People Oppose Anonymity Because They Can’t Think For Themselves

Feminists and social justice warriors hate online anonymity. In the recent months, there has been a deluge of articles arguing that the internet is rife with harassment because people can hide behind online handles, and only total digital monitoring can make women feel safe online. Likewise, many in the manosphere have said the only way to root out fakes and posers positioning themselves as internet alphas is for men to write under their real names. Imagine that, men and social justice warriors in agreement. Too bad they’re both wrong.

In the early days of the internet, before AOL brought vast unwashed masses online, there was a utopic and perhaps naive vision, that anonymity would make the internet a place where ideas were evaluated based on their merit rather than who said them. Elite-approved experts were a constraint of old media. The internet was a meritocracy. It didn’t matter what the gatekeepers thought of you. If you had a voice and your content was good, you could have an audience.

It is ironic that social justice warriors would want to eliminate a system that removes race, gender, class, and age. You don’t know if the writer behind these words is an elderly Jewish woman, a grandfather of ten, or a very articulate thirteen-year-old. Sure, I write for Return of Kings and present myself as a young man, but how do you know?

I’m not saying that race or gender don’t matter. They obviously do, and if you’ve read my writing, you know I believe they do. What I’m saying is that who a writer is has no bearing on whether or not their ideas are true. By hiding his or her identity, a writer can keep the discussion focused on their ideas, rather then themselves.


Why People Oppose Anonymity

Anonymity forces you to evaluate a writer only on their work, which is precisely why so many oppose it. The people against online anonymity are intellectually lazy. They want to be able to tell what they think of an idea based on who is telling them to think that way. They want to nod when a minority, “alpha male,” or person who looks like them tells them something. Knowing an author only by their words forces readers to think abstractly, to think for themselves, and they hate it.

Social justice warriors and feminists hate anonymity because they do not believe in objective truth. They believe it matters more who makes a certain statement than what is being said. The same words that are okay for a black lesbian to say, might be offensive if a white heterosexual male says them. This is precisely why social justice warriors hate Anne Gus and #notyoursheild.

Likewise, even criminal accusations of rape carry more weight if the person making them has a vagina. Without being able to see the race and gender of the person speaking, social justice warriors and feminists don’t know what to think and have no idea what ad hominem to hurl.

Some in the manosophere hate anonymity because they are not actually interested in bettering themselves. They are looking for a strong father figure to tell them what to think and do. They want to see if the writer is alpha, so they feel comfortable blindly following him, rather than evaluating his ideas for themselves. If you’re willing to do something just because a self-professed alpha male told you it was alpha, it doesn’t make you alpha. It makes you a follower.

Something that works for one man may not work for you. The only way evaluate an idea is to actually try it out and think for yourself. There is no shortcut. No one else’s commands can make you the master of yourself. If you’re still worried about being “alpha” you will never become anything that remotely resembles the concept.


It’s Not About The Author – It’s About You

The funny thing about being anonymous is the assumptions people make about you. They’ll wildly speculate about your penis size based on an essay on gender theory. Or ascribe claims to you that you’ve never made. I’ve had people assume I must be a massive alpha male because I write for Return of Kings, despite me repeatedly telling them I’m not, and I don’t even like the term alpha male. These assumptions usually say more about the person making them then they do about the author.

The point of my writing isn’t me—it’s you. What did you get out of it? Have my ideas improved your life? If you come away from my writing thinking “This guy is the biggest alpha ever,” I’ve failed you as much as if you were to think “This guy is the biggest poser ever.” I want you to come away thinking “I can be the person I want to be. I can change my life in the way that I want to.”

Anonymity Could Change The News

Imagine if the focus was always on ideas, rather than gossip about the author. When Snowden leaked documents on the NSA, everyone wanted to know who he was. News companies ran stories on his girlfriend, his teenage modeling shots, his old gaming chatlogs—and ignored the largest domestic spying program in US history. Would the leaks have had a greater impact had the media been denied this juicy gossip?

One of the greatest digital revolutions of our time was released anonymously—itcoin. We still don’t know who created bitcoin. There’s been a lot of discussion about bitcoin, but all of it has been about the currency, not the creator (despite the medias best efforts to find him and harass a false target). What might have happened to the currency had there been a public figure behind it whose private life could be mined for controversy? Could the currency be put in jeopardy every time he opened his mouth and made a controversial statement?


The Push Against Anonymity Is About Power 

This is just the benefit of anonymity to an author’s ideas and writing. I haven’t even talked about the more common reason for online anonymity—protecting authors from witch-hunts and the blowback of controversial ideas. The manosphere would not likely exist had its early writers been forced to blog under their real names. Anonymity allows writers to talk openly about their sexuality and personal experiences without fear of family or co-workers reading their blog. If all Return of Kings authors wrote under their real names, I am certain we would be harassed in our private lives, because we are already harassed even under pseudonyms.

The real reason many social justice warriors are against anonymity is because it prevents them from harassing writers and getting them fired from jobs. It prevents tech companies from collecting accurate data on public forums. Even in the manosphere, anonymity prevents internet marketers from slandering their competition by claiming they are “not a real alpha male” without photographic evidence. Like most things, the push against online anonymity comes back to money and power.

I am not saying all writers should be anonymous. However the benefits of anonymity are rarely discussed, and the push against it is motivated by anti-intellectualism, and a hatred of ideas. To me, the red pill has always been about truth, and the willingness to pursue and see truth no matter where it leads. The rest is distraction. Leave the gossip to women. Let’s focus instead on truth and improving ourselves.

 Read More: Who Killed Adulthood in American Culture?

240 thoughts on “People Oppose Anonymity Because They Can’t Think For Themselves”

  1. This was fantastic. Thanks for posting this: I hadn’t really considered how important maintaining anonymity was.

    1. Why not? Donald sterling lost his nba franchise because of some bitch “sharing” his comments. This was everywhere and you have a penis. Do you live in a cave?

    2. If you want to see how important anonymity is, go post your ideas on Facebook and see what happens.

    1. In line with Forney’s “Why Men Should Not Go To College” article, this is also a major part of the reason of why the higher edu establishment in general is opposed to online forms of education, specifically, to allow people to be credentialed outside the brick-and-mortar academic cartel. Because it severely restricts the possibility of bias, favoritism, and nepotism, all of which oppose a true meritocracy.

