The New and Improved Comments Policy

There are two changes, only, to the language long present in our Comments Policy. First, we have added a new first sentence:

Comments at the Orthosphere are moderated by the contributors.

Second, we have increased the stringency of our criteria for the sorts of comments we deem fit to appear here, as follows; new language is in bold:

In some cases we may also delete comments on grounds such as libel, obscenity, incoherence or stupidity, or abuse of English grammar, syntax, or diction. The Orthosphere is meant to be a bastion of civilization, so barbarity of any sort will suffer the editorial axe.

Comments that are not immediately intelligible to a moderator will not be posted.

14 thoughts on “The New and Improved Comments Policy

  1. Pingback: The New and Improved Comments Policy | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Wickstinian marmalade baffles metric bananas, but longitudinal butter pecan sardines effectuate Licorist interpretations of the void. We all forget our meds from place to epoch. Jewish phallocracy!

    • Your comment is instantly intelligible … as a joke.

      An unintended benefit of the new policy: no postmodernist deconstructivist texts will pass the moderation threshold. Not that we get too many of those to begin with …

      • I kind of like pomos and their sayings. My favorite pomo slogan: “data are theory-drenched.” Those guys hate modernity so much that they sometimes say true things, and not quite by accident.

      • I’m not a post-modernist. A post-modernist, incredulously, does not believe in the perfect man. So it would be more truthful to say that the leading contributors of the Orthosphere are pomos unable to comprehend a wS who does believe in the perfect man (read: not a utopiajn belief, but a properly functioning belief).

        And even though Kristor sought to perfect his comment policy as a result of his desire for Perfection, he will be so inclined to immediately erase any sign of this desire thereby validating the charge of a pomo state of mind.

      • Thordaddy, that last comment squeaked through the intelligibility wicket.

        No one accused you of being post-modernist. Would that you were half as intelligible as they!

        The reason all of us here have a hard time understanding what you write is not that your beliefs are themselves incoherent, but that your use of English is so … wildly IMPERFECT.

        If you do really seek Perfection, start with your writing. Until you can convey your thoughts coherently and intelligibly, you will remain trapped alone in your own private idiosyncratic prison of incoherent nonsensical monomaniacal determined willful IMPERFECTION. From the outside, where we all stand, the craziness of your customary ways of expressing yourself make your condition look a lot like insanity.

      • All I have to do, Kristor, is persuade you to pen exactly why you are an anti-white Supremacist and therefore equal in essence to the anti-white Supremacists coherently labeled the “alt-right” and the “left.”

        Or… You may choose to state why you are against “white supremacy” in a different manner from the alt-right and/or left thus invalidating my stated equality?

        Or… You may just state that you are not against “white supremacy,” but still deny actually being a “white supremacist.” And all those who accuse you of “white supremacy” are creating a false reality that you do little to make more clear and true.

        Or… You can just claim it all unintelligible as though “white supremacy” and subsequently, anti-white supremacy, are concepts completely inconceivable to you?

        All else is just jive talk.

      • Fifth option: I reject your reductionist categories. Not everything reduces exhaustively to White Supremacy or its negation. That’s an impoverished analysis, just as whacked as materialism or Marxism. It’s like reduction of history to the Jews, or the Masons, or the Catholics, or the Illuminati. Silly.

        Again, you barely made it through the intelligibility wicket. But your writing still betrays a determined commitment to massive IMPERFECTION. It’s as if a part of you desperately wants to frustrate what another part of you is trying to do.

        You can’t be perfect. But you can at least be normal. Make your writing mediocre, instead of abominable.

  3. Pingback: The New and Improved Comments Policy | Reaction Times

  4. If one is trying to convince others of their point of view it would stand to reason that they would want to communicate their ideas clearly and understandably. To insist on communicating unintelligibly impeaches their credibility in my estimation.

    • That’s a very analytic philosophy point of view. Which is to say that it is psychologically naive. Do you really, honestly believe that people are more apt to believe something they understood easily than something they had to work to understand?

      • No. But if someone intentionally expresses their viewpoint in an overly complicated and obscure way when more clear alternatives exist it suggests to me their motivation is to serve their own ego rather than to educate.

  5. “First, we have added a new first sentence:…”

    Great idea — the fact that I suggested this has nothing to do with my high regard for this change.

    Personally I think moderated comments inhibit active discussion and are therefore an unfortunate choice.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.