The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJayMan Archive
Uninformed Criticism – My Comment Policy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Many of the commeters here at Unz.com have complained about my heavy-handed treatment of commenters. Well, to those people, I say too bad.

They key problem is that many critical commenters don’t realize how ignorant about matter at hand they are. Realize that the whole reason you’re reading me is because I know things that you don’t know. I certainly haven’t tried to keep these things (those that are relevant) a secret. They can be found by reading through my vast collection of writing, which I frequently link back to.

You need to understand is that I have been deeply studying this topic for years. Odds are I know a great deal more about the matter than you do. But when I tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about, it typically means that you don’t know what you’re talking about. At the very least, it would be helpful that while making their claims about where I erred, they presented something to corroborate that claim. So far, not much.

That’s not to say I don’t invite criticism or new information, because I welcome both. I welcome and am actively seeking informed criticism. Unfortunately, informed criticism is hard to come by in this space. That said, I have had plenty intelligent comments that have made excellent contributions . I welcome those comments.

But when I read your critical comments and I see that you’re clearly unaware of many important facts, that is more than a little annoying. And when you get comment after comment of vapid ignorance, how would you feel?

The whole point of this column is to help to ensure that everyone is on the same page on the subject matters under discussion. Hence I don’t have the time or the patience for back-and-forth discussions over assertions that are mostly or entirely wrong and that I’ve probably discussed to death already.

The comment sections at most HBD (and related) blogs and columns are atrocious. They are essentially unreadable, and I personally don’t waste my time with most. It’s my goal to have a useful comment section – something that readers can come to rely on. Having it cluttered with ignorant, stupid, and/or hateful junk doesn’t aid in that goal. Your comments are not just for me and yourself, but for our whole audience. I like to have comments that contribute to the discussion. Now, there’s certainly value in criticizing my claims, and even value in going over points of confusion that may seem obvious. It’s important for people to know how we know what we know. But I don’t want to burden my readers by having to slog through comment after comment of nonsense drivel. That’s not fair to them, and discourages readership of the comment section.

So my comment policy is as follows:

  • You comment at my pleasure. I reserve the right to approve or trash comments at my discretion. That said, I’ll generally have a good reason, and I’ll quite often explain the problem.
  • It’s generally a good idea to read the given links if you’re in doubt over a claim I made. I understand, people are busy, and you may not have time to check out every word I have published. That said, when I come across an ignorant critical commenter who could have understood the situation by reading something I’ve linked to the in the post, beware.
  • If you can, please supply supporting references. It’s helpful if you can point me in the direction of supporting evidence of your claim. Now, just posting a corroborating link is no guarantee your point is correct. One of the themes of this column is that social and other human scientists usually don’t know what they’re doing. One of the things that “keeps me in business” is addressing their sophomoric errors.
  • Keep the Nazi/KKK/White supremacist shit to a minimum. Hopefully, that’s self-explanatory .

So please, more quality, less whining. I hope that this clears things up for everyone. I’ll likely continue to edit this as new matters come up.

 
• Category: Miscellaneous • Tags: Comments 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Polynices says:

    A brilliant comment policy like this is why you and Razib are two of my favorite bloggers (I’d say he has a very similar attitude towards dumb comments). Anyone griping about your comment policy is certainly someone that shouldn’t be commenting anyway.

    Keep up the good work!

    Read More
    • Agree: EriK
    • Replies: @NickG

    you and Razib are two of my favorite bloggers (I’d say he has a very similar attitude towards dumb comments).
     
    Razib has good stuff and makes great points. However, he is prone to being a bit of a smug, ungracious, even rude arse (ass to you colonial types).

    He is also a crap writer - his prose is tortured, clunky and unnecessarily impenetrable. He would do well to fully take to heart and imbibe Steven Pinker's 'A Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century', and maybe brush-up on Dale Carnegie.

    These are not charges I feel even vaguely applicable to JayMan.

    Oh whilst I'm at it - yes - Steve Sailer takes sarcasm to stratospheric levels, but with Steve it's an endearing part his persona and essential aspect of his shtick.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jman/uninformed-criticism/#comment-1234221
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Easterner says:

    Why don’t you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests? Develop some joint protocol and then expound on topics for the benefit of readers. It may take a lot of restraint by two strong-willed, knowledgeable people, but the results should be edifying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    They might end up banning each other.
    , @Another Canadian

    Why don’t you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests?
     
    Because a dialogue between JayMan and Razib would collapse into something like this...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU
    , @Olorin
    We need more informed, comprehensive, coherent, articulate voices, not fewer.

    Thermonuclear kudos to JayMan for this policy.

    I'm personally not sure what constitutes "white supremacy," since, for instance, I was accused of that in my 20s for liking Tannhauser and Parsifal (the operas), and for taking about my family's roots in Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

    But as a guest, I'm ever sensitive to the fact that while being a guest confers privileges (such as learning about megatons of stuff without having to dig it, refine it, smelt it, cast it all by myself), it's still the host's shindig.

    Fortunately there are now plenty of places to vent about population genetics issues on the internet. By contrast there are precious few where hard, rational, transformative thoughtwork is getting done.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. BubbaJoe says:

    JayMan,
    I’ve read a good bit of your work. I find you interesting and knowledgeable (yes, more so than me). But ever since you’ve arrived at UNZ you’ve been abnormally rankled by the comments section. You’re letting it get to you, and whining about it too much. “More quality, less whining” is solid advice, please do take it into account. Lots of good contributors here get sh*te comments. You seem aggravated by each and every one. If they bother you so much, just delete/ignore them. But please stop making it the focus of your posts. You have better things to be writing about. There’s a comic that comes to mind… https://xkcd.com/386/

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Lots of good contributors here get sh*te comments. You seem aggravated by each and every one.
     
    See again:

    The comment sections at most HBD (and related) blogs and columns are atrocious. They are essentially unreadable, and I personally don’t waste my time with most. It’s my goal to have a useful comment section – something that readers can come to rely on. Having it cluttered with ignorant, stupid, and/or hateful junk doesn’t aid in that goal. Your comments are not just for me and yourself, but for our whole audience.
     
    , @Pat Casey
    The only thing that's wrong with the media is that people get away with lying, and teach other people to lie, and teach everyone to be ignorant, and teach the ignorant to be loud. I've tussled with Razib and Jayman and respect them more for it. We need heavy foots to be put down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. greeneyes says:

    Generally good to moderate comments too increase the productivity of the discussion.
    But , two things.

    1) Sometimes someone might make a useful error, they might not understand something in your work, but if you feel its a reasonable mis understanding, maybe you can restate your thesis clearer. As long as someone is engaging you in a civil manner, even mis understandings can be useful. Especially ‘common misunderstandings’ that pop up a lot, because those are highlight areas for extra communication.
    Though- I understand not wanting to hash over the same stuff all the time. Its also nice to get feedback about where people are generally not understanding your point.

