This blog is suffering another bout of comments from the fringes the political right wing. These people, who call themselves libertarian but whose whole object is to subject others to abuse, loss and poverty in pursuit of their own desire for wealth and power, present an agenda which is, thankfully, far beyond the bounds of political credibility in the UK.
I have a choice about how to respond. I could allow them to comment and ignore the fact that they use this site to promote their obnoxious views. The Guardian’s Comment if Free site basically does this — and I know of no one who as a result reads any of the comments posted there as a consequence. That, inevitably, reduces the value of that site.
Alternatively, as I have sought to do, I can engage with the comments. But this does not work: these people are closed minded dogmatists who, as their own sites show, use abuse, bullying and foul language as their normal means of communication. In that they are remarkably akin to the BNP, although, I accept of different persuasion in many respects. This is the policy I have, by and large, tried. As many of my friends tell me, I am wasting my time, and raising my blood pressure as a result for no possible benefit.
Thirdly I can simply delete their comments. This would save me massive amount of time and let me get on with my real work.
Or I can stop all comments.
I think that is a realistic summary of the options.
I do not think option one is viable for the reasons noted.
I have tried stopping comments, but there are people who do comment here whose comments I value, despite often not agreeing with them. Curiously this now includes most of those from secrecy jurisdictions.
Option 2 is not working.
So I am planning to resort to option 3. All comments from those promoting libertarian abuse will be deleted henceforth. This blog is about mainstream political issues, mainstream debate and mainstream solutions. The libertarian commentators here aren’t in that debate. As such I won’t be giving their extremist views space and henceforth won’t be acknowledging the fact I’m deleting their comments either. As a result I hope the comments on this blog will be more useful in future.
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:
You’re quite tright to do so. They can be abusive elsewhere.
Option 4 (stopping all comments) is probably best. I don’t think this blogging caper is for you.
Blogging is really about getting a wide range of views, and a bit of an argument going. Minimal censorship, simply to comply with the law (defamation, anti-vilification laws etc). Let the gold mix with the crud. Let factual errors be raised.
This is (and will increasingly become) a diary. That’s fine. But at least be honest – this will no longer really be a blog, and to call yourself a ‘blogger’ will be quite misleading. You’re a diarist.
Spot on! As a US basketball coach – I can’t remember his name – was famous for saying, “nihil illegitemi carborundum”.
I enjoy reading your blog, though I never comment. I think you are being a bit harsh so I thought I’d pipe up. The dialogue between commenters is what makes the blog interesting, so banning a handful appears counterproductive. A few points.
You are perhaps underestimating the vigour of your own language. You aren’t above using terms like “drivel”, “You are out in the realm of the fairies”, “Any other argument is wrong, I know exactly what I am talking about”.
I think is beneath you to denigrate those who hold different views as somehow malevolent. You say of this group that their “whole object is to subject others to abuse, loss and poverty”. I mean, really!? Their whole object? Are you sure?
Obviously you must consider your blood pressure, but perhaps if you realised that people who hold views at variance from your own do so not because they are evil but because they have information and perspectives different from your own then you might contemplate reconsidering.
Why not just let the comments stand? Your assertion that publishing unorthodox comments stops people reading the comments seems untrue. In fact, the more lively the debate, the more comments which result. I daresay your site analytics would prove the point in terms of page views. A site which deletes off-message comments seems far worse – deriding libertarian values and cracking down on free speech: not a good combination.
As I said, I enjoy the blog, and learn quite a bit from it (not always as you intended though!). So to hear you describe people who question your ideas as “obnoxious” is irksome. I often disagree! Am I obnoxious too?
Was Hayek obnoxious? Would he be banned?
@Jon Lansman
and
@nick james
Thanks
@Adrian
You miss the point
No one said blogs have to b as you define them
Nor does free speech require any publisher to give a platform to anyone. There is also editorial freedom
So if this is a diary with informed comment on it – that’s fine with me
And what a web log is
@CharlesOJ
I suspect that if you’d pushed a little harder you’d have been deleted. As Hayek probably would have been
I’m not opposed to robustness. I’m happy to be robust. I’m happy for others to be robust
I oppose oppression. And yes – I am entirely happy that there are a great many who comment here whose main aim is to oppress most in society
As for site analytics – you may notice I publish them really. I don’t really care about them
But I do care massively about oppressed people
And sure as heck I will defend my right to be angry with them
I will also defend their right to have their obnoxious say
But nothing means that has to be here
I agree with this tack mostly.
But I think you should continue with your “this comment has not been published etc” along with with the name of the ‘drivelers’ name so they can understand and perhaps rephrase an argument you may have opposed and vilified for elsewhere for the sake of a rounded discussion.
I have nowhere near your understanding about your spectrum; however it is part of my general metaphysical understanding of causality, and so agree broadly with an opposition to the nonsense that is spouted by libertarian self-aggrandatisers.
This has been the best forum to see how ‘intelligent’ people think, because Mr Murphy, you attract intelligent conversation by being bloody intelligent.
I’ve read the rest. I’ve read the Catos and the Worstalls and the rest and all I see is failed dogma.
Therefore, I’m interested in what those trolls think, but if you find them offensive, at least publish the “this has been deleted” post, so that I can look them up and find out why.
Well done for having a policy. This is your piece. You can do what you want.
Richard, in reference to your response to CharlesOJ, I’m disappointed that you feel his response is close to being worthy of deletion – it seemed very measured to me.
Let me state my position: it’s your blog, so you can do as you please. You are the editor and your position is final.
However, I feel that when you say that there are those whose “main aim is to oppress most in society” you are misinterpreting their views. I don’t see that in the comments posted by libertarians. I think that their goals are broadly similar to yours: that is, a general increase in wealth. They simply disagree on the mechanism. This is probably a gross over-simplification, but you seem to prefer a general redistribution of wealth, whereas the libertarians give preference to the creation of wealth in the first place (in the belief that the “rising tide lifts all boats”).
It seems to me that this is a debate worth having, and perhaps a good place to start would be to explore how many goals you have in common, as opposed to how you differ in policy. It would be a shame if you deleted comments simply because of policy disagreements, and for me it would make this blog less readable as a result (the ugly flip-side of editorial freedom: the freedom of the readers to move elsewhere).
For the sake of easing your rising blood pressure, please remember that there are many readers who form part of the economic underclass who follow your blog with great interest. We may not be as vocal as other commentators but your ideas are getting through and the work you do is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
@Rick
Thanks
@John Brady
I think you are mistaken
I aim for greater equality
They aim for greater inequality
I seek human rights for all
They seek the right to abuse
And as for the notion of trickle down, all we have ever seen is flooding up
There is no realistic point in common worth exploring
And I’m really quite happy about that