One of the tedious, and recurring themes, of those who come to this blog to object to what I say is that I sometimes choose not to engage with them, I delete them when I think their comments fall outside my comments policy, or that I am short in response to their comments.
I, unsurprisingly, do not agree with any of those observations. I write this blog pretty much in my own time because I don't think anyone funds me to wrok at 6am when I usually begin blogging for the day, or late at night when I often finish. And in between I actually do the work I am paid for.
However, it seems that those who complain think I am available at their personal beck and call to debate with them endlessly (and tediously) on issues of their choosing that will not achieve any of their objectioves regarding their opinions which I usually, and I think entirely appropriately, think to be misguided at best.
As a result I have just updated the comments policy which now reads as follows (the changes are in italics) and those who don't comply can expect the obvious outcome:
---------------------
Comments are welcome on this blog. However, they are moderated with good reason: far too many received are not suitable for publication.
For a comment to be published I must be satisfied that:
1. It is legal;
2. It is polite;
3. It includes an argument that adds value to readers;
4. It appears factually accurate;
5. The commentator is genuine;
6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based.
This last point is important. Those who wish to argue that tax havens / secrecy jurisdictions are good things may do so, but not here. Likewise those promoting neoliberal economics may do so, but not here: propagating the delusion that an economy can be accurately modeled using counterfactual propositions about its nature is not something I wish to partake in, and will not allow.
The following are highly likely to be rejected:
1. Abusive and personal comments;
2. Rants;
3. Repetitive commenting from the same person;
4. Comments that duplicate a theme adequately covered by others;
5. Persistent comments from those promoting libertarian ideals far removed from the political mainstream.
I stress three other things. Firstly, agreement with me is not a condition of a comment being accepted, but disagreement must be reasoned and be offered within the framework of understanding that this blog seeks to promote. This policy is necessary to make the comments section on each blog useful, meaningful and enjoyable for readers.
Second, please do not expect me to:
a) enter into lengthy debate with you. It's entirely my choice if I wish to do so or not and being rude to me (in a comment, by tweet or in an email) if I have other things to do with my time is unlikely to increase your chance of getting a response;
b) do your research for you. If you want to find evidence for something you can find it as well as I can;
c) reference every comment I make. I have written several million words on this blog. There is no obligation on me to reiterate them for anyone at any time of their choosing.
Thirdly, for those who disagree or think this an act of censorship I have one suggestion to make: please go and start a blog of your own. Free speech is valuable. I support it. It is what permits you to offer your opinion as readily as I offer mine. But nothing requires that I must offer your opinion on my site. To say so is an act of editorial freedom — an issue as important as that of free speech.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
very fair. keep up the great work.
Excellent and very many thanks for this and sharing your expertise. Btw, I would have thought that true “libertarians”, in reality a belief in the total liberty and primacy of capital, should be much too busy painting their bedrooms black.
Don’t blame you one little bit, most of them are myopic, right wing zealots incapable of accepting any view of the world which differs from their own. Others are deliberately trying to make things difficult for you at the behest of vested interests. All of them best ignored.
Keep up the good work, it’s needed now more than ever.
I find this site of great value as someone who is poorly educated in this area and I learn a lot from it though my ability to contribute is limited.
many thanks for your work and contribution to social change – even though it might seem of a homeopathic quantity compared to the neo-liberal hurricane that seems to blast all hope away.
Sorry,
don’t agree. I understand you must feel, quite reasonably, that you have better things to do than refute silly arguments but the people that are making those arguments, generally, don’t think them silly. I know there are instances of people just WUMing on here, but there are also a lot of instances of people who, genuinely, disagree & need an answer.
Without argument, where can any of this go ?
Look at Tim Worstall’s Blog. He just howls his opinions into the cybersphere. He has no idea what anyone thinks of them. He might as well stand on Romney Marsh with a megaphone.
You, unlike Tim, are in a position to really influence opinion. You should use it &, as part of that, you should welcome opposing views.
Sorry, that’s just my opinion.
well over 90% of all comments get onto this blog
That is what is called ‘lightly moderated’
Genuine questions I deal with
The moderation stops those putting 15 comments a day and asking clear time wasting questions
I think that fair
As I say, I welcome, and get, lots of opposing views. I do not welcome time wasting
Sometimes people do make points they truly believe: but that does not, of itself, make them valuable. There is such a thing as “teaching the controversy” which is most usually seen in the comments of creationist-type Christian fundamentalists, but is also evident in the contributions of neoliberal ideologues. That approach trades on an inversion of the rules of courtesy, in much the same way as a clean cut, polite Mormon does: he puts his metaphorical foot in your door and makes you feel that you are the one who is being rude if you do not wish to listen to his smiley imposition of his point of view on you.
The neoliberal faction has ample platform all over the mainstream media, and they can create other forums at will, as Richard Murphy says. There is far less outlet for the opposition and it is quite remarkable how much success TJN has had in getting the alternative view into the public domain. I honour them for it. But it is important to avoid distraction because “teaching the controversy” is specifically designed to give the impression that there are no facts, and that all opinion is equally valid, and entitled to equal respect. That is not true.
Thanks
Interesting perspective
Appreciated
As a regular reader of this blog, I do not want the bother of having to read repetitive drivel – and I am extremely happy with Richard’s moderation. There is far too much traffic for this to be done in any better way. Indeed, it is a model for others to follow.
Thanks Carol