      1. I think they’re threatened by it, but they’re also adapting (and potentially corrupting it). Their a number of online learning environments – like blackboard and moodle – which are good but actually provide very dangerous ways of controlling and supervising student participation. Tutors and administrators can get feedback on when you log in or out, how long you look at a thread or post, effectively what you’ve been doing or saying. Online learning offers huge potential for more democratic less authoritarian learning but there is also huge potential for ‘learning administrators’ and the powers behind them to assess students outside of any formal and valid assessment criteria. Assessment criteria are nearly always formalised in a way that suggests that only academic worth will be assessed when online learning environements as they stand offer universities and administrators ever greater means of assessing the person rather than work.
        There is a NUS (UK) campaign supporting Anonymous Marking but I haven’t heard anything about it for a while – needless to say universities are dead against it

        1. Online education will be as leftist as it gets. Everything and I mean everything is tracked.

        2. people know facebook is satan come to earth. Online learning is still young enough for safeguards to be developed in line with the purported values of the institutions that administer them. Referencing the concerns of ‘authoritative’ sources could potentially help make the case for such safeguards. Its not unthinkable that it could be acknowledged as an issue

      2. bingo. 60 year old, single mother, English teacher needs to mind fuck her teenage students in person. She can hold their grade from them, like a dog owner holding up a snack in front of a Golden Retriever.
        Online education makes it harder for her to do so.

    2. being anonymous also makes it hard to profit, which means it’s straight from the heart so to speak, with no biased profit motives….

  2. I completely endorse this idea. Even my avatar is based on a fictitious creation. DC Comics established the Red Hood to be an anonymous figure so that he could never be followed or subject to laws as he would or could be anyone. To test an opinion all biases must be removed so that it can be tested.

        1. Lmao! Don’t you know DC laws? Somewhere in the multiverse, there is a female Hawkman.

    1. AND I’M… uhh… hurr… durr…. nvm… I’ve got some papers to shuffle… excuse me…

    2. Just wondering if you’re referencing the original Joker identity or the Jason Todd version.

      1. My avatar is the Jason Todd model. I reference the anonymity of the original Joker identity of Red Hood. It is a bit ironic that a formerly dead man would wear the face of an anonymous figure.

        1. Indeed. If i remember correctly, the Jason Todd character had a rebirth by way of the Lazarus pits as well. Became..a Red Pill alpha hahah.

        2. Exactly! He makes the perfect avatar for a red pill introduction. Before this I was too blue for comfort!

  3. I totally agree. I make comments here and on other sites, and I’ve even written a couple of articles for ROK. I stand by everything that I write, but I maintain anonymity because of my career and the environment in which I work. At work I’m a hard worker and a team player, and I don’t talk politics. However, the environment is about as liberal and feminist as can be, and several of my coworkers are the type of SJWs that would try to get me fired if they ever found out about my views, even though they are irrelevant to my job.

    1. Isn’t it funny working with people you really get along with, and they think you are nice and competent, when in reality if they knew 1/10th of what you believe about the world they would try to scratch your eyes out on sight? I have developed a skill at work in portraying myself and nice and competent (mostly by being genuinely nice and competent) and people have no clue that I think women shouldn’t vote and discrimination should be perfectly legal, etc.

        1. I’ve read 1984 and the characters in that novel were lonely useless souless ignorant animals. The government was striving to put the final nail in the coffin and reduce humanity to pure animalism, complete with mindless gutteral noises indicating a few various emotional states,and bleating along with the herd for 2 minutes or more.
          Which is more inhuman: your nihilism or my good manners?

        2. Why sir it’s your “good manners” not my “nihilism” that is more inhumane…

    2. Yeah and its not normal that anything you say anywhere can be found by anyone anytime. Thats just giving weapons to your enemy.

    3. several of my coworkers are the type of SJWs that would try to get me fired if they ever found out about my views

      Of course, your misfortune is their gain. What makes us different is that we prefer ugly truths over pretty lies.

  4. The reason why people are opposed to anonymity is that they want to bully, harass and oppress people they disagree with.

    1. For evidence of this, simply look at any article that has attracted women to the comments (the recent tattoo article comes to mind)

      5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken

      About 99.99% of the time women engage in “discussion” in the comments, it is short, petty, back and forth bickering where there is almost no relation at all to what they are saying and the article at hand. This can be seen everywhere, facebook, news articles, etc.
      Any time I see “You ….” in a comment I skip it. The internet is too interesting a place for me to read one person’s observations about another person, neither of whom I know and neither of whom know each other. And public forums are no place for 1 on 1 discussions.

    2. They want to do the one thing Nazis were well known for: get people fired or blacklisted.
      They are no better.

    3. What you do is you take their arguments even further. If anonymity is not allowed online, then why should it be allowed in literature? Pen names should be illegal. Obviously, there is no difference here. Anonymous criticism is anonymous criticism.
      What they’re trying to do is limit free speech by making sure they can punish anyone they disagree with. There’s a long history of those in power trying to prevent anonymity so that they may punish any dissenters. Take Voltaire, for example. He used an anonymous name to criticize and mock the Catholic Church and the crown, but people were able to figure out who he was by his writing style. He was doxxed 17th century style. He was thrown in jail and eventually had to go on the run. Same shit different century. The SJWs wouldn’t throw you in jail, they would do the 21st century version, which would mean going to your employer and attacking your source of income and slandering your name online if you’re ever Google searched. Of course, they cannot do this to guys like Roosh, who makes his money by pissing SJWs off.

      1. I’m glad to see someone else gets it.
        I didn’t care for all of the FB Astro-turfing trolls in the tattoo stories. It was easy to identify them. The vast majority of those objecting to the stories had created disqus IDs just to comment on these stories. Most made fewer than 10 comments. Many just made one.
        Those trolls have an absolute right to their stupid opinions. I would never dream of shutting them down. One of the truly great things about ROK is the comments here are VERY lightly moderated. Even those which violate the TOS are allowed to remain up.
        I am absolutely in favor of judging ideas based upon merit rather than the credentials of the SJW, oppressed minority, or crusty professor who wrote them.

  5. Given the SJW track record of getting people fired if they don’t like their views, who would want to use their real name?

    1. Yes, but the great hypocrisy is that the SJWs wants to anonymously get you fired. They don’t want you knowing exactly who tattled because then you could take revenge.