    2) A certain percent, granted not most , but a subset of the criticism u reject, will in the long run turn out to be valid criticism.

    So, I mean, its not like an erroneous comment, phrased in a civil manner is really that disruptive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Not disruptive if you're reading.

    Huge waste of time if you get hundreds of these each month.

    I've seen countless instances where JayMan goes to the trouble of replying with a link that the ill-informed commenter should read before commenting. Then being accused of being terse. (Yeah? And?)

    That right there is way more effort than I'd go to, particularly when the link/issue/data is in the text upon which they're commenting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. jtgw says: • Website

    LOL I was gonna say, “Is that you, Razib?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Easterner
    Why don't you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests? Develop some joint protocol and then expound on topics for the benefit of readers. It may take a lot of restraint by two strong-willed, knowledgeable people, but the results should be edifying.

    They might end up banning each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. JayMan says: • Website
    @BubbaJoe
    JayMan,
    I've read a good bit of your work. I find you interesting and knowledgeable (yes, more so than me). But ever since you've arrived at UNZ you've been abnormally rankled by the comments section. You're letting it get to you, and whining about it too much. "More quality, less whining" is solid advice, please do take it into account. Lots of good contributors here get sh*te comments. You seem aggravated by each and every one. If they bother you so much, just delete/ignore them. But please stop making it the focus of your posts. You have better things to be writing about. There's a comic that comes to mind... https://xkcd.com/386/

    Lots of good contributors here get sh*te comments. You seem aggravated by each and every one.

    See again:

    The comment sections at most HBD (and related) blogs and columns are atrocious. They are essentially unreadable, and I personally don’t waste my time with most. It’s my goal to have a useful comment section – something that readers can come to rely on. Having it cluttered with ignorant, stupid, and/or hateful junk doesn’t aid in that goal. Your comments are not just for me and yourself, but for our whole audience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Max Payne says:

    Can I ask where you acquired your PhD from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    There is a difference between qualifications and credentials. Forgetting that distinction is one of the things killing our society.
    , @Max Payne
    Are you not updating your blog anymore? Regardless of what people think I went to your wordpress and here and can't find new posts. Did you move it somewhere?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Curle says:

    The comment sections at most HBD (and related) blogs and columns are atrocious. They are essentially unreadable, and I personally don’t waste my time with most.

    As compared to what? What comment blog addressing racial matters (or anything else for that matter) is not heavy with stupid comments? Seems to me comments fall into a couple of categories, those who agree and want to embellish, those who disagree and want to correct the record (in their minds), those who want to launch into another topic or a related topic, those who want to marginalize someone or someone’s ideas and those who want to promote someone or someone’s ideas. I gather you are most peeved by those who disagree with you and want to correct the record but who overestimate their capabilities at said endeavor? However, for those of us reading the comments your responses correcting people is instructive. Yes, the information exists elsewhere, but information sinks in better when repeated often and in different contexts. Sure it is boring for you, but probably helpful for the readers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    You look like someone of poor disposition who can’t take criticism when you call people idiots and other names for calmly stating their disagreements with you. This is something you’ve done in many posts now.

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.

    Being overly restrictive in your comments policy with opposing opinions invariable looks like an attempt to control the discourse. It’s easy to not to address valid criticism when you can just broadly cast aside anything as “stupid” you don’t agree with.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.
     
    The only reason I let this comment through is to address this point. I'm not demanding that people believe something just because I said so. But when I make a case with supporting evidence, it is then the responsibility of the doubting party to establish where and how I am in error*. Simply saying "I don't believe you" just because is your prerogative, of course, but it's not an argument (and it surely won't fly as one here).

    *Oh, and this doesn't mean where the commenter thinks I am in error. Your case must actually work.

    , @Leonard

    an attempt to control the discourse
     
    Of course it's an attempt to control the discourse. The whole idea is to remove the worthless or low-value discourse so as to focus attention on the good stuff.

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they've got something to contribute when they don't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. JayMan says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    You look like someone of poor disposition who can't take criticism when you call people idiots and other names for calmly stating their disagreements with you. This is something you've done in many posts now.

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.

    Being overly restrictive in your comments policy with opposing opinions invariable looks like an attempt to control the discourse. It's easy to not to address valid criticism when you can just broadly cast aside anything as "stupid" you don't agree with.

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.

    The only reason I let this comment through is to address this point. I’m not demanding that people believe something just because I said so. But when I make a case with supporting evidence, it is then the responsibility of the doubting party to establish where and how I am in error*. Simply saying “I don’t believe you” just because is your prerogative, of course, but it’s not an argument (and it surely won’t fly as one here).

    *Oh, and this doesn’t mean where the commenter thinks I am in error. Your case must actually work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    As this exemplifies, you vacillate between two objectives in managing comments: 1) Maximizing your discretion to deal with each comment as you see fit; and 2) maximizing the overall quality of comments.

    My advice: lose the sense of "discretion," and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @JayMan

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.
     
    The only reason I let this comment through is to address this point. I'm not demanding that people believe something just because I said so. But when I make a case with supporting evidence, it is then the responsibility of the doubting party to establish where and how I am in error*. Simply saying "I don't believe you" just because is your prerogative, of course, but it's not an argument (and it surely won't fly as one here).

    *Oh, and this doesn't mean where the commenter thinks I am in error. Your case must actually work.

    As this exemplifies, you vacillate between two objectives in managing comments: 1) Maximizing your discretion to deal with each comment as you see fit; and 2) maximizing the overall quality of comments.

    My advice: lose the sense of “discretion,” and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    My advice: lose the sense of “discretion,” and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.
     
    That's the target...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Polymath says:

    I am completely sympathetic to your comments policy. The only alternative on a controversial blog to mediating the comments carefully is to only allow comments from identifiable people with real names. That gets rid of trolls and idiots with less effort, but also discourages valuable comments from people who are afraid of personal or professional consequences for speaking up on the topic at hand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    That gets rid of trolls and idiots with less effort, but also discourages valuable comments from people who are afraid of personal or professional consequences for speaking up on the topic at hand.
     
    Exactly!

    Well said.

    Though I'd argue even having people use their real names would not guarantee quality comments, so that further bolsters the structure I use here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Tom_R says:

    JAYMAN’S VOCABULARY: RACE—WHAT’S THAT? MOTHERLAND—WHAT’S THAT?

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/

    where you describe yourself as: “I am a second generation Jamaican-American of Black, White (English), Indian (Asian), and Chinese descent, living the motto “out of many, one people.”

    Thank you for stating your background as it helps me (and presumably others) understand your said comment in the proper context. And it did, so I would like to add the following.

    So you, given your “multiracial” and “multinational” origin, may not have a sense of strong racial or national identity like some others who are predominantly of one race/nation and identify with it, might have. And that is fine, that is your choice. But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront so people can understand your dislike for a racial and national identity, which others have but which which you may lack.

    And just because a person cares about the race that he identifies with (whether black, or white, or oriental), does not mean he is automatically a “racist”, KKK, or a racial “supremacist.” Calling him that, now that is hate speech.

