We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution April 18, 2006 12:26 PM Subscribe
We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution. Every time the topic comes up, the same insulting "discussion" occurs. Seeing as how no new information is ever presented in these topics, shouldn't they all be considered double posts and deleted? When they are nothing more than another opportunity to display your disgust with someone who disagrees with you, what value do they add to the site?
Seeing as how no new information is ever presented in these topics
Kirk Cameron has a wacky video out about evolution. That's new information. Skip it if you don't like it, you unbelievably tedious whiny little hall monitor.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:30 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Kirk Cameron has a wacky video out about evolution. That's new information. Skip it if you don't like it, you unbelievably tedious whiny little hall monitor.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:30 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Dios, you amazing jackoff, it's Kirk Cameron talking about evolution. If you don't see the inherent awesome value in that then I suggest you need to start over.
posted by xmutex at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by xmutex at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
I'm all for productive and respectful discussion. But that never happens in those threads, and we all know it. The battle ground has been so well marked, that the entire discussion can be scripted from the start. For those that accept evolution as the rational explanation of things, there isn't anything to discuss (other than to poke sticks at those who disagree and let them know how stupid you think they are). For those that believe in religious concepts of the origin of life, they have already established that their beliefs aren't based in reason, so a discussion isn't useful. Nothing can come of repeating the same argument over and over.
Seeing as how the discussion is so often ugly, why do we let this continue when it is, for all practical purposes a double post?
posted by dios at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
Seeing as how the discussion is so often ugly, why do we let this continue when it is, for all practical purposes a double post?
posted by dios at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
It's sort of a youtubey type post, so I'm not sure we should have expected an intelligent conversation on evolution/creation.
posted by poppo at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by poppo at 12:32 PM on April 18, 2006
dios, Kirk Cameron is involved. You're an attorney; surely you recognize the rhetorical might of Kirk Cameron in the legal arena.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
Well, to the extent that post is only about Kirk Cameron, my comments should be read as a more general question. But insofar as the discussion in that post seems, in some regards, to be tracking the typical "Christians are stoopid v. Evolutionists are deluded" argument, my comment stands.
posted by dios at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
But that never happens in those threads, and we all know it.
That's true, but we can apply that to any religion vs science issue that is posted to metafilter.
posted by poppo at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
That's true, but we can apply that to any religion vs science issue that is posted to metafilter.
posted by poppo at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2006
Yeah, I think we've all got the message that creationists are dim some time ago, but even when the discussion is a rehash, the links can be entertaining or informative.
(Also, the 'summon bevets' thing ceased to be funny at the exact moment someone posted it for the second time.)
posted by jack_mo at 12:36 PM on April 18, 2006
(Also, the 'summon bevets' thing ceased to be funny at the exact moment someone posted it for the second time.)
posted by jack_mo at 12:36 PM on April 18, 2006
At the very least, the two or three jackasses who repeated the "summon bevets" thing should be given a timeout until the message is clear. So, perhaps this post can address that issue as well.
posted by dios at 12:37 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 12:37 PM on April 18, 2006
dios posted "Seeing as how no new information is ever presented in these topics, shouldn't they all be considered double posts and deleted?"
Er, not quite. The discussions are, admittedly, going around pointlessly in circles, but double posts are not decided on the basis of comments, but of posts. And while the contents of the posts may be similar, they're not the same, any more than we count photo galleries as doubles of other similar but different photo galleries, flash puzzles as doubles of other similar but different flash puzzles, or the like.
posted by Bugbread at 12:38 PM on April 18, 2006
Er, not quite. The discussions are, admittedly, going around pointlessly in circles, but double posts are not decided on the basis of comments, but of posts. And while the contents of the posts may be similar, they're not the same, any more than we count photo galleries as doubles of other similar but different photo galleries, flash puzzles as doubles of other similar but different flash puzzles, or the like.
posted by Bugbread at 12:38 PM on April 18, 2006
So, perhaps this post can address that issue as well.
Perhaps this post can address that issue instead, since your actual issue is completely and utterly without merit.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:39 PM on April 18, 2006
Perhaps this post can address that issue instead, since your actual issue is completely and utterly without merit.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:39 PM on April 18, 2006
But bugbread: if the prohibition against double posts derives from the concept of wanting this place to be fresh, new and interesting, wouldn't a class of posts who are constantly retread run afoul of the same principle? Thus, while not being technically a double post, they would run afoul of the same principle and be worthy of the same treatment
posted by dios at 12:40 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 12:40 PM on April 18, 2006
What I don't understand is, don't people get tired of trying to one-up each other with metaphorical references to god? Invisible friend, superhero from space, we get it. 60 comments that each try to prove how silly religion is and *how much* the commenter in no way believes in it is kind of tedious, no?
I say this as someone who believes that there's comedy, high comedy, and "Left Behind", starring Kirk Cameron.
posted by loquax at 12:40 PM on April 18, 2006
I say this as someone who believes that there's comedy, high comedy, and "Left Behind", starring Kirk Cameron.
posted by loquax at 12:40 PM on April 18, 2006
I am a richer person for having seen the video. I feel better about myself having made a mealy snark about religious people. Why would you want to take that away from me?
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:42 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:42 PM on April 18, 2006
Wait, we're banning people for mocking trolls now? Oh wait, no we're not.
posted by hototogisu at 12:44 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by hototogisu at 12:44 PM on April 18, 2006
I thought dios once instructed complainers to avoid threads they weren't interested in.
posted by interrobang at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by interrobang at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2006
Let me see if I understand this argument correctly: We have a history of having difficulty with conversations about evolution; therefore, we should never be allowed to have conversations about evolution. Such conversations should be deleted when they start.
Put another way: We can't have a nice civil discussion about topic x, so we shouldn't even be allowed to try.
posted by lodurr at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2006
Put another way: We can't have a nice civil discussion about topic x, so we shouldn't even be allowed to try.
posted by lodurr at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2006
... oh, and the double-post bit? It's just legalistic rationalization. Stop being an attorney and think like a mere mortal: To us, it looks like mumbo-jumbo.
posted by lodurr at 12:47 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by lodurr at 12:47 PM on April 18, 2006
"Double posts"? Seriously?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:48 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:48 PM on April 18, 2006
For the same reason that a post shouldn't be made just because it would result in good discussion, a post shouldn't be withheld because it would result in bad discussion. Discussion is secondary.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:50 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:50 PM on April 18, 2006
Despite the title, the post contained no Alyssa Milano. That is the real crime here.
posted by Gamblor at 12:53 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Gamblor at 12:53 PM on April 18, 2006
wouldn't a class of posts who are constantly retread run afoul of the same principle?
Are there really all that many Kirk Cameron posts?
posted by eyeballkid at 12:57 PM on April 18, 2006
Are there really all that many Kirk Cameron posts?
posted by eyeballkid at 12:57 PM on April 18, 2006
I gotta go with the crowd on this. Crappy and repetitive discussions re: evolution are, as a problem, a byproduct of the subject of posts which just happen to grace the subject. The posts could be good or bad or meh, and can and will be judged on that merit as any other post is.
It's too heavy a measure to restrict the posts—Kirk Cameron deserves to be heard, and damn the asshat evolution flamewarriors.
posted by cortex at 1:07 PM on April 18, 2006
It's too heavy a measure to restrict the posts—Kirk Cameron deserves to be heard, and damn the asshat evolution flamewarriors.
posted by cortex at 1:07 PM on April 18, 2006
dios : "if the prohibition against double posts derives from the concept of wanting this place to be fresh, new and interesting, wouldn't a class of posts who are constantly retread run afoul of the same principle?"
Yes, and no. I think that the prohibition against double posts derives from the concept of wanting posts to be fresh, new, and interesting. While I'm certain Matt wants the whole place to be fresh, new, and interesting, the scope of the double post rule does not extend that far.
dios : "Thus, while not being technically a double post, they would run afoul of the same principle and be worthy of the same treatment"
The problem, if you extend things this far, is that by the same token, probably 80 to 90 percent of the people here should be axed, you and me included, because, while not technically breaking the double post rule, we both run afoul of the principle of being "fresh, new, and interesting" (face it, we can both guess the kinds of things eachother are going to say. We can picture in our minds what EB, or Ryvar, or Decani, or Witty, or any number of other people will say), and as such would be worthy of the same treatment.
On the other hand, yes, that would be fairly interesting. If Matt just whacked 80% of MeFi, I'd be hella interested in seeing how the place regenerates, if it follows the same...er...evolutionary course, or if it evolves in a different way. But in the absence of that, I don't really see spreading the injunction against double-posts to double-likely-to-generate-similar-discussions as having any more merit than an injunction against posters being predicatable in general.
I agree with EB when he says "For the same reason that a post shouldn't be made just because it would result in good discussion, a post shouldn't be withheld because it would result in bad discussion. Discussion is secondary."
Of course, it's pretty predictable that I'd agree with EB, and it's predicatable that if languagehat says anything here, I'll probably be in agreement with him too
However, dios, we definitely are in agreement that pretty much any posts on religion vs. science here are extremely tedious. Loquax puts it well.
posted by Bugbread at 1:08 PM on April 18, 2006
Yes, and no. I think that the prohibition against double posts derives from the concept of wanting posts to be fresh, new, and interesting. While I'm certain Matt wants the whole place to be fresh, new, and interesting, the scope of the double post rule does not extend that far.
dios : "Thus, while not being technically a double post, they would run afoul of the same principle and be worthy of the same treatment"
The problem, if you extend things this far, is that by the same token, probably 80 to 90 percent of the people here should be axed, you and me included, because, while not technically breaking the double post rule, we both run afoul of the principle of being "fresh, new, and interesting" (face it, we can both guess the kinds of things eachother are going to say. We can picture in our minds what EB, or Ryvar, or Decani, or Witty, or any number of other people will say), and as such would be worthy of the same treatment.
On the other hand, yes, that would be fairly interesting. If Matt just whacked 80% of MeFi, I'd be hella interested in seeing how the place regenerates, if it follows the same...er...evolutionary course, or if it evolves in a different way. But in the absence of that, I don't really see spreading the injunction against double-posts to double-likely-to-generate-similar-discussions as having any more merit than an injunction against posters being predicatable in general.
I agree with EB when he says "For the same reason that a post shouldn't be made just because it would result in good discussion, a post shouldn't be withheld because it would result in bad discussion. Discussion is secondary."
Of course, it's pretty predictable that I'd agree with EB, and it's predicatable that if languagehat says anything here, I'll probably be in agreement with him too
However, dios, we definitely are in agreement that pretty much any posts on religion vs. science here are extremely tedious. Loquax puts it well.
posted by Bugbread at 1:08 PM on April 18, 2006
Since neither the original topic nor the proposed secondary topic seems to have gained much popular support, I move that we make this thread about addressing the question of what it means when people put just a period as their comment.
posted by soyjoy at 1:08 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by soyjoy at 1:08 PM on April 18, 2006
Oh come on, this place is so biased against dios, you don't even listen to him when he's obviously right. We should all admire his courage, honesty, tact, humbleness and genuine concern for the quality of content and the level of discourse on this website, not to mention his acute humour meter.
In fact, I think, in his natural shyness, dios is not going far enough. I think his suggestion would be vastly improved by simply deleting all new posts on any given topic, after all, whichever topic you take, it's always the same topic over and over, right? Nothing new under the sun, all is vanity, ashes to ashes. So a new post in any given category will always be a double. Aha! I bet you didn't think about that before! That's because you're all stupid.
This is my humble suggestion. By which I mean I am demanding this in the most self-important dramatic fashion and after 250 comments debating the level of persecution against me you will have to concede to my request, or else you're all persecuting me. Thank you and fuck off!