    2. I use my real name because I *get* more business thanks to my views.
      I also won’t qualify myself to anonymous cowards in online debates.
      Do I work for corporations with feminist HR departments? Yes. Do I follow their rules? No.
      Defending anonymity in debate means being a pussy.
      Don’t work for others. Work for yourself.

  6. Feminists hate internet anonymity because it takes a good deal of the sting out of the prime and only tool most of them are capable of deploying in intellectual debate: ad hominem.
    You can see how many of them are incapable of using much else from the standard response in the tattoo thread: “small penis” is about as creative as most of them get, and against someone who they will never meet it’s ludicrously laughable.

    1. You’re spot on here. You mentioned “creative” in the context of a woman – I never expect creativity from a woman beyond the lies she employs in convincing you that its your child or the number of men she’s slept with

    2. You forgot “You never had a woman” or “You live in your mom’s basement.” the ‘big three’.
      The thing is, while statements like that may be likely when you are debating hardcore gamers, ROK readers only slightly overlap with the hardcore gamer community. Many of us have run the gamut of life and women, amd have come to hard red pill truths after a lifetime of lies.
      Most of us can simply laugh that off. They say “I pity the woman that someday marries you.” with little knowledge that I have been there, done that, won’t go back. Sure, I live in my mom’s basement, if you consider the ‘rest of the house’ the basement for the apartment I maintain for her. And my penis size isn’t a question I have asked myself for nearly 30 years. I am pretty certain much of the rest of the redpillosphere is similar.
      The Redpillsphere is not the same as the nerd ragers, and fortunately SJW’s are far too stupid to figure that out.

    3. Exactly. It’s harder to use a personal attack when you don’t know the person you’re attacking. Karen Straughan had to start making videos because feminists refused to believe she was female. She said they kept accusing her of being a fat, white, angry basement dweller with “mommy issues.” You know the drill.

  7. As someone who works in the industry… I must warn all of you that writing under a username or pseudonym is NOT anonymity. Your IP/Mac address is everywhere and data miners are using that to record and create profiles of your online activities. SJW’s would love to get their hands on this data for nefarious purposes.
    There are ways to undermine data collection. Use them now!

    1. Begin with using StartPage as your search engine…not the “let’s be evil” Google. Also consider downloading and begin using Stop Scripts regularly. A good proxy is also something to consider.

      1. Haha. It is highly likely that Google is referenced in the book of revelations. Either way be careful of Jews… and aliens.

    2. This one guy I know (one of the smartest men I personally know… and an engineer) refuses to talk about Google unless it is face-to-face.
      Ever since the incident with Edward Snowden he never let that off the hook. And he thinks that Google has far more power than they are letting on… he found some dirt on them about coverups and such.
      A part of me thought “tin-foil-hat”, but the other part thinks he’s probably right… As Google refines their algorithms and technologies, they’re going to have the ability to mine the hell out of all the activity on the internet up to the present… They could then sell that information to the government for profiling, social control, there is nothing stopping them from tracking you down for an RoK post they didn’t like for example.
      Untrackable web browsers and even DarkWeb might become a necessary thing in the future.

      1. Imagine the Fbi artificial intelligence equivalent of a file on every human on the planet. Now imagine the ability to selectively feed you news and search results to modify your mood, purchases and opinions. Just sayin…

        1. The U.S. and European elites secretly envy a North Korea-style total control system. A society where everyone spies on each other, a society where you can’t even take a shit without the explicit consent of some political commissar.

        2. Dude that sounds right on the money…
          Whenever I’m signed into Gmail I get adds tailored to me, YouTube videos tailored to me… What you’re describing does not seem far-fetched at all.

        3. It’s not far fetched at all. It’s mundane. And I must ask. You why are you still using gmail?

        4. protip: it’s just a program of programs. it’s just a machine. a tentative free service funded by your tentative compliance to datamine delivered ads.
          these are all different programs that interact. the mail system doesn’t do the mining, the mining system doesn’t do the ads, the adhost doesn’t even know the ads, etc. what links them are your cookie, flash store, and search/mine history within your gmail/gapps settings panel.
          solution: clear cookies, clear flash cache, opt-out. use the programs to run the change in program. don’t panic.
          doesn’t change the spectre of abuse, but the spectre is just speculation until you draw legal attention. and if that’s the case, use the internet better. anonymity is just a tool. datamining is just a fancy word for machine-driven fuzzy algorithmic classification even at it’s best. whether in real life with modest guarding of speech or online by trivial avoidance of trigger words/phrases/keys, always dance in these fuzzy shadows. don’t lament life just because a compute machine captured real life behavior.

    1. Looks like one of their webmasters got purged by HR and left one last fart to remember him by.

      1. Nice. Yep, that looks like Jon’s work…we let him go last week but I guess we didn’t check over his work.
        God, he must have hated those fat girls in HR.

    2. This *IS* funny. However, Walmart’s official response is not:
      This never should have been on our site. It is unacceptable, and we apologize. We worked quickly to remove this. -Jes
      It is a little rude and harsh, and you’re not going to get many fatties interested in clicking your checkout button with this language, but to call it unacceptable and saying it should never have been used is going too far. I long for the days of plain, simple language. George Carlin puts it so well in his critique on “soft language”
      Shellshock -> Battle Fatigue -> Operational Exhaustion -> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
      Fat Girl -> Big Girl -> Overweight -> Plus Size -> Curvy -> Generous sized (I looked it up!)

      1. Carlin may have inspired the dipshits who led us here, but the man was still gold. Or his comedy was, dunno about him.

      1. The truly sad part is how PC were becoming with everything. Crazy can no longer be called crazy….and fat can no longer be called fat.
        Fuck that…not in my world. If I see someone fat (man or woman), then that’s what I’ll say “hey, right over there next to the fat girl” or “that fat guy, right there”.
        It’s bullshit…you’re fat…get over it (or get into shape.

  8. People are opposed to anonymity because they want to attack the person, not the ideas.
    They can’t always destroy an argument or facts, but you can always destroy a person.

  9. Well said, and a solid article. At the same time I’ve found this site has directly inspired me to voice my less politically-correct views far more often in person — so long as arguments are reasoned, spoken with some conviction and hopefully a touch of eloquence, I’ve found most knuckleheaded social justice warrior types back off.
    No doubt a newly focused frame is the inspiration, courtesy of the redpill and its regular proponents on here. The “don’t give a shit” attitude changes everything.

