I'm pleased to see that Charles Murray agrees with me about the cowardly nature of anonymous blogging. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)
Addendum: What is cowardice, anyway? My Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) defines "cowardice" as "a lack of bravery." "Bravery" is defined as "brave conduct" and "a brave nature." "Brave" is defined as "able or ready to face and endure danger or pain." So cowardice is being unable or unready to face and endure danger or pain. Why is cowardice a bad trait? Presumably because certain dangers or pains are worth facing and enduring. Cowardice is not limited to soldiers, any more than bravery is. Everyday life throws up situations in which we either face and endure danger or pain or run away from them. Nor are the dangers necessarily physical. Anything valuable, including one's reputation, can be endangered. How you respond to the danger determines what sort of character you have and what sort of person you are.
In the context of writing, there is not much risk of pain, at least of the physical sort; but there is danger. It consists in being thought less of by those who read one's writings. If you make false assertions, people will (and should) think less of you. If you make false predictions, people will (and should) think less of you. If you make bad arguments, people will (and should) think less of you. If you write in a confused or obscure way, people will (and should) think less of you. If you make personal attacks on others, or even treat others disrespectfully in ways that fall short of attack, people will (and should) think less of you.
I'm sure there are people who read my blog posts and conclude that I don't have a good mind. So be it. I risk this sort of adverse judgment with every post I write (as well as with every scholarly essay I publish). Those who post or comment anonymously are either unable or unready to face and endure this sort of "danger." They want to participate in public dialogue, but without taking responsibility for it. They want to play without paying. They want their reputations to be pristine even when they don't deserve a pristine reputation. Is this just another manifestation of the "get something for nothing" mentality?
