The comments policy of this bog has been revised.
The addition is items 6 and 7 in the following:
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. That the commentator is genuine;
6. It is not promoting an opinion usually associated with the far right political fringes (for these purposes the UK Independence Party and beyond within the UK domestic environment);
7. It is not posted by a person I consider to be usually associated with the far right of the political spectrum.
There are three good reasons for this change in policy:
- People tell me they are bored with the contributions of those from the far right and they spoil enjoyment of this blog and of 95% of all blogs they want to read. These comments do not, therefore, add value to this site;
- I do not think it my job to provide these people with a platform;
- I no longer have the time to rebut their comments, as I feel compelled to do if they are on this blog. I have too much more urgent and important work to do than engage with those of closed mind who wish to undermine society.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
I am so-o-o-o pleased to see this. There is a knee jerk reaction from three types: extreme right (including Christian right), atheists, and nutcases, that completely ruin thoughtful dialogue with their vituperative polemics.
Thank you for sorting the wheat from the chaff. I wish more think tanks et al would do so.
Richard, I am sure you have the full support for this revision of policy from many who have the privilage of commenting on your blog.
I do not view your blog as a ‘free for all FORUM where ‘anything goes’. Those who read your blog who do not concur with the baseline principles & values from which it is written should consider writing their own blog in order to express their own strongly held contrary viewpoint & convictions.
@John Carlisle
Why lump atheists with nutcases? Creationists to me are even nuttier. But what the heck has that got to do with a discussion on tax?
Phew! It takes all kinds… 😯
Richard – by doing this you give the extreme right more ammunition to use against you (he won’t listen to our side of the argument, closed mind, etc.). The best way to deal with such prople and their comments is to ignore them. By entering into debate, you legitimise their commentary. Nothing hurts quite as much as being ignored
@Mark
For the record, I have little problem with atheists
I admit that as a Christian I do have problems with creationists
Atheism may have a place here: I have discussed a theology of tax
I can see no place for creationism here
@Richard
Richard
I agree, there is merit in your argument
The reality is that the deliberate ‘crowding out’ of debate by these people does, however, exclude any real debate from many blogs
In the interest of the freest speech possible (and complete freedom is not, of course, possible without abuse arising) those who seek to abuse that freedom most – which perversely seems to be those who promote a form of libertarianism that is commonly associated with a belief in what they call free markets but which are actually similar vehicles of oppression, are not welcome here at all
Which is not, of course, any restraint on their liberty or right of free speech. I defend their right to their arguments
But I am not obliged to either give it a platform or engage with it when it is a very clear form of political extremism – which is why it is so clearly identified with the far right of British politics
I simply have better things to do
Richard
Richard
I think you are wrong:
a) to classify UKIP as belonging to the far right. They are of the libertarian right.
b) to exclude right wing comments. By so doing you deny yourself a platform in which to attempt to swing opinion your way. Your blog stats will suffer because the majority of the internet savvy are right wing.
Betcha you don’t allow this one through!
Sean
a) On my book the libertarian right, whilst different of course from the BNP is as dangerous
b) I am not excluding all right wing comments. I am excluding those from beyond the political pale
c) I do not expect to persuade these people of anything – they do not engage in the normal to and fro of political discourse and there is no evidence that anything I will say will change their minds – so why bother with them when there are many who are open to reasonable debate when fear of intimidation is removed?
d) My blog stats really don’t worry me – so why should they worry anyone else?
e) I did let this through
Richard
great idea,love the blog,keep telling the truth.
I think the above comment linking atheists with vituperative polemics is somewhat unfair and inaccurate. Obviously, vituperative polemicists do sometimes turn out to be atheists, but it is more common to find atheists living by a respectful and ethical humanism.
@Jim for Justice
Jim #2
I’m not sure that the new policies are the right ones, because if everyone retreated to ultra-narrow personal blogs etc. the potential for debate is much reduced.
In addition, I think that if he is honest, Richard really wants to cut out posters that he doesn’t respect (quite reasonably with some of them!). I can’t see how in the world he can know what their politics are.
The Girrl
I couldn’t agree with you more!
[…] libertarian blogs raged over the weekend about my revised comments policy. Many said my traffic would suffer as a result of it, which i confess I thought a somewhat […]
[…] libertarian blogs raged over the weekend about my revised comments policy. Many said my traffic would suffer as a result of it, which i confess I thought a somewhat […]
Richard doesn’t this raise the danger of jus producing a blog of everyone agreeing with you only getting posted?
I will also all that many comments on this post do not actually your no 3 rule.
for example:
rech “I couldn’t agree with you more!”
adrian “great idea,love the blog,keep telling the truth”.
These do not include an argument that adds value to readers
@Creg
As I have noted elsewhere:
It seems to have two options with scarce time. I can promote ideas or I can spend all my time defending what i have written against those who will never be persuaded by them anyway,and whose approach is, as a commentator on the Guardian noted recently, sarcastic and condescending – which is a style hard to engage with constructively.
I would rather do the former than the later, it being a much more fulfilling activity.
And as is clear – debate is going on and traffic is seemingly so far unchanged – but I’ve had a refreshing lack of comments to delete today
I would be concerned if I thought I was really suppressing debate but I note Tim Worstall wrote over 20 blogs about me in November so I don’t think that likely. Those who want to waste their time will have plenty to do so on his blog – and I’ll ignore them
Richard