Comment Policy

Basic Guidelines:

  • Be kind.
  • Play nicely with others.
  • Don’t be evil.

Further Details:

  • A minimal level of intelligence, curiosity, open-mindedness, honesty, sincerity, and good intentions is a non-negotiable requirement. Life is too short and the moral failings of humanity endless. The purpose here is to allow space for kindness and compassion, empathy and understanding. Give others the benefit of the doubt. Be understanding and forgiving. It’s that simple.
  • I have zero tolerance for spamming, trolling, and troll-like behavior; extremely annoying comments, idiotic mind games, and general fuckery; willful ignorance, playing stupid, and pointless nitpicking; cherrypicking data, refusal to acknowledge arguments, and distracting from the topic of discussion; arrogant self-righteousness, unquestioning self-certainty, and blatant hypocrisy; et cetera. Basically, jerks and assholes are not welcome, and bullshit is not allowed nor apologetics and anti-intellectualism.
  • And I have no patience for rigid absolutism, ideological dogmatism, and mindless groupthink; sociopathy, cruelty, and mean-spiritedness; bigotry, prejudice, and hateful language; deceptive spin, empty rhetoric, and dog whistle politics; et cetera. This doesn’t only include such things as straightforward racism, but also such things as race realism — for the two can’t be differentiated and only a racist would claim otherwise. This applies to similar non-distinctions. If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, I will treat you like a duck. Neither will subtle bigotry like dog whistle politics be tolerated.
  • Other varieties of unacceptable views are misogyny and misandry, homophobia and xenophobia, poor-bashing and eugenics. I’m fair and balanced in my intolerance of intolerance; for example, advocacy of oppressive or bigoted forms of Zionism are no more allowed than is antisemitism. To keep it further balanced, along with being opposed to settler colonialism and ethno-theocracy,  I likewise won’t allow space on this blog for those promoting imperialism, fascism, fundamentalism, xenophobia, etc.
  • Basically, I don’t appreciate any form or expression of reactionary thought, authoritarianism, social domination, Machiavellianism, demagoguery, and on and on. You get the general idea. This is not to be taken as a comprehensive list, but as a suggestion of the appropriate attitude in participating here.

Concluding Thoughts:

I won’t argue about any of this and I won’t necessarily explain. You may or may not be given a second chance. If I deem your comments to be contrary to my values and principles, your comments won’t be posted. And if I don’t like you for any reason whatsoever or otherwise find relating to you to be a net loss to my happiness or to the purpose of this blog, I very well might permanently block you. That said, my years of experience demonstrates that the vast majority of people who seek to comment don’t run afoul of my standards. I’ve regularly written on this blog for about a decade, which includes thousands of posts and comments. During that time, I’ve only blocked a few people.

I value and enjoy open discussion, honest and intelligent debate, even moreso when it is guided by questioning curiosity and intellectual humility. Throwing in some radical imagination and out-of-the-box thinking can be good as well. Keep it interesting. If you don’t share my attitude, please just go away. But if you do share my attitude, I’m glad to have you participate. I welcome and enjoy comments, even or especially long detailed comments that offer useful info, original insights, incisive analysis, tough questions, challenging views, etc. And I almost always respond, as there are few things I enjoy more than dialogue, at least when friendly. I’m not big into argumentative debate, though. Keep it on a human level, as if we were two people sitting down for a coffee, beer, or whatever is your choice of beverage. There is a person on the other side of the screen.

By the way, recommendations of reading material, blogging ideas, new views, etc are almost always appreciated. I’m continuously in the process of learning. That is what this blog is about and so comment accordingly.

(Last updated: 2/22/2019)


5 thoughts on “Comment Policy

  1. This made me smile. And I haven’t smiled much in the last couple of days. You obviously share my instinctive aversion to brevity and love of the the perfect, exactly descriptive adjective. I came here via a Facebook link to an excellent article about why an otherwise rational, un-monstrous person might have voted for DJT. Or, anyway, it helped me understand that, though the real point was what allowed his rise in the firs place. I’ve struggled with that. And that struggle has lead me to rethink the entire progressive agenda, or more precisely, the way in which that agenda is expressed. But I come from the privilege world of the white, upper-class, and I know it is hard, if not impossible, for me to truly understand the situation of the poor of any race or creed. It is also hard for me to try to effect any change without not just coming off as condescending, but actually being unintentionally condescending. Plus I have a tendency to lapse into a somewhat pedantic style, mostly out of a serious devotion to… clear meaning, I guess? Frankly, I don’t really know why I am writing this except that I am grieving and in shock and have had to acknowledge the very real role I played in letting this happen. Also, I’ve had a few glasses of wine. I crave real discussion of issues that matter. I really want someone on the other side to engage in a meaningful and constructive way, but in our polarized environment, that is difficult. I really want to believe in the basic goodness of humanity, but DJT has made that really hard. He’s also forced me to take a closer look at the assumptions involved in making that statement. So now I really hate him! It’s never comfortable to confront our own biases…

    • I’m glad I amused you. I amuse myself all the time. But I fear that my amusement is too often one-sided.

