Comment policy

A number of my old commenters have written in to complain that it is impossible to have a discussion here because of the new commenters hurling verbal brickbats.

I'm very happy to have more left wing commenters these days; on any blog, there's danger of things turning into an echo chamber. I'm not happy to have commenters, left and right, derail threads with escalating name-calling.

Hence, for the first time, I'm going to start aggressively moderating the comments.

The rules:

1) No name calling. You may make fun of your opponents ideas as vigorously as you like. Be funny, sarcastic, bombastic, whatever. Call him a "Moron", "Fascist", or a four-letter word, however, and I will delete you. Likewise if you accuse people of secretly longing to [see the poor starve/impose their quasi-communofascist philosophy on freedom-loving people everywhere].

2) No derailing threads. This post was meant to be a bit of fun, reminiscent of the famous 2003 Thomas Friedman essay contest. Several commenters, however, are apparently unable to recognize fun . . . or else they don't think other people are entitled to have any. I'm deleting the off-topic comments, and future such.

3) No posting copyrighted content. I make my living by IP; and this blog belongs to a big media company that could get sued. Fair use is fine, but reproducing an entire article from behind some pay barrier is not.

4) No profanity. This is a family blog. Specifically, my family. When launching your nasty attacks, try not to say anything that you wouldn't want your mother and father to see written about you.

5) No referring to anything as "Fascist" or "Communist" unless the people involved are actually adherents of the 19th- and 20th- century political ideologies thus described. These words are not synonyms for "mean people" or "people who disagree with me".

I will not delete people for any other sort of content. There are blogs out there who delete reasonable comments in order to make the blogger look as if there is no good opposition to their ideas. This will not be one of those blogs. If you disagree with me, please stay and argue. Just do it respectfully.

One more note: if you put links into your comments, the spam filter will catch them. I'm trying to make those comments live as quickly as possible, but I've been rather busy.

Comments

Thanks, Megan. Civil discourse is the only way to go.

Posted by Rex | August 29, 2007 8:51 AM

"I will not delete people for any other sort of content."

There are those who might see that statement as a challenge. I myself am sorely tempted to concoct something utterly objectionable that fits your rules, while normally I am just argumentative and annoying.

Posted by Njorl | August 29, 2007 9:10 AM

(cough*Brad Delong).

Posted by Stuart Buck | August 29, 2007 9:15 AM

But, of course, the reason you are really doing this is because you simply don't like the content of the comments you've been getting. And you don't, I suspect, because your commenters have a habit of pointing out precisely how logically unsound your arguments are. And, yes, I recognize that it can hurt your feelings to have these things pointed out to you. But that's life in the public discourse. So how expansive are you going to take this "name calling" business? If I call you intellectually unserious? If I say you're being deliberately obtuse? If I say you are rhetorically lazy? If I say that you're writing in a childish or amateurish manner? Despite what your crowd of yes-men will tell you, those aren't outside of "civil discourse." When you lose the ability to demonstrate that someone's arguments haven't been made with necessary care to be taken seriously, you've lost any semblance of intellectual discussion whatsoever.

I've watched with a little dismay and a lot of humor as you've posted again and again about how unfairly maligned and oppressed you are. You're hated, we're told, because you're so controversial, or because you tell us the ugly truth, or because you're so successful, or because you're a woman. But it's all nonsense. Here's the truth: however bright you are, and however talented a writer, you routinely post arguments that don't meet even basic requirements of intellectual strength, honesty or clarity. Sure, I'm biased in that I disagree with you politically. But there are a lot of people I disagree with on the web who don't make me groan and shake my head in disbelief. Do you even ask yourself whether it's really everyone elses fault but not your own?

And yet, I'm sure you'd never know it. Nothing seems to ever be your fault. You've erected a wall around yourself, through which you won't allow the possibility that maybe the reason people take so many shots at you is because you aren't very good at this, and you exacerbate that fact with your pretensions to superiority. The truth is, you do want a bubble. You don't want to confront the consequences of your "contrarian" views. You want to be known as provocative, but you don't like what you're actually provoking.

And now, of course, you've turned to the big gun, banning comments you don't like. I hope you realize that you are demonstrating to your many critics exactly what they have been accusing you of. If you don't like your comments section, here's a wild idea: don't make frivolous arguments. Check to see if you pass basic logical muster. Don't act as though the fact that you think something is self-evident is proof enough for everyone else. Stop spending so much time jerking your knee against people who disagree with you. I think you can do those things without sacrificing any of your beliefs.

Hope this doesn't get deleted! Once you start erasing opinions you don't like, it can be hard to stop....

