>>7062>it is largely assumed
This is no different with identity. Even if you actively attempt to prevent it people will still do it. Try saying "I'm not a racist. I support Trump" or "I'm not a gullible idiot. I believe in god" etc to the right people and watch as they insist that you are a racist or an idiot.
>My evidence would be the intense feelings one can see in imageboards...
These things are all more evident in real life communication. As much as no, anonymity is not a perfect cure for them. It's weird but it would be if people really truly acted like they were anonymous and never worried about defending themselves because it's pointless, there's nothing to defend, but normal socialisation is so very ingrained that it doesn't quite pan out, but still, it goes a lot better.
>This is where reputation comes in, they come to be known as a weasel. Whether you like them or associate with them has a lot to say if you condone weasling
No it doesn't. You'll like them or otherwise based on if you agreed with them in the first place because when you're observing the argument you empathise with them and put yourself in the shoes of the person and then you start weaselling too. The speakers in a debate very rarely concede and their side will be fine with that. It's tribalism and we see it all over the place.
>assuming an imaginary scenario where they were of equal prominence
Well, in that case, being only adept at anonymous communication would be fine in the same way that being only adept at real life communication is fine today. We can't take the half of the hypothetical that anonymous communication is equally prominent without also taking the half that it would then be equally useful.
>imagine the dilemna when we ourselves betray these things
But we don't, quite the opposite. People are more true to their beliefs in anonymous situations where they don't have to fear social pressures.
>Its not entirely without basis in this context.
Oh but it is. To show this, let's take a similar example and say that I'm a very eloquent speaker of English but can barely speak French. This is the same idea of two contexts, one in which I am adept, another in which I'm not. This isn't, even in the most minor of ways, going to cause an identity crisis.
>But I just argued they did create cowards
Right and I said you were wrong.
>but il also mention how switching is an issue.
You didn't. Switching isn't an issue, people are capable of differentiating social context.
>Just as the person who is better spoken has to face they cant actually talk like that in real life>the problem stands
How is being adept in some contexts but not in others a problem? Should I say it's a problem that I can speak eloquently in English but not in French? Does my eloquence become fake if I move to France?
>To be a completely different person in one modem of communication (better spoken, stronger, more fearless) compared to another will at least cause self dissapointment in said person
No it won't. I'm not that disappointed in myself that I can't speak eloquent French.
>Good for you, terrible for society
What is society but a collection of individuals? How can something be good (or at least neutral) for all of the individuals in a society while being bad for the society itself? You're not hurting anyone else.
>that online communication specifically anonymous communication poses threats to identity development and societal well being
It doesn't. It's a false dichotomy to assume that because you do one you can't do the other. I'm adept online and in real life. This idea that being adept anonymously will somehow detract from real life interactions or cause an identity crisis is as absurd as the idea that being good at English will make me worse at French.