I'll see you anon, June 9th, 2025, some guidelines for online anon's, and some advice

for dealing with more angular anons.

We live in a tumultuous time, a time in which we have recently seen specific anonymous accounts

flame out and scandal, e.g. Patriarchy, Hannah,

or Joss Spice. In a different category, but still related, we have Brian Chappelle. That's on the one hand.

But we must never forget that respectable corporations and establishment types can successfully

cancel a man's livelihood simply for saying online that little girls are made of sugar and spice

and everything nice. Not only so, but if you publish a transgressive opinion under your own name,

transgressive in their eyes, the woke banshees can docks you putting your family at physical risk.

So there are grave spiritual dangers for the anonymous polemicist, but there is also a legitimate

place for the anonymous polemicist. How are we to sort this out?

What should we remember? What do we need to keep in mind? And for background reading on all of this,

I would recommend a justice primer. First, the legit anon. I want to begin with legitimate

anon activity. The reason for this is simple. One of the signs of a sinful anon mentality is that they can't afford to

acknowledge that I believe there's a good way to do it. So what I'm doing here is an example

of what I've elsewhere called the second paragraph rule. This isn't quite the second paragraph,

but if I know I'm going to outrage some unreasonable folks, I will anticipate and thwart their

objections beforehand. This is because sinful an non's reason like feminists.

Any criticism that is aimed at some distinctive aspect of their activity is taken as in each

and every attack on every conceivable member of that class. Thus any criticism of a sin that is

distinctively feminine, e.g. nagging, is translated immediately into an assertion that I was saying that all women are

nags. And then the response is, sir, how dare you? The Martin Marpleit tracks were published

...