      BTW which post were you looking at? I wrote a number of posts where I discussed Trump.

      “And that struggle has lead me to rethink the entire progressive agenda, or more precisely, the way in which that agenda is expressed.”

      That is what I like to hear. I’ve been rethinking many things these past years. I’ve identified as a liberal for as long as I can remember. But I’m starting to wonder what liberalism means or could mean. Maybe there is a flaw within the liberal worldview.

      “Frankly, I don’t really know why I am writing this except that I am grieving and in shock and have had to acknowledge the very real role I played in letting this happen.”

      Also good to hear. I’ve been wanting to see the political left, especially Democrats, to start doing some serious self-questioning and soul searching. As someone on the political left, I want a political left that is strong and has a worthy vision. But at present, we on the left have lost our way.

      “It’s never comfortable to confront our own biases…”

      We humans are complex creatures. It’s easy to get frustrated and to let that let you get cynical. I’m always struggling against that. I’ve been thinking that I’m not cynical enough, after seeing the crap go on this election on all sides. But I don’t want to be cynical.

  2. Mr. Steele, I just recently stumbled across older comments, from 2015 regarding issues of race and poverty and I thoroughly enjoyed them. But, just at the moment when I thought your comments couldn’t be any more on point…you shook things up when you told Stan your ethnicity. I felt like you dropped the proverbial mic and I imagined everyone heard crickets! Like what???? Moreover, you engaged in discussion and shared thoughts about why Hispanics were included in the white category…hence the reason for my comment. In my opinion…there appears to be some code of conduct around force, specifically frequency, type and amount, that delineates for the powers that govern. And my hunch has led me to ask the question of whether or not it’s for the purpose of not confusing or convoluting the current “order” of things. Think about it…adding Hispanics in with Caucasians provide clearly defined lines, for that perpetuate the “black” against “white” mentality. Although statistics show Hispanics are, at times treated disparagingly they, along with Caucasians, are less likely to loose their lives while in police custody. What are your thoughts?

    • I don’t remember that specific discussion. Stan hasn’t been around to comment. Could you share the link or the title to the blog post where Stan commented. I’d be curious to look back at it. But I could imagine the kind of interaction it was.

      As for your opinion and hunch, I get the gist of what you’re getting at. But maybe you could give me some more details. There definitely are codes of conduct… of many varieties, for different groups, and serving one purpose or another. That is how the social order is maintained. Certainly, there is a central “purpose of not confusing or convoluting the current “order” of things.”

      I’ve written about the racial order in terms of ‘black’/’white’ mentality. Almost any group can assimilate into ‘white’ culture, except blacks. I’ve met many Hispanics and Native Americans who could pass as basically ‘white’, at least as ‘white’ as many Southern Europeans. There are also many people with Asian ancestry that more or less look ‘white’.

      In early America, Hispanics weren’t considered a separate demographic category, at least not on the national level. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that issues of national identity became more important in terms of ethnicity/race. It was exacerbated because of high levels of immigration. It later on led the Second Klan, mostly operating in Northern states, to focus more on ethnic immigrants than it did on blacks.

      I’ve written many posts about this kind of thing over the years. I’m not sure which posts may be relevant to your inquiry. Here is one post about a fascinating topic, orphan trains, and it directly relates to the issue of Hispanics.

      I would add an additional perspective. The increase of Hispanics could complicate the racial order. That is because the Spanish Empire had a different racial system. It wasn’t based on clear ‘black’/’white’ divide. Instead, it involved gradations of skin tone. Unlike the American racial order of the past based on a particular slave system, the Latin American racial order doesn’t have simple categories of ‘white’ and ‘black’.

      There is an anecdote that made this clear. A ‘black’ American traveled to some Latin American country. He was speaking to people who, to his mind, were ‘black’. But they didn’t identify as ‘black’ because to them the label had a specific meaning that didn’t apply to them. It was amusing because the ‘black’ American couldn’t accept the notion that blackness was a social construct and so there was no objective perception of it.

      American ideas of race have been heavily determined by the assimilationist demands, often oppressive persecution, directed at non-WASP ethnic immigrants during the eras of World War and Cold War. Prior to that, those of European ancestry with darker skin, hair, and eyes weren’t treated the same and their whiteness was sometimes questioned. Even the light-skinned Irish were of doubtful whiteness to centuries of the English.

      Race used to be another word for ethnicity. Even earlier, race was applied to class distinctions, treating aristocracy and peasants as separate races. Even what we see today as a single ethnicity, such as the English, is built upon what once was considered dozens of ethnicities. The notion of race that became popular in the US this past century is highly unusual, never before having existed. Multiple past strains of thought went into its formation.

      It’s highly probable that racial ideology will be transformed over the coming century. We might move more toward the Latin American racial order. Also, as socioeconomic inequality increases, a class element is making rigid certain distinctions. If inequality gets bad enough and is entrenched for long enough, we could return to seeing the upper class and lower class beginning to be treated as separate races. It’s always been a powerful element of the Social Darwinian vision.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s