    1. The debates are pretty easy with women. You have to use sound logic, facts and then just wait for them to change the subject (or go personal attack on you).
      That’s when you know it’s over. The latest one (women get paid less) is based on women being shitty negotiators. I don’t blame another man (or woman) when I get paid less…I blame myself for doing a shitty job of negotiating (and accepting) less pay.
      I’m hitting women with that one more and more each day. Women are the problem with their pay in the workforce..not men and not corporations.

      1. Great points. And on the “gender pay gap” note, I really liked what Athlone McGinnis had to say in an article from a couple months back:
        “If it is alright to assume that obvious physical distinctions between men and women allow for women to be given more leeway in one regard (assault), what is to stop us from also assuming that said distinctions allow for men to be given privileges in other regards (e.g., vast over-representation in certain high-paying fields that privilege their physical advantages and exacerbate the persistence of the gender pay gap)?”
        “And what of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)? Credible studies exist that indicate a natural male advantage with regard to hard technical/mathematical study. Should we allow such studies to limit our enthusiasm for promoting gender equality in STEM fields?”

        How Hypocrisy Prevents True Gender Equality

        1. Yep, I read that one and very good points in it. It demonstrates just how fucked up women are when they say they want equality….but they really don’t.
          There is no “gender pay gap”. Women do a shitty job at negotiating their salary and they’ll do more for less (or another women stabs her in the back for said job).
          I don’t blame a man for a lower wage….why should women get to blame men? Because it’s all they do, today….bitch about shit that they don’t have. It’s an art form for them.

  10. In light of what you’ve written, do you think the accusations of “cis, straight, white male” are a tactic to make people shed anonymity online? It certainly had the effect of making a lot of people reveal themselves to prove the claims wrong.

    1. It’s not a tactic…. it’s simply how SJW respond because of their indoctrination. Understand that to them there is nothing worse in the universe than a “cis, straight, white male”. The phrase is an insult, not a probe.

  11. Leftist and Feminist hate anonymity because it doesn’t allow them to use their favorite and only method of argument: ad hominem.

  12. It’s pretty sad that most focus on “who said it” rather than the merits of the content. Lets refer to them as monkeys who idol shiny objects.
    In the early days of the internet, owning a computer was reserved for those who exhibited the intelligence in operating and in many cases building one. Computers in the home were rare due to the intelligence requirements. The spawn of AOL brought the monkeys in droves, however it seemed ok back then because AOL was kind of it’s own universe and mostly mocked by beings of intelligence.
    Fast forward a few years and computers, or rather the OS, is being made “easier” to use so the monkeys won’t “feel” intimidated by having to actually learn something other than “push button make us go”.
    All one has to do is look at a modern day OS like Windows, Mac, iOS, etc. Touchscreen oriented, push button make you go driven, only really useful for entertainment purposes.
    That being said, in regards to the article mentioning anti-anonymity being about power, I would add that the root of it stems from stupidity. Knuckle dragging monkeys abhor intelligent, merit based thought due to either their own inferiority complex or sheer laziness; thus their continued pushing the “easy button” in attacking the person in regards to just about anything they do not like.

  13. This website used to allow anonymous guests to post comments, now only registered users can post.
    Just saying …

      1. That’s not the point. By publishing of this article the editors presumably agree with the importance of respecting the user’s anonymity in theory but their actions contradict that.

        1. It actually forces people (anyone) to be involved with comments (not just passing by and pissing out of the window).
          God knows how many screaming bitches we’d have on here with “guest anon” commets about small dicks, etc….
          The fact that you have to register has nothing to do with anon. You can use fake everything to register.

        2. Feminist and SJW blogs require you use your real name and email address when you comment. ROK does not. Most use Facebook Comments so you’re judged on your gender.
          Getting rid of guest comments allows ROK to prevent women hurling insults at us and leaving never to return, while providing a civilised debate with people who wish to respond to their comment replies.

  14. We live in a culture of experts, most of whom hail from within institutions that have been compromised and corrupted by drives for ideological purity that do not permit meaningful challenge to that expertise. SJW bloggers, with their legions of followers / supporters are an extension of this in some ways, not least because their authority to speak is based upon their reputation, and their reputation is based upon approval. Here an educational certificate and the approval of sheep serves much the same purpose of attesting to ones right to speak. As such the SJW enjoys an invisible ‘training certificate’ that attests to the fact he or she has graduated with honours from the Cathedral. Anonymity is obviously the only safe way to challenge the continuity between this culture of experts and party apparatchiks who increasingly seem to be merging the one with the other to produce a single platform for totalitarian thought.

  15. Woman here. I’ll post in the comment section on various websites that I read. It’s funny because whenever I mention I’m a woman SO MANY people in the comment section will accuse me of lying just because they think my opinions are “anti-feminist”. It’s actually quite funny. They can’t seem to comprehend that there are plenty of women out there who have issues with the current feminist movement. Basically the reason for me not using my real name is because I don’t want to get harassed in my real life. I don’t troll, though. I just politely express my opinion, yet that still seems to piss women off.

      1. I’ve read that Esther Villar received quite a few death threats over published the The Manipulated Man.
        But none of these Anita Sarkeesian followers seem to be interested in that.

        1. Selective outrage and persecution is the key characteristic of the SJW. They don’t ever realize this because their other key characteristic is lack of reflection

      2. It’s been going on for a long, long time. Look up Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first women’s refuges in Britain. Her research indicated women were not shy, retiring creatures and that the violence in the households she saw was mutual, not one-way. Feminists also sent her death threats.

        1. Just perused Pizzey. Fascinated stuff that of course gets buried by the feminist media and academia.

    1. Absolutely. I recently challenged Kendal Rae and her “fatkini” nonsense on Youtube. I also challenged her to name her “medical problem(s)” that cause her large size. My point is, as a healthcare professional, being overweight/obese is detrimental to health in the short and certainly long term. I also don’t want young women thinking being a land whale is OK. The BS about “it’s what on the inside that counts” is absolutely sickening. Please watch Kendall’s food un-boxing video on Youtube and watch Roosh’s video on “Meeting your new Youtube censors”.