PS - And will you just avoid making fun of anything that I feel especially humourless about, ok? I'll provide a list later. Good dogs! sit down!
posted by funambulist at 1:18 PM on April 18, 2006
In fact, I think, in his natural shyness, dios is not going far enough. I think his suggestion would be vastly improved by simply deleting all new posts on any given topic, after all, whichever topic you take, it's always the same topic over and over, right? Nothing new under the sun, all is vanity, ashes to ashes. So a new post in any given category will always be a double. Aha! I bet you didn't think about that before! That's because you're all stupid.
This is my humble suggestion. By which I mean I am demanding this in the most self-important dramatic fashion and after 250 comments debating the level of persecution against me you will have to concede to my request, or else you're all persecuting me. Thank you and fuck off!
PS - And will you just avoid making fun of anything that I feel especially humourless about, ok? I'll provide a list later. Good dogs! sit down!
posted by funambulist at 1:18 PM on April 18, 2006
MetaFilter is supposed to be about links. I enjoyed the link. The discussion is icing on the cake.
posted by knave at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by knave at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2006
dios, dude, I stand up for you a lot but you're just plain wrong here. Not sure what else there is to say.
posted by Ryvar at 1:24 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Ryvar at 1:24 PM on April 18, 2006
We should all admire his courage, honesty, tact, humbleness and genuine concern for the quality of content and the level of discourse on this website, not to mention his acute humour meter.
There are many reasons to admire dios. This is mine.
posted by 327.ca at 1:24 PM on April 18, 2006
There are many reasons to admire dios. This is mine.
posted by 327.ca at 1:24 PM on April 18, 2006
I don't think the tagline ever read "MetaFilter: Respectful Discussions".
posted by Wolfdog at 1:26 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Wolfdog at 1:26 PM on April 18, 2006
No. In the main, it's Kirk Cameron who's being derided in that thread, and rightly so. The video proves that he's a lying sack of shit with an agenda which, if it succeeds, will harm America's ability to defend itself. Each creationist's (notice I did not say religious person) arguments should be evaluated on their own merits. If they're as crappy as Kirk's, they too should be mocked. This should keep happening until they shut the fuck up. Why? Because they lie and are disingenuous as a matter of course, and they disrespect the rules of community over which they want to claim trump.
If anything I think we should have special dispensation to mock creationists (again, not religionists) in any thread we want, no matter the subject.
But. perhaps, I'm being a bit hyperbolic in my rhetoric.
posted by OmieWise at 1:32 PM on April 18, 2006
If anything I think we should have special dispensation to mock creationists (again, not religionists) in any thread we want, no matter the subject.
But. perhaps, I'm being a bit hyperbolic in my rhetoric.
posted by OmieWise at 1:32 PM on April 18, 2006
Also, I think this is a bad callout motivated by a desire to control what gets discussed at MeFi. I don't support those attempts when they use dios as a punching bag, and I don't support one from dios.
posted by OmieWise at 1:34 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 1:34 PM on April 18, 2006
Testify, OmieWise. It's difficult to have a respectful discussion when the other side's position is complete and utter horseshit.
posted by Gamblor at 1:35 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Gamblor at 1:35 PM on April 18, 2006
The best part about this metatalk callout from dios is that he won't be able to make another ridiculous one for a couple of days.
posted by crunchland at 1:41 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by crunchland at 1:41 PM on April 18, 2006
If you don't like it skip it.
posted by at 10:57 AM PST on February 16
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:42 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by at 10:57 AM PST on February 16
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:42 PM on April 18, 2006
Its been said before, but I'm going to say it again anyway.
The Kirk Cameron posting is hilarious on so many levels I couldn't care less how badly that thread derails. I'm not in it for the thread, I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of a headline like "Kirk Cameron debunks evolution".
If that isn't Best of Them There Internets [ya need some wood?], I don't know what is. The intention of the post wasn't to start a discussion about evolution, it was to show off the hilarity of the kid from Growing Pains (and nothing I can remember since) debunking it.
docgonzo wins.
posted by twiggy at 1:42 PM on April 18, 2006
The Kirk Cameron posting is hilarious on so many levels I couldn't care less how badly that thread derails. I'm not in it for the thread, I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of a headline like "Kirk Cameron debunks evolution".
If that isn't Best of Them There Internets [ya need some wood?], I don't know what is. The intention of the post wasn't to start a discussion about evolution, it was to show off the hilarity of the kid from Growing Pains (and nothing I can remember since) debunking it.
docgonzo wins.
posted by twiggy at 1:42 PM on April 18, 2006
ok then, 327.ca, we have a solution: let's give dios a photoshopped picture of Kirk Cameron's feet surrounded by lettuce and tomatoes, as a sort of metaphorical human sacrifice to placate his ire. And great fun will be had by all.
posted by funambulist at 1:45 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by funambulist at 1:45 PM on April 18, 2006
so, just how frequent are there MeTa callouts either about dios, or started by dios? Because it seems like this is a pretty frequent occurrence. Applying a similar standard as mentioned at the top we should delete all of these as double posts. Not as if anything constructive will come of this anyways.
posted by edgeways at 1:46 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by edgeways at 1:46 PM on April 18, 2006
dios, please tell me because i must know: why, if you're annoyed at/bothered by/disgusted with/not interested in any given topic, or it inflames your political sensibilities...
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE???
why do you think that everything on this site (especially political and legal matters) is somehow subject to your approval?
it's not, you feckless attention whore. stop it.
STOP IT.
STOP IT!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:46 PM on April 18, 2006
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE???
why do you think that everything on this site (especially political and legal matters) is somehow subject to your approval?
it's not, you feckless attention whore. stop it.
STOP IT.
STOP IT!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:46 PM on April 18, 2006
I just met dios for Appletinis at the Dallas/Ft. Worth Olive Garden. He wants you all to know he's just a bit stressed out lately and off his meds. That is all.
More seriously, I enjoy the religion threads on mefi. Some are definitely better than others, but none of you has the right to pre-emptively cordon off areas of discussion before the fact. As Optimus reminds us, someone once said "If you don't like it, skip it." Why's that so hard?
posted by bardic at 1:52 PM on April 18, 2006
More seriously, I enjoy the religion threads on mefi. Some are definitely better than others, but none of you has the right to pre-emptively cordon off areas of discussion before the fact. As Optimus reminds us, someone once said "If you don't like it, skip it." Why's that so hard?
posted by bardic at 1:52 PM on April 18, 2006
Oh, FFS.
However, if what bardic says is true, I'm willing to cut him some slack. Being off-med leads to all sorts of wacky behaviour.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2006
However, if what bardic says is true, I'm willing to cut him some slack. Being off-med leads to all sorts of wacky behaviour.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2006
This MeTa post is a repeat of similar posts in the past, and should be deleted. ^_^
posted by Bugbread at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 1:58 PM on April 18, 2006
No, it should remain open forever. Because that's what le dieu would want.
posted by bardic at 2:00 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:00 PM on April 18, 2006
My apologies for offending anyone who really enjoyed the Kirk Cameron post. As I tried to say earlier, I'm not disagreeing with the Kirk Cameron thing. I understand that angle.
But from the thread, it derailed to the typical fighting positions. And that is what is frustrating. While I can appreciate the value of B-list actors looking like fools, the thread devolved from there because this topic consumes any thread even tangentially related to it.
For the life of me, I don't know why we accept behavior like the incredibly deleterious "summon bevets" crap. Or why we willingly get bogged down in the same disgusting arguments of people insulting other people for their viewpoints on this issue. That annoyance is the origin of this thread and what I tried to make clear above. This isn't an objection to the specific Kirk Cameron post. Its that anything even tagentially related to the topic of evolution v. creationism devolves into the same revolting garbage.
While I understand Ethereal_Bligh's point that a posts value should not be adversely effected by the likely discussion, surely something can be done about the fact that anything on this topic devolves into the same rote vituperations.
I don't know how to fix the problem. That is why this post exists.
posted by dios at 2:12 PM on April 18, 2006
But from the thread, it derailed to the typical fighting positions. And that is what is frustrating. While I can appreciate the value of B-list actors looking like fools, the thread devolved from there because this topic consumes any thread even tangentially related to it.
For the life of me, I don't know why we accept behavior like the incredibly deleterious "summon bevets" crap. Or why we willingly get bogged down in the same disgusting arguments of people insulting other people for their viewpoints on this issue. That annoyance is the origin of this thread and what I tried to make clear above. This isn't an objection to the specific Kirk Cameron post. Its that anything even tagentially related to the topic of evolution v. creationism devolves into the same revolting garbage.
While I understand Ethereal_Bligh's point that a posts value should not be adversely effected by the likely discussion, surely something can be done about the fact that anything on this topic devolves into the same rote vituperations.
I don't know how to fix the problem. That is why this post exists.
posted by dios at 2:12 PM on April 18, 2006
What part of "If you don't like it skip it" don't you understand?
posted by bardic at 2:14 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:14 PM on April 18, 2006
"summon bevets" is deleterious to whom, exactly?
posted by hototogisu at 2:16 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by hototogisu at 2:16 PM on April 18, 2006
the incredibly deleterious "summon bevets" crap
How is that incredibly deleterious? bevets never even shows up these days. It's just tired and lame.
I haven't gotten tired of the huge manatee, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:16 PM on April 18, 2006
How is that incredibly deleterious? bevets never even shows up these days. It's just tired and lame.
I haven't gotten tired of the huge manatee, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:16 PM on April 18, 2006
On preview, blah blah.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:17 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:17 PM on April 18, 2006
And just to be painfully clear.... since some people missed my point when I made it: the "if you don't like it, skip it" point of view is completely unworkable in a forum that is self-moderating. Moreover, it is a logical absurdity to use it as a rebuke because if one doesn't like someone complaining, then one would skip it instead of rebuke the complainer, and on and on.
There has to be feedback on this site. If you missed the ironic use of me saying that silly line when people are always yelling it at me, go back and take another stab at it.
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2006
There has to be feedback on this site. If you missed the ironic use of me saying that silly line when people are always yelling it at me, go back and take another stab at it.
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2006
"summon bevets" is deleterious to whom, exactly?
posted by hototogisu at 4:16 PM CST on April 18
To the concept of a community or respectful dialogue.
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by hototogisu at 4:16 PM CST on April 18
To the concept of a community or respectful dialogue.
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on April 18, 2006
Wow. I'm impressed. dios is becoming more sophisticated. Instead of directly calling for an end to political posts, dios attacks a similar issue on the same grounds hoping to set a precedent. A classic move, obviously, already well used by the pro-lifers, but executed here with a certain brazeness that's just overwhelming.
posted by nixerman at 2:20 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by nixerman at 2:20 PM on April 18, 2006
Bevets is a troll. Bevets existence is deleterious to the community.
"Summon dios" would be problematic and rude, detrimental to respectful dialogue and all that, and it certainly is when/if it gets said, but "summon bevets" isn't in the slightest.
posted by hototogisu at 2:21 PM on April 18, 2006
"Summon dios" would be problematic and rude, detrimental to respectful dialogue and all that, and it certainly is when/if it gets said, but "summon bevets" isn't in the slightest.
posted by hototogisu at 2:21 PM on April 18, 2006
It's not absurd at all. You constantly lecture us on how to act and post on mefi, and hence "IYDLISI" is the most prominent example of your hypocrisy.
Please tell us when we should take what you say seriously and when we shouldn't. Maybe you could use blink tags or something.
posted by bardic at 2:25 PM on April 18, 2006
Please tell us when we should take what you say seriously and when we shouldn't. Maybe you could use blink tags or something.
posted by bardic at 2:25 PM on April 18, 2006
dios says, "the two or three jackasses who repeated the 'summon bevets' thing should be given a timeout until the message is clear."