    P.S. I request that you please approve both my comments, even if it is one last time, to help unz.com readers understand your statement that I am writing about in the proper context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/

    ...
    But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront
     

    It's right on my About Me page. I haven't made an effort to hide it.

    You do know that "Ethnic Genetic Interests" Do Not Exist, right?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Oldeguy says:

    It is a sad Fact Of Life that our human lifespan is so very limited and thus our time and efforts in using those talents we have been gifted with require a winnowing out of the inevitable dead end distractions we encounter.
    Surely no distraction is more dead end for a man of talent in your position than dealing with the Willfully Ignorant. There exist a sub-set of readers covering the spectrum from Marxist to Libertarian who apparently have a very strong ideological “vested interest” in HBD’s not being true. The vast array of evidence that proves otherwise is irrelevant- the psychic “cost” of examining it is apparently too high.
    In my estimation, you provide the best and most easily accessible source of that information and thus are a vital resource of Truth in a vast sea of error.
    So keep of your very good work, Young Fella, and don’t let the bastards grind you down.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. the good life: avoid boring people. stupid people in general bore me. at least to talk to. most people are stupid. ergo, most people are boring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Thanks for the tip, JayMan. I guarantee that I will continue to not comment on your posts.

    PS. You and Razib should date each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Jay,

    I’ve dealt with comments since opening my first R/CPM bulletin board in 1984.

    Here’s what you do:

    1. Post your politely- and succinctly-worded comment policy “up front”.
    2. Delete any comments you don’t like, summarily and without regret.
    3. Don’t explain.

    If you’ve been busy, during which a thread has erupted from some pit of ignorance, delete the entire thread. Good forum software (a rare phenomenon indeed) allows you to graft good comments onto new threads, or related threads. I suspect the Unz software does not, so just delete and have done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. JayMan says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    As this exemplifies, you vacillate between two objectives in managing comments: 1) Maximizing your discretion to deal with each comment as you see fit; and 2) maximizing the overall quality of comments.

    My advice: lose the sense of "discretion," and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.

    My advice: lose the sense of “discretion,” and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.

    That’s the target…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    A period of transition I understand. But not allowing comments warranting this response: "This comment approved solely for the entertainment value. It literally made me LOL."

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don't publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I't just plain self-indulgent.

    I think that to moderate for quality effectively, you must apply consistent standards. Otherwise, there's the appearance of bias. Allowing the LOLed racist comment through while deleting milder forms of ignorance begins, then, to look like you're cherry-picking your opponents for certifiable insanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. JayMan says: • Website
    @Polymath
    I am completely sympathetic to your comments policy. The only alternative on a controversial blog to mediating the comments carefully is to only allow comments from identifiable people with real names. That gets rid of trolls and idiots with less effort, but also discourages valuable comments from people who are afraid of personal or professional consequences for speaking up on the topic at hand.

    That gets rid of trolls and idiots with less effort, but also discourages valuable comments from people who are afraid of personal or professional consequences for speaking up on the topic at hand.

    Exactly!

    Well said.

    Though I’d argue even having people use their real names would not guarantee quality comments, so that further bolsters the structure I use here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B.R.
    Commenting with real names on dissident blogs is unadvisable, I believe. I wouldn't do so in eastern Europe, where HBD is not controversial, at least among older people.

    A high-brow alternative to 'racistsgettingfired' tumblr might appear.

    Another thing are those curious individuals who ascribe magical powers to Jewry.
    This entire site seems overrun with them, and they are zealous.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. JayMan says: • Website
    @Tom_R
    JAYMAN’S VOCABULARY: RACE—WHAT’S THAT? MOTHERLAND—WHAT’S THAT?

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/

    where you describe yourself as: “I am a second generation Jamaican-American of Black, White (English), Indian (Asian), and Chinese descent, living the motto “out of many, one people.”

    Thank you for stating your background as it helps me (and presumably others) understand your said comment in the proper context. And it did, so I would like to add the following.

    So you, given your “multiracial” and “multinational” origin, may not have a sense of strong racial or national identity like some others who are predominantly of one race/nation and identify with it, might have. And that is fine, that is your choice. But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront so people can understand your dislike for a racial and national identity, which others have but which which you may lack.

    And just because a person cares about the race that he identifies with (whether black, or white, or oriental), does not mean he is automatically a “racist”, KKK, or a racial “supremacist.” Calling him that, now that is hate speech.

    P.S. I request that you please approve both my comments, even if it is one last time, to help unz.com readers understand your statement that I am writing about in the proper context.

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/


    But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront

    It’s right on my About Me page. I haven’t made an effort to hide it.

    You do know that “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Can't help but comment on this:

    I suppose a key misunderstanding in the matter is the failure to realize that each individual gene contributes to fitness independently. Each gene is “out for itself”, so to speak. It just so happens that in any given organism, genes achieve success by working together (most of the time). As such each individual gene’s “aim” is to make more copies of itself. What’s going on in the rest of the genome is tangential to this. Each gene would be just as happy to mix with any other gene, so long as its own fitness is increased in the process.

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.
    , @Tom_R
    JAYMAN—INTELLECTUALIZING DISHONESTY.

    Dear Mr. Jayman: First of all, I do not want to criticize you personally, because it is generally against my character to do that, but I am responding in the spirit of an intellectual discussion since you yourself brought up this issue thus:

    You do know that “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist, right?

    and included yourself and your marriage to a white woman in that above link.

    Well, interesting, you, a colored man, marry a white woman and then claim “ethnic genetic interests* do not exist.” How self-serving!

    * “ethnic genetic interests”—whatever that means.

    But then at the end of the article, you contradict yourself by claiming that you intend to spread your black genes by having more colored children (thus sullying the white genes your wife could have spread by having white children).

    Just because there is a genetic basis for something, does not make immoral or inappropriate acts morally or ethically right. Just because a serial killer is genetically predisposed to kill, does not mean it makes it right. There are other spheres of knowledge and thinking besides genes, such as morals, culture, civilization, etc.

    You probably married a white woman because you are smart enough to realize that whites are more beautiful, but did not realize that, by the same logic, the white woman is too stupid not to realize the same, that whites are more beautiful.

    Looks like you want to have your own “ethnic genetic interests”, but not others! Others who do are “racists”, KKK, and “neo-Nazis”, in your view, it seems.

    P.S. Incidentally, many liberals (such as liberal black women) would consider you a racist for marrying a white woman and call you a "self-hating black" or Oreo.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @JayMan

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/

    ...
    But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront
     

    It's right on my About Me page. I haven't made an effort to hide it.

    You do know that "Ethnic Genetic Interests" Do Not Exist, right?

    Can’t help but comment on this:

    I suppose a key misunderstanding in the matter is the failure to realize that each individual gene contributes to fitness independently. Each gene is “out for itself”, so to speak. It just so happens that in any given organism, genes achieve success by working together (most of the time). As such each individual gene’s “aim” is to make more copies of itself. What’s going on in the rest of the genome is tangential to this. Each gene would be just as happy to mix with any other gene, so long as its own fitness is increased in the process.

