was an unfortunate reminder that she and ghouls like her still exist.
Thereโs a difference between some random chud yelling racist epithets on a college campus and Raichik who already had a massive following when she was exposed despite trying to remain anonymous. Itโs the latter folks who should be outed. The longer sheโs been out there talking and being interviewed the more sheโs been exposed as a complete whack job. Eventually her day will have passed. That has value. Even if in the short run she has some financial gain. A lot of that is just people showing support who wonโt purchase again.
Another very thoughtful essay which I largely agree with, Peter. You continue to be one of the writers I most look forward to reading on Substack.
I would just offer this dissent, though.
Question: if you were Black or Jewish (or perhaps both since there certainly are Black Jews!) and your doctor was exposed as someone anonymously posting Neo-Nazi content, would you keep going to that doctor? Would you trust a person whose ideology wants you to dead to make the right decisions with your medical care?
And in turn, might you then value the work that was done to expose that you had a doctor who may not really be keeping you safe?
Anyway, you make good points, and I'm really not a fan of this variety of activism, but there are arguments in its favor too which are not easily dismissed.
If for example Stonetoss did turn out to be someone with any real world position of trust, like a doctor especially or an educator, then if would absolutely be in the public interest to expose that. I'm coming into a fairly consistent "case by case basis" philosophy on most things. Like I don't think Stonetoss deserves anonymity, but upon the discovery that he was a random incel rather than anyone in a position of power over anyone, it might have been better just to let him have the anonymity. I dunno, I like to stress at all times that I'm a descriptivist and not a prescriptivist--god help anyone who puts me in charge. I appreciate the kind words!
I can relate to that more closely than I wish I did.
Circa 2018-2021 I was the director of research at a start-up Zionist activist non-profit. We focused on anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia - I actually spent fuckin' 20 hours a week just on that. But whatever - that's where they wanted me to research and I needed a job and cared about the subject (the anti-Israel content, not Wikipedia specifically) so I went for it.
I researched all sorts of stuff related to Wikipedia and ideological bias on it for years. I considered all sorts of methods for potentially countering it -- almost all except for the most difficult being dead ends.
However, one of the potential methods of countering it which my boss (who died in Summer of 2021) was really hot to pursue was unmasking who the worst of the worst anti-Israel editors actually were - thus as a way to scare them into not continuing with their anti-Zionist activist editing.
I really was not a fan of this activist-research approach at all - it didn't strike me as all that ethical or that effective. But whatever - I knew that I was unlikely to actually unmask who these people were, even though I used to be a professional skip tracer for a debt collector and have some online research skills. I literally got to spend more than 2 weeks - over 40 hours - trying to hunt down the identity of just one anti-Israel editor.
Ultimately, I was able to find a guy who I was reasonably sure was the Wikipedia editor. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence. However, I did not have 100% conclusive evidence. And I was actually glad that I did not and thus we couldn't really move forward with writing anything about him. Why? Because from what I saw the guy had serious mental health problems. I realized that outing him might result in him doing something self-destructive. He may have been a big man in the Middle East and Left/Right political sections of Wikipedia, but in the real world he was a tremendously small man who I felt sorry for, having struggled with my own mental health challenges.
I don't recall all the details of the discussions with my boss that followed - I explained all this to him about my suspicions of who this guy was and the potential consequences of outing him - but afterwards I didn't have to do much skiptracing and investigating of anonymous Wikipedia editors.
So yeah - I know exactly what you're talking about here...