You should be given a timeout for libelously referring to members of our community as jackasses.
posted by boo_radley at 2:31 PM on April 18, 2006
You should be given a timeout for libelously referring to members of our community as jackasses.
posted by boo_radley at 2:31 PM on April 18, 2006
I'd like to note that when I use "fuck off" I am being ironic but I will not tolerate anyone else telling me to fuck off. Because that would be deleterious to the community, but my fuck off to you all isn't. So there. Fuck off.
posted by funambulist at 2:34 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by funambulist at 2:34 PM on April 18, 2006
jack_mo : "(Also, the 'summon bevets' thing ceased to be funny at the exact moment someone posted it for the second time.)"
The statement "summon bevets" was never funny, even the first time.
The summon bevets card, however, remains funny.
dios : "This isn't an objection to the specific Kirk Cameron post. Its that anything even tagentially related to the topic of evolution v. creationism devolves into the same revolting garbage...surely something can be done about the fact that anything on this topic devolves into the same rote vituperations.
I don't know how to fix the problem. That is why this post exists.""
You should probably have phrased it more as such (and avoided the whole "double post" angle).
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 PM on April 18, 2006
The statement "summon bevets" was never funny, even the first time.
The summon bevets card, however, remains funny.
dios : "This isn't an objection to the specific Kirk Cameron post. Its that anything even tagentially related to the topic of evolution v. creationism devolves into the same revolting garbage...surely something can be done about the fact that anything on this topic devolves into the same rote vituperations.
I don't know how to fix the problem. That is why this post exists.""
You should probably have phrased it more as such (and avoided the whole "double post" angle).
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 PM on April 18, 2006
dios : "since some people missed my point when I made it: the 'if you don't like it, skip it' point of view is completely unworkable in a forum that is self-moderating."
Er, ok, I'll bite: in what way were you trying to make that point, when you tried to make it? It certainly read, to me, as if you were honestly saying it.
posted by Bugbread at 2:36 PM on April 18, 2006
Er, ok, I'll bite: in what way were you trying to make that point, when you tried to make it? It certainly read, to me, as if you were honestly saying it.
posted by Bugbread at 2:36 PM on April 18, 2006
You should be given a timeout for libelously referring to members of our community as jackasses.
It's not libelous if it's true - anyone who summons bevets is, by definition, a jackass. Or similar. I personally find that term offensive - there's nowt wrong with my ass.
posted by jack_mo at 2:41 PM on April 18, 2006
It's not libelous if it's true - anyone who summons bevets is, by definition, a jackass. Or similar. I personally find that term offensive - there's nowt wrong with my ass.
posted by jack_mo at 2:41 PM on April 18, 2006
further, jack_mo should be given a timeout until he realizes exactly what is wrong with his ass. I mean, my god man.
posted by boo_radley at 2:45 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 2:45 PM on April 18, 2006
This isn't an objection to the specific Kirk Cameron post.
O RLY?
posted by prostyle at 2:46 PM on April 18, 2006
O RLY?
posted by prostyle at 2:46 PM on April 18, 2006
You know what would be 'fresh, new, and interesting?'
NO MORE DIOS
posted by jtron at 2:48 PM on April 18, 2006
NO MORE DIOS
posted by jtron at 2:48 PM on April 18, 2006
Er, ok, I'll bite: in what way were you trying to make that point, when you tried to make it? It certainly read, to me, as if you were honestly saying it.
posted by bugbread at 4:36 PM CST on April 18
I've obviously have critiqued many posts. I constantly hear that refrain. I always ignore it because I think feedback is an essential function to the community that desires to at least maintain the illusion of self-moderation. I think it is a completely unhelpful and absurd point of view: as applied, it would not permit any criticism of anything that occurs on the site... even criticism of criticisms. It's just plain silly.
So, when the same people who constantly throw that garbage at me started complaining about posts I was making, I used it back on them. That answer suddenly wasn't sufficient for their purposes.
I thought I made the point clear. Yet, the usual suspects have since acted as if I have long been champion of that silly principle because I made a point with its use.
posted by dios at 2:48 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by bugbread at 4:36 PM CST on April 18
I've obviously have critiqued many posts. I constantly hear that refrain. I always ignore it because I think feedback is an essential function to the community that desires to at least maintain the illusion of self-moderation. I think it is a completely unhelpful and absurd point of view: as applied, it would not permit any criticism of anything that occurs on the site... even criticism of criticisms. It's just plain silly.
So, when the same people who constantly throw that garbage at me started complaining about posts I was making, I used it back on them. That answer suddenly wasn't sufficient for their purposes.
I thought I made the point clear. Yet, the usual suspects have since acted as if I have long been champion of that silly principle because I made a point with its use.
posted by dios at 2:48 PM on April 18, 2006
We don't all follow Days of Our Dios as closely as you, man.
If there is some pattern of comments you were refering to with that irony, you'd better link it or no one will know what you are talking about.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:51 PM on April 18, 2006
If there is some pattern of comments you were refering to with that irony, you'd better link it or no one will know what you are talking about.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:51 PM on April 18, 2006
boo_radley : "further, jack_mo should be given a timeout until he realizes exactly what is wrong with his ass."
I think I should be given a timeout until I realize that I shouldn't have asked for myself to be given a timeout.
dios : "I thought I made the point clear. Yet, the usual suspects have since acted as if I have long been champion of that silly principle because I made a point with its use."
I think the problem is that, in your eyes, you made a point with its use, but for many people (myself included), that point didn't communicate, and therefore wasn't made. I thought you were being serious when you said it.
posted by Bugbread at 2:56 PM on April 18, 2006
I think I should be given a timeout until I realize that I shouldn't have asked for myself to be given a timeout.
dios : "I thought I made the point clear. Yet, the usual suspects have since acted as if I have long been champion of that silly principle because I made a point with its use."
I think the problem is that, in your eyes, you made a point with its use, but for many people (myself included), that point didn't communicate, and therefore wasn't made. I thought you were being serious when you said it.
posted by Bugbread at 2:56 PM on April 18, 2006
bardic : "Shorter dios: Do as I say, not as I do."
Actually, if I'm reading dios right here, it's "Do as I do, not as I say".
posted by Bugbread at 2:57 PM on April 18, 2006
Actually, if I'm reading dios right here, it's "Do as I do, not as I say".
posted by Bugbread at 2:57 PM on April 18, 2006
I thought you were being serious as well, dios. MeTa as performance art is hard. :|
posted by boo_radley at 2:58 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 2:58 PM on April 18, 2006
Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to.
Next!
posted by Decani at 3:02 PM on April 18, 2006
Next!
posted by Decani at 3:02 PM on April 18, 2006
Dios should know better than to think this thread was going to make any progress. He's just snarking on the grey 'cause he doesn't want to get busted for snarking on the blue.
Now, how does that axiom about feeding trolls go?
posted by furtive at 3:10 PM on April 18, 2006
Now, how does that axiom about feeding trolls go?
posted by furtive at 3:10 PM on April 18, 2006
How about an option where the poster could check a box to disallow comments on a thread?
example:
[ X ] This is a controversial topic which will most likely result in a flamewar, MeTa threads, and general disharmony among the Mefi citizenry, yet it is the best of the internet and worth seeing, so please disable comments on this thread.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:16 PM on April 18, 2006
example:
[ X ] This is a controversial topic which will most likely result in a flamewar, MeTa threads, and general disharmony among the Mefi citizenry, yet it is the best of the internet and worth seeing, so please disable comments on this thread.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:16 PM on April 18, 2006
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
But that's neither a demand nor an imperative, just wishing.
That, or for god sakes, folks, make some new and interesting jokes about creationism.
posted by Bugbread at 3:18 PM on April 18, 2006
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
Decani : "Yes, let's all stop mocking ignorant, dangerous and damaging ideas. Because dios wants us to."
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
But that's neither a demand nor an imperative, just wishing.
That, or for god sakes, folks, make some new and interesting jokes about creationism.
posted by Bugbread at 3:18 PM on April 18, 2006
I would just point out that the Cameron thread devolved exactly as I predicted it would into the same rote vituperations. It's like it is scripted.
posted by dios at 3:19 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 3:19 PM on April 18, 2006
dios,
Nothing personal, man, but this thread has devolved exactly as I predicted it would, as well.
The difference, I guess, is that in the blue, the FPP was good, and the discussion useless.
Here, the FPP is useless, and the discussion...well, probably useless, but not as useless as the one in the blue.
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on April 18, 2006
Nothing personal, man, but this thread has devolved exactly as I predicted it would, as well.
The difference, I guess, is that in the blue, the FPP was good, and the discussion useless.
Here, the FPP is useless, and the discussion...well, probably useless, but not as useless as the one in the blue.
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on April 18, 2006
We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution. Every time the topic comes up, the same insulting "discussion" occurs.
I would have more respect for this statement if it weren't refuted by the evidence presented today, in a post less than 5 hours previous to the post objected to by dios.
So, your complaint should really be like this:
We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution. Every Some of the time the topic comes up, the same insulting "discussion" occurs.
Trouble is, though factual and less hyperbolic, it ain't very persuasive.
dios, your special pleading for or against certain topics smacks of someone losing an argument, denying the facts and saying we can not talk about this ever again. Changing the rationale behind your objections when under pressure reminds me of the politicians caught out in lies (yeah, we have them too). I suspect the memory of those lies and the distaste for the use of those tactics are what gets so many peoples backs up.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:29 PM on April 18, 2006
I would have more respect for this statement if it weren't refuted by the evidence presented today, in a post less than 5 hours previous to the post objected to by dios.
So, your complaint should really be like this:
We obviously can
Trouble is, though factual and less hyperbolic, it ain't very persuasive.
dios, your special pleading for or against certain topics smacks of someone losing an argument, denying the facts and saying we can not talk about this ever again. Changing the rationale behind your objections when under pressure reminds me of the politicians caught out in lies (yeah, we have them too). I suspect the memory of those lies and the distaste for the use of those tactics are what gets so many peoples backs up.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:29 PM on April 18, 2006
bugbread: so we are just to give up? I see no reason that a site that prides itself on the ability of its constituent members to provide feedback into the direction of the site should be hostile to members attempts to do just that. You seem to agree with me that it is a bad thing the thread in the blue turned out that way, correct? Then perhaps you would be in favor of seeing if we can reach some resolution where everything that is even tangentially related to the topic of evolution isn't allowed to slip into the same discussion. That is all I was trying to do here. When the Post in question runs it course, it will be indistinguishable in its comments from all the other threads on the topic. That to me is a problem.
posted by dios at 3:33 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 3:33 PM on April 18, 2006
Good point, dash_slot-, but I would've modified dios' comment another way:
We obviously can't have respectful discussions about creationism. Every time the topic comes up, the same insulting "discussion" occurs.
Evolution, we're good at. Creationism, on the other hand... Sure, what we're saying about creationism is, in my opinion, right, but it's a generally piss-poor discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 3:34 PM on April 18, 2006
We obviously can't have respectful discussions about creationism. Every time the topic comes up, the same insulting "discussion" occurs.
Evolution, we're good at. Creationism, on the other hand... Sure, what we're saying about creationism is, in my opinion, right, but it's a generally piss-poor discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 3:34 PM on April 18, 2006
dios, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us what topics you do and don't approve of for FPP's.
posted by bardic at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
Evolution, we're good at. Creationism, on the other hand... Sure, what we're saying about creationism is, in my opinion, right, but it's a generally piss-poor discussion.
posted by bugbread at 5:34 PM CST on April 18
dash_slot; bugbread: I stand corrected. I should have utilized the constructions that the two of posit. They would be improvements on the one I put forth. But I think the fundamental issue is clear all the same.
