I have a comment policy

This is the saddest thing I’ve ever had to waste time writing. Find it here and please note I’ll be trying to stick to it as much as possible. This is about not only trying to create a safe and pleasant and thoughtful space for me, but also for my readers.


  1. John Morales says

    Yes, without enforcement it will be virtually useless.

    (And it’s very good that you’ve put it prominently in the top-level bar)

  2. says

    There’s nothing wrong with having a comment policy. In fact, it’s a good idea – as long as it’s a good policy.

    What provoked this, I wonder?

      • Tauriq Moosa says


        Free speech isn’t allowing you to say whatever you want: consider defamation laws, for example, built into freedom of speech laws in liberal countries which themselves are highly respectful of freedom of speech.

        You’re confusing licence for free speech: those are not the same.

        Please note, too, that you need to justify your claims, not assert them here please. Anyone can assert what they want: takes actual effort to back up claims with rational argument, evidence, etc.

        • prodegtion says

          Wrong as usual.
          The First Amendment:
          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          • Tauriq Moosa says

            “Wrong as usual”? What do you mean by that?

            Also, that’s not an argument: that’s the First Amendment. I can quote from the Bible but presumably that won’t persuade you to believe me.

          • Tauriq Moosa says

            That’s irrelevant to this discussion. Anyone can quote anything: you haven’t given an argument. Also, I’m not Congress.

            Also, I don’t believe I’m restricting you from blogging anywhere else on the Internet. Would you claim First Amendment rights are violated because Letter Editors didn’t publish crazy people’s letters in their paper? Difference between censorship and, at the very least, facilitating productive debate and discussion. That you fail to grasp this difference is deeply concerning.

          • prodegtion says

            Quoting the Constitution is not the same thing as quoting the Bible, duh. One is the supreme law of the land; the other is a fiction story.

  3. Donnie says

    Seriously? You cite the 1st amendment on a private blog as your justification for not having a comment policy? Seriously? The words that I would describe you would probably get me banmed, so I will leave it with, “you can claim that your free speech is being violated when Tauriq successfully convinces the U.S. Federal government that your posting on his personal blog is the equivalent of ‘hooliganism’ and the U.S. givernment arrests you, convicts you in a court of law, and sentences you to 2-years hard labour in ahe equivalent of a prison coal mine”.

    Until you experience something a la Pussy Riot, your free speech is not being restricted. Tauriq is simply not allowing you to defecate bullshit on his blog. Feel free to defecate elsewhere.

    Seriously, can someone research this complete stupidity by americans in not understanding the first amendment? Is it related to an authoritative tendency? Poor educational opportunties? Pure demagoguery? Plain dishonesty in knowning the difference but not caring just to snipe?

    Can we name it a logical fallacy, “parrotta ad fox noise”? Can one of the blog’s moderation policy be automatic banning for not understanding the 1st amendment? How valuable or insightful would a commenter’s comment be if he/she cannot understand basic ideas and concepts learned in high school?

    • prodegtion says

      There’s a REASON we have the first amendment. Watch any thunderf00t video about freedom of speech.

  4. Tauriq Moosa says

    Prodegtion: You keep referring without making arguments. First you refer to First Amendment without saying why it’s relevant; then to obtain relevance you say go watch a video. That’s not terribly convincing. (Also the First Amendment applies to [only one] country, not the Internet)

    Again: I can compare your comparison to the Bible because that’s what people without actual argument keep doing. I didn’t say the Bible and First Amendment are the same: I’m saying the tactic of referencing equaling argument is.

    An important part of this blog is actual argument – which, ironically, is in the comment policy you erroneously claim infringes on your free speech (something you keep asserting without justification and without responding to any arguments made to to you).