| Dear Anonymous Blogger,
If you think you have an inherent right to your anonymity, you are embarrassing yourself. Not only yourself you are embarrassing history. Every courageous human being who has ever stood up and expressed an opinion in the history of time, should all collectively get together and run you out of town. The drama that is being displayed over this non-incident is nothing short of embarrassing to every human being who has ever had the courage to speak out under their own identity. |
 |
A few cases in point:
The leader of the civil rights movement was not known simply as Martin.
The leader of the yippies was not known as just Abbie.
And aren’t we all glad that The first & biggest name signed at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence is not JHcock1776?
The guy who stood up and said “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” did not have the luxury of using the pseudonym JFK1943
The journalist who had his career dashed against the rocks by Karl Rove didn’t have the option to just open a new CBS account under the screenname ratherNotBKnown.
No Anonymous Blogger, you grabbed at the limelight like Star Jones grabbing a hotdog at a RedSox game. (Notice that Star Jones just got the brunt of an insult, she doesn’t get to hide behind starchild65), and now that your identity has been revealed you want to take your ball and run home? Are you friggin serious?
So, Martin Luther King Jr., Abbie Hoffman, John Kerry, Mr. Hancock, Dan Rather, please join me in six part harmony in saying what needs to be said to this drama queen: 1..2..3..4.. “Boo-Fucking-Hoo!”
If Anonymous Blogger got “outed”, then it’s Anonymous Blogger’s fault for not being careful enough and Anonymous Blogger’s fault alone. There is no one else to blame, not even WIKI or the National Review. Any old school hacker will tell you, “information wants to be free”. If it ever finds daylight, free it will be.
If you have opinions in this world and wish to express them you have to be prepared to back them up with YOU. It’s such a simple tenet I can’t believe it’s even being debated.
If expressing your views is too risky to your professional career then you have a choice. Quit your job or STFU.
Anonymity is not a right except for undercover cops and CIA Agents and the like. Lawyers, thankfully are not granted this protection.
If an intrepid reporter had discovered that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, they would have been well within their rights to report it, and report it they would have.
Obviously our Mr. Felt was simply much more clever than you Anonymous Blogger (and with much more at stake and many more people working to uncover it), but had he not been, he would have been named long ago and rightfully so. That’s just the way it works. You know what they say about kitchens and their propensity for getting a bit warm..
In short, Anonymous Blogger I have two suggestions/options for you if you don’t want being the internet’s biggest asshole to become synonymous with your real name.
- Stop blogging.
- Stop being an asshole.
Sincerely,
Brian Keith Browder
Chicago, IL
[Update] I am nothing if not a follower of rules. I amended this article and eliminated all references to the person this letter is addressed to. If you want to read the actual letter you can go HERE and read it in it’s glorious unedited form. If someone crossposts the original at Dkos for me, I will change this back to it’s original version.
Update [2006-6-9 11:32:9 by Brian Nowhere]::It has been brought to my attention that site rules dictate cross-posting this at dKos. As I am banned over there, this is not possible so I am respectfully requesting assistance in doing this from anyone with posting privileges over there.
In the interest of cut-n-paste simplicity, I have uploaded the formating code for this article in text format to this location.
Thank you in advance for any assistance that can be given.
Does this still count as META?
Brian, it’s a bitch being new, cause you never know what you’re going to step into and the FAQ here doesn’t give you every guideline. I’m sure you didn’t know it, but the rule around here is that if you post a diary that attacks another site or blogger, you have to cross-post it there. If you’ve been banned there, then you have to ask somebody here to cross-post it for you. (I’m not volunteering.)
Because this blog gets a lot of DKos refugees, it’s all too easy for it to slip into being known as the anti-Kos site. BooMan, as the blog owner and a friend of several bloggers over there, asks us not to do that. You can decide for yourself, of course, if that is acceptable to you.
(This rule against attacking another blog/blogger in a diary does not extend to comments. If you criticize, say, Armando or DKos, in a comment you’re not expected to cross-post it.)
I hope you won’t be discouraged by your run-ins with the rules here. I think you’ve about hit ’em all, already. 🙂 You have a great wit and we’re all on the same side, and I look forward to reading your next diary.
i was not aware of that policy.