Changing the rationale behind your objections
Well, I haven't changed my rationale. You can believe me or not. That is your option. But I will tell you that the fault in this post is that I wasn't clear enough at getting at what I was intending to. And I may not still have. But I have tried. The point I am trying to make seems self-evidently clear to me. But I seem to not be doing a good job of making it. I saw that post and the comments and I knew what was coming. And that to me, is problematic. I'm not identifying the source or solution to the problem very well, but I know there is one.
posted by dios at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by bugbread at 5:34 PM CST on April 18
dash_slot; bugbread: I stand corrected. I should have utilized the constructions that the two of posit. They would be improvements on the one I put forth. But I think the fundamental issue is clear all the same.
Changing the rationale behind your objections
Well, I haven't changed my rationale. You can believe me or not. That is your option. But I will tell you that the fault in this post is that I wasn't clear enough at getting at what I was intending to. And I may not still have. But I have tried. The point I am trying to make seems self-evidently clear to me. But I seem to not be doing a good job of making it. I saw that post and the comments and I knew what was coming. And that to me, is problematic. I'm not identifying the source or solution to the problem very well, but I know there is one.
posted by dios at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
There is literally nothing to discuss about creationism. It is a fraud, it is inutterably stupid, it is a form of "extreme religion", and as such it is a threat to our survival as a species, let alone our nations.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2006
dios says, "I would just point out that the Cameron thread devolved exactly as I predicted."
The metafilter equivalent of Walken in The Dead Zone. Well done.
posted by boo_radley at 3:40 PM on April 18, 2006
The metafilter equivalent of Walken in The Dead Zone. Well done.
posted by boo_radley at 3:40 PM on April 18, 2006
I wasn't clear enough at getting at what I was intending to
Indeed.
posted by bardic at 3:43 PM on April 18, 2006
Indeed.
posted by bardic at 3:43 PM on April 18, 2006
dios:
Well, you've kinda caught yourself in the recent Civil_Disobedient trap (the one which might or might not have become a decent discussion about the propriety of deletion (ok, admittedly, a redundant and repetetive discussion, but at least on-target and adult) were it not for the fact that he stated It Is A Fact That Jessamyn Deletes Comments Because She Is An Idiot): If you frame your initial post badly, then you can't really expect anything good to come of it.
But, yeah, if we're going to change gears officially and switch the topic to What Can Be Done...
Well, honestly, I'd say "I don't know". Sure, I'd rather we not give up, and somehow manage to steer discussion into new and interesting realms. But I have no idea how. And with my experience here, I suspect that no-one else has any idea how, either. Plus, I doubt we could ever reach anything close to concensus about if we even should, or if us atheist MeFites talking to other atheist MeFites about "Wondermagic Sky Man With A Beard" is some way of really sockin' it to the man and fighting the encroachment of creationism.
Basically, you think that creationism/evolution threads suck. At least in part, if not in full, it's because they're autopilot comment threads. I think they suck as well, for that reason. Loquax seems to share that position. But I don't think enough people are annoyed by those kinds of threads that any effort by us would be anything other than the minority trying to inflict their will on the majority.
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 PM on April 18, 2006
Well, you've kinda caught yourself in the recent Civil_Disobedient trap (the one which might or might not have become a decent discussion about the propriety of deletion (ok, admittedly, a redundant and repetetive discussion, but at least on-target and adult) were it not for the fact that he stated It Is A Fact That Jessamyn Deletes Comments Because She Is An Idiot): If you frame your initial post badly, then you can't really expect anything good to come of it.
But, yeah, if we're going to change gears officially and switch the topic to What Can Be Done...
Well, honestly, I'd say "I don't know". Sure, I'd rather we not give up, and somehow manage to steer discussion into new and interesting realms. But I have no idea how. And with my experience here, I suspect that no-one else has any idea how, either. Plus, I doubt we could ever reach anything close to concensus about if we even should, or if us atheist MeFites talking to other atheist MeFites about "Wondermagic Sky Man With A Beard" is some way of really sockin' it to the man and fighting the encroachment of creationism.
Basically, you think that creationism/evolution threads suck. At least in part, if not in full, it's because they're autopilot comment threads. I think they suck as well, for that reason. Loquax seems to share that position. But I don't think enough people are annoyed by those kinds of threads that any effort by us would be anything other than the minority trying to inflict their will on the majority.
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 PM on April 18, 2006
...but I would've modified dios' comment another way:
Why give him the benefit of the doubt? As noted, he's made very similar remarks about other content. If you really think this is about his regard for our intellectual honesty and the well being of germane discussion on this website you are being fooled by his eloquence.
I would just point out that the Cameron thread devolved exactly as I predicted it would into the same rote vituperations.
Why should I gawk at that trainwreck when you've provided such a toasty little detonation over here? It couldn't even be contained in one spontaneous reaction, it spawned a satellite cluster fuck. You've been Meta²'d - I think that means it's (long past) time to walk away.
posted by prostyle at 3:45 PM on April 18, 2006
Why give him the benefit of the doubt? As noted, he's made very similar remarks about other content. If you really think this is about his regard for our intellectual honesty and the well being of germane discussion on this website you are being fooled by his eloquence.
I would just point out that the Cameron thread devolved exactly as I predicted it would into the same rote vituperations.
Why should I gawk at that trainwreck when you've provided such a toasty little detonation over here? It couldn't even be contained in one spontaneous reaction, it spawned a satellite cluster fuck. You've been Meta²'d - I think that means it's (long past) time to walk away.
posted by prostyle at 3:45 PM on April 18, 2006
five fresh fish : "There is literally nothing to discuss about creationism. It is a fraud, it is inutterably stupid, it is a form of 'extreme religion', and as such it is a threat to our survival as a species, let alone our nations."
Exactly. Which is what makes it so surreal that threads like that get 207 comments (!!)
Of course, I'm not really complaining. Those threads suck, but:
1) They're predictable (in the sense of "I can predict that the thread will be like that, and thus avoid it"), and, more importantly:
2) They don't tend to bleed out into other threads, like political discussions tend to.
As such, they don't actually bother me. They don't poison the site; they are their own leper colonies, with big blinking signs indicating such, and thus trivial to avoid. The leprosy is generally contained within, so avoiding the thread means remaining free of shrapnel.
posted by Bugbread at 3:49 PM on April 18, 2006
Exactly. Which is what makes it so surreal that threads like that get 207 comments (!!)
Of course, I'm not really complaining. Those threads suck, but:
1) They're predictable (in the sense of "I can predict that the thread will be like that, and thus avoid it"), and, more importantly:
2) They don't tend to bleed out into other threads, like political discussions tend to.
As such, they don't actually bother me. They don't poison the site; they are their own leper colonies, with big blinking signs indicating such, and thus trivial to avoid. The leprosy is generally contained within, so avoiding the thread means remaining free of shrapnel.
posted by Bugbread at 3:49 PM on April 18, 2006
prostyle : "Why give him the benefit of the doubt?"
I didn't mean to give him the benefit of the doubt. What dios posted was incorrect. Someone corrected him one way. I corrected him a different way.
prostyle : "Why should I gawk at that trainwreck when you've provided such a toasty little detonation over here?"
Good point. My above comment indicated that creationism threads weren't so bad because they kept to themselves. Dios, I think you've just tracked creativolutionism mud into the clean MeTa parlour.
posted by Bugbread at 3:52 PM on April 18, 2006
I didn't mean to give him the benefit of the doubt. What dios posted was incorrect. Someone corrected him one way. I corrected him a different way.
prostyle : "Why should I gawk at that trainwreck when you've provided such a toasty little detonation over here?"
Good point. My above comment indicated that creationism threads weren't so bad because they kept to themselves. Dios, I think you've just tracked creativolutionism mud into the clean MeTa parlour.
posted by Bugbread at 3:52 PM on April 18, 2006
insofar as the discussion in that post seems, in some regards, to be tracking the typical "Christians are stoopid v. Evolutionists are deluded" argument, my comment stands
...
At the very least, the two or three jackasses who repeated the "summon bevets" thing should be given a timeout until the message is clear.
...
perhaps you would be in favor of seeing if we can reach some resolution where everything that is even tangentially related to the topic of evolution isn't allowed to slip into the same discussion.
Figure out what the hell your demands are before flaming out, dios. Cardinal rule.
posted by wakko at 3:53 PM on April 18, 2006
What can be done?
In a word, nothing. Nothing at all. Because MeFi is all about the links, and if we're going to allow links to Time Cube Guy and other batshitinsane schizophrenics, we're going to have to allow links to Kirk Cameron and the batshitinsane religionists. They're both the same.
The sole reason we do okay when Time Cube Guy and Jack Chick are posted, is that no one comes around to try to convince us that TCG and JC are actually correct. They're both pretty much universally recognized for what they are.
It is a shame that creationists aren't as scorned as TCG.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 PM on April 18, 2006
In a word, nothing. Nothing at all. Because MeFi is all about the links, and if we're going to allow links to Time Cube Guy and other batshitinsane schizophrenics, we're going to have to allow links to Kirk Cameron and the batshitinsane religionists. They're both the same.
The sole reason we do okay when Time Cube Guy and Jack Chick are posted, is that no one comes around to try to convince us that TCG and JC are actually correct. They're both pretty much universally recognized for what they are.
It is a shame that creationists aren't as scorned as TCG.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 PM on April 18, 2006
To you seanyboy, as I say to all christians: fuck off and go bother someone else.
posted by puke & cry at 9:45 PM GMT
Clearly it is possible to have discussions without the sort of crass and useless comments such as that. No need for a new metatalk post about it, but WTF made you say that, puke? 'Cos someone said something you didn't agree with?
That sort of behaviour is peurile, and demeans supporters of rational enquiry much more than seanyboy's idiosyncratic opinions, christian or otherwise.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:06 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 9:45 PM GMT
Clearly it is possible to have discussions without the sort of crass and useless comments such as that. No need for a new metatalk post about it, but WTF made you say that, puke? 'Cos someone said something you didn't agree with?
That sort of behaviour is peurile, and demeans supporters of rational enquiry much more than seanyboy's idiosyncratic opinions, christian or otherwise.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:06 PM on April 18, 2006
Stop ganging up on Dios.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:12 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 4:12 PM on April 18, 2006
you know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that metafilter is actually doing a public service in keeping "dios" occupied for so very many hours a day -- it means, necessarily, that he does less harm IRL.
can you imagine having him for a lawyer? (shudder) posts like this largely prevent THAT from happening.
i say, let's keep 'im preoccupied. so as long as we keep "taking one for the team" that is the greater dallas-area body politic, dios is kept on a short blue-and-grey leash, where his specious reasoning and blowhard politics do no substantive damage.
can you imagine the harm he could have done to real people in the span of time represented by his 2500-odd comments and posts?
oh, and dallas? you're welcome.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM on April 18, 2006
can you imagine having him for a lawyer? (shudder) posts like this largely prevent THAT from happening.
i say, let's keep 'im preoccupied. so as long as we keep "taking one for the team" that is the greater dallas-area body politic, dios is kept on a short blue-and-grey leash, where his specious reasoning and blowhard politics do no substantive damage.
can you imagine the harm he could have done to real people in the span of time represented by his 2500-odd comments and posts?
oh, and dallas? you're welcome.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:14 PM on April 18, 2006
dios: Perhaps you should protest by refusing to post in any thread that might have predictable commentary.
