Ah, my first tangent came earlier than expected.
It can be a delicate balance when to conceal and when to name and shame. I want to get my philosophy out there before we go farther.
In the case of Briahna Joy Gray, it would be easy to shame her because I don't like her. That would not be a good way of doing things.
In her case, she is a public figure. While I didn't see many people discussing the food discourse off of Twitter (or I would have linked to an article), there were many participants in the discussion on Twitter. Not naming her when her comments were so integral would have felt false.
(Other philosophical point for me: as much as Musk has tarnished the things that were great about Twitter, where a new, worse, vanity-driven name would make sense, I am still not calling it "X".)
I did reference usernames for people who made good points and for people whose posts were integral to the genesis of the discussion.
That can be one of the tricky areas. People who post thoughtful, good responses might benefit from being referenced. It might also attract trolls to them, which is worse if they are not well-established.
I try to make good choices, and I am not always sure whether I am doing right.
In the case of Twitter discussions, there are posts to reference, assuming I can find them. When I am talking about people I know, it becomes different.
A good example here might be from the "Catching up with former friends" posts. As I went into the case studies, I called them "A", "B", and "C", which were not their initials.
None of them are famous. While they may be making some bad and even ridiculous choices, I don't wish them harm, so giving their names would feel wrong.
People who know us may guess from the details, but one thing I have learned over time is that a lot of us are not that unique. I would write about one unnamed person and get guesses about two others through private messages.
Speaking of Albert, I started with not naming him, but then I did because it was so obvious and had drawn so much attention that there was no point. That he was dead may mean there was less damage that could be done, but there is at least one other dead person whom I do not name.
That does lead to one other thing: if I am writing about something people do rather than that a person did, I have multiple examples.
The posts related to Albert resulted in a lot of direct messages, including some people wondering if I meant them about something.
That's fine; I like interacting with people. I only mention it because if I am writing about a generality, I mean it that way.
If it feels like it applies to you, that may be something to reflect on, and you can certainly ask, but even if you are part of the group you are not being singled out.
Funny, recent story about that. Ari Fleischer recently went off on Barack Obama's remarks at Jesse Jackson's funeral because of him calling Republicans "bigots."
He didn't. Obama condemned bigotry and racism so Fleischer felt attacked. This is what we call "A hit dog hollers."
Why is this important? Getting into the BAFTAs, there are names that there is no point taking out, as they are in all the articles.
As this will be more about the responses -- most of which are coming from run-of-the-mill racists with no great following -- it may be best not to identify them. As there is not great variety in their responses, this is probably most practical.
If there are times when specific wording is important, I might quote the text of the tweet without giving the name or linking to it. That would probably be searchable, though often the search results are next to useless, especially when you are looking up something racist because it is so common.
Should individuals be shamed for their racism? Does it help?
When that AITA account stopped tweeting, I started getting my fix of appalling behavior from Ask_Aubrey, whom I followed to Instagram because she left Twitter too (Musk has been such a disaster for that site.):
https://www.instagram.com/ask_aubry/
When she is posting the appalling tweets or direct messages or what have you, she usually blocks out the name, I think with exceptions when the person is more notorious. I have seen replies questioning that, wanting to see, I assume so they can attack.
If that would help, great, but that's not likely.
I do not anticipate naming a lot of ignorant, racist people in the next few posts, but circumstances can vary.
I will try and do what is best for knowledge and caring, even if that is not always clear.
That's all I can promise.
Related posts:
https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2026/02/decanting-olives.html
https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/08/catching-up-with-former-friends.html
https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/12/my-facebook-post-blows-up-series.html