Hizbullah: the discussion resumes

Okay. Commenter Dominic, who appealed my decision to close the Comments board on the recent Lebanon’s Hizbullah post, wins. (At least, I think “appealing” was what you were doing, Dominic?)
I’ve now reopened that post to Comments. So feel free to go there and do that, anyone.
I really do value (nearly all of) the discussions people have on the Comments boards here, and think that most of them add a lot to the blog’s value. But with that particular discussion, I just had a strong sense it was getting repetitive. I have an incipient short-term memory problem, so when I see there are new Comments on a post I generally have to scroll quickly all thru the preceding Comments to catch up with what has been going on. That discussion started to feel like a burden to me, what with the repetitiveness and then a slightly snarky reference to myself at the end.
One thing I promised to myself– to help control my ever-threatening blog addiction– is that “The moment doing the blog isn’t fun, just stop.” It felt like not fun there for a while.
Meanwhile, I’m sure you’re all wondering how my mammoth task of writing a long article about Hizbullah has been going…


The answer is, I’m nearly at the end. I have a gargantuan draft. Nearly 14,000 words. Tonight I’ll key in the last edits and send it off to Boston Review.
I am totally tired.
I tell y’all what I’d love. Does anyone know of a set of guidelines for comments-management policies on blogs that might be something I could adapt, adopt, post here, and use?
Texts of such policies, or links to same, on this Comments board please.
Continuation of the “Lebanon’s Hizbullah” disscussion over there…

6 thoughts on “Hizbullah: the discussion resumes”

  2. The only policy you need, I think, is the one I stated in the other thread: “your blog, your rules.” You have no obligation to be a constitutional monarch or to hold yourself to a consistent standard in regulating comments. You have the right to be as arbitrary and capricious as you want, and to shut down any discussion that you feel is detrimental to the blog or is making it a chore.
    If you do want to implement a policy, one based on your personal beliefs about the ethics of debate and the purpose of this blog would probably work better than one invented by someone whose ethics and purpose are different. My policy, for instance, is to delete only those comments that contain (1) commercial spam or (2) personal insults directed at someone other than me, but that may not reflect your values. Blogging is idiosyncratic enough that prepackaged solutions usually don’t work.
    In any event, I apologize for contributing to a discussion that made this blog not fun for you. As a peace offering, I will refrain from restarting it.

  4. Good morning Helena,
    Thank you for your blog, on any terms.
    Thank you for your knowledge and the work that you do and the writing that you work so hard to produce.
    How is it possible for people to change their minds? If it is not possible for people to change their minds then journalism and blogs and political organising are all mere foolishness, and certainly not fun of any kind.
    I set a lot of store by Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. He thought that there must always be dialogue, that the dialogue should be “intentional” (i.e. having the intention of changing the world) but also, that there is a text, that is given by the pedagogue.
    I’m sure Jonathan is right. You must manage your blog as you see fit. The pedagogue must bring the text. Without that there is nothing.
    For our part, let us strive for that dialogue. In this case, there were live people on each side of the Israeli question. I know the question itself is an old one, but to actually have a dialogue going about it is a great rarity. I thought it was rough but it was moving. I accept your ruling.
    There was a time when I thought that the blogosphere was capable of bringing something new to the business of changing peoples’ minds. This is because text and dialogue can be presented simply and immediately together.
    In my opinion there is no set of rules or policy that can be mechanically applied here. The form, text-and-dialogue, is what you have. The blog-owner’s part is the part that corresponds to regular journalism. It is to put up the text. The dialogue is not for you to create, although you may control it, or edit it, as a newspaper edits its letters.
    However, you don’t really have the space restrictions that newspapers have. You are not compelled to kill any threads, I think, because they will die off by themselves as they scroll off your home page. In this case, you could have allowed Jonathan and myself and tyroler to struggle on. Maybe we would have got somewhere, maybe not.
    Yours is a unique blog in several ways. In particular, you take part in the comment threads, yourself. You don’t have to do that. I appreciate that you do that, and I guess it means that you will manage these comment threads in a different way, as compared to a blog where the general hoi-polloi is left to its own devices.
    I’m glad you have finished your article on Hizbullah and I hope we all helped you as much as we did annoy you somewhat. Sorry for the annoyance.
    With love,

  5. I support Helena – if the thread is no fun, the host doesn’t have to sustain it.
    You want to dialogue? Start your own blog. Then you could put up a post: “Heated discussion over at ‘Just World News’ about piebald cat behavior. (link) What do you think?” and the discussion could continue on your own blog comment section. You get to write your own essay in your post about piebald cats, and anybody who really wants to can jump over from Helena’s place.
    Why should she host a long discussion that has become tiresome to her?
    But it’s nice of Helena to reopen the comments, and of course Dominic has every right to ask. I think this situation is a good reason for people to have their own blogs. If you have that much to say, you might need your own place to say it. Jonathan, for one, will definitely visit you – he’s a saint that way. I might, too.

Comments are closed.