It would set a valuable example to all of us.
posted by I Love Tacos at 4:16 PM on April 18, 2006
It would set a valuable example to all of us.
posted by I Love Tacos at 4:16 PM on April 18, 2006
Stop ganging up on Dios.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:12 PM PST on April 18 [!]
yeah guys seriously
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:18 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 4:12 PM PST on April 18 [!]
yeah guys seriously
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:18 PM on April 18, 2006
The half-dozen or so most recent posts prior to this one might convince even a hard-core fundy that people really are descended from monkeys--and quite a long way, at that. Tribalist ooga-booga and nothing but.
posted by jfuller at 4:58 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by jfuller at 4:58 PM on April 18, 2006
Metafilter: Tribalist ooga-booga and nothing but.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:02 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:02 PM on April 18, 2006
At one time it was "This post is seth approved." Now Seth has been replaced by dios as the friendly, respectful, community monitor. Hilarious too, calling for respectful dialog while at the same time calling fellow members jackasses. We must be respectful, he doesn't have to be. Wonderful.
Keep the game going dios. You make a fine referee. When will will we get video replays?
posted by juiceCake at 5:02 PM on April 18, 2006
Keep the game going dios. You make a fine referee. When will will we get video replays?
posted by juiceCake at 5:02 PM on April 18, 2006
Hi Dios!
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 5:08 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 5:08 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
There is literally nothing to discuss about creationism. It is a fraud, it is inutterably stupid, it is a form of "extreme religion", and as such it is a threat to our survival as a species, let alone our nations.
Second sentence, yes. But the first sentence does not follow from it. There's never anything wrong with measured, intelligent discussion. Or even lighthearted, funloving discussion. Particularly when it is about a topic about which many people disagree. Light, being shone.
But 1: like EB said, discussion is not the first order of business, it's a (one hope's) happy byproduct of good links.
But 2: the problem is not discussion per se, which can always be good, but the fact that discussion of some topics by their very nature, and because many people can't seem to refrain from getting the boot in, devolve into crapfests with clockwork regularity.
The solution, as always, is not in legislation (and I deliberately mean this as a metaphor for the world-at-large, too) but in people showing a little restraint and taking more responsibility for their own behaviour.
A few handy examples of people not doing that, from the first half-dozen comments in this very thread:
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on April 18, 2006
Second sentence, yes. But the first sentence does not follow from it. There's never anything wrong with measured, intelligent discussion. Or even lighthearted, funloving discussion. Particularly when it is about a topic about which many people disagree. Light, being shone.
But 1: like EB said, discussion is not the first order of business, it's a (one hope's) happy byproduct of good links.
But 2: the problem is not discussion per se, which can always be good, but the fact that discussion of some topics by their very nature, and because many people can't seem to refrain from getting the boot in, devolve into crapfests with clockwork regularity.
The solution, as always, is not in legislation (and I deliberately mean this as a metaphor for the world-at-large, too) but in people showing a little restraint and taking more responsibility for their own behaviour.
A few handy examples of people not doing that, from the first half-dozen comments in this very thread:
- ground fucking floor
- you unbelievably tedious whiny little hall monitor
- you amazing jackoff
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on April 18, 2006
I saw The Amazing Jackoff in Vegas once. I still don't know how he made the donkey disappear.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:13 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:13 PM on April 18, 2006
Dear sweet lord, that apostrophe is going to haunt me to the end of my days. Administrator, please 'hopes' me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on April 18, 2006
No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves.
Hey, tell that to the creationists, eh? Maybe they'll pay more attention to your suggestion than I intend to.
posted by Decani at 6:10 PM on April 18, 2006
Hey, tell that to the creationists, eh? Maybe they'll pay more attention to your suggestion than I intend to.
posted by Decani at 6:10 PM on April 18, 2006
you know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that metafilter is actually doing a public service in keeping "dios" occupied for so very many hours a day -- it means, necessarily, that he does less harm IRL.
On the flipside, what's the IRL equivalent for "threadstalking to indulge a petty, internet grudge?" And what's with his username in quotes? Hey, did you know his name means "God?" Wow. That's new.
can you imagine having him for a lawyer? (shudder) posts like this largely prevent THAT from happening.
Can you imagine having your professional career being judged by the sum total of your comments on a community website? You can't even find the CAPS LOCK key, apparently. What's that supposed to say to the rest of us who've read The Elements of Style about how smart and talented you are? "Could you imagine having Hat Maui as your proofreader?!?" Har, har...
i say, let's keep 'im preoccupied. so as long as we keep "taking one for the team" that is the greater dallas-area body politic, dios is kept on a short blue-and-grey leash, where his specious reasoning and blowhard politics do no substantive damage.
The world's probably being done a bigger favor by keeping folks like you who think whinging at someone who disagrees with them online is actually doing something out of the genepool.
can you imagine the harm he could have done to real people in the span of time represented by his 2500-odd comments and posts?
You're really just a parody at this point.
oh, and dallas? you're welcome.
Oh, and wherever your cowardly, no-name-or-even-email-in-your-profile-ass is from...
Fuck off.
posted by Cyrano at 7:44 PM on April 18, 2006
On the flipside, what's the IRL equivalent for "threadstalking to indulge a petty, internet grudge?" And what's with his username in quotes? Hey, did you know his name means "God?" Wow. That's new.
can you imagine having him for a lawyer? (shudder) posts like this largely prevent THAT from happening.
Can you imagine having your professional career being judged by the sum total of your comments on a community website? You can't even find the CAPS LOCK key, apparently. What's that supposed to say to the rest of us who've read The Elements of Style about how smart and talented you are? "Could you imagine having Hat Maui as your proofreader?!?" Har, har...
i say, let's keep 'im preoccupied. so as long as we keep "taking one for the team" that is the greater dallas-area body politic, dios is kept on a short blue-and-grey leash, where his specious reasoning and blowhard politics do no substantive damage.
The world's probably being done a bigger favor by keeping folks like you who think whinging at someone who disagrees with them online is actually doing something out of the genepool.
can you imagine the harm he could have done to real people in the span of time represented by his 2500-odd comments and posts?
You're really just a parody at this point.
oh, and dallas? you're welcome.
Oh, and wherever your cowardly, no-name-or-even-email-in-your-profile-ass is from...
Fuck off.
posted by Cyrano at 7:44 PM on April 18, 2006
You can't even find the CAPS LOCK key, apparently.
Which as far as I know, nobody uses to capitalize the initial letters of sentences, unless they're typing with a stick held between their teeth.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:50 PM on April 18, 2006
Which as far as I know, nobody uses to capitalize the initial letters of sentences, unless they're typing with a stick held between their teeth.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:50 PM on April 18, 2006
Seeing as how no new information is ever presented in these topics, shouldn't they all be considered double posts and deleted?
Since creationists have never presented any new arguments, they should be deleted.
posted by darukaru at 7:58 PM on April 18, 2006
Since creationists have never presented any new arguments, they should be deleted.
posted by darukaru at 7:58 PM on April 18, 2006
Maybe Al Roker should investigate.
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:20 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:20 PM on April 18, 2006
I skipped that FPP, because the Kirk Cameron Preaches To Teh Gays FPP was still fresh in my mind.
I kinda wish I had skipped this one.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:26 PM on April 18, 2006
I kinda wish I had skipped this one.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:26 PM on April 18, 2006
Or were you trying to get a timeout or strip away all pretense of your being anything other than an axe-grinding hobby-horse-riding partisan-proselytizing loon?
posted by dios at 9:04 AM PST on April 13
We obviously can't have respectful discussions...the same insulting "discussion" occurs. Seeing as how no new information is ever presented...shouldn't they all be considered double posts and deleted? When they are nothing more than another opportunity to display your disgust with someone who disagrees with you, what value do they add to the site?
posted by dios to etiquette/policy at 12:26 PM PST
Let's be charitable and assume the cognitive problem is dissonance cum hypocrisy.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:38 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dios at 9:04 AM PST on April 13
We obviously can't have respectful discussions...the same insulting "discussion" occurs. Seeing as how no new information is ever presented...shouldn't they all be considered double posts and deleted? When they are nothing more than another opportunity to display your disgust with someone who disagrees with you, what value do they add to the site?
posted by dios to etiquette/policy at 12:26 PM PST
Let's be charitable and assume the cognitive problem is dissonance cum hypocrisy.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:38 PM on April 18, 2006
If I posted something like this (just the first long post on Carl Zimmer's awesome blog the loom) I'm sure there would be an interesting discussion.
Dios apparently can't tell the difference between science (or pop-science) and anti-scientific Bullshit, or he isn't interested in the difference. tag search for evolution yields lots of interesting stuff.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 AM on April 19, 2006
Dios apparently can't tell the difference between science (or pop-science) and anti-scientific Bullshit, or he isn't interested in the difference. tag search for evolution yields lots of interesting stuff.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 AM on April 19, 2006
Just out of curiosity, Dios, what did you hope to accomplish with this post? Other then pissing off a huge number of people, anyway.
posted by delmoi at 12:49 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by delmoi at 12:49 AM on April 19, 2006
Cyrano:
i think you took it a little far, there.
my first name, email address, and city of residence are right there on my userpage, always have been.
so if you'd like to call me a coward directly, so to speak, over email, feel free to do so.
i'm not sure why you took the dios-directed comments so personally, but i assure you i wasn't being serious. you may not think my joke was funny, but i don't really think dios does harm to people in real life. i just think he's an annoying internet guy and despite the futility of responding to him, my annoyance gets the better of me sometimes.
do you really think it's just me nursing an internet grudge? so is everyone that's annoyed by dios simply nursing an internet grudge? really, your hostility at me seems a little misplaced. it ain't just me, dude.
if you disagree, well, let's leave it off here, okay? just go ahead and email.
but not too late, though. i go to bed around 9.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:54 AM on April 19, 2006
i think you took it a little far, there.
my first name, email address, and city of residence are right there on my userpage, always have been.
so if you'd like to call me a coward directly, so to speak, over email, feel free to do so.
i'm not sure why you took the dios-directed comments so personally, but i assure you i wasn't being serious. you may not think my joke was funny, but i don't really think dios does harm to people in real life. i just think he's an annoying internet guy and despite the futility of responding to him, my annoyance gets the better of me sometimes.
do you really think it's just me nursing an internet grudge? so is everyone that's annoyed by dios simply nursing an internet grudge? really, your hostility at me seems a little misplaced. it ain't just me, dude.
if you disagree, well, let's leave it off here, okay? just go ahead and email.
but not too late, though. i go to bed around 9.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:54 AM on April 19, 2006
dios wrote...
For those that accept evolution as the rational explanation of things, there isn't anything to discuss (other than to poke sticks at those who disagree and let them know how stupid you think they are). For those that believe in religious concepts of the origin of life, they have already established that their beliefs aren't based in reason, so a discussion isn't useful. Nothing can come of repeating the same argument over and over.
First of all, I haven't been paying attention to comments in Metafilter long enough to mock anything you say just because you said it. From a relative outsider's perspective, you appear to have asked a reasonable question, even if it took you a bit to zero in on exactly what you were asking.
So anyway, if I'm performing some horrible faux pas by actually engaging the content of your post, I'm sure someone will let me know.
The standard evolution/creationist argument predates Metafilter by about 140 years. Virtually all of the salient points were made immediately after the publication of The Origin of Species, and while the theory of evolution has come a long way since then, the basic evolution vs. creationist argument has, ironically, failed to evolve.
Five generations of humans have come and gone vigorously holding the same argument over and over again. This should tell us two things, I think:
1) The continuing argument on this topic is a force of history. Attempting to stamp out the argument, even locally, is far beyond the reach of a few admins on a internet bulletin board.
2) Given the cumulatively enormous amount of human time and effort poured into the argument, it is almost certain that people feel that they are benefiting from the discussion. Something is coming from repeating the same argument over and over.
Clearly, what is not coming from the argument is any sense of progress or resolution. So what is the point?
I suspect the point is that there are very few places in a person's every day life where they get to stand up and be counted among the forces of the Right And Good. Both sides of the evolution/creationist debate are certain they are on that side, and thus both sides are eager to stand up and be counted.