Posted by Freddie | August 29, 2007 9:18 AM

Jane, from some of the responses I got to my comments here it transpired that there is a concerted effort to, well, drive you, or at least your usual readers, away from this site. Doesn't surprise me any. Personally, I promise to keep reading your blog wherever it is, as long as you won't dedicate 100% of it to the leftysphere's choice of topics :-)

Posted by ...Max... | August 29, 2007 9:22 AM

Freddie, I have no intention of deleting your comments; you're one of the new commenters I'm happy to have. You're free to be as angry with me as you like. You're just not free to derail every thread into a discussion of me, rather than the content of the post.

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 29, 2007 9:24 AM

Freddie, there were about ten commenters (including you, but I'll freely admit that your posts in particular do keep within the boundaries of civility) that created this deluge of accusations. It is rather conceited to say "everyone else" in this context. So is your overload of adjectives -- when your side doesn't seem to be familiar with economics' glossary and sees nothing wrong in a circular argument (yes, the "public goods" thing on both counts).

You know, the most all y'all can achieve is to keep Jane's readers out of the comment section. A pity indeed, as it used to be just as interesting a reading as The Asymmetrical Information itself. But I sincerely doubt you can drive Jane away.

Posted by ...Max... | August 29, 2007 9:31 AM

This comment deleted for misuse of the word "Fascist"

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 9:43 AM

Thank you. I've been reading your blogs for quite a while, and I've always enjoyed the intelligent discourse in the comments sections. However, the venomous tone of some of the newer posters was beginning to get to me.

Posted by Princess of Swords | August 29, 2007 9:49 AM

Megan, I'm returning to something I posted earlier. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you object to a single payer system. Do you object to having a single organization that pays all claims and makes all decisions about what treatments are covered, or do you object to universal medical insurance? If MetLife obtained a medical insurance monopoly and everything else stayed the same, we'd have a single payer system without universal coverage. If we instituted a system like Singapore's we would have universal coverage but no single payer. Which system do you oppose? Or do you oppose both?

Posted by Stan | August 29, 2007 9:56 AM

No bleeping profanity? Well, bloopity-blah. That's really going to bleeping crimp my bleeping style.

Posted by Immoralist | August 29, 2007 10:11 AM

Freddie, there's a world of differences between "opinions she doesn't like" and "YOU SUCK WHY DID THE ATLANTIC EVER HIRE YOU." The latter only comes in one flavor, and it showed up in every godforsaken post here. The comments section was completely unreadable

Meghan, for my two cents I'd suggest you stop treating blog argumentation like highschool lincoln douglas debate. Value standards and stipulated premises are all well and good in a one on one setting, but there's no judge here and no single opponent. Without a consistent dialogue it just comes off as trying to win on a technicality.

Posted by Jack | August 29, 2007 10:11 AM

Thank you.

Looking forward to interesting discussion in future comment threads.

Posted by TJIT | August 29, 2007 10:15 AM

Thank you!

I always enjoyed the comments section at your old site, in large part for the spirited debate, but the comments here were really becoming a chore. Or, pretty much exactly what Princess of Swords just said.

Posted by Sean E | August 29, 2007 10:17 AM

This comment deleted because it responds to an earlier, deleted comment

Posted by Hey | August 29, 2007 10:41 AM

Freddie:
Whether "intellectually unserious" or "deliberately obtuse" or "rhetorically lazy" or "writing in a childish or amateurish manner" is "outside of 'civil discourse'" depends on (a) whether the accusation is actually true, and (b) whether it is even truer of the person making the accusation and therefore a case of projection.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | August 29, 2007 11:08 AM

I hope you include "troll" in your name calling policy.

Most people called "trolls" these days are more correctly known as "a perfectly reasonable person that disagrees with me. I hate that person because I cannot effectively argue against his points and his ideology and so I will call them a troll to dehumanize them, and delegitimize their argument. They needed to be shouted down."

Posted by jerry | August 29, 2007 11:13 AM

I hope it doesn't become verboten to refer to authoritarian state-supremacist beliefs, no matter how they are expressed or by whom, as "fascist." The mere fact that Fascism and Communism are "19th and 20th century ideologies" doesn't mean that they are dead, or that someone today might not express a viewpoint that clearly can be identified as conforming to one or the other ideology. I think it's important to be able to refer to such thinking in accurate terms.

That said, you and the Atlantic can do as you like. It's your blog and there are numerous others.

Posted by liberalrob | August 29, 2007 12:06 PM

More power to you, Megan. (Even though, if it need be said, I disagree with some of your views.) There's a reason so many highly trafficked blogs reserve the right to kill comments that are beyond the pale.