      1. I went ahead and looked up who this Kendal Rae is. Big mistake. The amount of youtube subscribers of ‘Jabba’ and Roosh differ by an almost an entire order of magnitude. Guess who has the short end of the stick…

        1. I recently read that Facebook uses foreign click farms to promote their pages. You pay for the promotion and they have armies of mouse clickers standing by in China and India. I bet this is how YouTube feminists get so many subscribers.

      2. What is inside is what counts. Being a land whale is a reflection of a screwed up inner life. Emotional disorders et al.. Eat all… The thing the people who claim that is they never point out where the negative externals are reflecting the messed up mental states.

    2. Coming out against feminism or homosexual acceptance is a career killer and will turn you into a social leper except in the deepest rural parts of the south. I’m sure it’s basically the same as coming out as gay in the 1950s. How the tables have turned.

    3. Whenever submitters to Women Against Feminism use their real names, they get harassed, death threats and doxxed. This is because feminists are cultural marxists, so they rely on willful ignorance, infiltration of male spaces, political correctness, labelling dissent as hate speech, and censorship. Feminists want to remove all standards a person can ever be graded by, so the way to do that is to define all the standards by controlling the media.

  16. To add to a comment I’ve just made I would encourage everybody in any kind of academic learning, online or bricks and mortar, to support campaigns for anonymous marking for students work. Universities simply lie about only marking the students work rather than the person and when challenged respond with half-truths about the unviability of anonymous marking (or whatever is the next best thing). Obviously there may be difficulties – as in dissertations, higher degrees etc, but for the most part it makes sense
    In UK there is a campaign called ‘mark my words not my name’
    Needless to say it hasn’t achieved anything and will probably be quietly suppressed given the increasing levels of Social justice warriordom in student unions these days

    1. Besides the faculty, there is a large body of students who either directly profit from such biased assessments and favoritism or hope to profit from it. These people will not vote against such practices, because generally, they are well aware of the fact they might otherwise lose their “competitive” edge over other students.

      1. yes unfortunately the teacher / student relationship is increasingly about the mutual appreciation of mediocrity.

  17. There must be online anonymity or people like me could not participate in the discussion. (Although some people might consider that a good thing 😉
    If I wasn’t relatively anonymous, I would certainly have been fired by now for my un-PC views.

    1. Your ip is everywhere. When you apply for your next job… Everthing you’ve ever written could be sold to that HR department by Google.
      You are too comfortable.

      1. That’s why I said “relatively” anonymous. I’m protected by the fact that most people don’t give a shit what I think.

  18. ‘When you want to fight us, we don’t let you & you can’t find us. But when we want to fight you, we make sure that you can’t get away & we hit you squarely…& wipe you out.
    When the enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue.
    -Mao Tse Tung (1893-1976), when battling the vastly superior Chinese Nationalist Army, post World War Two.

  19. I am a Social Justice Warrior, and if you oppose my crusade for equality, I will doxx you out and destroy your life. You’ll lose your job, your professional licenses, your wife and kids, and all your friends.
    If I cannot uncover your true identity, you’re an anonymous coward, an unemployed 40-year-old virgin micropenis living in your mother’s basement. Every story you tell is an anecdote you made up to support your racist, hateful right-wing ideas.
    Heads I win, tails you lose.

  20. If the Cathedral’s ideas are so popular with people then why do they need to dox and censor to begin with?

    1. Because the dehumanization of those that think non-approved thoughts. The Cathedral doesn’t consider them “people”.

      1. This ties in to a nice heuristic pattern that a religious scholar named Karen Armstrong proposed: whenever a sect/person/society thinks it has its hands on an absolute truth, anyone who disagrees with that truth is therefore outright evil, since they by definition cannot be correct and after exposition of the ‘truth’ cannot be ignorant of it. From that point on the person who disagrees becomes the enemy in the eyes of the person who thinks they have it unquestionably right.

  21. I don’t think this will ever happen. The owners of media companies need fodder provided by the trolls and the subsequent reactions from the bloggers/writers for controversy, without which would result in less pageviews, clicks which in turn means less revenue.
    Not only that, it provides entertainment and distraction of the masses from real news. See Roosh’s post:

  22. Since I got into anonymous boards I don’t even bother with non-anonymous boards. Anonymity is the perfect condition to discuss ideas, anybody can raise a point, anybody else can refute that point. It’s magical. It’s also too big for anyone to take it away.

  23. Go deeper. These sjw pissants don’t really have that much power, not on the scale to force these sort of changes on the actual owners and controllers of technology. They are just pawns on the chess board.
    Destroying anonymity is good for business. It’s good for marketers and strategists who want to know who you are and what you want, and what you like so they can better market things to you. It’s good for authoritarian ss holes who want to know who opposes them politically. To “make women safer” on the Internet is merely a use to get people to accept loss of anonymity. You want to protect women and children don’t you?

    1. Naw.
      Corporations and the NSA already have your IP. The don’t need a ruse.
      The only people who need your name are SJW’s and they actually believe the lie “make women safer”.

  24. They can’t use the ad hominum attack if the don’t know your age, gender, race… They are kids on a playground and their only weapon is personal attacks.

  25. Most if not all people here who use their real names represents what the political agenda or political guideline is about. And if these people are not just private persons you can be sure they are inoffical agents of our marxists in disguise. Not to long ago germany was still divided…. and a few things havent changed…
    This can be feminism, faggotry (which is a mass phenomenon in the media here) or everything that is about politics (faggotry and mass imigration comes to mind). And i´m sure i know why… they think they have the government, the media and the mass of the people behind them and it´s so pretty damn easy to make a statement what they think is “good”. They know everything much better as you do. even they have no clue what they are talking about they have an oppinion that is LEFT and that makes them always right, period! Thats how they think, talk and “try” to live….
    And our radical marxists are like your feminist. They have a website where they upload pictures and adresses of people they dont like and call the work place of these people. Thats why the anonimity is golden!

      1. We had a girl running ours. Fortunately she sucked so badly as a leader even the misogyny defence didn’t stand up, and the beta male she ousted was even better at female backstabbing games than she was.

  26. When slinging arrows, turn off cookies, use mock location, post on proxy server or public wifi under pen name acct on a wifi capable device rummaged from an electronics recycle bin, etc, etc.
    But when performing or orating on stage, BE THERE IN PERSON. No Milli Vanilli lip sync crap or ‘Pure Country’ charade. Also on dates, be there yourself in person. Don’t send a buddy if you’re busy. If a chick stands me up on the other hand, and she sends a nice friend to fill her shoes, every fool knows a surrogate comes greased and ready to bang. It’s ‘let’s bang and then get a bite to eat.’ Then let’s find the original girl whose curtiousness is unexcelled and work the threesome.