It's true that those discussions go downhill extremely rapidly, but I'm not really sure who is harmed by that. Virtually everyone standing up and giving their spiel has been in the same discussion before, and will be in the same discussion again. And unlike discussions where forward progress is likely (possible?) the descent into frippery doesn't derail a potentially interesting and useful thread.
My point is twofold:
1) Trying to stomp out the evolution/creationist debate on Metafilter would be an enormous task. Better just to keep it corralled.
2) Ongoing arguments can have value and meaning to the participants, even if a resolution is never reached.
posted by tkolar at 1:12 AM on April 19, 2006
For those that accept evolution as the rational explanation of things, there isn't anything to discuss (other than to poke sticks at those who disagree and let them know how stupid you think they are). For those that believe in religious concepts of the origin of life, they have already established that their beliefs aren't based in reason, so a discussion isn't useful. Nothing can come of repeating the same argument over and over.
First of all, I haven't been paying attention to comments in Metafilter long enough to mock anything you say just because you said it. From a relative outsider's perspective, you appear to have asked a reasonable question, even if it took you a bit to zero in on exactly what you were asking.
So anyway, if I'm performing some horrible faux pas by actually engaging the content of your post, I'm sure someone will let me know.
The standard evolution/creationist argument predates Metafilter by about 140 years. Virtually all of the salient points were made immediately after the publication of The Origin of Species, and while the theory of evolution has come a long way since then, the basic evolution vs. creationist argument has, ironically, failed to evolve.
Five generations of humans have come and gone vigorously holding the same argument over and over again. This should tell us two things, I think:
1) The continuing argument on this topic is a force of history. Attempting to stamp out the argument, even locally, is far beyond the reach of a few admins on a internet bulletin board.
2) Given the cumulatively enormous amount of human time and effort poured into the argument, it is almost certain that people feel that they are benefiting from the discussion. Something is coming from repeating the same argument over and over.
Clearly, what is not coming from the argument is any sense of progress or resolution. So what is the point?
I suspect the point is that there are very few places in a person's every day life where they get to stand up and be counted among the forces of the Right And Good. Both sides of the evolution/creationist debate are certain they are on that side, and thus both sides are eager to stand up and be counted.
It's true that those discussions go downhill extremely rapidly, but I'm not really sure who is harmed by that. Virtually everyone standing up and giving their spiel has been in the same discussion before, and will be in the same discussion again. And unlike discussions where forward progress is likely (possible?) the descent into frippery doesn't derail a potentially interesting and useful thread.
My point is twofold:
1) Trying to stomp out the evolution/creationist debate on Metafilter would be an enormous task. Better just to keep it corralled.
2) Ongoing arguments can have value and meaning to the participants, even if a resolution is never reached.
posted by tkolar at 1:12 AM on April 19, 2006
We need more comments like tkolar's.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:10 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:10 AM on April 19, 2006
I always avoid the Evolution vs Creationism THREADS, but I certainly enjoy the LINKS provided. And as much as I love the conversation here at MeFi, the first thing that got me here was the links. And that's certainly what keeps me coming back.
posted by antifuse at 2:27 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by antifuse at 2:27 AM on April 19, 2006
tkolar wrote 1) Trying to stomp out the evolution/creationist debate on Metafilter would be an enormous task. Better just to keep it corralled.
And we do keep it coralled. We keep it coralled in threads containing links to creationist/evolutionist sites and information. So unless we get a Blazing Saddles-esque situation where commenters smash through a wall and start fucking up a thread about, say, Feetmeat, we don't really have a problem. Which is kind of like Meta-If-You-Don't-Like-It-Skip-It.
Now. What's for lunch?
posted by Jofus at 3:20 AM on April 19, 2006
And we do keep it coralled. We keep it coralled in threads containing links to creationist/evolutionist sites and information. So unless we get a Blazing Saddles-esque situation where commenters smash through a wall and start fucking up a thread about, say, Feetmeat, we don't really have a problem. Which is kind of like Meta-If-You-Don't-Like-It-Skip-It.
Now. What's for lunch?
posted by Jofus at 3:20 AM on April 19, 2006
Oh, wait. Actually, it's Jose Jalapeno. On a steeeeeeek.
posted by cgc373 at 3:44 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 3:44 AM on April 19, 2006
*smashes through Meta-wall*
Comment deletion sucks!!!
what on... how did I get in here?!
posted by shmegegge at 4:09 AM on April 19, 2006
Comment deletion sucks!!!
what on... how did I get in here?!
posted by shmegegge at 4:09 AM on April 19, 2006
Bugbread : "No, perhaps we should stop because we're now just repeating ourselves."
Decani : "Hey, tell that to the creationists, eh? Maybe they'll pay more attention to your suggestion than I intend to."
I have gotten enough of a sense of your posting habits that my suggestion wasn't directed at you specifically.
As for telling the creationists: I don't hang out on primarily creationist sites, and I don't really care if they have interesting conversations or not, so I don't think I'll go and tell them.
tkolar,
Well put.
posted by Bugbread at 4:41 AM on April 19, 2006
Decani : "Hey, tell that to the creationists, eh? Maybe they'll pay more attention to your suggestion than I intend to."
I have gotten enough of a sense of your posting habits that my suggestion wasn't directed at you specifically.
As for telling the creationists: I don't hang out on primarily creationist sites, and I don't really care if they have interesting conversations or not, so I don't think I'll go and tell them.
tkolar,
Well put.
posted by Bugbread at 4:41 AM on April 19, 2006
We need more comments like tkolar's.
No shit... and had he/she managed to post such a fantastic and thoughtful response around 3:27 PM EST, we wouldn't have had to read all the standard "I can't handle dios, so I must insult him at every turn" comments. The thread could have ended after one comment. Thanks tkolar.
posted by Witty at 4:49 AM on April 19, 2006
No shit... and had he/she managed to post such a fantastic and thoughtful response around 3:27 PM EST, we wouldn't have had to read all the standard "I can't handle dios, so I must insult him at every turn" comments. The thread could have ended after one comment. Thanks tkolar.
posted by Witty at 4:49 AM on April 19, 2006
... because, of course, this thread was all about people not being able to "handle dios". Like dios is some kind of unbearable truth, or something.
dios is not an unbearable truth. dios is not Diogenes. Neither is quonsar, for that matter, nor Stavros, nore me, and especially not you, witty. Hell, Diogenes wasn't even Diogenes.
And it's a bit disingenuous of you to suppose that a single balanced comment early in the thread would have made a damn bit of difference. This is what Metafilter is like. You are part of that. Not as big a part of it as you used to be, but man, you sure have carried your share of the load in getting it here...
posted by lodurr at 5:16 AM on April 19, 2006
dios is not an unbearable truth. dios is not Diogenes. Neither is quonsar, for that matter, nor Stavros, nore me, and especially not you, witty. Hell, Diogenes wasn't even Diogenes.
And it's a bit disingenuous of you to suppose that a single balanced comment early in the thread would have made a damn bit of difference. This is what Metafilter is like. You are part of that. Not as big a part of it as you used to be, but man, you sure have carried your share of the load in getting it here...
posted by lodurr at 5:16 AM on April 19, 2006
You are part of that. Not as big a part of it as you used to be, but man, you sure have carried your share of the load in getting it here...
Yea, sure. Anyway...
If dios is involved in any thread, people can't handle it. Denying that fact is disingenuous.
posted by Witty at 5:23 AM on April 19, 2006
Yea, sure. Anyway...
If dios is involved in any thread, people can't handle it. Denying that fact is disingenuous.
posted by Witty at 5:23 AM on April 19, 2006
Ah, I see witty is upset because I used a big word.
OK, witty, since you don't like "disingenuous": You're full of shit. There are plenty of threads that dios is involved in that don't go that way. I've been in them.
What's interesting to me is why that's so clearly such an uncomfortable truth for you.
posted by lodurr at 5:33 AM on April 19, 2006
OK, witty, since you don't like "disingenuous": You're full of shit. There are plenty of threads that dios is involved in that don't go that way. I've been in them.
What's interesting to me is why that's so clearly such an uncomfortable truth for you.
posted by lodurr at 5:33 AM on April 19, 2006
I don't even know what you're talking about lodurr. Are you just making shit up as a means for having something with which to try to insult me? Upset? Please. Your "truth" may not be MY "truth", but I'm certainly comfortable with what I believe to be fact.
You seem to be the one that's uncomfortable.
posted by Witty at 5:44 AM on April 19, 2006
You seem to be the one that's uncomfortable.
posted by Witty at 5:44 AM on April 19, 2006
Gamblor: Testify, OmieWise. It's difficult to have a respectful discussion when the other side's position is complete and utter horseshit.
Well, personally having been in the trenches, I find the utter horseshit coming from both sides to be part of the problem. Evolution deniers frequently come off as much more reasonable than the well-intentioned but ignorant people who charge every available windmill of creationism wielding a mis-matched kit of misconception, ideology, and basic piss-headed stubbornness.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:45 AM on April 19, 2006
Well, personally having been in the trenches, I find the utter horseshit coming from both sides to be part of the problem. Evolution deniers frequently come off as much more reasonable than the well-intentioned but ignorant people who charge every available windmill of creationism wielding a mis-matched kit of misconception, ideology, and basic piss-headed stubbornness.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:45 AM on April 19, 2006
Of course you don't know what I'm talking about, witty.
posted by lodurr at 5:48 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by lodurr at 5:48 AM on April 19, 2006
You are! No you!
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:53 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:53 AM on April 19, 2006
You should ask yourself why you're still here, witty.
(Witty's respose: 'Look who's talking.')
Seriously: Why are you so invested in the idea that dios is ever-persecuted? Is it possibly because you, too, see yourself as ever-persecuted? For your views? Which are similar to dios's views?
OK, you can have the last word, now.
posted by lodurr at 5:54 AM on April 19, 2006
(Witty's respose: 'Look who's talking.')
Seriously: Why are you so invested in the idea that dios is ever-persecuted? Is it possibly because you, too, see yourself as ever-persecuted? For your views? Which are similar to dios's views?
OK, you can have the last word, now.
posted by lodurr at 5:54 AM on April 19, 2006
Lodurr, I don't/didn't know what you're talking about either, and I suspect I more often generally agree with you than Witty. I think the gap is that I interpreted "we can't handle dios" to just mean "we can't handle civil discourse with dios", not "we can't handle dios because he's right". I'm not necessarily saying that this statement is true, I'm just saying that that's what I interpreted Witty to be saying. So your comment, from my perspective, about Witty representing dios as Absolute Truth, kinda came out of left field, and seemed a lot more angry than Witty's comment would seem to warrant.
Also, I think we have the issue of how to interpret a certain class of statements. For example, "Stars are hot" is true if you interpret it to mean that generally stars are hot. However, it is not true if you interpret it to mean that stars, by their nature, are hot, and therefore all stars are hot. (For example, throwing stars, being made of metal, are often rather cold to the touch). So when Witty says "we can't handle dios", I interpreted it as a general statement, so your counter ("There are plenty of threads that dios is involved in that don't go that way.") is only a counter if those plenty of threads constitute the majority. If you interpret Witty's statement as an absolute, not a general, then your counter makes sense (the existence of even a single thread would counter the "all dios threads are doomed" argument, and plenty would counter it all the more).
So, again, it's not necessarily that Witty is being dense (maybe he is, maybe he isn't), but there is a possibility that he doesn't know what you're talking about because he meant the statement A) in regards to the civility of discourse, not in regards to dios being absolute truth, and B) as a general statement, not an absolute. If those are the cases (which they were with me), then your comment does seem to come kinda out of nowhere.
However, fully agreed that, though tkolar's comment rocks, its presence earlier in the thread would probably not have changed the course of the thread. My experience in MeTa makes me think it wouldn't have.
