> It's probably appropriate to use a throwaway when discussing this topic, not as a way of sniping via anonymity, but because the social climate surrounding this particular topic has gotten so extreme. Those not immediately in agreement with any anti-NSA sentiment seem to be ridiculed or personally attacked for their ideas. Such behavior is usually a sign that we're treading into "What You Can't Say" territory; hence, the throwaway.
You seem to have stumbled on to the fact that sometimes anonymity is the only way to allow honest discussion. The trade off is that it also allows jerks to be jerks.
I, personally, would prefer allowing a few more jerks in order to also allow people to be honest without being lynched. The reason I bring this up is that usually you find the pro-NSA commenters making arguments against a right to anonymity/privacy. What they generally mean is that others should not have a right to anonymity/privacy, because they are potentially bad people...but when "I" need it, it is justified.
Not saying this to you, personally, it is human nature to be hypocritical in such a way. Sometimes we just need to have it pointed out to us.
You seem to have stumbled on to the fact that sometimes anonymity is the only way to allow honest discussion. The trade off is that it also allows jerks to be jerks.
I, personally, would prefer allowing a few more jerks in order to also allow people to be honest without being lynched. The reason I bring this up is that usually you find the pro-NSA commenters making arguments against a right to anonymity/privacy. What they generally mean is that others should not have a right to anonymity/privacy, because they are potentially bad people...but when "I" need it, it is justified.
Not saying this to you, personally, it is human nature to be hypocritical in such a way. Sometimes we just need to have it pointed out to us.