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.
     
    Hopefully, that's a joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Lame.

    This mentality, from both you and Razib, is completely out of place here at Unz. If you want to censor the comment section in such a heavy handed mannor you should stick to your own website.

    The average article here at Unz does have some comments that do not contribute value, but reading your policy it is obvious that you will be dolling out the bans with a heavy hand and will probably ban a lot of comments that are perfectly legit but do not follow the narrative you want.

    A comment policy that says no profane language, no slurs, no threats to acts of violence is ok in my book because you are still allowing any ideas through. You just have to say them without being a prick.

    The whole you must read my links and provide counter links is a dead give away of having an immense ego. Why spend so much time policing the comment section? Also, the whole Nazi name calling is also a dead give away that you will not mod fairly. How would you feel if your HBD views get called racist in other boards?

    Well, I doubt the com not will get through but I hope you and Razib grow some thicker skin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Well, I doubt the com not will get through but I hope you and Razib grow some thicker skin.
     
    Surprise, surprise.

    The whole you must read my links and provide counter links is a dead give away of having an immense ego. Why spend so much time policing the comment section? Also, the whole Nazi name calling is also a dead give away that you will not mod fairly. How would you feel if your HBD views get called racist in other boards?
     
    Someone has to be biased in favor of the truth somewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Tom_R says:
    @JayMan

    Addendum: Mr. Jayman, when I first wrote the above comment, criticizing your use of the terms “Neo-nazi”, “KKK”, etc. I presumed you were white. But then I went and read about you here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/about/

    ...
    But I think in the interest of fairness, a more honest statement on your part would have been to disclose your multiracial identity upfront
     

    It's right on my About Me page. I haven't made an effort to hide it.

    You do know that "Ethnic Genetic Interests" Do Not Exist, right?

    JAYMAN—INTELLECTUALIZING DISHONESTY.

    Dear Mr. Jayman: First of all, I do not want to criticize you personally, because it is generally against my character to do that, but I am responding in the spirit of an intellectual discussion since you yourself brought up this issue thus:

    You do know that “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist, right?

    and included yourself and your marriage to a white woman in that above link.

    Well, interesting, you, a colored man, marry a white woman and then claim “ethnic genetic interests* do not exist.” How self-serving!

    * “ethnic genetic interests”—whatever that means.

    But then at the end of the article, you contradict yourself by claiming that you intend to spread your black genes by having more colored children (thus sullying the white genes your wife could have spread by having white children).

    Just because there is a genetic basis for something, does not make immoral or inappropriate acts morally or ethically right. Just because a serial killer is genetically predisposed to kill, does not mean it makes it right. There are other spheres of knowledge and thinking besides genes, such as morals, culture, civilization, etc.

    You probably married a white woman because you are smart enough to realize that whites are more beautiful, but did not realize that, by the same logic, the white woman is too stupid not to realize the same, that whites are more beautiful.

    Looks like you want to have your own “ethnic genetic interests”, but not others! Others who do are “racists”, KKK, and “neo-Nazis”, in your view, it seems.

    P.S. Incidentally, many liberals (such as liberal black women) would consider you a racist for marrying a white woman and call you a “self-hating black” or Oreo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    But then at the end of the article, you contradict yourself by claiming that you intend to spread your black genes by having more colored children (thus sullying the white genes your wife could have spread by having white children).
     
    This comment approved solely for the entertainment value. It literally made me LOL.

    Just because there is a genetic basis for something, does not make immoral or inappropriate acts morally or ethically right.
     
    No shit. That would be the naturalistic fallacy to claim such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. B.R. says:
    @JayMan

    That gets rid of trolls and idiots with less effort, but also discourages valuable comments from people who are afraid of personal or professional consequences for speaking up on the topic at hand.
     
    Exactly!

    Well said.

    Though I'd argue even having people use their real names would not guarantee quality comments, so that further bolsters the structure I use here.

    Commenting with real names on dissident blogs is unadvisable, I believe. I wouldn’t do so in eastern Europe, where HBD is not controversial, at least among older people.

    A high-brow alternative to ‘racistsgettingfired’ tumblr might appear.

    Another thing are those curious individuals who ascribe magical powers to Jewry.
    This entire site seems overrun with them, and they are zealous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. JayMan says: • Website
    @Pat Hannagan
    Can't help but comment on this:

    I suppose a key misunderstanding in the matter is the failure to realize that each individual gene contributes to fitness independently. Each gene is “out for itself”, so to speak. It just so happens that in any given organism, genes achieve success by working together (most of the time). As such each individual gene’s “aim” is to make more copies of itself. What’s going on in the rest of the genome is tangential to this. Each gene would be just as happy to mix with any other gene, so long as its own fitness is increased in the process.

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.

    Hopefully, that’s a joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    No. It's not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. JayMan says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Lame.

    This mentality, from both you and Razib, is completely out of place here at Unz. If you want to censor the comment section in such a heavy handed mannor you should stick to your own website.

    The average article here at Unz does have some comments that do not contribute value, but reading your policy it is obvious that you will be dolling out the bans with a heavy hand and will probably ban a lot of comments that are perfectly legit but do not follow the narrative you want.

    A comment policy that says no profane language, no slurs, no threats to acts of violence is ok in my book because you are still allowing any ideas through. You just have to say them without being a prick.

    The whole you must read my links and provide counter links is a dead give away of having an immense ego. Why spend so much time policing the comment section? Also, the whole Nazi name calling is also a dead give away that you will not mod fairly. How would you feel if your HBD views get called racist in other boards?

    Well, I doubt the com not will get through but I hope you and Razib grow some thicker skin.

    Well, I doubt the com not will get through but I hope you and Razib grow some thicker skin.

    Surprise, surprise.

    The whole you must read my links and provide counter links is a dead give away of having an immense ego. Why spend so much time policing the comment section? Also, the whole Nazi name calling is also a dead give away that you will not mod fairly. How would you feel if your HBD views get called racist in other boards?

    Someone has to be biased in favor of the truth somewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. JayMan says: • Website
    @Tom_R
    JAYMAN—INTELLECTUALIZING DISHONESTY.

    Dear Mr. Jayman: First of all, I do not want to criticize you personally, because it is generally against my character to do that, but I am responding in the spirit of an intellectual discussion since you yourself brought up this issue thus:

    You do know that “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist, right?

    and included yourself and your marriage to a white woman in that above link.

    Well, interesting, you, a colored man, marry a white woman and then claim “ethnic genetic interests* do not exist.” How self-serving!

    * “ethnic genetic interests”—whatever that means.

    But then at the end of the article, you contradict yourself by claiming that you intend to spread your black genes by having more colored children (thus sullying the white genes your wife could have spread by having white children).