Fact is, I am banned over at DKos, so I respectfully ask, no beg for someone to crosspost this over there for me.
I recommended this because I think internet security and anonymity is a fascinating subject and needs to be discussed. I agree that if your identity is very sensitive you ought to do more to protect it.
Nicely done, kansas.
Why, thank you, boran2.
Yup, BooMan is definitely away from the computer.
There’s also a full moon on Sunday.
I dont mean to bash “Boo” but I have found this site more interesting since all the Celebrated Bloogers went to Vegas.
Maybe we should take up a collection and send them all to Disney World next week and let Kansas monitor the site.
She’s cool.
kansas runs screaming from the blog
I get the feeling from some of these comments that the Booman might have a problem with this article.
Is there anywhere on the net where a person can just be controversial? That is besides my own empty canyon like expanse where I am constantly forced to ask myself, “If a man blogs but no one reads it, is he really blogging at all?”
where I get perplexed is why would anyone post something like this about a person who is not even a member of the site?
I would not have posted this here it all were it not for the fact that the number one recommended diary here is titled Fighting Back — Wikipedia — Armando which offers the POV that Armando has some sort of inherent right to anonymity somehow.
I disagree and think it’s an important subject, so I wrote this article/open letter as a counterpoint to that.
So while this may appear to be about some asshole lawyer named Armando who is/was a poster at dKos, it’s really about a much larger issue than he, which is the concept of whether people have a right to maintaining internet anonymity.
My position is that since you do not have this right in the real world, you should not expect to have this right in the world wide web either. Your anonymity is your responsibility and yours alone and if you get “outed” you have no one to blame but your own carelessness.
I think it’s an important debate to have and this site seems like a good a place as any to have it.
That’s my take anyway.
that it’s a worthy debate. In my opinion, you made this about Armando and not anonymity with your opening salvo
Introductions matter.
And I have taken steps to remedy the situation.
If I would have doing so would have made me hit the rec list, I would have done it hours ago 😉
Thanks for helping me out.
I like it better without the name. We all know who you’re talking about, but the point is it that this applies to all anonymous bloggers as well.
plus, then you don’t have to cross-post and, to me, it doesn’t seem like you really need to anyway. this debate has grown bigger than just being about Armando and dKos at this point.
Well it applies to all anonymous bloggers who are also lawyers and can be considered the internet’s biggest asshole, but I know what you mean.
This debate is much larger than just Armando and the Orange Empire. The devine irony is that a guy who should be trying to minimize the damage was the spark who exacerbated the discussion.
He gives a face (or a name) to the issue.
I don’t think the idea is to avoid controversy, but that he wants his website to be about more than just bashing Kos, even if the bashes are valid. I’m not sure whether or not I’m supposed to step in here and remove or hide your diary until you can find a way to get it cross posted on Kos, but I won’t. Just try to get somebody soon. I think you could amend it to get your point across without stepping over whatever line exists in the sand and then point to the unedited version on your own website. Maybe that’s stupid on my part, but it would be better than to lose the whole diary.
I am working on it now and if I don’t get someone soon, I guess i will amend this to make it legal.
Maybe it is because it is hard to create an account to leave comment.
Thank you for pointing that out. I need to take a look at this.
“During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.”
You ought to do some research before embarassing yourself.
This took me 6 seconds to find.
“Mrs. Dogood was Franklin’s first pseudonym, created when he was sixteen years old and serving as a printer’s apprentice to his brother James. Silence Dogood was a middle-aged widow who looked at the world with a humorous and satiric eye. Her letters dealt with a range of topics from love and courtship to the state of education in Massachusetts. In all, fifteen Silence Dogood letters were published in James Franklin’s New England Courant.
Caelia Shortface and Martha Careful — Franklin wrote mocking letters from these two “ladies” to get even with his former employer Samuel Keimer for stealing some of Franklin’s publishing ideas. The letters were printed in the American Weekly Mercury, a newspaper published by Keimer’s competitor Andrew Bradford.
Busy Body — Franklin’s Busy Body letters were also published in the American Weekly Mercury. Miss Body’s letters were filled with humorous looks at the battle of the sexes and barbs at local businessmen. Gossip was Busy Body’s stock in trade.
