As a lot of you know, we’ve developed a problem with the antagonistic nature of the comment threads on Hatewatch. As a result, and after talking to some of you, we’ve decided to try and restore some civility and sense of community.

From now on, we’re just not going to publish comments that include name-calling of any kind, no matter whose side of a particular issue you’re on. We’re not going to publish guttural expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing, misogyny and so on. We will publish white nationalist arguments, but only if they’re presented civilly and calmly, like the fellow from Stormfront who recently made an effort to politely argue with other commenters here. We will not publish bogus claims about certain groups’ alleged inferiority, and we won’t publish links to racist sites or sites that contain misleading or false statistics. Finally, we plan to stop publishing comments from a few posters who have become a real problem on our threads.

This is not an attempt to censor people’s thinking, but it is an effort to make Hatewatch more of a community of people discussing important issues. We don’t want it to degenerate yet another Internet shouting match.

Thanks for your understanding. We appreciate your contributions to the blog very much.

Mark Potok

In psychology I believe this is referred to as “projecting”.

From my viewpoint it seems you are confusing the human condition with multiethnic conflict. I also think you are ignoring the infinite complexities of cause and effect in society. There is never just one cause for any effect, and never just one effect from any cause. I also doubt it is possible to ever accurately describe all causes and all effects of any phenomenon, social, political, or otherwise because the entire universe is dynamic, changing, and in constant flux. True intellectual inquiry does not insist upon one cause or one effect, but understands the complexities involved can be confusing, contradictory, and often hard to sort out.

Look deeper into it and test it for yourself if this is true.

I get it, Reynardine. A man who thinks he ought to – gasp! – be the head of his household is totalitarian or authoritarian. A government sending its army into its own country to declare war upon and kill ITS OWN PEOPLE . . . naw, of course not, that’s “liberation.”

You need to understand that you’re a deranged lunatic, my little old angelcake.

And that’s just on this page. I don’t care to point out every lie you’ve told because you simply aren’t worth my time.

Erika, umm, how many times have I said that I’m not a libertarian? Again, pretty sure Dr. Paul isn’t one anymore either.

You folks may eventually catch those straws. I’ll be rooting for you.

He also is quick to resort to that old standby of the Paulite phony-libertarian – if you disagree with him, you must worship the state or American empire which may well be the Neo-Confederate sessessionist version

Go eat a hovercraft, you cur.

Does that make you people angry? If it does, I suggest some form of meditation to calm down.

Poor baby :(

Find Dr. Maureen Dana, my current professor, and e-mail her that insult. I think she’ll tell you that the assignment she just gave me to explicate and comment upon the subtext and themes inherent in a poem is very essential to a modern-day understanding of English and poetry.

Jerk.

One of those statements is a lie.

aadila, I was serious, and not grandstanding in any way, when I asked for you to provide me with a link to a web page or something proving your assertion about the proper usage of “was” and “were.” I do enjoy learning new things. I’ll be more than happy to say that you are right and I am wrong if you can do so.