    Just because there is a genetic basis for something, does not make immoral or inappropriate acts morally or ethically right. Just because a serial killer is genetically predisposed to kill, does not mean it makes it right. There are other spheres of knowledge and thinking besides genes, such as morals, culture, civilization, etc.

    You probably married a white woman because you are smart enough to realize that whites are more beautiful, but did not realize that, by the same logic, the white woman is too stupid not to realize the same, that whites are more beautiful.

    Looks like you want to have your own “ethnic genetic interests”, but not others! Others who do are “racists”, KKK, and “neo-Nazis”, in your view, it seems.

    P.S. Incidentally, many liberals (such as liberal black women) would consider you a racist for marrying a white woman and call you a "self-hating black" or Oreo.

    But then at the end of the article, you contradict yourself by claiming that you intend to spread your black genes by having more colored children (thus sullying the white genes your wife could have spread by having white children).

    This comment approved solely for the entertainment value. It literally made me LOL.

    Just because there is a genetic basis for something, does not make immoral or inappropriate acts morally or ethically right.

    No shit. That would be the naturalistic fallacy to claim such.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @JayMan

    My advice: lose the sense of “discretion,” and make yourself an impartial arbiter of adequate quality.
     
    That's the target...

    A period of transition I understand. But not allowing comments warranting this response: “This comment approved solely for the entertainment value. It literally made me LOL.”

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don’t publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I’t just plain self-indulgent.

    I think that to moderate for quality effectively, you must apply consistent standards. Otherwise, there’s the appearance of bias. Allowing the LOLed racist comment through while deleting milder forms of ignorance begins, then, to look like you’re cherry-picking your opponents for certifiable insanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don’t publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I’t just plain self-indulgent.
     
    It sure is. What's the point if I can't have fun with it?

    I think I've had enough comments about my commenting moderation style.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Easterner
    Why don't you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests? Develop some joint protocol and then expound on topics for the benefit of readers. It may take a lot of restraint by two strong-willed, knowledgeable people, but the results should be edifying.

    Why don’t you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests?

    Because a dialogue between JayMan and Razib would collapse into something like this…

    Read More
    • Agree: Richard S
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Rehmat says:

    “Uninformed comment” or a case of “Self-denial”!

    In 2012, the anti-Sharia crusader, Frank Gaffney, called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) ‘anti-Semitic’ and equated it with the former Ku Klax Klan White Supremacist group. Gaffney is founder and president of Ziocon think tank ‘Center for Security Policy‘ and a columnist at the Ziocons’ Washington Times. Gaffney along with other 25 pro-Israel neocons (mostly Jewish) authored the notorious document, ‘Project for a New American Century (PNAC)‘, also known as Israel Project. It was a blue-print for using America to fight Israel’s proxy wars in the Muslim world.

    Am I supposed to believe that the so-called ‘expert on Sharia’ knows that by criticizing the SPLC or KKK for that matter, he has proved himself to be an anti-Semitism? SPLC is prominent Jewish civil liberties group with Zionist Jew Richard Cohen as its President. It was founded in 1971 by two Zionist Jews by the names Morris S. Dee and Joe Levin.

    Does Gaffney knows that Jewish inventor of ‘Sea-Monkeys’, Harold von Braunhut, was a good friend of KKK founder Richard Girnt Butler? The US Attorney, Thomas M. Bauer, told the Washington Post that in a 1985 weapons case against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Grand Dragon Dale R. Reusch, von Braunhut was prepared to testify that he had lent Reusch about $12,000 so he could buy 83 firearms. Bauer told the reporter that Harold von Braunhut was “very pleasant and cooperative” and “brought some of his little toys along,” including Sea-Monkeys. Read full story at THE AWL, June 28, 2011.

    http://rehmat1.com/2012/08/22/frank-gaffney-splc-kkk/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. JayMan says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    A period of transition I understand. But not allowing comments warranting this response: "This comment approved solely for the entertainment value. It literally made me LOL."

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don't publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I't just plain self-indulgent.

    I think that to moderate for quality effectively, you must apply consistent standards. Otherwise, there's the appearance of bias. Allowing the LOLed racist comment through while deleting milder forms of ignorance begins, then, to look like you're cherry-picking your opponents for certifiable insanity.

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don’t publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I’t just plain self-indulgent.

    It sure is. What’s the point if I can’t have fun with it?

    I think I’ve had enough comments about my commenting moderation style.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    What else should someone comment on when you post on your moderating style? Don't you think it is useful for readers to understand that what permit depends partly on your desire for "fun"?

    And just when we get to the core equivocation of your post! My last comment was not fundamentally about your style, but rather it was about the contradiction between your claims that you are ultimately aiming for objectivity as opposed to personal discretion. This (in your penultimate comment to me) implied that you limited your use of personal discretion to serving truth. You just resolved this equivocation, hopefully if you deign to publish, for everyone's benefit. In moderating comments, personal discretion is for you, even when it conflicts with truthfinding, an essential incentive.

    This establishes two points:
    1. On your blog, you aren't single-mindedly struggling for truth. You require extraneous "fun." I think this moderating style makes your blog unsuitable for honest people who really want to struggle for truth. Excessive or misdirected ego can be as big an enemy of truth as ideological stubbornness. If you include worthless comments because its fun, why not ban good comments because they, like mine, might cause you more grief than fun?

    2. You quickly close discussion when your argument is undermined. This might not be recognizable to many in areas where you have expertise and they (like me) don't. So it is best established on a common-sense issue like your moderating style. You lack the expectation of being able to learn from discussion. (Even on a topic where you're more informed, you can extract a lesson of logic or common sense.)

    This will be my last comment to your blog, which is no venue for any honest inquirer. Because you're not an honest inquirer (rather one who justifies biased moderating) I can't trust what you say. I can't participate in discussions that you engineer to convince yourself how smart you are. [That uninformed individuals might reach a better conclusion (maybe because of superior reasoning or comprehension powers) appears to be intolerable to you. [I allow myself some rude truthfulness here only because your response comment was rude as well as wrongheaded.)])

    I hope you will have the courage to publish this. Otherwise, I'll conclude you are not only a biased inquirer but also as a coward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Leonard says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    You look like someone of poor disposition who can't take criticism when you call people idiots and other names for calmly stating their disagreements with you. This is something you've done in many posts now.

    Many of the things you tell people to read are you own interpretations at your own blog with varying amounts of footnotes. No, they are not incontrovertible no matter how much to tell people to go read them.

    Being overly restrictive in your comments policy with opposing opinions invariable looks like an attempt to control the discourse. It's easy to not to address valid criticism when you can just broadly cast aside anything as "stupid" you don't agree with.

    an attempt to control the discourse

    Of course it’s an attempt to control the discourse. The whole idea is to remove the worthless or low-value discourse so as to focus attention on the good stuff.

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they’ve got something to contribute when they don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they’ve got something to contribute when they don’t.
     