Witty: it's hard to say whether the problem is "we can't handle dios", because in this particular instance, dios started out firing in the wrong direction (the whole "double post" issue, among others). Perhaps, if he'd started on the right foot, we still would have had a fucked up discussion. If that were the case, then that would be our problem. Or, perhaps, we wouldn't have had a fucked up discussion. If that were the case, then that would have been a gold star for us. But, as it is, those are hypotheticals, and in this particular case, I don't think we can reasonably decide whether the problem is exclusively dios starting off on the wrong foot, or us not being able to handle civil discourse with dios.
So any argument based on the hypothetical "if it had started differently" isn't really germane, and is more likely to just bring up general old arguments, on both sides, which I've never seen to be productive. (Enjoyable, yes, occassionally, but unless there's a spectacular flameout, the Mefi vs. Dios thread has been done to death, and no longer holds much entertainment value for me.)
posted by Bugbread at 6:07 AM on April 19, 2006
Also, I think we have the issue of how to interpret a certain class of statements. For example, "Stars are hot" is true if you interpret it to mean that generally stars are hot. However, it is not true if you interpret it to mean that stars, by their nature, are hot, and therefore all stars are hot. (For example, throwing stars, being made of metal, are often rather cold to the touch). So when Witty says "we can't handle dios", I interpreted it as a general statement, so your counter ("There are plenty of threads that dios is involved in that don't go that way.") is only a counter if those plenty of threads constitute the majority. If you interpret Witty's statement as an absolute, not a general, then your counter makes sense (the existence of even a single thread would counter the "all dios threads are doomed" argument, and plenty would counter it all the more).
So, again, it's not necessarily that Witty is being dense (maybe he is, maybe he isn't), but there is a possibility that he doesn't know what you're talking about because he meant the statement A) in regards to the civility of discourse, not in regards to dios being absolute truth, and B) as a general statement, not an absolute. If those are the cases (which they were with me), then your comment does seem to come kinda out of nowhere.
However, fully agreed that, though tkolar's comment rocks, its presence earlier in the thread would probably not have changed the course of the thread. My experience in MeTa makes me think it wouldn't have.
Witty: it's hard to say whether the problem is "we can't handle dios", because in this particular instance, dios started out firing in the wrong direction (the whole "double post" issue, among others). Perhaps, if he'd started on the right foot, we still would have had a fucked up discussion. If that were the case, then that would be our problem. Or, perhaps, we wouldn't have had a fucked up discussion. If that were the case, then that would have been a gold star for us. But, as it is, those are hypotheticals, and in this particular case, I don't think we can reasonably decide whether the problem is exclusively dios starting off on the wrong foot, or us not being able to handle civil discourse with dios.
So any argument based on the hypothetical "if it had started differently" isn't really germane, and is more likely to just bring up general old arguments, on both sides, which I've never seen to be productive. (Enjoyable, yes, occassionally, but unless there's a spectacular flameout, the Mefi vs. Dios thread has been done to death, and no longer holds much entertainment value for me.)
posted by Bugbread at 6:07 AM on April 19, 2006
You should ask yourself why you're still here, witty.
The occassional neato link in the blue, scrappin' in Meta and AxMe... and habit, perhaps.
Why are you so invested in the idea that dios is ever-persecuted? Is it possibly because you, too, see yourself as ever-persecuted? For your views? Which are similar to dios's views?
Whether that's true or not has nothing to do with what I observe when it comes to dios and how other people treat and react to his participation around here. I don't think he's completely 100% blameless in some of the bruhahas he gets himself into. But for the most part, I "see" a bunch of people that simply can't control themselves when it comes to dealing with dios, whether it be his views, opinions, thoughts or ideas (blatantly insulting him when they disagree, calling him out when he hasn't even participated yet)... or dios simply trying to start a reasonable discussion about something in Meta. tkolar managed to see the reason in dios' question and responded accordingly. The other 95% here just can't seem to do it... ever, neither in the blue nor the gray. It's damn near laughable in it's predictability.
And how you responded to my comment earlier is the same kind of bullshit I'm talking about. I made reasonable response to your comment and you come back with some crap about me being "upset at you for using a big word".
posted by Witty at 6:08 AM on April 19, 2006
The occassional neato link in the blue, scrappin' in Meta and AxMe... and habit, perhaps.
Why are you so invested in the idea that dios is ever-persecuted? Is it possibly because you, too, see yourself as ever-persecuted? For your views? Which are similar to dios's views?
Whether that's true or not has nothing to do with what I observe when it comes to dios and how other people treat and react to his participation around here. I don't think he's completely 100% blameless in some of the bruhahas he gets himself into. But for the most part, I "see" a bunch of people that simply can't control themselves when it comes to dealing with dios, whether it be his views, opinions, thoughts or ideas (blatantly insulting him when they disagree, calling him out when he hasn't even participated yet)... or dios simply trying to start a reasonable discussion about something in Meta. tkolar managed to see the reason in dios' question and responded accordingly. The other 95% here just can't seem to do it... ever, neither in the blue nor the gray. It's damn near laughable in it's predictability.
And how you responded to my comment earlier is the same kind of bullshit I'm talking about. I made reasonable response to your comment and you come back with some crap about me being "upset at you for using a big word".
posted by Witty at 6:08 AM on April 19, 2006
However, fully agreed that, though tkolar's comment rocks, its presence earlier in the thread would probably not have changed the course of the thread. My experience in MeTa makes me think it wouldn't have.
I totally agree. But it would have been a nice change of pace... as far as how a Meta thread, especially one made by dios, is initially commented on. I'm suggesting that it might have set a good example of how threads DON'T have to kick off with a snark or a one-liner or and flat-out insult, EVERY time.
In regards to dios "starting off on the wrong foot"... well, that's just a matter of opinion I guess, because I knew exactly what he meant and where he was coming from. Is that result of me being on "his side"? Maybe. And for that reason it is also quite possible that most other people choose to "misinterpret" his ideas and CERTAINLY misinterpret his motives. It happens every time... every time.
posted by Witty at 6:16 AM on April 19, 2006
I totally agree. But it would have been a nice change of pace... as far as how a Meta thread, especially one made by dios, is initially commented on. I'm suggesting that it might have set a good example of how threads DON'T have to kick off with a snark or a one-liner or and flat-out insult, EVERY time.
In regards to dios "starting off on the wrong foot"... well, that's just a matter of opinion I guess, because I knew exactly what he meant and where he was coming from. Is that result of me being on "his side"? Maybe. And for that reason it is also quite possible that most other people choose to "misinterpret" his ideas and CERTAINLY misinterpret his motives. It happens every time... every time.
posted by Witty at 6:16 AM on April 19, 2006
Witty writes "tkolar managed to see the reason in dios' question and responded accordingly. The other 95% here just can't seem to do it... ever, neither in the blue nor the gray."
Yeah, well, I think your response is predictable as well, in pretty much the same way. dios made a crappy call-out based in a desire to control what get's talked about on MeFi, it was in opposition to his own previously stated positions, so it seemed smelly in that way too, and he got called on that. I've defended him many times in the gray as a worthwhile contributor to the site, I've had decent exchanges with him in the blue, I've talked with him over email, he seems to me a decent guy. This callout is still crappy. You not seeing that says as much about what you bring to dios' posts and the response to them as anything else.
posted by OmieWise at 6:17 AM on April 19, 2006
Yeah, well, I think your response is predictable as well, in pretty much the same way. dios made a crappy call-out based in a desire to control what get's talked about on MeFi, it was in opposition to his own previously stated positions, so it seemed smelly in that way too, and he got called on that. I've defended him many times in the gray as a worthwhile contributor to the site, I've had decent exchanges with him in the blue, I've talked with him over email, he seems to me a decent guy. This callout is still crappy. You not seeing that says as much about what you bring to dios' posts and the response to them as anything else.
posted by OmieWise at 6:17 AM on April 19, 2006
Ethereal Bligh writes "We need more comments like tkolar's."
Funny, when I first read it I assumed I would see your name in the attribution line.
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on April 19, 2006
Funny, when I first read it I assumed I would see your name in the attribution line.
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on April 19, 2006
Well, personally having been in the trenches...
And you lived to tell the tale. Keep fighting the good fight, you brave, brave warrior.
Evolution deniers frequently come off as much more reasonable than the well-intentioned but ignorant people who charge every available windmill of creationism wielding a mis-matched kit of misconception, ideology, and basic piss-headed stubbornness.
If that was a troll, it was an entertaining one. Yes, it's a choice between two camps: those reasonable, intellectually honest creationists and those stubborn, ignorant evolutionists.
Do you honestly believe the shit you just typed, or was this some kind of creative writing exercise?
posted by Gamblor at 6:23 AM on April 19, 2006
And you lived to tell the tale. Keep fighting the good fight, you brave, brave warrior.
Evolution deniers frequently come off as much more reasonable than the well-intentioned but ignorant people who charge every available windmill of creationism wielding a mis-matched kit of misconception, ideology, and basic piss-headed stubbornness.
If that was a troll, it was an entertaining one. Yes, it's a choice between two camps: those reasonable, intellectually honest creationists and those stubborn, ignorant evolutionists.
Do you honestly believe the shit you just typed, or was this some kind of creative writing exercise?
posted by Gamblor at 6:23 AM on April 19, 2006
Yeah, well, I think your response is predictable as well, in pretty much the same way.
How so? Because you expect me to "defend" dios? I am a day late to the party after all... a bit late for getting involved in a question that's already been "answered".
This callout is still crappy. You not seeing that says as much about what you bring to dios' posts and the response to them as anything else.
Maybe it is crappy. I don't think it is. I thought it was a reasonable question/concern. So the callout may be unwarranted in your opinion, but that doesn't make the effort crappy. If you disagree with dios, just say so. HIS post was reasonable, why can't the comments be as well? Even after being insulted ("amazing jackass" in comment #4) and trying to answer people who didn't understand what his angle was, he continued to be civil and reasonable. But the bullshit kept right on piling up.
Then someone posts a another Meta thread mocking this one... unbelievable.
posted by Witty at 6:36 AM on April 19, 2006
How so? Because you expect me to "defend" dios? I am a day late to the party after all... a bit late for getting involved in a question that's already been "answered".
This callout is still crappy. You not seeing that says as much about what you bring to dios' posts and the response to them as anything else.
Maybe it is crappy. I don't think it is. I thought it was a reasonable question/concern. So the callout may be unwarranted in your opinion, but that doesn't make the effort crappy. If you disagree with dios, just say so. HIS post was reasonable, why can't the comments be as well? Even after being insulted ("amazing jackass" in comment #4) and trying to answer people who didn't understand what his angle was, he continued to be civil and reasonable. But the bullshit kept right on piling up.
Then someone posts a another Meta thread mocking this one... unbelievable.
posted by Witty at 6:36 AM on April 19, 2006
I still maintain that dios created this thread simply to troll Metatalk. He's too smart to actually believe some magical dude in the sky created all of us in six days.
Can you guys not see that you've been had?
posted by wakko at 6:39 AM on April 19, 2006
Can you guys not see that you've been had?
posted by wakko at 6:39 AM on April 19, 2006
Witty writes "How so? Because you expect me to 'defend' dios? I am a day late to the party after all... a bit late for getting involved in a question that's already been 'answered'."
