Map of life expectancy at birth from Global Education Project.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Commenting policy

I should probably create some sort of a permanent link to this, but I should make clear what sorts of comments will and will not be published. I was forced to start moderating comments late last year, after some 20 years of blogging here, because of a few people who posted comments that are destructive of the informational purposes of this site, and offensive to the basic values I hold.

I should first make clear that the word "opinion" has multiple meanings, and semantics often confuse people. Sometimes when facts are legitimately in dispute, people may think one possible fact is more likely than another. That is one kind of opinion. However, you are not allowed to state an "opinion" here that the universe is 10,000 years old, human caused climate change is a hoax, or Donald Trump is not a pathological liar. These are all examples of what are called "facts" and one cannot have contrary opinions about them.

However, in the sphere of values, there is some room for differences. In the field of public health, there is often a tension between a version of liberty -- letting people do whatever they want, basically -- and the wider good. It's okay to have opinions that differ from mine about tradeoffs of this kind, within reason, but only if you accept the relevant facts. For example, second-hand tobacco smoke does increase the risk of disease for people who are exposed to it. If you want to argue that smoking should be allowed in public places, you need to deal with that fact.

Next, there is the question of logic. What facts and relationships among facts are relevant to an argument? And when you consider this criterion keep in mind that I am an actual, for real expert in certain subjects. If you want to argue with me about public health, economics, biology and environmental science, or the likely consequences of public policy choices -- particularly but not exclusively in the realm of public health and health services -- keep in mind that I probably know a good deal more about those subjects than you do.

Consequently, there are comments that I don't publish because it just isn't worth my time to argue with someone who so clearly is wrong about a matter of fact, or doesn't understand the manifest logic of a post. For example, it does not refute the many experts who are skeptical of the ban just announced of travel from Europe to the U.S. to point out that there is a coronavirus epidemic in much of Europe. Has it not occurred to you that these various experts, including me, who question the ban already know that? Therefore we must have different grounds, specifically the grounds I clearly articulated in an earlier post.

You can read a discussion of the matter here, with many quotations from various experts. The reason is that the virus is already here, and it's already spreading in our own communities. A ban against European visitors is pointless, unless perhaps you want to limit it to Lombardy, because a traveler from Europe is no more likely to be infectious than a traveler from Dubuque. In fact, a travel ban from Dubuque to Lansing makes more sense than a ban from Lisbon to Boston because you can stop people with symptoms from getting on a plane, but you can't stop them from getting in a car or a bus. (Many rural bus stops are just a local general store or post office.) If you have some credible counterargument I'm happy to hear it, but in order to rebut an argument you need to understand it and respond to what people are actually saying.

Also, while it is not the case that in order to get a comment published you need to say something hateful about the Resident (and you can see innumerable counterexamples), there is a very good chance that if you try to defend or praise him your comment will, a fortiori, be factually false or morally depraved. That is because he is a habitual and remorseless liar, and he himself is morally depraved -- not to mention ignorant, stupid, and malignantly narcissistic. These assertions are in the realm of fact, not opinion. They are premises you must accept should you wish to defend or praise him.

I also will not permit racism, misogyny, or any other form of bigotry.

In short, comments are published only if they make a contribution to the discourse. If you don't like it, take it to 8chan.

2 comments:

Don Quixote said...

I have no comment on yesterday's Commenting policy blog :-)

Alexander Dumbass said...

I should first make clear that the word "opinion" has multiple meanings, and semantics often confuse people. Sometimes when facts are legitimately in dispute, people may think one possible fact is more likely than another. That is one kind of opinion.

People can agree upon the facts but disagree upon what conclusion it should lead them to. While all experts in the field of public health may agree that Corona is hyper-contagious, they may disagree on efficacy of closing travel from the EU, GB and Ireland.

The ones quoted by this liberal open-border immigration reporter seem to differ from others in Europe and even those in the American CDC and WHO.

Even experts don't always agree and it's not always about the facts.