    Right on, brother.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. JayMan says: • Website
    @Leonard

    an attempt to control the discourse
     
    Of course it's an attempt to control the discourse. The whole idea is to remove the worthless or low-value discourse so as to focus attention on the good stuff.

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they've got something to contribute when they don't.

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they’ve got something to contribute when they don’t.

    Right on, brother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Like I said, it's very simple:

    1. Post your politely- and succinctly-worded comment policy “up front”.
    2. Delete any comments you don’t like, summarily and without regret.
    3. Don’t explain.

    On a blog, the blogger controls the narrative. That is the entire purpose of a blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @JayMan

    This may not please you. But I like it. I want a savagely moderated comments section. There are too many idiots and/or ignorants who all think they’ve got something to contribute when they don’t.
     
    Right on, brother.

    Like I said, it’s very simple:

    1. Post your politely- and succinctly-worded comment policy “up front”.
    2. Delete any comments you don’t like, summarily and without regret.
    3. Don’t explain.

    On a blog, the blogger controls the narrative. That is the entire purpose of a blog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @JayMan

    If I can make the point in overstated form: journal editors don’t publish laughable work because it makes them LOL. I’t just plain self-indulgent.
     
    It sure is. What's the point if I can't have fun with it?

    I think I've had enough comments about my commenting moderation style.

    What else should someone comment on when you post on your moderating style? Don’t you think it is useful for readers to understand that what permit depends partly on your desire for “fun”?

    And just when we get to the core equivocation of your post! My last comment was not fundamentally about your style, but rather it was about the contradiction between your claims that you are ultimately aiming for objectivity as opposed to personal discretion. This (in your penultimate comment to me) implied that you limited your use of personal discretion to serving truth. You just resolved this equivocation, hopefully if you deign to publish, for everyone’s benefit. In moderating comments, personal discretion is for you, even when it conflicts with truthfinding, an essential incentive.

    This establishes two points:
    1. On your blog, you aren’t single-mindedly struggling for truth. You require extraneous “fun.” I think this moderating style makes your blog unsuitable for honest people who really want to struggle for truth. Excessive or misdirected ego can be as big an enemy of truth as ideological stubbornness. If you include worthless comments because its fun, why not ban good comments because they, like mine, might cause you more grief than fun?

    2. You quickly close discussion when your argument is undermined. This might not be recognizable to many in areas where you have expertise and they (like me) don’t. So it is best established on a common-sense issue like your moderating style. You lack the expectation of being able to learn from discussion. (Even on a topic where you’re more informed, you can extract a lesson of logic or common sense.)

    This will be my last comment to your blog, which is no venue for any honest inquirer. Because you’re not an honest inquirer (rather one who justifies biased moderating) I can’t trust what you say. I can’t participate in discussions that you engineer to convince yourself how smart you are. [That uninformed individuals might reach a better conclusion (maybe because of superior reasoning or comprehension powers) appears to be intolerable to you. [I allow myself some rude truthfulness here only because your response comment was rude as well as wrongheaded.)])

    I hope you will have the courage to publish this. Otherwise, I’ll conclude you are not only a biased inquirer but also as a coward.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @JayMan

    On your blog, you aren’t single-mindedly struggling for truth. You require extraneous “fun.” I think this moderating style makes your blog unsuitable for honest people who really want to struggle for truth
     

    If you include worthless comments because its fun, why not ban good comments because they, like mine, might cause you more grief than fun?
     

    This will be my last comment to your blog, which is no venue for any honest inquirer. Because you’re not an honest inquirer (rather one who justifies biased moderating) I can’t trust what you say.
     
    https://youtu.be/cRBFEYVioBI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. I like it alot when authors interact with commenters. especially when it is to correct bad comments.

    please destroy any commentator at your discretion but allow all comments to go through.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Hey people who are whining about the comments policy, no one has a constitutional right to have their comment approved. It’s Jaymans blog. He can run it however he wants. If you don’t like it, start your own blog or read someone else’s blog. Why is that so hard to get through your head?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. JayMan says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    What else should someone comment on when you post on your moderating style? Don't you think it is useful for readers to understand that what permit depends partly on your desire for "fun"?

    And just when we get to the core equivocation of your post! My last comment was not fundamentally about your style, but rather it was about the contradiction between your claims that you are ultimately aiming for objectivity as opposed to personal discretion. This (in your penultimate comment to me) implied that you limited your use of personal discretion to serving truth. You just resolved this equivocation, hopefully if you deign to publish, for everyone's benefit. In moderating comments, personal discretion is for you, even when it conflicts with truthfinding, an essential incentive.

    This establishes two points:
    1. On your blog, you aren't single-mindedly struggling for truth. You require extraneous "fun." I think this moderating style makes your blog unsuitable for honest people who really want to struggle for truth. Excessive or misdirected ego can be as big an enemy of truth as ideological stubbornness. If you include worthless comments because its fun, why not ban good comments because they, like mine, might cause you more grief than fun?

    2. You quickly close discussion when your argument is undermined. This might not be recognizable to many in areas where you have expertise and they (like me) don't. So it is best established on a common-sense issue like your moderating style. You lack the expectation of being able to learn from discussion. (Even on a topic where you're more informed, you can extract a lesson of logic or common sense.)

    This will be my last comment to your blog, which is no venue for any honest inquirer. Because you're not an honest inquirer (rather one who justifies biased moderating) I can't trust what you say. I can't participate in discussions that you engineer to convince yourself how smart you are. [That uninformed individuals might reach a better conclusion (maybe because of superior reasoning or comprehension powers) appears to be intolerable to you. [I allow myself some rude truthfulness here only because your response comment was rude as well as wrongheaded.)])

    I hope you will have the courage to publish this. Otherwise, I'll conclude you are not only a biased inquirer but also as a coward.

    On your blog, you aren’t single-mindedly struggling for truth. You require extraneous “fun.” I think this moderating style makes your blog unsuitable for honest people who really want to struggle for truth

    If you include worthless comments because its fun, why not ban good comments because they, like mine, might cause you more grief than fun?

    This will be my last comment to your blog, which is no venue for any honest inquirer. Because you’re not an honest inquirer (rather one who justifies biased moderating) I can’t trust what you say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. iffen says:

    The problem is your style of writing, it is not your content (which had lots of good information).

    Essentially the implications of your writing are: I’ve already read the relevant materials and interpreted them for you so you don’t need to read anything other than what I have written and I’ve already thought everything through so you don’t even need to bother with the thinking part.

    I doubt that you can change your writing style.

    I have a lifetime of experience with fundamentalist, evangelical preachers and I am certain that should you lose you day job untold success would await you in that field.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The problem is your style of writing, it is not your content (which had lots of good information).

    Essentially the implications of your writing are: I’ve already read the relevant materials and interpreted them for you so you don’t need to read anything other than what I have written and I’ve already thought everything through so you don’t even need to bother with the thinking part.
     

    You might have had a point if I didn't link back to my sources. Alas, I do.