  27. Thank you for this article, runsonmagic. I am terribly sorry if you have been forced to write under an assumed name to avoid harassment. If, of course, you write under an assumed name purely for your own pleasure, then my good sir (I’ll take your word for it you are male), then good for you. I may not agree with quite everything you said in your article, but I do agree with the greater part of it. Namely, the part I disagree with is focusing on social justice warriors and feminists being the only parties against Internet anonymity. Sadly, they are most likely the most prevalent parties, but perhaps others should be mentioned.
    However, as stated, I agree with much of this article. People have forgotten how to think for themselves. Thankfully, my parents tried to encourage that skill, as well as being objective. I argue with them a lot, and in recent years, our relationship has been strained, but I must always remember to be grateful to them for trying to make me independent, or at least capable of independent thinking. While I was growing up, one of the greatest things I can remember is being encouraged to read (everything, not only the ‘Lies told to Children’ dumbed-down literature offered in public school libraries) and when I came across a word I didn’t know, I was told to look it up. I believe I have literally read parts of every page in the dictionary. Granted, it was a 20 year old dictionary, so I should perhaps update my education slightly. Also, my parents never pressured me about religion, or politics, or my sexuality. My mother was raised Baptist, my father was raised Mormon. Mormons freaked me out from the get-go, although I did go to my mother’s mother’s church for a while. All very nice people, but I still don’t follow their religion. I’ve tried a few others, but for now have settled on agnosticism. It’s too depressing to believe that humans are the top of the food chain, as broken and imperfect as we are, but the Christian God, Islamic Allah, and Bhuddist Nirvana simply don’t do it for me either. As for politics, well, let’s just say I don’t look at the ballot and say, ‘Ooh, look, let’s check the box and just vote for all the Democrats!’ I actually do some research on the candidates before throwing in my two cents about who should be running the country.
    I think I’m getting a bit off topic, I apologize.
    The author is right. A lot of things would be different if people focused more on the information, and less on the source. Why does it matter if the person who says something is a particular age, race, or gender? It doesn’t, because people will do what they will do regardless of these physical characteristics.
    I will, however, admit, I do get curious about the author when I see anonymous quotes and poems and such, but then, I get curious about EVERYTHING. I am a datophile, and proud of it (yes, I made up that word. Use it, I want to see it in the dictionary one day). I want to know things for the sake of knowing them, not to use the information to destroy a person’s career or cause a media storm. Granted, said quotes are often hundreds of years old, but I think you get my point. I make these comments in the spirit of being truthful, not necessarily to defend those who do fight anonymity for selfish reasons.
    I focus for a moment on the last two sentences:
    A) Don’t be silly, everyone gossips, not just women.
    B)100% completely and totally agree with you. Truth is far more important than rumor and conjecture. Everyone should be trying to improve themselves, every day. Don’t try to control anyone else, their choices, their actions. If a person wants to be controlled, then they will fall under the manipulations of others all on their own. Focus on your own self-control, and maybe discover that what other people think about you is less important. Acceptance is nice and all, but how can the people around you accept you if you can’t accept yourself?
    Again, thank you, runsonmagic, for this article. It’s sadly unlikely, but maybe a few people will learn from it.

    1. Reminded me of the point made in the article, that many people are lazy and want a shortcut into knowing whether to agree with an idea or not, purely based on who the message comes from.
      People have always been lazy when it comes to ideas. When they follow a religion they bargain buy lots of ideas in one go that they can then believe in. In the modern age religion is replaced by the new religions of things like political parties, political movements, feminism, political correctism, environmentalism etc. Many follow these new religions in exactly the same way as the old ones…repeating what they have been told and what they have read and heard from the peer groups around them.
      But how do you teach people to really thing freely and originally.?

      1. Just another point on the anonymity.
        On facebook everyone uses their real name,
        Hardly ever do you see anything controversial on facebook. People stay silent. People say what they think they should say. People like what they think they should like. Facebook is in effect the world of polite small talk in digital form.

        1. That’s right. Many will not say what they really think (regarding politics, religion, etc…) for fear of stirring up the crowd or losing their jobs.
          And, again, if you agree with the feminist narrative then the sky is the limit. If not, then lookout because they will come for you.
          We’ve seen it happen, recently, on ROK with one of the latest articles. Entitled, (mostly) white women took offense and the herd came a running this way.
          Too funny.

        2. That’s a great point. We’ve already been silenced to a great extent with our public profiles.

      2. There’s probably no cut and dried formula. What my parents did worked for me (I think so, anyway). They made me do my own research if I wanted to know something, and when I talked to them, they gave me their honest opinions instead of the ‘Lies told to Children’ version, as my dad likes to put it. It wasn’t always easy, and at times I hated them for it, wanting life to be easy and all, but I’m mature enough to be grateful for it now.

    2. and we had to hear your long, drawn out story?
      Geez…this one truly is looking for attention (or validation).

        1. How many women’s careers and livelihoods have been damaged and destroyed by feminist or PC speech and behaviour codes?

        2. Denise.
          Actually i like the idea of using real names but in many situations it can mean the author is picked out for intimidation. Remember many writers are from countries where there are real dangers in holding an alternative opinion.
          Even in the uK and usa you can be singled out and lose your job for holding views that are deemed non acceptable.
          And remember what is acceptable and not acceptable continually changes. In 1940’s Germany (if technology allowed)would you have been happy making comments against the Nazi party under your own name, or in 1930’s USSR or China in the 50’s and 60’s or North Korea today?
          Even though people talk about believing in free speech, I have often found they often mean they believe in free speech as long as what you say is acceptable to them. Anonymity when writing and making comments allows total free speech.

        3. Unfortunately the down side to that is that anonymity makes it easier to bully, harass and threaten people. But we need to learn the ignore some of this while using the law to deal with any threats of violence.

        4. Okay, then: now we’d like your address, your phone number, and your employer’s name and address. After all you don’t have a problem with not being anonymous on the Internet, do you?