Anthony Afterwit — Franklin created this “gentleman” to provide a humorous look at matrimony and married life from a male point of view. Mr. Afterwit appeared in Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette.
Alice Addertongue — Miss Addertongue was a thirty-five year old gossip who provided Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette with stories of scandal about prominent members of society.
Richard Saunders — Of all of Franklin’s noms de plume, Mr. Saunders became the best known. Richard Saunders was the “Richard” of Poor Richard’s Almanack. First published late in 1732, Poor Richard’s Almanack is probably Franklin’s best-known publication. Richard Saunders’ humorous sayings and advice filled the pages of the almanac’s twenty-six editions.
Polly Baker — Franklin used Polly Baker to examine the negative way women were treated in the eyes of the law. Ms. Baker had several illegitimate children and was punished for her “crime,” while the fathers, many of whom were prominent citizens, suffered no such hardship.
Benevolus — While in England, Franklin penned a number of letters under the name of Benevolus. These letters tried to answer some of the negative assertions made by the British press about the American colonists. These letters were published in London newspapers and journals.”
You make a somewhat cogent point, but your response has nothing to do with the inherent right to anonimity.
Many many writers have attempted to write anonmymously, Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorn Clemens), Stephen King (Richard bachman), Lewis Carrol (Charles Lutwidge Dodgsonand), Wonkette (Ana Marie Cox) your Benjamin Franklin.
What do they all have in common? The pseudonyms and their owners are all publicly known. They were all careless enough with their secret (intentionally or not) and we all eventually found out about it. Like I have stated, Information wants to be free, and free it will be.
The impetus in maintaining anonymity lies with the anonymous person and they have no one else to blame but themselves when they get “outed”. That is my contention and your hostile retort does nothing whatsoever to contradict my statements.
I am going to the movies with my son now so if I am not defending myself, that’s why.
we called them then. By “then” I mean pre-internet days.
It’s almost impossible to have one these days because someone is bound to Google a writer.
There’s a true murder case related in the movie “Heavenly Creatures.” Two teen-age girls plotted and killed the mother of one of the girls. After serving her time in prison one of the murderers left her country and became a mystery writer under a ‘nom de plume’ for many years. She was outed by a movie reviewer, news media converged on her small town, took photos of her house, delved into her history since the day she was released. She was not very good material since she led a quiet life and was well-respected in her community. I don’t think the revelation hurt her book sales either.
Anonymity is NOT the opposite of accountability.
NOC Status means no one shoots at you. It seems that not offering broader identity information means you may get shot at more, not less.
The whole question of identity lead me to write this rather rare diary here:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/6/9/16506/85337
NOC status actually means if you get caught, your on your own, so maybe there is a parallel after all.
I’ve never been a fan of anonymity on the Internet for several reasons:
I have more reasons, but I’ll stop here. Feel free to add your own!
but i just dont understand how if you comment or write or speak publically on contentious issues, you would ever expect to remain anonymous for very long.
One basic aspect of the right to privacy is the right to be let alone:
“The makers of our Constitution . . . conferred, as against the
Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of
rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United
States, 277 U.S. 438, 478; 48 S.Ct. 564, 572 (1928)(Brandeis, J.,
dissenting); cf. also Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4
Harvard L. Rev. 193 (1890). The First Amendment, for example,
protects one’s “freedom to associate and privacy in one’s
associations” and “the Fifth Amendment reflects the Constitution’s
concern for . . . the right of each individual `to a private enclave
where he may lead a private life”‘ Katz v. U.S. 389 U.S. 347, 350,
n.5; 88 S.Ct. 507, 510, n.5, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)(citing Tehan v.
U.S. ex rel. Shott 382 U.S. 406, 416; 86 S.Ct. 459, 465; 15 L.Ed.2d
453 (1966)).
This is why I said you were writing your own laws here. You are staking out a claim for a lawless zone, where any anonymous person can dig up stuff about you and post it anywhere they please. It doesn’t work that way. Access Does Not Equal Entitlement.
Because you have access to information does not give you the right to use that information in any way you choose. That’s why your doctor, lawyer, priest, therapist and banker can not take information about you to the general public to be debated in the public square.
You are assuming that the Internet has created a lawless world. It has not.