    The problem may be your style of thinking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. JayMan says: • Website
    @iffen
    The problem is your style of writing, it is not your content (which had lots of good information).

    Essentially the implications of your writing are: I've already read the relevant materials and interpreted them for you so you don't need to read anything other than what I have written and I've already thought everything through so you don't even need to bother with the thinking part.

    I doubt that you can change your writing style.

    I have a lifetime of experience with fundamentalist, evangelical preachers and I am certain that should you lose you day job untold success would await you in that field.

    The problem is your style of writing, it is not your content (which had lots of good information).

    Essentially the implications of your writing are: I’ve already read the relevant materials and interpreted them for you so you don’t need to read anything other than what I have written and I’ve already thought everything through so you don’t even need to bother with the thinking part.

    You might have had a point if I didn’t link back to my sources. Alas, I do.

    The problem may be your style of thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @JayMan

    Perhaps your arguments would be improved, and thus resistant to criticism, if they were to desist from anthropomorphising genes.
     
    Hopefully, that's a joke.

    No. It’s not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. iffen says:

    Yes, but what are your comments like when someone points out that your sources do not support your conclusions?

    More importantly, why do you respond to racists with the assumption that most of your readers will share you humor. If you are an elect defender of the HBD faith, why do you not point out why HBD cannot be used as support for racism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Yes, but what are your comments like when someone points out that your sources do not support your conclusions?
     
    As according to the accuracy of their analysis of the situation.

    More importantly, why do you respond to racists with the assumption that most of your readers will share you humor.
     
    See John Rebel's comment above.

    That goes for everyone else, by the way.


    If you are an elect defender of the HBD faith, why do you not point out why HBD cannot be used as support for racism?
     

     HBD is a set of empirical facts. By themselves, like all facts about the world, they are value neutral. Values come from the person. In other words, people will find a way to justify whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. JayMan says: • Website
    @iffen
    Yes, but what are your comments like when someone points out that your sources do not support your conclusions?

    More importantly, why do you respond to racists with the assumption that most of your readers will share you humor. If you are an elect defender of the HBD faith, why do you not point out why HBD cannot be used as support for racism?

    Yes, but what are your comments like when someone points out that your sources do not support your conclusions?

    As according to the accuracy of their analysis of the situation.

    More importantly, why do you respond to racists with the assumption that most of your readers will share you humor.

    See John Rebel’s comment above.

    That goes for everyone else, by the way.

    If you are an elect defender of the HBD faith, why do you not point out why HBD cannot be used as support for racism?

    HBD is a set of empirical facts. By themselves, like all facts about the world, they are value neutral. Values come from the person. In other words, people will find a way to justify whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Can empirical facts support racism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. JayMan says: • Website
    @Pat Hannagan
    No. It's not.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Yes, I saw that you were employing Dawkins' penchant for anthropomorphising genes.

    Here's a short essay which discusses the subject: So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

    Specifically:

    1. The truth is, the total prostitution of all animal life, including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind purposiveness of these minute virus-like substances, genes.

    This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of the contents of The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by Dawkins, but he quoted it with manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins status, as a widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well-known to need evidence of it adduced here. His admirers even include some philosophers who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing good books on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind. Dawkins can scarcely have gratified these admirers by telling them that, even when engaged in writing those books, they were totally prostituted to the blind purposiveness of their genes Still, you have to hand it to genes which can write, even if only through their slaves, a good book on subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains all right, as well as purposes. At least, they must , if genes can have brains and purposes. But in fact, of course, DNA molecules no more have such things than H20 molecules do.

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. iffen says:
    @JayMan

    Yes, but what are your comments like when someone points out that your sources do not support your conclusions?
     
    As according to the accuracy of their analysis of the situation.

    More importantly, why do you respond to racists with the assumption that most of your readers will share you humor.
     
    See John Rebel's comment above.

    That goes for everyone else, by the way.


    If you are an elect defender of the HBD faith, why do you not point out why HBD cannot be used as support for racism?
     

     HBD is a set of empirical facts. By themselves, like all facts about the world, they are value neutral. Values come from the person. In other words, people will find a way to justify whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.

    Can empirical facts support racism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @JayMan

    Yes, I saw that you were employing Dawkins’ penchant for anthropomorphising genes.

    Here’s a short essay which discusses the subject: So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

    Specifically:

    1. The truth is, the total prostitution of all animal life, including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind purposiveness of these minute virus-like substances, genes.

    This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of the contents of The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by Dawkins, but he quoted it with manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins status, as a widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well-known to need evidence of it adduced here. His admirers even include some philosophers who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing good books on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind. Dawkins can scarcely have gratified these admirers by telling them that, even when engaged in writing those books, they were totally prostituted to the blind purposiveness of their genes Still, you have to hand it to genes which can write, even if only through their slaves, a good book on subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains all right, as well as purposes. At least, they must , if genes can have brains and purposes. But in fact, of course, DNA molecules no more have such things than H20 molecules do.

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
     
    How about no?

    This is all fluffy nonsense. Take that discussion elsewhere.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. JayMan says: • Website
    @Pat Hannagan
    Yes, I saw that you were employing Dawkins' penchant for anthropomorphising genes.

    Here's a short essay which discusses the subject: So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

    Specifically:

    1. The truth is, the total prostitution of all animal life, including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind purposiveness of these minute virus-like substances, genes.

    This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of the contents of The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by Dawkins, but he quoted it with manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins status, as a widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well-known to need evidence of it adduced here. His admirers even include some philosophers who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing good books on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind. Dawkins can scarcely have gratified these admirers by telling them that, even when engaged in writing those books, they were totally prostituted to the blind purposiveness of their genes Still, you have to hand it to genes which can write, even if only through their slaves, a good book on subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains all right, as well as purposes. At least, they must , if genes can have brains and purposes. But in fact, of course, DNA molecules no more have such things than H20 molecules do.

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution

    How about no?

    This is all fluffy nonsense. Take that discussion elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    You want me to take the discussion that you started elsewhere? How bizarre.

    You ought to have a word with your genes as they are making you behave petulantly not to mention illogically.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @JayMan

    Further reading: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
     
    How about no?

    This is all fluffy nonsense. Take that discussion elsewhere.

    You want me to take the discussion that you started elsewhere? How bizarre.

    You ought to have a word with your genes as they are making you behave petulantly not to mention illogically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    You want me to take the discussion that you started elsewhere?
     
    Look, you went off on this nonsense tangent. I am shutting down that track.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. JayMan says: • Website
    @Pat Hannagan
    You want me to take the discussion that you started elsewhere? How bizarre.

    You ought to have a word with your genes as they are making you behave petulantly not to mention illogically.

    You want me to take the discussion that you started elsewhere?

    Look, you went off on this nonsense tangent. I am shutting down that track.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Olorin says:
    @Easterner
    Why don't you and Razib Khan team up to have a dialogue about common interests? Develop some joint protocol and then expound on topics for the benefit of readers. It may take a lot of restraint by two strong-willed, knowledgeable people, but the results should be edifying.

