> And I think there is a strong correlation between those two things.
There might be a correlation between those in this case.
But just because it - perhaps (I haven't actually read the "article") - applies in this case, that's a far cry from being a general rule.
Think of it in terms of - for example - a muslim speaking up against oppression in their home country, or a Tibetan speaking up against China. Should they not be allowed to do so anonymously?
It is possible in most cases to judge merit on content/argument alone.
It's very difficult to imply or deduce someones motive, whether you know who they are or not. In most cases, you would be mistaken.
I find it helpful to remind myself that most people do what they do out of love, even if their actions are/seem utterly insane, or are/seem destructive.
There might be a correlation between those in this case.
But just because it - perhaps (I haven't actually read the "article") - applies in this case, that's a far cry from being a general rule.
Think of it in terms of - for example - a muslim speaking up against oppression in their home country, or a Tibetan speaking up against China. Should they not be allowed to do so anonymously?
It is possible in most cases to judge merit on content/argument alone.
It's very difficult to imply or deduce someones motive, whether you know who they are or not. In most cases, you would be mistaken.
I find it helpful to remind myself that most people do what they do out of love, even if their actions are/seem utterly insane, or are/seem destructive.