I suspect this whole "outing anonymous bloggers" issue isn't going away any time soon, so it might be fun to check in on someone who has decided to expound on that very issue while slathering himself in childish hypocrisy while doing so.
I speak of one "Neo Conservative" over at "Halls of Macadamia", who takes me to task for my wish to remain anonymous while, oddly enough, doing it from a blog at which he posts anonymously. Ah, the unintentional irony. Anyhoo ...
As I read it, Neo seems to think I deserve outing because I was, well, intemperate in a post some time ago. This is moderately amusing since Neo doesn't seem to have any problem with loading up on some well-chosen invectives himself.
For instance, here's Neo periodically making snarky references to "moonbats." And here's Neo wielding an amazingly wide paint brush in describing the "lunatic left." Yes, Neo, you're the very person who should be lecturing the rest of us on a lack of decorum and civility, or something like that. But that's not why we're here. There are bigger points to make.
See, I'm guessing that Neo has no problem with bloggers retaining their anonymity as long as they behave themselves. Or, at least, behave themselves using a very Neo-centric definition of the word "behave." In other words, as long as you don't say anything that pisses Neo off, you're safe. But if you offend his delicate sensibilities, well, all bets are off. In short, if I may paraphrase, Neo's position is that you have a right to anonymity, unless you write the wrong things; then you don't. And doesn't that sound disturbingly familiar?
It's like saying, "Sure, I believe in freedom of speech. Well, OK, not for that speech over there, but for everything else, you bet."
Or, "Well, of course I believe in freedom of expression. Unless it's expression that I don't care for."
Or, "Naturally, I support freedom of religion. Well, not for those peoples' weird religion, but for everybody else's, absolutely!"
Or, "In the interests of fairness, all religious schools in Ontario should be funded equally. Well, actually, when I say 'all,' I mean all of those religions that I agree with, of course."
See how that works? Right-wing hacks like Neo are the masters of the conditional qualifier. We all have inherent rights ... except for those people who we'd rather not have those rights. Yes, the hypocrisy is delightful, isn't it?
And I'd be more than happy for Neo to address the actual points I've made here, but I suspect he'll just call me a "moonbat." After all, it's what he does.
AH, THE COMMENTERS: By all means, read the comments over there. I particularly enjoy the first one:
Roy Eappen said...
Why bother? CC is pretty insignificant. I suspect he is a 17 year old high school student with bad grades.
Yeaaaaaahhh. That's Blogging Tory "Dr. Roy," casting aspersions on my intellectual prowess. Wrap your head around that baby.