Truth: Anonymous @6:24 p.m. You need to get a life.
No, seriously you do. Either that or you need to grow a pair.
I'm serious. All this anonymous commenting has got to stop. It's become ridiculous. Nowadays, any opinion piece published on The D's website is littered with a slew of nonsensical commentary that is usually grammatically horrendous, riddled with ad hominem attacks and substance-wise ludicrous. Seriously guys? What's the matter with you?
Do you think just because something can't be traced back to you that your words have no repercussions? That you don't even have to be moderately respectful?
Well, I think you're a coward. And I don't think you would say half the inane crap you say if you actually had to take responsibility for your words. Next time, try signing your name before you decide to submit one of your half-brained comments. Your real name, too. None of this pseudonym crap, because trust me, you're not that clever, "FaithfultotheLonePine." Gag me.
And while I'm on this little tirade of mine, what is with you Bored@Baker fanatics? Why has this suddenly become a thing on campus again? Are you seriously that small-minded and petty?
Well, I've got a suggestion. Next time you're that bored (and so pathetically desperate that you feel the need to inquire about so-and-so's hotness or bad mouth so-and-so because they looked at you the wrong way) step away from your computer, take a deep breath and actually go interact with someone for a change. That's what Novack is for, so you and your 50 closest friends can commiserate about the long, shitty night of work ahead.
Bored@Baker is designed for social cretins. And you're not a social cretin. You're great. So stop acting like a social cretin who posts moronic and sometimes downright malicious comments. You're better than that.
Now, having outlined my general thoughts regarding anonymous commentary on this campus, I think it's fair to ask: Can writing something anonymously ever be a good thing?
I think it can. Who knows, Jane Austen might never have published a novel if she hadn't done it anonymously. That being a fairly extreme example (along with publishing something anonymously to protect oneself from persecution), I think anonymity can have its place.
Being anonymous is fine. As long as you aren't using your anonymity as a means to air spiteful, derogatory views you otherwise would be uncomfortable taking credit for.
And sometimes, I think it's a very fine line and yes, I'm taking my final shot at you, you little comedy-blog-masquerading-as-news The Dunyun.
You seem so harmless and innocuous and tongue-in-cheek that it's hard not to like you. And sometimes I think you are funny, really I do. But other times, I think you're just as bad as those cretins on Bored@Baker. And that's because, like those cretins, you're not held accountable for what you print, and you're therefore liable to print anything. Because it doesn't matter whom you attack or make fun of in your publication (that more often than not resembles one massively long, unedited overheard). You never have to bear the consequences of your words.
And that's what bugs me most about publishing stuff anonymously more often than not, people do it without regard for anyone's feelings but their own.
I know, I know, many of you will take offense to this article as an attack on freedom of speech and all that jazz as the red-blooded, freedom-loving, flag-flying Americans that we are. I'm not saying I personally should have a monopoly on the world's views. No one should. But what I am saying is anonymity should not automatically negate common decency and respect.
That being said, don't go burning my effigy in print, all you little anonymous muckrakers.