And no, Freddie, this doesn't imply killing civil discourse. It means sensible enforcement of what we could call, for lack of better, the rule of "Don't be an a*****e." You understand this rule, as your stern but civil post demonstrates. Many others don't understand this rule, and deserve to have the clue-stick wielded upon them.

And Megan, if you keep posting comments like Freddie's here, you will only reinforce your reputation for probity and non-civil-discourse-killing-ness. :)

Posted by Tim Walker | August 29, 2007 12:12 PM

Oh, but Megan, you are perfect!

Thanks for doing this, and I hope it works. Us longtime readers are pretty shocked at what happend to the comments after you moved.

Posted by withnail | August 29, 2007 12:13 PM

Thanks Meagan, I’m one of your long-time readers and sometimes commenter who looks forward to seeing some of the great discussions that were the staple of Asymmetrical Information.

Posted by Thorley Winston | August 29, 2007 12:27 PM

Fascism isn't quite just state-authoritarianism; the communist states were that. It's an ideology that had specific ideas about a will of the people and national greatness that are expressed through a single leader, which doesn't very well describe anything close to what Republicans believe. Moreover, as with Communism, the general impetus is not to engage in Comparitive Politics; it's to tar the opinions of whoever you're debating with the nasty behaviour of the ideology's more famous regimes. It doesn't improve the tone of the debate, and it never communicates anything that couldn't be easily said in some less inflammatory way.

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 29, 2007 12:30 PM

Megan,

I was just curious about the Atlantic's reaction to your decision to become a more strict moderator? Were there preliminary discussions before your decision, or did you have an agreement that allows you complete autonomy over the decision? As blogs like Jane Galt go 'big media', I find myself wondering if any sell-outs are occurring or if 'big media' is so far behind the curve that they'll agree to let the 'it' blogger be 'it'?

For instance on the one hand, I'd think The Atlantic would be annoyed because, as liberalrob said on the other comments thread, readers may leave if they can't have the fun of either hurling the 'vitriol' or reading the 'vitriol' being slung back and forth (I like to lurk and watch the 'vitriol' as I believe that even the 'vitriol', in and of itself, occassionally illuminates).

But on the other hand, perhaps the 'vitriol' was driving off the core readership of your old blog. The people who would always stick with you and come to appreciate The Atlantic brand at the same time. Maybe that's what The Atlantic intended to buy.

On the third hand, there's The Daily Dish.

I'm just fascinated about how this played out in an economic/marketplace sense.

Then again, maybe this post should just be deleted as 'off-topic'?

Posted by keatssycamore | August 29, 2007 1:07 PM

At the risk of becoming off-topic and boring, there are certain aspects of current Republican thought that can indeed (in my opinion) be described as fascist. The Republican tendency to require deference to the authority of the President, as epitomized by the arguments around the FISA warrantless wiretapping story, can easily be described as supporting the fascist concept of the Supreme Leader acting in the best interests of the nation. The use of media manipulation and propaganda, the assertion of the power of the President to defy the Congress "in a time of war" or in the name of "national security", etc. etc. The examples are legion, and have taken on an unprecedented prominence in the actions of Republicans during the Bush administration.

So it seems natural to me, when engaged in debate with people who espouse and support these policies, to call a spade a spade. If one is supporting fascist policies and beliefs, one is, frankly, a fascist. Drawing the line between accurate use of the term "fascist" and baseless schoolyard name-calling is, I fear, going to be an impossible task. You're forced to adopt a "I know it when I see it" position, and at some point you're going to draw the line through people who think you've drawn it unfairly. They may or may not be right, objectively, but it's going to be your subjective view that determines where the line is drawn. That's your right as the blog owner, of course; let's just be clear that it's a conscious decision on your part.

Posted by liberalrob | August 29, 2007 1:30 PM

Thank the Good Lord. I was getting sick of the "how dare you be a blogger on the Atlantic, b****" comments.

The sort of people who, like Freddy, think your idiocy is a premise, not a conclusion, but who are less delightfully wordy.

Posted by Yipjupwaplop | August 29, 2007 1:38 PM

And from my own experience in running a blog, I'd advise you to be willing to delete comments that don't exactly fit your formal policies but that are still toxic and most especially to delete comments that argue with your about your comments policies (though obviously not in this thread) or your editorial decisions.

Posted by Yipjupwaplop | August 29, 2007 1:43 PM

It's strange for me to be saying this, having been one of the worst offenders myself on several different blogs, but any comment discussions that involve nerds, Alpha Males or the Woman Shortage almost invariably dissolve into hostility and pointlessness.

