Monthly Archives: January 2025

Witch Hunts

Ok, I’ve had about all the Trump whining about “witch hunts” that I care to hear in a lifetime. Every time he’s caught with his hand in the cookie jar, it’s a witch hunt. Convicted by a jury of his peers? Witch hunt. Caught on tape demanding the Georgia governor “find” extra votes for him? Witch hunt. Boxes of classified documents that he denied even having found in his bathroom? Witch hunt.

Here’s the thing. The reason that “witch hunt” is such a good term of derision and dismissal for an unfounded and unwarranted investigation is pretty simple. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS WITCHES! Right? I mean, if a real witch was caught and tried to complain “Hey, this is just a witch hunt!” everybody would go, “Well, duh, of course it’s a witch hunt, and we just caught YOU, witch. Who’s got the meat thermometer?” Now obviously, hunting for “witches” is a dangerous farce, intended only to scapegoat some poor innocent for events with which they had no connection. But what if there really were witches? What if someone really could cast a magic spell to make your cow’s milk dry up or your husband run off with the cleaning girl? Then a witch hunt could well be very reasonable, as long as it was based on facts and evidence. In fact, we would all be remiss to NOT hunt for witches. Witch hunting would be our civic duty. The DOJ would have a special bureau for witch-hunting. Texas would put a bounty on them.

Well, even though there are no witches, there really are selfish, greedy, narcissistic bastards who lie, cheat, and steal their way to wealth and high public office, and we’ve got to stop letting them hide behind the skirts of those poor, maligned witches. Rooting out these parasites (whatever party they might belong to) is a necessary, ongoing chore that we can never leave off from—sort of like weeding your garden. Maybe we should call it a “weed hunt.”

By Anonymous.1

Suppose you really feel it’s important to warn the world that Adam Schiff is actually a lizard man from the planet Bumfinger who’s inhabiting the skin he tore off a homeless person from San Diego, but your three remaining rational neurons suggest that maybe you shouldn’t attach your real name to this idea. What to do? Well, if you’re reluctant to put your name on something, maybe that’s a little sign from your brain that you should RETHINK YOUR IDEAS (and rethink the wisdom of sharing them with everyone)! Do you REALLY need to say that your neighbor is an ignorant Nazi slut? Maybe she is. Maybe you don’t mind that everyone knows that’s how you feel. Certainly some people (like the former and soon-to-be current guy, Orange Jesus, der Punkinfuhrer) are quite happy to put their name on all manner of toxic emanations. And if that’s the case, then post under your real name. Get the credit—and put up with the blame. However, many of the rest of us (albeit an ever-declining number) don’t want to be known as the kind of person who says cruel and/or crazy things. That instinct is what has given civil society the modest degree of civility it has had for millennia. However, at the same time, we want the reward of seeing people agree with us, so we split the difference and post online under an avatar or pseudonym, like “maddog2020”.

There are 2 different things, the ideas themselves and the credit for having that idea. If the idea itself is important (Beware! Adam Schiff is a lizard man, and here’s how I know!), then it’s important no matter who says it—and an anonymous post is probably fine as long as the evidence is coherent and legit. And if the main thing you want is social credit for being prescient, wise, snarky, evil or whatever, then get it for your actual human (or lizard) self by posting under your own name. But if you just want to play (ie, “troll”) without personal consequences, that’s ok, but no credit for you (or the pseudonymous “you”). Each and every anonymous post should literally be entitled “anonymous,” NOT “maddog2020,” just “anonymous.” That’ll let people vent all they want but without getting the same feeling of satisfaction that motivates most online trolling. Seeing, “Wow, anonymous really told off that anonymous” just doesn’t have the same attraction. And if I see that anonymous thinks my ideas are crap, it doesn’t have the same sting as one from a real person or even from an avatar (unless I recognize my wife’s pseudonym). And, to forestall objection, if there’s a long conversation string that’s hard to keep track of, then each successive responder on that string could be assigned a version number (“anonymous.1, anonymous.2, etc) just for that specific conversation.

“But I have the right to say whatever I want.” Ok, say it. “But I don’t want people to know I said it.” Ok, be anonymous. “But I want people to know my avatar said it!” Well, avatars are not people and thus don’t have human rights—at least not until the SCOTUS gets involved. Just to end w a scary thought, what kind of rulings do you think SCOTUS would make if THEIR identities were secret? “Senate confirms inquisitionman1562 to Supreme Court.” Can’t wait.