The comments have gotten a bit out of hand again — too much personal invective, too much ranting, too little relevance. I am not banning any individual commenters (which would be easy enough to do), but I will no longer post any comments that have personal attacks (I consider calling people who disagree immoral a personal attack), an undue amount of generalized invective, that are not responsive to the post on which they comment, or that for other as yet unspecified reasons I conclude simply fail to add anything worthwhile to the discussion here. I will not exclude on the basis of grammar alone — I make enough typos and similar errors that I could hardly afford to do that — but I will require at least a minimal level of coherence as well.
The problem is that almost all the articles that you oppose have exactly the problems that you won’t allow in comments that support them:
they call opponents of AA racist;
they don’t describe or they lie about the AA that they support;
they ignore any arguments against their views.
Many of these people are respected and intelligent, yet they write like morons. I think you should allow a similar level of comments.
I’m not sure that posting moronic comments, and then posting replies pointing out that the comment is moronic, adds anything useful to the discussion here.
You White European American Male Heterosexuals always control the way the rest of us comment anyway!!!
You have such a tough job to do here, John. I don’t have any advice on how to do it.
I’m probably guilty as charged. It all wears me out sometimes.
How do you respond to the assertion that demanding your (and your family’s) right to equal protection under the law is a form of racism?
Perhaps, the best thing is not to respond at all.
Keep up the good work.
The problem, John, is that sometimes people take positions which are immoral, demonstrating themselves to be morally deficient. Blocking comments that make that point is a form of political correctness that stifles honest discussion.
After all, I’d argue anyone who came into a forum espousing racial superiority is immoral — as is someone who otherwise engages in raw acts and statements of bigotry. Why SHOULDN’T such things be condemned?
I certainly agree that some policies are immoral, but my attempt at toning down the rhetoric here has more to do with what I find interesting than with what I find politically correct. I’m simply bored by the name calling, and I suspect others may be as well. But even if others aren’t tired of it, I am, and I would like comments to be tied more closely to the posts and to relevant arguments that may, on occasion, come out of discussing the posts. If that turns out to be too restrictive, I’ll reconsider.
“I would like comments to be tied more closely to the posts …”
You’re right about that. Lately, it seems the comments are so formless that they could appear in any post.