Your argument advances the cause of trolls and cyber-stalkers, and disregards completely that the laws to be safe in one’s home, in one’s person, and in one’s papers that go back to the Magna Carta.
Your argument is for electronic emminent domain…. but worse, with no compensation to the person who’s identity has been “outed” or used, and with no regard for the intent. What happened here was with malice aforethought.
I think you are getting closer, but your still not quite there. Your law is correct but there are other laws which override this law:
Trust me, Armando is a limited purpose public figure if ever there was one.
Now, if Armando can prove that Wikipedia or the National Review defamed him with malice, you may have a case here.
Your move Suskind. Can you prove malice in this case?
“If you have opinions in this world and wish to express them”
You assume that all we “anonymous” bloggers lean on anonymity because we lack the courage to stand behind those opinions.
I use anonymity to protect my online ID, from hackers, spammers, identity thieves, and especially Google which would make it easy for the former to piece together my life for nefarious purposes.
Actually, now that I know who Armando is I should have treated him with a little more respect. Anyway, if he is very good at his profession his cliens won’t care, but only if he wins or loses their case in court.
It’s really quite clear that your only motivation in writing this is to further 1) your own profile and 2) your ridiculous obsession with Armando. I know it’s an obsession because I spend very little time at Kos, and yet I am aware of your avid interest.
This is the point at which you’ll probably conclude that I’m an Armando fan, but a quick look at my comments and profile @ Kos will prove otherwise for those with a less myopic view.
Let me tell you why your absolutely assinine assertion that someone either has to give up their job or stop blogging is just that. Let me illustrate it personally.
I’m Australian, and I live in the state with the smallest population of just 468,000. On top of that, I work in environmental science, a small field. I work for the Federal Government, based in hobart. That narrows the field to just over 100 people. I’m also the state secretary for the state Greens party.
This is a small, poor state. There are very few jobs that pay well, and I am supporting a partner with chronic illness and a close friend who lives with us with the same. My job is a blessing, especially given we arrived here in 2003 with a few thousand dollars and nothing more. It gives us a home. Working in the public service is also a relatively honorable job, especially the department I work in.
But here’s the catch. The current Federal Government is very conservative, and has highly politicised the public service. Normal procedure if I want to be involved in a political party would be to ask the permission of the Secretary (top bureaocrat) of the party. Except that everyone knows that he is now obliged to give that information to the Minister, who is the Australian equivalent of one of your Fundie Senators. He hates the Greens with a passion, and will destroy anyone who he can who is associated with them. Coming clean about my political involvement is therefore not an option if I want to have a job, period.
There’s also the small matter that in bringing the perspective I do to current Federal government policy, I can actually make a difference. Yes you offensive little man, it’s actually possible for some of us to work within the paradigm to do what we can to make it as benign and even on occasion good as possible, while still actively working to replace it with a better one.
The reasons I remain anonymous must be screamingly obvious to most people with a brain. If you think I’m a coward you can go to hell, because again, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand I’ve already taken a very large risk. This blog is the only one, being largely international, that I feel comfortable being anything remotely approaching ‘me’.
So you think you have the right to strip my anonymity because of your ignorant and obsession-driven little crusade? Fuck you. Fuck you for being so arrogant and stupid to think that everyone has a choice about the job they take, or doesn’t try and make a difference wherever they can. Fuck you for wanting to strip away one of the few means people trapped in a such a job have of having a voice and participating in building something better.
I’m just curious, would you like to strip away the anonymity of the members of the RAWA in Afghanistan? After all, if you blow their cover they’ll only face stoning to death.
See, here’s the other major flaw in your pompous rant. There are untold hundred and thousnands of courageous activists who have fought anonymously for justice over thousands of years of human history. Fascism rather makes anonymity the only choice unless you like being tortured and dead.
Here’s a clue: The USA and Australia, and no doubt Britain as well have taken a strong tilt towards facism. There are many, many people who if they reveal themselves in these countries are in real danger of losing everything, even if it hasn’t come to the point of prison and death yet.
You do not have the right to silence someone’s voice and or strip away their livelihood.
And you’re a miserable little man for thinking you do.
I’m afraid you are missing my point, and I have clearly stated that you are well within your right to do whatever you want anonymously. I never claimed you didn’t have that right and that you should not exercise it. If you have the need for anonymity, you should do just that, both in the real and online worlds.
