To all the dank Anon's, shall we see you Anon?

December 16th, 2024.

Introduction.

Some of the recent online polemical disputes and such have raised the question of anonymous

Battlebot accounts, or Anon's, for short.

Let's think about it for a moment,

shall we? What is the theology of the thing? On the one hand, we all instinctively know that there

are times when anonymity seems to be called for, and is fully legitimate. Think of the 16th century

Martin Marpleit, who published a series of hilarious pamphlets at the expense of the Anglican bishops,

who had learned their catechisms and were past grace. Or expense of the Anglican bishops who had learned their

catechisms and were past grace. Or think of the heroic Samistat publications during the

Kami times. These were people who really were speaking truth to power, and had they been caught,

Martin would have been executed, and a happy outcome for the Sammastod guys would have been

Siberian in nature. But we also know, again, instinctively,

that there's something profoundly unsettling and sinister and wrong about giving any credence

whatever to any anonymous accusers or railers. We wouldn't accept anonymous accusations that

someone mailed to a trial in a Unabomber envelope. In biblical law, in order to testify against

someone in court, the witness had to be in a space where he also envelope. In biblical law, in order to testify against someone in court,

the witness had to be in a space where he also was to be held accountable. The Ninth

Commandment forbade perjury bearing false witness, Exodus 2016, and so the testimony needed

to be received in such a way as that the witness had skin in the game also. Then shall you do unto

him as he had thought to have done unto his brother,

...