Thursday, April 16, 2009

Village Idiot of the Day, April 15, 2009: "gusknows"

Due to pressing issues I Hate Canton was unable to make the big decision on Tuesday's Daily Village Idiot Award. There are so many idiots (and their progeny) to choose from and sometimes not the time to separate the chaff from the chaff.

Pressing issues still live, so we will make this short and sweet: Wednesday's Daily Village Idiot Award goes to "gusknows" for his astute observations on the conundrum of identity in In defense of posting anonymous comments on websites. We commend "gusknows" for having the courage to rebel against Descartes' (right) "thinking substance" theory on the pages of the Rep.

Unfortunately, the rebellion is a day late and a dollar short in light of the work of Lacan, Althusser, and Foucault (below left) and other deconstructionists, not to mention Marx. But let's not go there. This is, after all, I Hate Canton, not Folie et déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique aka Madness and Civilization though we see plenty of madness and not much civilization in the pages of the Rep lately.

"gusknows" spurred a debate on the meaning of identity with the following short essay, in which he questions the identity of known persons with a special concern for the identity angst of Don Cirelli, but his compassion is for us all. No matter who we are, no matter how well-known we are, no matter who knows us, we are all, in the end, anonymous.

(spelling, paragraphing, etc. as posted)

You can think whatever you want, because you have proven my point. Alot of people on here including you have the dillusion that if they post a screen name that could be an actual person that makes there opinions matter more, and they mean squat, just like my posts or anyone elses. They are just opinions by anonymus people using a screen name, if a person wants to portray someone by putting a name of a person up, fine, but in the end no matter how much they cry or whine claiming to actually be that person they are still just an anonymus person behind a screen name. When you and others that have a screen name that could be an actual person question peoples comments because their screen name does not match a real name does not give you any right to queston, because no matter how much you try to portray an actual person with a screen name that could be an exact person you are NOT you are just an anonymus person who could choose any screen name you want.

To all of those people who use screen names that could be actual people, before you try and question a comment because of a screen name you are attempting to portray yourself as superior to others, and that is what upsets some on here, because you are just like anyone else an anonymus person with a screen name that anyone could choose.

Followed by:

I know this does not cover all people but to the ones that use a screen name that matches that of an actual persons name.
'Do you think you are superior over others because you use a screen name that matches an actual persons name??'

Followed by:

Obviously you dont realize it when you do it, everytime you make a comment such as, 'if people didnt hide behind a screen name they wouldnt say things such as.....' That is exactly what you are trying to portray, and its not just you doncirelli, there are a few others who do it often. When you see someone make a comment you disagree with or dont like say something such as 'I wonder if that person would say that to their face' or something to that extent. When you or anyone who try to portray themselves as an actual person by using a certain screen name and questioning ANYONES comments because of their screen name is attempting to make the claim they are superior because of what your screen name is. In the end we are all just anonymus people who can post whatever screen name we choose, therefore we are all equal no matter how much someone tries to make claim of being a certain individual.
Oh by the way, 'Am I superior over others? Generally, no' Generally no? so you do think at times you are superior, that again is what is called 'Dillusions of granduer'

Followed by

This is a fantastic thread. Everyone is able to see how some people think their opinion matters more than others. What is funny is reading the comments of some who just cant except the fact that no matter what they claim or what they say they are nothing more than an anonymus person using whatever screen name they want just like everyone else.

And, as of this posting, closing with

I personaly have no problem with anyone posting differing opinions or questioning comments. But as soon as someone questions someones comments because of a screen name they are trying to put the perception out that because of their own screen name they are better than others. And the people who post with what could be an actual screen name probaly dont realize but they are saying it about EVERY person by just questioning 1. Many people who are on here and use screen names that might not be an actual person are tired of having a select few continually question a persons comments because they do not use a screen name that matches an actual person. doncirelli and mary v parker, you both have made comments that I agree with and some I disagree with in the past and currently, (and there are many others that post with a screen name of an actual person, I am not singling out you 2 for any particular reason other than you are commenting on this thread.) but when you question anyones comments because of their screen name you are questioning EVERYONES comments because of their screen name and are maybe unintentionaly but putting out a perception that you are better than people who do not have a screen name of an actual person. How can anyone expect people to respect their comments when things they say show, maybe unintentionaly, that they dont respect others.
If people dont question comments because of whatever screen name they choose they show respect to all, when someone questions comments because of the screen name they choose they show disrespect or no respect to all because EVERYONE on here is just an anonymus person posting under whatever screen name they chose.

I don't know about you, but I Hate Canton is thrilled that such intellectually challenging conversations exposing the current existential Meaning of Man are now available to the great unwashed readers of the Canton Repository. Who needs to read Camus or watch New Wave cinema when we have "gusknows" on our side?

I Hate Canton gives genuine props to D Carey for his/her reaction to this identity crisis and for nailing "gusknows" and the octopuppets inhabiting the Rep. A sincere thank you!

D Carey
How terribly sad. Personalities no deeper than a game. People living for nothing but a win. The quality of another person's character means nothing. Respect, honesty, truth, intelligence, compassion - all meaningless. It's just points and scores for some people. Whatever has gotten into the water to turn so many people into sociopaths, I hope they cut off the supply soon. To the real people in the comments section - good luck to us all. We're going to need it.

As a side note, last night someone posing as Mary Parker, but not Mary Parker, posted under her name to make a point at how easy it is to fake identity on the Rep. If true, then the Rep has a bigger problem than just village idiots.


John E said...

D Carey should be awarded a special award for candor. No one believes an anonymous comment is less valid if it is presented properly but a personal attack by a nom de plume is beyond any recourse. How serious can one be taken if they are able to hide behind the skirts of anonymity? What courage does it take if you can't defend your own words?

The Rep has only a few choices. Monitor the site totally, not monitor the site at all and let the chips fall where they may or eliminate the comments/postings all together.

If the Rep has a glitch allowing posters to use a name that already exists, as believed, then the choices are severely limited to eliminate the comment section. If not, why not have the "lunch bunch" all post under the same name? No one would be able to figure who was posting what and the site would be exposed for what it truly is.

mary v parker said...

I think it's sad that Jeff would remove an entire thread of comments on a story that the Repository apparently felt newsworthy, rather than enforce the rules that he set forth. That's a little cowardly. It's like a parent, posting house rules, such as what time to be home, but when the kid comes in past that time, the parent just sets the clock back an hour or two to accommodate the child coming in a couple of hours late. Make sense? Yea, if you're a stupid parent.