        5. The new anti-anonymity laws are to protect children from online bullying said the newly appointed E-Czar…

        6. Oh yes it is. And by the fact you refused to divulge those details, you eminently proved it.
          A bland name like “Denise Miller”, shared by thousands of people across the world, is as anonymous as any internet handle. Why are you condemning anonymity while profiting from it and unwilling to set its cloak aside? Didn’t you say anyone who’s anonymous online is just a coward?

        7. Obviously Denise is a moron. In Canada and the UK you can go to jail for saying things that are considered homophobic or racist, or anti Islamic. How can you criticize a lifestyle or religion that you know is wrong when it is illegal to do so.

    1. How many guys have fucked you? How old are you? How much do you weigh? And do you do anal?

        1. anonymity and privacy are two different things. I don’t consider you to be anonymous for example

        2. They are the same purpose of this discussion. And no I’m not anonymous to the U.S. gov nor clever corps or people…but to everyone else

    2. Being a Progressive and part of the Establishment, you don’t have the same need for being anonymous. You don’t risk losing your livelihood for holding Progressive views.

      1. Agree. As long as what you are saying is in lock step with the party (or established) then things are fine.
        It reminds me of the old Soviet Union and neighbors turning in fellow neighbors to the KGB for not supporting the collective.

    3. Says Denise Miller of … oh, wait, she was too cowardly to tell us what her address and phone number were.

    4. As a woman there’s no threat of being fired for your opinions, that would be discriminatory! As men, we are acutely aware that anything we do, any word we speak, any opinion we hold, whether at work or in the privacy of our homes, can cost us our livelihood if some woman takes it as “harassment”.

  28. One of the cleverest and most original articles i have read for a long time.
    This article could easily be adapted to appear in a main stream newspaper, as it makes some very valid points about the importance of what is said, and the idea it conveys, instead of who says it.

  29. All those idiots who are demanding complete loss of anonymity should go ahead and get live-feed cameras and microphones installed in their fucking home. They really have no idea to what end every kind of additional degree of loss of privacy will lead. Here a reminder from 1984, where you could not shut of the propaganda and there was a camera always having a good look on you:

  30. Yes, you can’t hang a ghost from the gallows. That’s what threatens those who rely on hanging to coerce action, though and speech.

  31. Anonymity is a vital asset in a society that practices self-censorship and feels no cognitive dissonance

  32. It speaks to the state of discourse today when a fake facebook account is more valuable than a real one.

  33. “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

    1. Nobody cares what that lesbian Eleanor Roosevelt thinks. She attached herself to FDR just like Hillary to Bill Clinton. Parasitic women who nobody would have listened to if they weren’t married to famous men. Although Clinton and FDR were not good examples of what I call good male role models.

  34. Team feminism and their lap dog beta males cannot stand a world where free speech reigns. They need the ability to destroy the livelihood of all those that disagree with them.

    1. Agree. Free speech is only for them. You must agree with their ideas or the feminist narrative or they’ll shut you up (sounds like the old Soviet Union).
      If they don’t know who you are, then they can’t run to HR.

  35. I made an account to say; this is why I read ROK. It’s like there’s a Goddamn meritocracy left on this burnt out little globe, I love it!

    1. “I made an account to say; this is why I read ROK!”
      And this contribution was indeed quite fine,
      For you also managed to make it rhyme!

    1. TERRORIST! MADMAN! ANTI-SEMITE! …very well spoken, obviously a very sharp guy. Love that Brian Williams references Speilberg’s Last Days about Holocau$t survivors, whose stories later turned out to be a hoax, start to finish…weird how fast that disappeared down the memory hole.

  36. I could be wrong (and I’m not just saying that as an opener, I mean that I could really be wrong about what this article is trying to say), but I think that most people who are anti-anonymity on the internet hold that view because of all of the ignorant and obviously troll-esque, racist, sexist, and wantonly offensive comments that get posted on forums each and every day. The keyboard confidence that ignoramuses have nowadays can be greatly reduced if they don’t have the luxury of hiding behind anonymity.

    1. What gets constructed as ” ignorant and obviously troll-esque, racist, sexist, and wantonly offensive comments” will always reflect the agendas of the powerful, including the desire to shut down the speech of political opponents.
      Legislation already exists for serious threats to person or life

      1. It’s always the ones in power who scream “victim”, first. They are afraid of losing it.
        Women are no longer victims…they hold the cards. That “equality thing” ended years ago with women looking for more power, today. They still try to play the victim but our current laws tell another story.
        Get ready for push back…it’s coming.

        1. And since victimhood is a legitimised way to gain power beyond some kind of parity it is necessary for any real power achieved on this basis to be based on distortion and lies. In the long term that’s a vulnerability that can be exposed and reversed

    2. Well no duh. Liberals only care about their emotions. That’s standard.
      You feel offended by something , and so you attack whoever said it by outing them.
      That second part is a real problem you dumb cunt. Especially since you scream bloody murder when outing is done to fags. So we all know that you realize “outing” is wrong.

    3. You know what? My mistake. I happened upon this and another article and didn’t realize what the website was and that it’s not my demographic. Sorry about that. Pls delete my comment as I have no means of doing so.

    4. Yes, you need to beat it. This is a “male only” space.
      Women, today, can discuss anything openly in society. It’s men who have to watch what they say….we don’t want to offend the little snowflakes out there.
      Beat it.

  37. Anonymity also allows keyboard jockeys to act like cunts with no repercussions for their actions. A real life ‘troll’ wouldn’t last one night on the town without a fist through his face.

    1. On that point, note the literally thousands of anonymous female cowards who came out abusing a website they don’t frequent and men they will never meet about the size of their penises.
      Although I do have to disagree with your second sentence: because of feminism and the fact women have the upper hand over men in the court system and society at large, a real life ‘troll’ — provided she had a vagina — would not only last one night on the town without a fist through her face, but would be able to call on any number of thirsty, deluded men in her defence to verbally if not physically abuse the man who called out her trolling for what it was Indeed she might well profit out of it handsomely by simply screaming ‘rape’ against the man who took offence at her misandry.

      1. I’m not defending feminism; merely stating that it’s a two-way street. Anonymity can be, and is, abused regularly – by feminists or otherwise.

        1. Certainly, but it strikes me that there’s only one rough group regularly calling for it to be removed. Hell, Blackstone’s Formulation – better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished – all but assumes abuse of the legal system, on the rational basis that even if you reverse the equation you still won’t stop all lawbreaking.
          In passing, this ties in with a little theory that Geoffrey Robertson once advanced: that it’s actually the lefties who push the most draconian law and order legislation down public throats because they feel insecure around the public servant law officers they encounter in their lives – intelligence services and whatnot. Conservatives don’t tend to do it because they feel their law and order credentials are on the table and don’t have to be proved.

