This is a serious problem in the HBD sphere. But I tell you, *uninformed* criticism is really grating. https://t.co/Epsd50A9CZ
— JayMan (@JayMan471) November 1, 2015
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.