Dear OpenEyes,

Can I be blamed for trying to fathom who Mr. Joker was referring to when he/she said: “why is it that only the fisherman in Chilaw are protesting? there are fisherman in the south, in Trinco, in Batti, why are they not protesting?

Don’t be naive.”

Naturally, my imagination ran riot! (as it often does). It must be an international conspiracy. There are so many forces arrayed against poor Sri Lanka, it’s almost as if the rest of the world has no other day job.

p.s.
I forgot to add Martians to our list of foes – I hope you will excuse the oversight. I am confident that many Sri Lankans are being anally probed as we speak, doubtless to fathom who has the more glorious ancestors. (this fact I have determined thanks to the deft arguments by Off the cuff)

Gamarala,
come on, don’t only think about a conspiracy but try to respond on subject!
You know what? The truth is hidden int he alst palce where one would ever look for it: in his/her own heart! Please, stop looking at the “outside conspirators” and seek the truth in your heart!

Dear David,

I agree with you about Dunce and I have criticised his writing several times.

My post was intended to drive home a point to a few posters and writers of articles (amongst them even people like Suren Raghavan) who have tried to take refuge when cornered, by trying to attack a pseudonymous poster’s pseudonym, instead of defending what they themselves wrote.

OTC, I think the point is to use your real name, regardless of whether it sounds real or not. If you do, and if you continue to make your opinions known, people will certainly figure out not just if it’s your real name or not, but also who you are. I think the larger point is the continued hypocrisy of people like the Dunce who quote Niemoller without really understanding him, and when challenged pretend that there’s some great threat against them for the idiocy they publish. Often such people mistake embarrassment for fear.

Keynes!

You may believe what you want to believe …. Ha ha haa

David,

My reply is here
http://groundviews.org/2012/02/17/live-ammunition-and-citizen-enemies/#comment-41994

I have not seen DJ demanding the identity from a poster either and my respect for DJ was declared when Sarath used my post to criticise DJ.

But I noticed this comment by Pandukabaya and my post was addressed to him and Sarath.

Speaking out’ is not masquerading under a pseudonym and writing blogs to a website. Use your name like I do. There are plenty of others who are also not afraid STILL to use their names.

The point I made and proved is, that the Reader has no way of knowing that a post appearing under the name of Benedict Perera was actually written by Benedict Perera or by someone else.

If I did not declare that M.N.I.M Perera was a pseudonym, no one would have known it. Hence any name is virtually anonymous on the web.

, the admonition, “Use your name like I do” by Pandukabaya, is meaningless. No one knows whether Pandukabaya is the real name of that writer.

So you are right, we don’t have anything to debate.

This is what DBS Jeyaraj had to say to Dr Rajasingham Narendran when the latter declared that he hardly commented on the former’s blog due to the personal attacks he received:

“You are one of the few people who comment under your own name. Most of your detractors are people who write under bogus names. They do not deserve your response. You do not need to enter into discussions with them. Please treat them with supreme disdain and keep writing whatever you want to say whenever you feel like it” (http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/4439 )

Clearly, comments by people who write under their own names are regarded more highly.

Lol, OTC, I don’t think the debate is whether one can find a realistic-sounding pseudonym. Nor was there, as far as I can see, any demand by DJ or anyone else for people to identify themselves (despite the irony of anonymous commentators making personal attacks on people like DJ and myself). The debate ensued when an anonymous commentator (the Dunce in this case) quoted Niemoller’s poem; a poem clearly calling for public protest. If the supreme irony of an anonymous entity calling for public protest cannot be seen by you and Sarath, I fear there is no point in continuing this debate 😀

“In contrast, do you see where Niemoller explains why “declaring the identity” is necessary or is of value? Can you decipher from the poem as to what value is added by “revealing identity”, if in fact that is what he meant by “speak-out”?”

You seem to assume, Sarath, that Niemoller’s poem is explaining the advantages of declaring one’s identity over remaining anonymous. That is not what he is talking about. He is talking about standing up and speaking out. Niemoller doesn’t suggest any methods of doing so; so to therefore ask why he hasn’t brought up the anonymity issue is pretty absurd. Has Niemoller called for public protests, or poster campaigns, or letter writing to officials, or any of the other forms of protest? Of course not. He doesn’t tell us how to stand up and be heard; he only tells us that it is essential. So to expect Niemoller to clarify his stand on anonymity is not possible. All we know is that Niemoller most certainly did not stay anonymous.

“Or, do you think one should follow what one thinks Niemoller said, just because one thinks that is what Niemoller meant, even if one has no clue why he may have said that?”

Given the way Niemoller’s poem is quoted so widely, it is clear that many people are in fact following what they believe he is saying, regardless of why he said it. What we do know that Niemoller said is that people should stand up and voice their dissent. If you believe it is possible to stand up and be heard anonymously, that is a different matter; but it is a matter you need to explain, because I don’t see how that can be possible; hence my question to you.

“Niemoller’s objective was indeed to express opinion that would hopefully help bring out a favorable result.”

Correct; which is why you need to explain how that can be done individually in a world where no one is opposing the status quo (assuming that that was the world Niemoller lived in). This and other forums are not ballots where one simply enters one’s choice; these forums are places where people voice an opinion, and opinion requires identity for it to be credible. One suffers when one stands up, and I quite understand the urge to avoid suffering, and that’s quite an acceptable urge. However, we shouldn’t then fool ourselves into thinking we are in fact standing up when indeed we are not.

“But, why would you interpret that Niemoller also intended it to be used as an opportunity to claim personal credit”

Where have I made any such interpretation? Why must identity be coupled exclusively with credit? It can just as easily be coupled with punishment. The fact is identified voices are far more credible (and therefore weighty) than anonymous ones.

“P de Silva’s comments seem to read that “value” of identity declaration is the bragging right one gets for bravery”

I see no such intention in that worthy’s comments, regardless of your reading of it. Could you quote the exact comment that gave you that impression? Nevertheless, it was I that posed the question to you, and not the aforementioned.

“To reiterate, if you can convince me there is value to revealing identity, then certainly I will be happy to accept your interpretation.”

Shouldn’t you convince me of the value to opinion in remaining anonymous since I asked you the question? In a ballot, there is a fixed number of voters, a number everyone is aware of, and that each person is given one vote. Outside of such a strictly controlled environment, identity is needed to substantiate the fact that such an opinion is indeed being voiced by a particular segment of society. If I were to anonymously declare that as a migrant worker I believe X, or that as a lawyer I believe Y, or that as a Sri Lankan I believe Z, what value is in that? Can my stated opinion be used as a unit of measure in a debate on a particular subject; be that subject the executive presidency, devolution, taxation, or anything else? Clearly not. For my stated opinion to be of value, I must be identifiable as a relevant commentator. If Niemoller had anonymously criticized the Nazi policy on the Jews, who could have said that he wasn’t a Jew himself, or that his words were not merely Allied propaganda? Instead, because he and many other Germans were identified opponents of the regime, we know today that there was indeed German opposition to such policies. It was a value the Nazis themselves recognized, and it was why Niemoller and others were punished.

“couldn’t one then argue that to express “fearlessly” one should indeed be encouraged to choose the option of anonymity if one fears potential risks!”

Certainly, if one assumed that “fearlessness” is simply the absence of fear, and not in fact the ability to overcome one’s fear; an ability synonymous with courage. Under your logic, one could be absolutely fearless and not express an opinion whatsoever, thereby be absolutely free from risk!

“Similarly, if ones is going to be just obsessive on the wordings and continue to insist that “out” in “speak-out” implies not hiding under pseudonym, then one can also then argue that Niemoller said “Speak” and that should then invalidate “writing” or other communications other than “speak”. Why then “speak-out” is to be rigidly interpreted without context?”

Could you explain Niemoller’s context that would interpret “speak out” as having the same meaning as “speak”?

“On the secret ballot issue, you asked “When you vote anonymously, are you doing the above?” – Yes, of course, because I (you) have made my (your) opinion known, instead of remaining silent or uninterested.”

What if there is no convenient ballot on whether to gas the Jews, or activate the 13th Amendment, or withdraw the military from the NE? Would you wait for someone more courageous to create enough of an opposition to the status quo so that a ballot could then be called for in which you could “fearlessly” voice your anonymous opinion? Unfortunately, on most of the great issues facing humanity, there is no ballot available.

“My question was what is behind the logic of allowing “secret ballot” if anonymity is to be abhorred. Isn’t it to allow one to cast one’s opinion “freely and fearlessly”?”

In the context of Niemoller’s poem, he clearly wasn’t calling for Germans to be fearless at the ballot box, since one would have to wait for a ballot to be both fearless and anonymous. But Niemoller says nothing of anonymity (as you yourself point out); he simply asks us to speak out, regardless of fear. So how can one speak out if one requires anonymity to be “fearless”, except by ballot? Is your opinion then that one must only opine via ballot?

“Lastly, David, would you be willing to guess the likely intent behind P de Silva’s and Dayan’s insistence on the need to reveal names?”

I realized long ago that attempting to guess the motives of online commentators in order to decipher their comments blinkers oneself to what they are saying.

“I suspect sinister motive – to stifle or discourage opposing views by either intimidating or ridiculing the authors and thus attempting to minimize the value of their opinions the bloggers want to share. Let me know if you can think of other, good-faith reasons.”

Can you point to any such examples of identified commentators being thus intimidated or ridiculed into silence here in the SL forums? Isn’t it a fact that identified bloggers such as Dayan Jayatillake, DBS Jeyaraj, Prof Michael Roberts, etc continue to say what they wish to say in spite of such attempts? If one is sincere in what one believes, and courageous in standing by that belief, how can one be ridiculed or intimidated into silence?

“If not, don’t you think it is indeed this opposition to anonymity that is truly undermining Niemoller’s revered advocacy that de Silva and Dayan pretend to cherish and uphold?”

Since neither of the above gentlemen quoted Niemoller (he was quoted by someone preferring to remain anonymous), how do you deduce that they “cherish and uphold” Niemoller’s beliefs? The question should be, as I asked before, how is it possible to follow Niemoller’s call to speak out if one prefers to remain anonymous. I still await your answer on that.

M.N.I.N. Perera,

“Only the desire to be honest prompts a person to use a pseudonym that conveys it is a Pseudonym, while maintaining anonymity.”

So, you finally paid me a complement.