Posted by Peter | August 29, 2007 1:57 PM

This is a good step as the whole tone of the comment section was starting to deteriorate, what with people taking person shots.

Posted by Finn | August 29, 2007 2:16 PM

"personal shots", that is. (Hate typos)

Posted by Finn | August 29, 2007 2:21 PM

Hip-hip-hooray! I'm glad you didn't go the route of the Agitator and just shut down your comments. I stopped reading his blog when that happened.

I for one always enjoy comments sections because I find that I learn as much or more from intelligent commenters as I do from the blogger. That was a great feature of the old site. I recommend newer readers go look at the archives to see for yourselves that it's possible to have lively debate in a civil way.

Posted by Christina | August 29, 2007 2:43 PM

I find the deletion notices a bit comfusing. I would suggest that Megan use some style to reflect the deletion of a comment and inclusion (in its stead) of Megan's own explanatory statement, for example, by use of italics and brackets.

E.g.: [MM: this comment was deleted because it used the term fascist]

Also, I would think that many of the new commenters are primarily Andrew Sullivan (and to a lesser extent MY) readers who wandered over by clicking the "Voices" link, since AS and MY have relatively high readerships (dunno about Douthat, or Fallows-blog and Ambinder for that matter).

Posted by Al | August 29, 2007 2:44 PM

Wait, try not to say anything I wouldn't want my mother and father to see written about me?

My mother and father have adult standards of discourse that can cope with profanity.
They can differentiate between ad hominem and solid argument that happens to be vitriolic.
They know how to take what's useful and interesting in a public forum and leave the rest.
They can cope with being called idiots to their faces when they're being stupid. Oh, and they're not surprised when being incredibly arrogant makes people angry.
They don't need to pretend every conversation worth having takes place at teatime in a lace strewn formal sitting-room in Victorian England.
Mostly, though, they don't need to be treated like children.

But, hey, I don't know your parents.

I'm not rude to my parents because I respect them. I wouldn't be rude to your parents because my parents raised me right.
I'm not particularly rude here, or anywhere on the internet, because it's a boring waste of time.
You haven't done anything yet that I might respect.

Good luck moderating your comments.

Posted by cs | August 29, 2007 2:54 PM

This comment deleted for calling me a fascist. Sorry! I really meant it . . .

Posted by fasteddie | August 29, 2007 3:04 PM

Excellent idea! No offense, Megan, but the primary reason I used to visit your blog was for the large number of high quality comments that would follow your posts. (I must admit to sometimes skipping your more lengthy tomes and heading straight to the commentary).

The vitrol and ad hom attacks seen among the recent comments have been beyond belief. It certainly does nothing to flatter the Atlantic's readership... I hope this new policy drives the trend back towards reasonable debate.

Posted by Anonymous Reader | August 29, 2007 3:12 PM

[This comment deleted for misuse of the word "Fascist". Seriously, I mean it. If you want to debate whether Republicans are fascists, or Democrats are socialists/communists, there are many other internet venues which will welcome you. ]

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 3:21 PM

[This comment deleted for debating fascism. Please, MLJ, I love your work, but could you please find some other word to describe your loathing for the Bush administration? I will be happy to let you go on at great length, provided only that you do not use the F-word.]

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 4:07 PM

The vitrol and ad hom attacks seen among the recent comments have been beyond belief. It certainly does nothing to flatter the Atlantic's readership... I hope this new policy drives the trend back towards reasonable debate.

Agreed but if not, Megan may want to consider requiring registration to post and simply banning some of the worst offenders.

Posted by Thorley Winston | August 29, 2007 4:10 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus, if your disagreement with this blog is so visceral that you cannot even agree to follow the blog owner's wishes regarding comment etiquette, why do you still read it?

Posted by Jeff Licquia | August 29, 2007 4:24 PM

Jeff Licquia writes: "MoeLarryAndJesus, if your disagreement with this blog is so visceral that you cannot even agree to follow the blog owner's wishes regarding comment etiquette, why do you still read it?"

Visceral overstates it by a mile - and I'm truly tired of seeing the words "visceral" and "vitriol" used to describe minor disagreements.

This is a new blog and this new "etiquette" business is brand new, Jeff, and hardly seems to be the final word on the subject from Megan, who at least seems willing to discuss things. If she were not, she could simply be deleting things without comment or notice.

I think she's choosing a limited usage for a particular word and I'm disagreeing with her. I also think she's being overly sanguine about the current nature of many Republicans. I don't think these are extreme positions and there's nothing "visceral" about it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 4:54 PM

MoeLarryandJesus, whether or not you're correct--and I don't think you are--the simple fact is that the debate "Resolved: George Bush is a fascist" is not a productive one, nor likely to elevate the tone of this blog. Likewise: "Liberals: Communists, or just socialists?" So I am deleting any comments that look likely to set off that debate.