        2. You sound like you’re defending feminism to me. Women are allowed to discuss anything and everything in an open environment, today.
          It’s men who have to watch what they say for fear of losing a career, house, money, status, today’s society. Even in a private conversation, if a woman just happens to listen in on it then the man gets punished.
          Women don’t won’t anonymity because they can’t run to the police or HR depts on a regular basis.
          This site is an example of “male only” spaces where men can talk freely about anything.

    2. Well they would actually, that’s why women can appear under their real names to say that men should be beaten or castrated fired or go to jail. While men can only speak the truth, that we are being turned into slave labor, at risk to our standard of living. Anonymity is more upside than downside.

  38. Certain people cannot address an argument – they only ever address the person. To them, this is simply how reasoning gets done.

  39. Sure, there are situations where someone might have valid reasons for wanting to remain anonymous online. But let’s face it, in 99.9% of real-world situations, the biggest beneficiaries of online anonymity are trolls.
    I don’t care what you think about Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or whoever. When you disagree with someone, you need to explain why and put forward a counter argument. You don’t make death threats and rape threats. And frankly, few people who make death threats and rape threats would do it if they couldn’t do it anonymously.

    1. Death threats and rape threats – as you presumably know – are already illegal. When such threats are made they are made at risk of serious legal consequences. Which is also to say that if push comes to shove none of us really do have anonymity anyway. What you argue for will simply prevent dissident opinions, political or otherwise. If you lose the guy trolling for a reaction because he’s – perhaps quite legitimately – pissed off at having to be compliant and conformist at work or in his family and social life, then you also lose the political dissident, or anyone who wants to say anything unpopular. Its ultimately always about political control, and for that reason we need more trolls not fewer. And for that minority of the troll community who threaten or cause serious harm let them live in fear. Why not simply insist on applying the laws that already are.

    2. When you have a class of people like feminists who not only threaten others but follow through with firings, smear campaigns, ostracism I really don’t give a fuck about the hate they receive.

    3. No, every man who DOESN’T get fired, or hassled by some woman in the street, or interviewed on the news over his “unacceptable and degrading” opinions wins.
      Trolls get to spout, but just like the man says the nonsense they spout gets ignored as the nonsense it is; their threats, spoutings, and baseless statements get looked at as the dogshit they are and not in the light of the person making the statement.

  40. I disagree. We are here (re)learn about masculinity. Being masculine also means speaking publicly.
    I have never hidden my views about modern society to my friends and family. I alienated many but I still stand by my word.

      1. What lions’ mouth? I have a colleague at work who is an overt neo-nazi sympathizer and people are still friendly to him because he does a good job and has a good character otherwise.
        If you are respected at work, nobody will fuck with with you.

        1. When you see your friend at work, shake his hand, pat him on the back, and congratulate him for being the one-in-a-million exception. If its gonna be a “manliness” argument, even the Havamal (viking book of wisdom) advises: “repay gift for gift and lie for lie”.
          The culture we live in goes on and on about being “free” to express yourself. But thats not the truth; its free if you’re a woman or a tranny or a jewish filmaker. It sure as hell isn’t free if you’re a White heterosexual male. Speak the truth at your own risk.

        2. He’s not my friend and I will never pat a neo-nazi on the back. My point is that when you can say pretty whatever you want as long as you do a good job. If the system attacks you, it means that it has no use for you.
          This guy is no exception.
          Anonymity is not for masculine men. There is no point to coming on a manosphere website if you are afraid to speak your mind outloud.

  41. I agree, I think remaining anonymous can change the public perception, there is power in anonymity, in such that it keeps people from censoring and silencing your ideas.

  42. “Anti-Bullying” is code for police speech on the Internet.
    Screw Lady Gaga and the others who would take away the first Amendment so some feminists wolnt see trigger warnings.

  43. As long as holding an opinion is a punishable offense, anonymity is a benefit and well-worth any troll-ish hiccups.

  44. Like most things in life, there’s no black/white answer. I can clearly see the benefits of anonymity online. I can also understand the position of people should take clear ownership for what they say. Both positions do have merit.
    Luckily, we can have both at the moment. Anyone who wants to post anonymously can, and people who want to post under their real names are free to do so. It’s the best of both worlds.
    So now it just boils down specific situations and personal preference. This is how almost everything should be, honestly.

  45. They oppose it because media and large companies and FB want to sell you more things. They can’t target you if you are anonymous. That simple.

  46. Forums that invest too heavily in registration and social markers lead to left wing cesspits where everyone is valued on how acceptable their views are, or how popular they are with the other members. A bit of anti-social behavior is necessary for productive activity.

  47. I completely agree that privacy is an important privilege to preserve. It should be a constitutional right in every country to be entitled to privacy.
    Obviously there are situations where such privacy can cause problems. Such as in catching pedophiles or keeping tabs on the accumulation of dangerous chemicals and materials, and it is indeed hard to argue that the value of a persons privacy outweighs the value of protecting children from molestation.
    However one needs to remember that removing anonymity from online resources will not stop pedophilia. It will just transform the way in which those such individuals operate.
    So too with the purchasing of controlled substances. If anonymity is removed then such activities will simply no longer take place online as the risk of being caught in that medium alone is too great.
    With anonymity they use the internet and have been known to make mistakes such as leave their personal IP address where it can be linked to their criminal activities.
    All that will happen with zero anonymity is the law abiding citizens will have their privacy encroached upon. We’ll see an endless repetition of people being judged for flippant comments made long in the past while drunk or when they were young and foolish, and anyone who disagrees with the current definition of what is politically correct risks massed online harrassment and character assassination.
    I don’t want that at all.

  48. I generally agree with the meritocracy in the open marketplace of ideas that follows online anonymity, but I can think of at least one recent lesson I gained from looking at who’s doing the talking: the tendency for male feminists to appear decidedly un-masculine. They tend to be “babyfat” to a degree greater than random, so I think it likely there’s some correlation… and therefore feminism, and political persuasion in general, could very well have hormonal, polymorphic components. I’d never have realized that without seeing the pics of lots of these manginas.

Comments are closed.