My point has been that if you wish to maintain anonymous, it is your responsibility to make damn sure you cover your tracks, especially if you seek or accept a high profile, and especially if your career, life, or marriage depends on it.
Even the RAWA in Afghanistan must take these steps as I’m sure they do. Their very survival depends on it.
Now if some asshole at the National Review decides to post the identity of a woman hiding from the Taliban, I do not believe there would be legal repercussions, but this is where the laws of common sense take over and we all know the asshole would surely be raked over the coals of public opinion and chased out of town by people with torches (or worse)and I would gladly lead in that charge.
Armando is not an Afghanistani female in danger of her life. Armando is an asshole lawyer who sought and attained a high online profile and then abused that status to abuse and bully others.
Now, I’ll admit Armando is an isolated case in this respect. In fact this post was originally aimed at Armando himself, not all online anonymous bloggers.
The only reason I changed Armando to Anonymous Blogger is because the rules of this site prohibit me from calling out a member from another site by name. So I’ll grant you that this entry appears to be broader in scope than it actually is.
But still I will stand behind my contention. Your identity is a possession, and therefore it is your responsibility to protect.
If I steal your car or your identity from you, it is clearly an illegal act and you have legal recourse (if you can catch me) against me. If I simply go out of my way to make people aware of your car or your identity this might be very annoying, but it is not illegal.
It is clear you are emotional about this, and I respect your passioned defense of your beliefs. But neither your anger at me nor your lashing out at my Anonymous Identity changes the fact that the world is hard my friend. If you are careless with your anonymity and suffer the consequences of said carelessness it is really and truly nobody’s fault but your own.
preemptive caveat:When it comes to a government digging into our privacy in such a way, it is a clearly different matter altogether. In the case of government intrusion, there are laws on the books prohibiting this.
Listen Mr Nowhere,
Firstly it’s truly pathetic that you feel the need to pursue another blogger like this, regardless of whatever your opinion of him. This is not Kos, this is Booman. Did you even stop and consider whether this diary would attract the same “drama” & its participants over here, and whether that is what this community wants – to be dragged into yet another shit fight over in the orange room?
Secondly, the points you make to “anonymous blogger” apply as much to any other anonymous blogger who has reasons for keeping their real identity secret, so you really haven’t got an excuse here.
Especially when you write things like
“
If you think you have an inherent right to your anonymity, you are embarrassing yourself. Not only yourself you are embarrassing history.
Every courageous human being who has ever stood up and expressed an opinion in the history of time, should all collectively get together and run you out of town.”
and (paraphrasing)
“if your job makes blogging too risky, don’t blog”
Yes, we do have an inherent right to an anonymous identity.
No, courage and anonymity are not mutually exclusive
It’s absolutely not your business or your call to tell people to choose between the level of risk and their job. You don’t know others’ personal circumstances, you ‘re not privy to their personal risk assessment or what motivates them, and your personal opinion that someone is an asshole and a bully don’t change that.
I think you really need to take a look in the mirror and ask who is writing with the most emotion and irrationality here. And you really need to get the fuck over Armando.
First. Let me make one thing clear upfront. Unlike a lot of people you may meet online who post opinions, I try not to claim to absolutely always being 100% correct.
I love nothing more than to have someone respond to something I wrote with an intelligent counter to my argument that causes me (and others) to rethink the position. To me that is the beauty of debate.
Your response did introduce some new food for thought that I will admit not having previously considered. For that I thank you. You have helped me gain new insights.
I only wish you had contributed to this discussion sooner, so your important additions could have been more widely read. Perhaps in your future debating of this issue, this piece will have had a small influence on you and help steel you against some of the arguments you will encounter.
As for this:
At the time this was written, the #1 diary here was a screed titled something like Fighting Back -Armando and offered the POV that Armando’s cause was a just cause for the netroots taking up arms against.
I did not agree, so I wrote this counterpoint to the assertions written there. I did not write this because as you imply, I am obsessed with Armando.