I would really, really like to build a community here where liberals and conservatives and libertarians can have a spirited, productive discussion about ideas. This will not happen if y'all start hurling the "F-" "S-" and "C-" words at each other. Help me out here, please?

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 29, 2007 5:34 PM

This will not happen if y'all start hurling the "F-" "S-" and "C-" words at each other.

Wait, we can't use "socialist" either? I can't say "that Segolene Royal, she's such a socialist"? Man, that's rough.

(I'm sorry to joke while you're stuggling with the transition here. Howcome Douthat didn't get this stuff?)

Posted by Al | August 29, 2007 5:57 PM

Have fun in Megan's Echo Chamber®©™, folks. Henceforth I will restrict myself to the blogs where the hosts allow me to call BS when their stupidity, mendacity and/or conceit warrants it. If I were a rude person, I would point out that the following statement qualifies on all three counts:

"Fascism isn't quite just state-authoritarianism; the communist states were that. It's an ideology that had specific ideas about a will of the people and national greatness that are expressed through a single leader, which doesn't very well describe anything close to what Republicans believe."

Meanwhile the Republicans and their followers continue to wave the American flag with such fervence the country is beginning to resemble a 1938 Reichsparteitage. An invasion of Iran is coming up shortly. Why not just launch that particular blitzkrieg on Saturday, to distract from the Surge whitewash? September 1st is always a good day to start a world war. We don't have any of those really cool Stukas with the whailing Jericho-Trompetes, but I'm sure the Air Force will manage fine with out them.

But I wouldn't want to be rude or anything :)

Posted by KDR | August 29, 2007 5:58 PM

Megan replies: "MoeLarryandJesus, whether or not you're correct--and I don't think you are--the simple fact is that the debate "Resolved: George Bush is a fascist" is not a productive one, nor likely to elevate the tone of this blog. Likewise: "Liberals: Communists, or just socialists?" So I am deleting any comments that look likely to set off that debate.

I would really, really like to build a community here where liberals and conservatives and libertarians can have a spirited, productive discussion about ideas. This will not happen if y'all start hurling the "F-" "S-" and "C-" words at each other. Help me out here, please?"

Sure - just tell me what word I can use to characterize a regime which uses torture proudly, calls its detractors traitors, wraps itself in the flag with a bible on top, gets rid of habeas corpus, tosses an American citizen into isolation for 4 years before trying him, wages pre-emptive war based on shabby evidence, and so on, and so forth. Okay, so you're allergic to the "f" word and you don't recognize it outside of a 20th century European context, but somehow "conservative" just doesn't cover it. If you think it does, I say you're misusing "conservative" and you should consider some self-correction.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 6:11 PM

Sure - just tell me what word I can use to characterize a regime which uses torture proudly, calls its detractors traitors, wraps itself in the flag with a bible on top, gets rid of habeas corpus, tosses an American citizen into isolation for 4 years before trying him, wages pre-emptive war based on shabby evidence, and so on, and so forth.

Why do you need a word to "characterize" the regime? Assuming all of the foregoing is relevant to the discussion (so as no to take the thread off topic), just say what you said.

Posted by Al | August 29, 2007 6:25 PM

Al suggests: "Why do you need a word to "characterize" the regime? Assuming all of the foregoing is relevant to the discussion (so as no to take the thread off topic), just say what you said."

It takes too long to type all of that.

Hey, do you suppose "wingnutzis" would pass muster?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 6:35 PM

This comment deleted for using profanity

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 6:40 PM

'Fraid not. But you have my permission to use the word "evil" or "autoritarian" if you must.

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 29, 2007 6:41 PM

MLJ, how about just saying whatever happens to be relevant to the current discussion? Do we need to have slurs for every political party, organization, etc...?

Your description of the Bush "regime" is debatable and I could come up with equally insulting descriptions for every Presidency in our history if I were to spend the time researching their various failings. But I'd rather discuss whatever blog post is relevant without dragging partisan politics into every discussion.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | August 29, 2007 6:46 PM

This comment deleted for being pottymouthed, and also, redundant

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 6:53 PM

"Howcome Douthat didn't get this stuff?"

Explanation #1: Douthat is not peddling utterly insane punditry.

Explanation #2: Due to societal gender roles and male aggression, female bloggers have more difficulty with the rough and tumble of unmoderated comments than male bloggers. We can see this divide with Megan, Garance Franke-Ruta, and Marc Ambinder.

(Marc eventually took the plunge, of course, but he held back an awful long time before he leapt.

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 7:01 PM

This comment deleted for exposing my inability to distinguish between "single-payer" and "universal healthcare", thus exposing me as an utter fraud in the healthcare debate.

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 7:06 PM

just tell me what word I can use to characterize a regime which uses torture proudly, calls its detractors traitors, wraps itself in the flag with a bible on top, gets rid of habeas corpus, tosses an American citizen into isolation for 4 years before trying him, wages pre-emptive war based on shabby evidence, and so on, and so forth

Why, "Republican," of course!

I trust that ends this controversy . . .

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 7:15 PM

Megan McArdle is merely following the advice John Galt gave in The Member his comic novel of early 19th century British politics:

As an independent member, applicants to me were both Whigs and Tories, - neither, to be sure, of a deep dye, but still party men; but when I began to adhere to the one party I was none troubled by those of the other, it being an understood thing that I would only attend to applications from my brethren in feeling and principle.

It is a shame that John Galt is not alive to see his name abused by Ayn Rand and her followers. His treatment of them would have been harsh, funny - and, no doubt, deleted from this blog for excessive, but deserved, mockery.

Posted by ndm | August 29, 2007 7:18 PM

See? I didn't derail things. I can play nice.

Posted by Freddie | August 29, 2007 7:22 PM

Earnest says: "MLJ, how about just saying whatever happens to be relevant to the current discussion? Do we need to have slurs for every political party, organization, etc...?

Your description of the Bush "regime" is debatable and I could come up with equally insulting descriptions for every Presidency in our history if I were to spend the time researching their various failings. But I'd rather discuss whatever blog post is relevant without dragging partisan politics into every discussion."

I don't drag it into every discussion, and I think I do try to be relevant, and I certainly think that in this thread - in which we're commenting on a comments policy which bans certain words - using those words as part of the discussion is called for.

But if you'd like me to comment according to your standards of relevance, perhaps we can work out an arrangement where I send you my proposed posts first and you can vet them. Maybe you could do that for other posters, too, so eventually we could all learn the importance of thinking like Earnest.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 7:27 PM

By the way, what could be more pathetic than objecting to something being "debatable" on a message board? Isn't debate the point of such boards?

What next, Earnest? Will you start complaining because I use vowels and punctuation?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 7:31 PM

This comment deleted for being boring and boring. Besides, how can Joe Klein's conscience speak?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 29, 2007 7:35 PM

This comment deleted for extreme, and perhaps even illegal, use of profanity, including the repeated and utterly unecessary uses of the words "felch" and "queef".

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 7:40 PM

In the spirit of the banned IP provision, here is Brian Wilson's ode to Megan McArdle:

I know so many people who think they can do it alone They isolate their heads and stay in their saftey zones

Now what can you tell them
And what can you say that won't make them defensive

Hang on to your ego
Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

They come on like their peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through the day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I say it
And how can I come on
When I know I'm guilty

Hang on to your ego
Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 7:49 PM

This comment deleted for giving away the one word that characterizes "libertarianism."

Posted by ndm | August 29, 2007 7:53 PM

I have to admit it's really confusing to me that a "libertarian" blogger puts rules around her comments section. Talk about cognitive dissonance. So, Megan, as far as keeping a nice atmosphere in your blog is concerned you're all for governmental (so to speak) control, but when it comes to society at large, not so much?

I'd love to hear you explain this.

Posted by bakum | August 29, 2007 8:20 PM

This experiment in censorship is bound to create more problems than it solves.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 29, 2007 8:42 PM

This comment deleted for pointing out that deleting comments is my most marketable skill, if not my only one.

Posted by Queef LaFelch Sanchez | August 29, 2007 8:45 PM

This comment deleted because it was one comment too many pretending to have been deleted

Posted by Warren Terra | August 29, 2007 9:01 PM

sale bahanchod conservatives are all alike.

Posted by gregor | August 29, 2007 9:22 PM

"Fascism isn't quite just state-authoritarianism; the communist states were that. It's an ideology that had specific ideas about a will of the people and national greatness that are expressed through a single leader, which doesn't very well describe anything close to what Republicans believe."
-Megan

Obviously, from a perspective of utility, it is silly for liberals to call Republicans "fascist," since doing so typically signals shrillness. That said, I do think there are a fair number of similarities between fascists and the GOP that you neglect. Fascism was a politicized, plutocratic, deeply nationalistic, right-wing Catholicism with pseudo-Utopian ideas of national destiny. Also, fascism was into creative violence, a phrase which nicely describes torture. Now, substitute "Catholicism" for "Evangelicalism" and you have, if not fascist policies, something akin to a fascist undercurrent running through the American electorate. Those "America: Love It or Leave It" bumper stickers, the war fever that hit the nation in 2002 and 2003, the passive acceptance of American torture, and the President's (now legal) disregard for habeus corpus are not developments that should be robed in the language of mainstream politics. These actions are extremist and should have no viable place in the American political tradition. And, scarily, the leader so many hero-worshipped through 2004, if we are to trust that his faith is sincere, welcomes the apocalypse. Excuse me, but shouldn't we have a president who thinks the world's end is, you know, bad?

Posted by Robert | August 29, 2007 9:44 PM

you probably have to be in a different century to be a "Fascist," but anyone (or any position, policy, etc.) can be fascistic - either in some narrow sense or broadly (see liberalrob above). so can we use the adjective?

Posted by neil | August 29, 2007 10:00 PM

"Fascism isn't quite just state-authoritarianism; the communist states were that. It's an ideology that had specific ideas about a will of the people and national greatness that are expressed through a single leader, which doesn't very well describe anything close to what Republicans believe."

Yeah, righto!

From Wikipedia: "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism."

Clearly, the modern republican party is not fascist.

More:
"Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

* "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."

Just go and read it at wikipedia. It is a real eye opener. The daily rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh clearly is fascist by even the most stringent, limited interpretation of the word. The Vice President is a regular guest and avowed fan of Rush, which makes him a supporter of fascist statements.

Cross posted at Matt Y's Place.

Posted by mickslam | August 29, 2007 10:03 PM

I love how a lot of people posted fake delete messages. I also agree with the poster who said it's weird that a libertarian is practicing censorship. Strange days indeed.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 30, 2007 12:00 AM

"Weird that a libertarian is practicing censorship"? Oh come on. It's a property rights issue, not a speech one.

Just as it up to me to decide whether to tolerate you insulting me in my own house, so a blogger has a perfect right to remove objectionable comments from their own sight. They may do so even for reasons that might seem illogical or flimsy to other people (though I don't believe that to be true in this case) but that is their prerogative. Indeed they have every right to remove comments simply because they disagree with the arguments being made. (Though again, that's not what Megan is doing - as ought to be clear from reading her posts on this subject.)

There's also, I'd hazard, no compelling need for people to be gratuitously rude, even if expressing disagreement with Megan. In the end it does come down to a question of manners.

Posted by Alex | August 30, 2007 2:49 AM

just because the words "fascist" and "communist" get misused a lot doesn't mean it's not blatant censorship of political speech for megan to delete comments that contain them. communism was a real and important political phenomenon. things really can be similar to it or remind one of it or otherwise partake of it in some way. megan's policy isn't as bad as government censorship, but its effect is still to narrow the space for debate rather than enlarge it.

Posted by gregwilson | August 30, 2007 6:20 AM

Alex is right; the peasants ought not offend the lady of the house. They need to emulate the manners of their betters, especially in Lady McArdle's tea room.

Ho, ho, ho. Everyone knows public discourse is for the rabble ranting on their boxes in the square. Bloody ruffians and anarchists, that lot.

Posted by Jasper Meer | August 30, 2007 7:08 AM

Megan, don't let some to these infantile personal attacks here get you down. You obviously have a higher profile now that you write at the Atlantic, and some of the more fervent libertarian-haters chose you as a new target.

This is your blog, you make the rules - this isn't "Speaker's Corner" in Hyde Park where everyone can say whatever they want. Unfortunately, some people seem to equate libertarians with everything-goes, free market anarchists, while nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarians are sticklers for rules and laws: some VERY specific rules that are necessary for maintaining a peaceful, free and prosperous society.
For example, if someone insults me in my house or does not follow the rules I have for my home, I ask and, if he doesn't comply, force him to leave. Nothing unlibertarian about that.

"Censorship" means prohibiting certain opinions altogether and as such can only be done by state authorities. What Megan does is what every editor of any publication does: selecting what he or she deems appropriate and acceptable for a specific venue.

Megan, I enjoy your writing, even though I don't fully consider myself a libertarian and, judging from the comments here, there are also many others who value your contributions to topical subjects.
Stay strong and keep up the good work!

Posted by Marc | August 30, 2007 8:30 AM

A hypothetical:

Now that the right has normalized the discussion of torture in our political discourse, suppose we discover that the administration has started hanging people at Gitmo up on meathooks, having discovered with the help of trained professionals from the American Psychological Association that sensory deprivation isn't getting them the confessions they want.

Do we get to use the f-word then? Or is it still forbidden?

NOTE As many others have noted, it's your blog, so you can do whatever you want. But it's nice to know where the boundaries are. Thanks in advance!