    We need more informed, comprehensive, coherent, articulate voices, not fewer.

    Thermonuclear kudos to JayMan for this policy.

    I’m personally not sure what constitutes “white supremacy,” since, for instance, I was accused of that in my 20s for liking Tannhauser and Parsifal (the operas), and for taking about my family’s roots in Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

    But as a guest, I’m ever sensitive to the fact that while being a guest confers privileges (such as learning about megatons of stuff without having to dig it, refine it, smelt it, cast it all by myself), it’s still the host’s shindig.

    Fortunately there are now plenty of places to vent about population genetics issues on the internet. By contrast there are precious few where hard, rational, transformative thoughtwork is getting done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Olorin says:
    @greeneyes
    Generally good to moderate comments too increase the productivity of the discussion.
    But , two things.

    1) Sometimes someone might make a useful error, they might not understand something in your work, but if you feel its a reasonable mis understanding, maybe you can restate your thesis clearer. As long as someone is engaging you in a civil manner, even mis understandings can be useful. Especially 'common misunderstandings' that pop up a lot, because those are highlight areas for extra communication.
    Though- I understand not wanting to hash over the same stuff all the time. Its also nice to get feedback about where people are generally not understanding your point.

    2) A certain percent, granted not most , but a subset of the criticism u reject, will in the long run turn out to be valid criticism.

    So, I mean, its not like an erroneous comment, phrased in a civil manner is really that disruptive.

    Not disruptive if you’re reading.

    Huge waste of time if you get hundreds of these each month.

    I’ve seen countless instances where JayMan goes to the trouble of replying with a link that the ill-informed commenter should read before commenting. Then being accused of being terse. (Yeah? And?)

    That right there is way more effort than I’d go to, particularly when the link/issue/data is in the text upon which they’re commenting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. helena says:

    All this means is that there is a need for experts in stats/pop gen to talk amongst themselves – albeit publically – and another need for experts to communicate with interested non-experts – i.e. repeating the same stuff over and over again and in different ways until the penny drops. Perhaps Ron has a solution?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. JayMan,

    I think that the JayMan-Signal is shining in the sky over at the comments sections for Sailer’s post on Putin and Erdogan. Some kid at Macquarie University is trying to start a white student union and somehow made some comment that – horror or horrors – there might be genetic differences among the various racial and ethnic groups.

    Apparently, a professor is challenging him. I suspect that the professor has framed his rebuttal in a way that makes in impossible to disprove, i.e. a debate trick; however, I thought that since you’ve dealt with these argument more than anyone, you might be able to help.

    Anyway, he’s the 7th comment on that blog post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. “Realize that the whole reason you’re reading me is because I know things that you don’t know.”

    I will never read you again, so it appears that you’ve rapidly run out of things I didn’t know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Pat Casey says:
    @BubbaJoe
    JayMan,
    I've read a good bit of your work. I find you interesting and knowledgeable (yes, more so than me). But ever since you've arrived at UNZ you've been abnormally rankled by the comments section. You're letting it get to you, and whining about it too much. "More quality, less whining" is solid advice, please do take it into account. Lots of good contributors here get sh*te comments. You seem aggravated by each and every one. If they bother you so much, just delete/ignore them. But please stop making it the focus of your posts. You have better things to be writing about. There's a comic that comes to mind... https://xkcd.com/386/

    The only thing that’s wrong with the media is that people get away with lying, and teach other people to lie, and teach everyone to be ignorant, and teach the ignorant to be loud. I’ve tussled with Razib and Jayman and respect them more for it. We need heavy foots to be put down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. So, all of the favorable comments to your articles are only because you delete the negative ones.
    Only Unz.com should have the ability to remove comments. How about if only GMO food producers were allowed to determine which studies on GMO food got published?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    So, all of the favorable comments to your articles are only because you delete the negative ones.
     
    I hope this answers that point.

    There's a difference between negative and stupid.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. JayMan says: • Website
    @boogerbently
    So, all of the favorable comments to your articles are only because you delete the negative ones.
    Only Unz.com should have the ability to remove comments. How about if only GMO food producers were allowed to determine which studies on GMO food got published?

    So, all of the favorable comments to your articles are only because you delete the negative ones.

    I hope this answers that point.

    There’s a difference between negative and stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There’s a difference between negative and stupid.

    And we know who gets to make this decision.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. HBD Guy says:

    I would like to know what your thoughts are about this topic?

    http://kotaku.com/5457590/us-navy-video-games-improve-brains-fluid-intelligence

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Well, my thoughts are that that is hooey. They are pursuing a false course by comparing long-time gamers to non-gamers because the two groups could (and do) have pre-existing differences. For what it's worth, a 2013 meta-analysis of brain training game trials found no lasting effects:

    Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. JayMan says: • Website
    @HBD Guy
    I would like to know what your thoughts are about this topic?

    http://kotaku.com/5457590/us-navy-video-games-improve-brains-fluid-intelligence

    Well, my thoughts are that that is hooey. They are pursuing a false course by comparing long-time gamers to non-gamers because the two groups could (and do) have pre-existing differences. For what it’s worth, a 2013 meta-analysis of brain training game trials found no lasting effects:

    Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. iffen says:
    @JayMan

    So, all of the favorable comments to your articles are only because you delete the negative ones.
     
    I hope this answers that point.

    There's a difference between negative and stupid.

    There’s a difference between negative and stupid.

    And we know who gets to make this decision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Melendwyr says: • Website
    @Max Payne
    Can I ask where you acquired your PhD from?

    There is a difference between qualifications and credentials. Forgetting that distinction is one of the things killing our society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Max Payne says:
    @Max Payne
    Can I ask where you acquired your PhD from?

    Are you not updating your blog anymore? Regardless of what people think I went to your wordpress and here and can’t find new posts. Did you move it somewhere?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. NickG says:
    @Polynices
    A brilliant comment policy like this is why you and Razib are two of my favorite bloggers (I'd say he has a very similar attitude towards dumb comments). Anyone griping about your comment policy is certainly someone that shouldn't be commenting anyway.

    Keep up the good work!

    you and Razib are two of my favorite bloggers (I’d say he has a very similar attitude towards dumb comments).

    Razib has good stuff and makes great points. However, he is prone to being a bit of a smug, ungracious, even rude arse (ass to you colonial types).

    He is also a crap writer – his prose is tortured, clunky and unnecessarily impenetrable. He would do well to fully take to heart and imbibe Steven Pinker’s ‘A Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century’, and maybe brush-up on Dale Carnegie.

    These are not charges I feel even vaguely applicable to JayMan.

    Oh whilst I’m at it – yes – Steve Sailer takes sarcasm to stratospheric levels, but with Steve it’s an endearing part his persona and essential aspect of his shtick.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. […] Commenters, please be aware of my comment policy. […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by JayMan


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS