I would remind commentators of the comments policy on this blog.
This makes clear that I do not tolerate the use of this blog for the regurgitation of neoliberal (or worse) thinking which has ample opportunity for expression elsewhere.
Nor do I tolerate anti-democratic commentary.
And repetition is not argument β it is boring. So it is deleted.
I also reserve the right to decide that a commentator is simply seeking to waste my time by commentating excessively with the sole apparent purpose of consuming my energy in dealing with their own predilections. Even if each comment would by itself be acceptable I will in such cases delete comments to save my own time, and that of the majority of readers. If someone who wants to comment here six times a day is that keen to blog please do it elsewhere β not here. You can always try to link β but I’d add I only show links when I think they have any merit β and I have yet to find a libertarian one with that quality.
And for all those who say this is censorship, I yet again repeat that editorial freedom is vital in a democracy. Which is why IO don’t enter into correspondence with those whose comments I have deleted. Just go and post them elsewhere. It’s really as simple as that.
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:
Richard, how does your comment that “editorial freedom is vital in a democracy” fit with your previous comments (and comments from others) that the right wing press in the UK is responsible for manipulating the electorate into not voting for the left?
@Greg
Totally consistent
But to protect editorial freedom the right must not be allowed to own all the press
Hence the opposition to Murdoch – to preserve press freedom which is vital for democracy to flourish
Fair point, but how does one control the political bias of the press whilst still maintaining editorial freedom?
Obviously if it was down to me, i’d just ban the Daily Mail and other such rubbish! π
Your blog, your rules.
However, if you’re seeking to win people round to your arguments (some of us aren’t natural allies of the super-rich, and are open minded enough to the idea of being convinced), then I’d respectfully suggest you dialled down on the ad hominem rebuttals and sometimes-arrogant tone and dialled up the precision of your writing so that your suggestions aren’t misunderstood. It’s your blog and your life, so of course you’re free to ignore that suggestion, but don’t be surprised if you just get increasingly frustrated with the lack of success you have in getting your message across. Flies, vinegar, honey and all that.
The so-called “libertarian” (ho ho) blogs are the worst for deleting comments, something which they do regularly and very slyly. They don’t fear what I would call “idiot lefty” comments which just act as straw men easy to knock down, but try putting up a comment that raises the questions that their neolib ideology can’t answer. It will be deleted. Conservative Home is particularly sneaky, because it puts up “comment deleted” signs when one of their pet commenters has overstepped the mark, but will covertly delete those comments that explode their ideology, no matter how polite. This of course makes it appear that they are transparent over deletions when in fact they are not.
Would it not be simpler to say:
I do not entertain comments that do not stand the test of observed fact, self evident truth and reason?
And point out were they fail in that. Ignoring anything unrelated. Any other blog policing must be inherently prejudiced.
@Robin Smith
I wish I understood quite what you were getting at
But remember, I do not believe in objectivity – no one is objective and those who claim they are are liars
So prejudice is inherent – and best recognised
So sure, I’m prejudiced
I am entirely happy with being so. I declare my bias to the poor, the disadvantaged, the outcast, small business, labour
And a passion for small islands, tax justice, equality, non-discrimination, full employment, opportunity for all, democracy, the rule of law, freedom from oppression (including by the state when it does it) and much more
I hate discrimination, exploitation, greed, the oppression of free speech, denial of opportunity (but with much else, this has to be balanced) and narrow minded self interest
If I didn’t have those prejudices I would not blog
So they’re all part of the package
And I’m not ashamed of that
@between-the-lines
Try getting on the Telegraph blogs!
@Alex B
Yeh, yeh
That’s why this is #6 economics blog in the UK
And got 12,000 reads on Monday
Deal with it, as my son would say
People have been telling you what you say for ages
All seem to be libertarians intent on silencing opposition or who hate robust challenge
Let me be assure you I’ll continue to suffer fools badly
Thing is… I only come here for the fights
Sadly, I`m afraid I have to agree,for calm persuasion will surely work much better than the sometimes extremely patronising and unpleasant comments.If others want to screech like a fishwife-as you say,maybe just ignore.
Also I find a distinct absence of words like balance of payments,industry,exports etc-for surely the success of Germany in/and the EU is largely down to those factors-and not always arguing about neo liberalism or tax justice,as important as they might be.If you need an example,I think BP was,and maybe still is,the biggest individual contributor to UK tax.So maybe a more balanced view of the whole economy?
@Brian
a) this is a blog, not the FT
b) I have never sought to offer a balanced view
c) if you don’t like that, tough – start your own blog