Posted by lambert strether | August 30, 2007 9:35 AM

Sigh. This comment deleted for trolling.

Posted by DMonteith | August 30, 2007 9:48 AM

But that wouldn't actually make them fascist . . . communist states, and other sorts of states, have done equally awful things. Torture, totalitarianism, even genocide, are not restricted to fascism; they're not even particularly descriptive of it.

Might I sugggest "Evil" and "UnAmerican" as better descriptors?

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 30, 2007 9:53 AM

This comment deleted for rampant trolling

Posted by Jeff in Texas | August 30, 2007 10:42 AM

@Petey: That was a Brian Wilson song? Here I was thinking the Frank Black version was the original!
/threadjack

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | August 30, 2007 11:08 AM

Megan said:
Fascism [is] an ideology that had specific ideas about a will of the people and national greatness that are expressed through a single leader, which doesn't very well describe anything close to what Republicans believe.

If you are banning use of a word, and then defining the use of that word, I assume it's OK to argue where it really applies (in this one thread discussing the ban).

I can understand how you would say that Republicans don't believe in fascism as defined above. But please understand that for many people, your description does fit their understanding of how the Bush administration operates.

When people are hired based on whether they are "Loyal Bushies", cabinet heads are sales people to promote the president's policies rather than create them based on their own specialized expertise, and the administration uses signing statements to define laws based on their views of the "unitary executive", that seems to fit precisely with the idea of government focused on expressing the will of a single leader.

From an outsider's point of view, the compliance of the Republicans (or conservatives) with these approaches seems baffling. Why would a Republican congress (for 6 years) go along with a president redefining laws passed by Republicans to suit his views rather than those expressed by the legislative leaders of the party? Why would conservatives not raise an uproar over hiring based on loyalty to an individual rather than on conservative principles (thank goodness they did derail the nomination of Harriet Miers).

Yes, I understand that using the term fascism raises all kinds of visceral reactions and derails conversations. But given what appears to many of us as a government centered around a single supreme leader, what other examples can we relate this to in trying to gain perspective and understanding on what's going on here? I can't think of any past description that fits better than "Dear Leader" (yes, I know that's actually a "communist" phrase). Deciderism?

Posted by DMoore | August 30, 2007 11:43 AM

How many times do I have to delete you, dammit?

Posted by Not Jeff not Texas | August 30, 2007 12:37 PM

"@Petey: That was a Brian Wilson song? Here I was thinking the Frank Black version was the original!"

Yup. I originally knew the Frank Black version too.

But don't forget that Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile demand attention.

Posted by Petey | August 30, 2007 12:39 PM

photochromolithograph relightener pirraura acetenyl cacothymia unlettering unconfrontable gastropore
http://www.torneria.it/ >Cozzi S.n.c.
http://www.rosewoodclinic.co.uk/

Posted by Victor Buckner | November 21, 2007 7:49 PM

photochromolithograph relightener pirraura acetenyl cacothymia unlettering unconfrontable gastropore
http://www.wildtrailsguideservice.com >Wild Trails Guide Service
http://www.portscathoholidays.co.uk/

Posted by Rogers Goodman | November 24, 2007 1:28 PM

photochromolithograph relightener pirraura acetenyl cacothymia unlettering unconfrontable gastropore
http://www.grafium.com >Grafium
http://www.pakenhamsc.vic.edu.au/

Posted by Mickey Bullock | November 28, 2007 11:20 AM

heraclean misorganization cheekish overchargement acolhuan histie epilepsy indonesian
http://www.cinemagictheatres.com/ >Cinemagic Theatres
http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/jnhoward/index.shtml

Posted by Sonny Hester | December 19, 2007 6:25 PM

n0x01id-01-28-08 Bikini bottom lip... bdsm book argus a huge erection he mumbled in dress. Mount you, place in filling me on both.
Bodies moved on declined [url=http://pornisha.info/bdsm/bdsm-book-argus ]bdsm book argus[/url] in the.
Cum, she oblige her flags, [link http://pornisha.info/bdsm/bdsm-book-argus ]bdsm book argus[/link] that. Talk with sence then i softly licking my face.

Posted by n0x00id-01-28-08 bdsm book argus | January 28, 2008 3:08 AM

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

Posted by balabo_hu | March 27, 2008 9:59 AM

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

Posted by balabo_hu | March 27, 2008 9:59 AM

http://index2.zinimi.com >ass mania http://index1.zinimi.com >classy adult porn http://index3.zinimi.com >morris canal in phillipsburg nj

Posted by feechka-ex | May 29, 2008 11:25 PM