Thursday, November 06, 2008

A quick word on Editorial Policy...

... which has been rendered necessary by the comments on the last post, especially this statement.
... in fairness to the people who leave comments here, it is DK's blog and is under his editorial control.

Basically, there is no editorial policy.

When I first invited other people to write at The Kitchen, some years ago, they were people with whom I generally disagreed, but who wrote decently. I actively wanted to stimulate debate within this blog.

In those days, it would have been absolutely and entirely wrong to assume that the opinions posted by those contributors were shared by myself—because the fact that I disagreed with them was the very reason that I invited them in the first place.

That policy has not substantially changed: many of the Lefty types have given up blogging, gone to write for The Grauniad (in one case) or returned to their own blogs.

One of the factors in this last result has been the virulent abuse they received in the comments. This is fair enough: I write what I want, and you commenters can write what you want (as you know, I never delete any comments (unless they are spam) and nor do I moderate said comments). However, one can understand that people writing here as a hobby do not necessarily want to spend their entire time being abused.

The entirely logical result is that those who remain writing here are those with whom I—and the commenters—generally agree. However, I should point out that I tell contributors that there is no Writing Policy—they can write about what they want, when they want and in any style they want. I occasionally tidy up presentational code but I don't edit the contributions in any other way—and nor do I vet any of them.

The conclusion of all of this, and the reason for this post, is to point out that attacking me because someone else has written something on this blog that you disagree with is neither valid nor fair (and vice versa, of course).

Expecting other contributors to The Kitchen to share my values and to attack either me or them because of what you perceive the values of this blog to be is similarly invalid.

And attacking libertarianism in general because of what any of us write is also invalid. The Devil's Kitchen does not speak for members of the UK Libertarian Party, let alone libertarians worldwide.

I realise that there will probably be more people in the comments to this post pointing out that I shouldn't bitch and moan about being attacked for stuff that I didn't write and that is fair enough—you are all entitled to your views.

However, I state all of the above so that no one can claim ignorance of the Editorial Policy at The Kitchen.

19 comments:

Katy said...

Or, to quote Pink in "Charlie's Angels": the only rules are - there are no rules.

*motorcycle noises*

haddock said...

"attacking Nazism in general because of what any of us write is also invalid" A Hitler

"attacking Communism in general because of what any of us write is also invalid" J Stalin

"attacking Nulabour in general because of what any of us write is also invalid" A Blair

Devil's Kitchen said...

[applauds]

Oh, well done, haddock: you've got me bang to rights with your unbelievably sophisticated argument. That's it: I'll go and hang up my hat now that you've made me realise the error of my ways.

Fucking hellski...

The trouble with you, haddock, is that the only arguments that you ever answer are your own.

Let's take this gem as a classic example:

"so, what is the Libertarian position ? To close down The Mail ? To tell us what we should or should not be offended by."

No, quite obviously not. You know that that is neither the libertarian position nor my personal position.

"Much as DK can choose what to put on his blog, the Mail can decide what to put in their newspaper....if you don't like what they print, don't fucking read it."

Yes, quite right. You see, there you get the distinction between what I write and what a contributor writes. Well done.

But you still assume that said contributor is a libertarian, and you thus attack the perceived inconsistency in philosophy.

But the argument is invalid because there is no reason to assume that the contributor is a libertarian.

Do you see?

DK

no longer anonymous said...

Haddock,

Hitler was pretty damn central to Nazi ideology. DK (no offence intended) is not central to libertarian ideology. Nozick or Rothbard, for example, would be more appropriate targets.

haddock said...

"And attacking libertarianism in general because of what any of us write is also invalid." comes from your post of 01:01:00PM

which is by you, not a contributor

the quote refers to us writing... not him, they, or anyone else.... as you were doing the typing, I assumed "us" included you.

hardly worth bothering to find a sophisticated argument to nail such a silly statement, the simple one will do.

Michael said...

The libertarian position is surely, what ever the individual person wants it to be...

Obnoxio The Clown said...

the quote refers to us writing... not him, they, or anyone else.... as you were doing the typing, I assumed "us" included you.

I do so love a bit of sophistry.

TheFatBigot said...

And there I was thinking you were going to announce a "be nice to Harriet" week.

Henry Crun said...

I have a very simple editorial policy on my blog - If you don't like what I write about, fuck off. I don't really give a toss one way or the other.

@Haddock - you really are up your own arse, aren't you?

Longrider said...

I have to say, I was a bit bemused by all this.

Daily Mail prints garbage (nothing new there, then).

Contributor to Kitchen takes issue with garbage.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism, and no one has suggested any bans. It was a rant. That's it. Calling the Daily Mail journos and editors a bunch of cunts is merely an observation of fact. I didn't seen any suggestion that the Mail should be forcibly closed down.

As I understood it, all of this is merely an expression of freedom of speech.

Was I wrong? Did I miss something. Storm in a teacup anyone?

Pogo said...

"haddock" And attacking libertarianism in general because of what any of us write is also invalid." comes from your post of 01:01:00PM

which is by you, not a contributor

the quote refers to us writing... not him, they, or anyone else.... as you were doing the typing, I assumed "us" included you.


That would appear true. However, it also refers to libertarianism in general and in arriving at your premise you seem to have made the unwarranted logical jump that DK, and only DK is "libertarianism in general" - unlike all the other "libertarian" contributors.

hardly worth bothering to find a sophisticated argument to nail such a silly statement, the simple one will do.

Well, I suppose it will... If you're simple.

You might just as well have claimed that "Elvis is dead. Therefore all dead people are Elvis".

Dick Puddlecote said...

Think you're barking up the wrong coral with this one, Haddock. (see what I did there?) ;-)

Anonymous said...

So why Chris, you immeasurable twat, is there a fucking enormous box at the top of this blog saying "Libertarian Party Member"?

From what passes for your argument, we're then supposed to assume that actually that isn't relevant to the blog at all, but is relevant to you personally. But, as you've whined about in the past, 'you' and 'the blog' are different entities. So which is it?

Sort yourself out you fuckwit.

Anonymous said...

Big hugs all round - Storm in a teacup - Now let's move on and attack the E that's fucking U!

SteveB said...

Should I try ecstacy again?

Crack made me feel very sick and no euphoric feeling at all, waste of money really.

Cannabis has nasty side effects, and caused a severe depression last time I tried that.

Heroin is a possibility, whether to smoke or inject though.

Advice/guidance gratefully accepted. (though not of the desist variety)

anonymong said...

DK, why don't you just fuck off you utterly misereable bag of cunt juice.

iain dale's manbreasts said...

9:44, there are ways and ways of trolling, and you're doing it wrong.

You will have more effect by being a bit more subtle, like me.

As it is, you're just a twat.

anonymong said...

I was just testing the editorial policy :-)

timothy said...

Obama appoints CTO for his administration

Is India ready for 2009 election?

http://india.ezcampaigns.com/