Your pejoritives and accusations aside (don’t get me wrong, your use of pejoritives are fair, don’t injure me & after all I used them myself quite often in this piece against the principle (though not against any commenter)), I consider what you have written an important and well thought out counterpoint to this piece, and my hope is generally that through discussion of important issues, the blurry and sludgy assertions that are made out here can be whittled down somewhat until finally there remains something resembling the truth.
In short, I am not backpedaling. I am giving credit where due. I still think that in many, if not most most cases, anonymity is more cowardly stance than standing behind your true beliefs with your true identity.
What you have done here (and I thank you for it) is point out some important exceptions to that general rule.
I am over Armando. I don’t truly know Armando, and I still don’t know his real name and don’t care. He’s probably a wonderful guy in real life. I’m merely reacting to the uproar his avatar has created here and used his example to stir up some much needed debate over this whole issue.
That said, I have admitted at points in this debate to experiencing a bit of the old schadenfreude in Armando’s case, as Armando is largely responsible for my banning over at dKos (Because I dared debate his specious assertions with him).
I don’t apologize for that. I still think in his particular case he got his just desserts and in the end what he did was greatly damage your more legitimate cases for online anonymity.
Lot calmer today, so I do apologise for my choice of language in terms of it being hurtful and pretty mean. I don’t apologise for being blunt, just ’cause I think as you’ve noted, it helped you think a bit, and to be honest, I don’t know if you would have got there without someone being blunt.
However I do apologise again for being so rude to you.
I’m glad you’re over Armando – I haven’t had enough interaction with him to really have a personal opinion, but obviously I’m aware that he really upsets a lot of people etc. I’m sorry you got banned and may well have got the short end of the stick. But it would be a darn shame to let one very strong personality ruin/rule your blogosphere participation.
I’m glad I gave you food for thought, and kudos to you for seeing past my rudeness to consider the substance.
I’ve just the very unpleasant experience of someone trying to ‘out’ me on a little local blog. I didn’t sleep that night, and began obsessively reviewing my finances and what contingencies I have. It’s that scarey. I hate being anonymous, wish I could shout my allegiances to the rooftops, wish I could go public etc. – but I can’t. and I really don’t have a “choice”. So you can probably guess that the outing of Armando and your initial response really hit a very raw nerve.
Yes, Armando’s case probably brings up an issue we need to consider and talk about – not a bad idea at all. But I think it has to be separated out from the individual personalities involved. Armando’s particular case in terms of his need for anonymity and how he handled it are to me entirely legitimate. We must create strucutures too where people in my and Armando’s positions can still contribute – heck “insider” knowledge is often some of the most valuable.
Yes, Armando (and I) are ultimately responsible for keeping ourselves as anonymous as possible, but I think you have to juxtapose that against the fact that what we are both trying to do in our own particular ways, is participate in the building of a movement, a new paradigm. To do that, you have to trust, and people only trust you when you give them personal information. Ultimately, it means having a contingency for when you will, inevitably, get outed. I have one, in that this current job has a 2 year contract, and I hope to have found other work by the end of it, that doesn’t clash so badly with my other activities. But there’s no guarantee, and I am well aware that I am on a sliding rule of risk here – someone, someday, probably another Green I might add because assholes exist in all organisations- is going to out me.
So anonymous people not only have to have personal responsibility, they need to the trust and support of those they work with to be able to participate fully. Otherwise our contributions are lesser and less hopeful and meaningful for us and others.
This to me is in many ways all about how do you build an organisation/movement etc. that allows people to participate and contribute in as many ways and forms as possible. One of the most obvious is to make sure you can be anonymous if you need to be.
cheers.
Re-reading your open letter, reminded me of a quote from the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer I read in Brian Leiter’s, Leiter Reports, post during his outing sage of Juan Non-Volokh of the “quasi-libertarian” Volokh Conspiracy last year. The whole Leiter-Non-Volokh is pretty interesting because it revolves around the same issue. Like Armando who is worried about his clientele, Non-Volokh was worried about getting tenure, therefore he used a pseudonym. Leiter whet after Non-Volokh because
Which in an update he links to a post where he provides a quote from Schopenhauer. In looking up Schopenhauer I can see why Leiter referenced him. Sadly, we tend to repeat history without really learn from it. We say we need to talk about it, but have we really? IMO, I don’t think so. From Schopenhauer’s Parerga und Paralipomena: