We have comments, and as a free-speech oriented blog, we have no political limits; right and left, authoritarian and libertarian, all views are permitted.
HOWEVER,
I’ve also seen a lot of comment sections become clogged with unproductive arguments. So, these will be our comment rules.
We consider comments to be an essential part of the content of the site, for which we pay in publicity and the pleasure of the conversation. We are looking for thoughtful comments, insight, and originality. We consider each comment in terms of how much it contributes to the content of the site, just as we might, as editors, consider each submission. Comments that we believe don’t add to the site’s value will be rejected. Abusive commenters may be banned.
Comments may include quotations, links and citations; however, repetitions of the daily talking points don’t contribute to the value of the site.
Criticism and controversy are useful; the dialectic process and the scientific method are the best known ways of arriving at new knowledge and understanding. Some kind of argument, however, are not helpful. We recommend that all commenters read Paul Graham’s essay “How to Disagree.” The lower the level on the Graham scale, the less likely you are to be contributing to the value of the site. Another useful resource for commenters is any one of the various sites that discuss the classical fallacies of rhetoric — what people mean when they refer to, for example, an “ad hominem” argument. Some sites that might be of interest are Steven’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies, Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, and Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument. Use of fallacious construction in arguments reduces their value.[1]
Comments are published at the will of the editors; they may be deleted at any time. The editors’ word is law. If you don’t like an editorial decision, we suggest you take it up with the Chaplain.
Footnotes:- The editors do, however, award style points for the successful use of amphiboly. [↩]