Several weeks ago, I wrote a post discussing whether or not we should be anonymous on the internet. To directly quote from my own post, I said the following at the start of the post:

On the basis of personal experience, I dare say the answer entirely depends upon circumstances.

There are various reasons why someone might wish to remain anonymous online. Some of these will be legitimate, and some, not so much. 

Emphasis mine, obviously.

My final paragraph:

With all that said, to return to the titular question, my definitive answer is ‘sometimes’. There are times when it makes little sense to expose personal details. There are times when a person may have a genuine need to protect their identity. Exactly what those circumstances are is something we can only judge for ourselves. There are other occasions where it is clear people are seeking to avoid scrutiny for all the wrong reasons.

Why is it then, with this said, in plain English, that some people choose to state the following?

His argument is distorted, convoluted, and distracting and he really doesn’t answer the question.

Part of his problem is that he groups so many people into one category- if you’re being anonymous, then you are being malicious and not accountable. That is an over-generalization as people have their own reasons for why they do not identify themselves when they are online.

What we bear witness to here (aside from a blatant display of dishonesty and cowardice), is a move to strip my words of their correct context. This is not the first time this has happened to me, it will not be the last, and I have witnessed this on several other occasions, across a variety of debates and discussions. The angry MGTOW that I exchanged many words with would often strip away the context of my arguments, in order to attack points I had not made. I witnessed one high-profile debater in the Star Trek vs Star Wars scene strip paragraphs down to sentences, and sentences into fragments, in order to change the context of the points of others.

Context obviously matters. Taking into account the entirety of one’s words is how we maintain the correct context for any given response. It is the quick, easy, and I dare say, lazy way out to zoom in on one or two sentences, and manipulate them to suit an opposing view. Indeed, it is fundamentally dishonest, and also quite cowardly. Mind you, that is the point. The person or persons who seek to remove the correct context do so because they know if they take the entirety of a paragraph, or page, or document, it would mean something different, something they cannot refute or rebuke.

This is not to say that taking things out of context cannot happen accidently. In an era where communication by text and email has surged, it is very easy to incorrectly interpret what someone has written. We read emotions into messages that aren’t there. I imagine a lot of us are guilty of thinking a text message is curt, when it isn’t. However, with blog posts and site articles of any meaningful length, it is more difficult to accidently take things out of context. With the above example, it is clear that my words were deliberately taken out of context, because I made myself clear, not one, but twice, that there are legitimate times for someone to maintain anonymity online. With this example, is painfully clear that effort was taken to distort the context of my words, for a dishonest, cowardly agenda.

What the internet age has brought us is an added challenge to taking content out of context. It is easy for anyone to verify what I wrote, and obvious that it was taken hideously out of context in these circumstances. Therein lies why the author of those words declined to either name me, or link to my post. Mr Thiessen is afraid of context, along with accountability, which are troubling traits for a would-be professional writer-for-hire. Unfortunately for him, when he engages in such charlatan antics, it is easily discovered and exposed.

Perhaps he will correct his errant post, and perhaps he will even apologise for lying, though I am not optimistic on either count. I have however taken the liberty of archiving his post, so if he does make changes, his original deception will not be lost. Perhaps in time, he will reconsider the importance of the correct context.