No, because you expect to see warrantless criticism of dios. In this case, aside from a couple of the usual suspects, the criticisms were warranted. MeTa is a pretty nasty place. When you make a crappy comment people come right out and tell you that in their comments. There's very little hand holding, and dios and you both know that.
posted by OmieWise at 6:48 AM on April 19, 2006
No, because you expect to see warrantless criticism of dios. In this case, aside from a couple of the usual suspects, the criticisms were warranted. MeTa is a pretty nasty place. When you make a crappy comment people come right out and tell you that in their comments. There's very little hand holding, and dios and you both know that.
posted by OmieWise at 6:48 AM on April 19, 2006
At least noone said, you know, "Fuck dios and all those, etc."
posted by OmieWise at 6:52 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 6:52 AM on April 19, 2006
wakko : "I still maintain that dios created this thread simply to troll Metatalk. He's too smart to actually believe some magical dude in the sky created all of us in six days."
To be honest, I have no idea if he believes in skygod or not. If he has indicated so elsewhere, then someone let me know, and I will become more informed. As it stands, it seems to me (and I may be wrong, I'm not good at remembering post histories, so I'm working with little info) that the logical flow is "Dios is conservative. Dios is complaining about creationism/evolution discussions. Therefore, Dios believes in skygod."
If what Dios has said in the past (that's he's a strict legalistic moral relativist) is true, then I'd find it quite surprising if he did believe in skygod.
So the question is: has dios indicated that he believes in skygod, or are we just assuming that?
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 AM on April 19, 2006
To be honest, I have no idea if he believes in skygod or not. If he has indicated so elsewhere, then someone let me know, and I will become more informed. As it stands, it seems to me (and I may be wrong, I'm not good at remembering post histories, so I'm working with little info) that the logical flow is "Dios is conservative. Dios is complaining about creationism/evolution discussions. Therefore, Dios believes in skygod."
If what Dios has said in the past (that's he's a strict legalistic moral relativist) is true, then I'd find it quite surprising if he did believe in skygod.
So the question is: has dios indicated that he believes in skygod, or are we just assuming that?
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 AM on April 19, 2006
At least noone said, you know, "Fuck dios and all those, etc."
Hey, I'm just playing along, following the leader. The thread is going to be deleted anyway right? (doesn't look like it)
posted by Witty at 7:08 AM on April 19, 2006
Hey, I'm just playing along, following the leader. The thread is going to be deleted anyway right? (doesn't look like it)
posted by Witty at 7:08 AM on April 19, 2006
Note: I use the term "skygod" not as a means of belittling Christianity or any other religion, nor to enoble it. I use it just because the word is pretty darn cool. Plus, if you're anti-religion, it sounds smirky, and if you're pro-religion, it sounds like some sort of kick-ass norse airbrush-on-a-van type god. So it's the best of all worlds.
posted by Bugbread at 7:29 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 7:29 AM on April 19, 2006
You're right witty. This is the most excellent metatalk post evar.
posted by bardic at 8:00 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by bardic at 8:00 AM on April 19, 2006
I thought Sky God was a new Murdoch channel, broadcasting the story of his life 24/7 as seen through the eyes of his political associates.
*shivers*
posted by funambulist at 8:28 AM on April 19, 2006
*shivers*
posted by funambulist at 8:28 AM on April 19, 2006
This thread was brought to you by the letter I.
Hah!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:35 AM on April 19, 2006
Hah!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:35 AM on April 19, 2006
"I don't like it so you should stop."
That what this comes off as. Don't read the thread if you hate discussions about evolution. Stop trying to control the rest of Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 9:28 AM on April 19, 2006
That what this comes off as. Don't read the thread if you hate discussions about evolution. Stop trying to control the rest of Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 9:28 AM on April 19, 2006
But what fun is there if I can't pretend Metafilter is oppressing me?
posted by wakko at 9:34 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by wakko at 9:34 AM on April 19, 2006
wakko : "But what fun is there if I can't pretend Metafilter is oppressing me?"
I dunno. Who is making a claim here that Metafilter is oppressing them?
posted by Bugbread at 9:48 AM on April 19, 2006
I dunno. Who is making a claim here that Metafilter is oppressing them?
posted by Bugbread at 9:48 AM on April 19, 2006
True. This whole thread is nothing more than an elaborate troll, so it's not like anyone's actually being persecuted.
posted by wakko at 10:01 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by wakko at 10:01 AM on April 19, 2006
wakko : "True. This whole thread is nothing more than an elaborate troll, so it's not like anyone's actually being persecuted."
Er...Who is trolling who, then? I'm assuming you're talking about dios, but from what I can tell, he's talking about something he actually has an interest in, from a serious point of view, while you're making kinda random statements about (presumably) dios claiming to be persecuted (he hasn't, in this thread), or believing in skygod (he hasn't indicated, in this thread). So from where I am, it looks like he's trying to discuss, and you're trying to troll.
I'm not saying you're a troll in general. I don't really know, but I doubt that you are. But in this thread, at least, your comments come way closer to trolling than dios' comments.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on April 19, 2006
Er...Who is trolling who, then? I'm assuming you're talking about dios, but from what I can tell, he's talking about something he actually has an interest in, from a serious point of view, while you're making kinda random statements about (presumably) dios claiming to be persecuted (he hasn't, in this thread), or believing in skygod (he hasn't indicated, in this thread). So from where I am, it looks like he's trying to discuss, and you're trying to troll.
I'm not saying you're a troll in general. I don't really know, but I doubt that you are. But in this thread, at least, your comments come way closer to trolling than dios' comments.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on April 19, 2006
bugbread, dude, are you running for office, or what?
posted by Hat Maui at 11:35 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 11:35 AM on April 19, 2006
I don't know what you mean, and am too tired to play it off with a witty joke, so...huh?
posted by Bugbread at 11:46 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 11:46 AM on April 19, 2006
I'm assuming you're talking about dios, but from what I can tell, he's talking about something he actually has an interest in, from a serious point of view
My point is that he's simply trolling. This whole MeTa thread is a big troll. I am of the opinion that dios actually has no vested interest in the subject at hand -- he probably couldn't really give two shits about whether or not the Creationist argument is being given its fair shake.
He just started this whole thread so he could argue with us. It worked, didn't it?
posted by wakko at 12:20 PM on April 19, 2006
My point is that he's simply trolling. This whole MeTa thread is a big troll. I am of the opinion that dios actually has no vested interest in the subject at hand -- he probably couldn't really give two shits about whether or not the Creationist argument is being given its fair shake.
He just started this whole thread so he could argue with us. It worked, didn't it?
posted by wakko at 12:20 PM on April 19, 2006
bugbread, i mean that you're very politic.
excessively so.
you don't have to clarify everything for everyone, you know.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:22 PM on April 19, 2006
excessively so.
you don't have to clarify everything for everyone, you know.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:22 PM on April 19, 2006
I am of the opinion that dios has no vested interest in any subject, beyond stirring things up. The guy just likes to argue. Obviously, the lawyering isn't enough to either keep him busy or to satisfy his argument-jones.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:32 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:32 PM on April 19, 2006
I am of the opinion that dios has no vested interest in any subject, beyond stirring things up.
Exactly!
posted by wakko at 12:45 PM on April 19, 2006
Exactly!
posted by wakko at 12:45 PM on April 19, 2006
I am of the opinion that dios has no vested interest in any subject, beyond stirring things up.
If you don't like it, skip it.
It's like, how much more meta could this be?
And the answer is none. None more meta.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:56 PM on April 19, 2006
If you don't like it, skip it.
It's like, how much more meta could this be?
And the answer is none. None more meta.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:56 PM on April 19, 2006
Hat Maui : "you don't have to clarify everything for everyone, you know."
I dunno, it sometimes feels that way. 'Course, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if other people are thinking the same thing about me.
wakko : "My point is that he's simply trolling. This whole MeTa thread is a big troll."
Ok, we disagree, but unless one of us grows psychic powers, we're not going to be able to prove it to eachother either way, so I'm cool with that.
wakko : "he probably couldn't really give two shits about whether or not the Creationist argument is being given its fair shake."
I haven't parsed his complaint as being that the Creationist argument isn't being given a fair shake, just that evolution/creation threads follow incredibly identical and therefore redundant paths. Heck, even the MeFi vs. dios or MeFi vs. Alex Reynolds threads have a little bit of individual character (admittedly, not much, but a little).
Plus, I'd be surprised if he was somehow championing Creationism, because from what I gather, he isn't Christian, and I must confess I've never met or heard of a non-Christian Creationist (capital C used to indicate I'm talking about the "the universe came into existence as laid out in the Bible" meaning of creationism, as opposed to general "the universe was created by some god of some religion" meaning of creationism).
posted by Bugbread at 1:25 PM on April 19, 2006
I dunno, it sometimes feels that way. 'Course, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if other people are thinking the same thing about me.
wakko : "My point is that he's simply trolling. This whole MeTa thread is a big troll."
Ok, we disagree, but unless one of us grows psychic powers, we're not going to be able to prove it to eachother either way, so I'm cool with that.
wakko : "he probably couldn't really give two shits about whether or not the Creationist argument is being given its fair shake."
I haven't parsed his complaint as being that the Creationist argument isn't being given a fair shake, just that evolution/creation threads follow incredibly identical and therefore redundant paths. Heck, even the MeFi vs. dios or MeFi vs. Alex Reynolds threads have a little bit of individual character (admittedly, not much, but a little).
Plus, I'd be surprised if he was somehow championing Creationism, because from what I gather, he isn't Christian, and I must confess I've never met or heard of a non-Christian Creationist (capital C used to indicate I'm talking about the "the universe came into existence as laid out in the Bible" meaning of creationism, as opposed to general "the universe was created by some god of some religion" meaning of creationism).
posted by Bugbread at 1:25 PM on April 19, 2006
Hat Maui : "i mean that you're very politic."
I'm not politic, I'm just anal. It just comes out as politic.
posted by Bugbread at 1:26 PM on April 19, 2006
I'm not politic, I'm just anal. It just comes out as politic.
posted by Bugbread at 1:26 PM on April 19, 2006
I've corresponded with dios privately and I have the very strong impression that he is well-intentioned and means what he says. This idea that he is trolling all of metafilter doesn't seem correct at all to me. I could be wrong, of course, but it's worth mentioning that once you become convinced that someone you disagree with is acting in bad-faith it becomes almost impossible to objectively evaluate anything they do. The assumption of bad-faith is one of the strongest reality-filters there is. For that reason I deeply distrust it and I fight that assumption in my own reasoning. As a result I'll be played for a fool every now and then, but the simple truth is that people are for the most part in earnest because it takes far too much effort to actually be a social Machiavelli.
I don't know if dios is a creationist or not. I come from a part of the US where the overwhelming majority are creationist, and that majority includes some pretty intelligent people. There are probably a portion of these people who are creationist by default and discourse can be productive. But for the rest this is the sort of thing that is anchored very, very deeply in one's worldview and is more emotional than intellectual. In a way, I think this is even more true in this case than in the larger matter of theism itself—because the point in contention is more "real" than the matter of theism but almost as central to one's worldview.
As someone on the evolutionist side of the debate, and with more then two decades experience in debating it, and with the unusual credential of some formal education in comparative evolution and creationism, I am completely sympathetic to the thrust of dios's contention in this post. The argument is extraordinarily stale, the very existence of these threads drains away a tiny bit of my will to live.
Nevertheless, a post's virtue should never be evaluated on the basis of its discussion alone. Dios probably could have more productively merely asked or suggested that the community might avoid the discussion, not the post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:29 PM on April 19, 2006
I don't know if dios is a creationist or not. I come from a part of the US where the overwhelming majority are creationist, and that majority includes some pretty intelligent people. There are probably a portion of these people who are creationist by default and discourse can be productive. But for the rest this is the sort of thing that is anchored very, very deeply in one's worldview and is more emotional than intellectual. In a way, I think this is even more true in this case than in the larger matter of theism itself—because the point in contention is more "real" than the matter of theism but almost as central to one's worldview.
As someone on the evolutionist side of the debate, and with more then two decades experience in debating it, and with the unusual credential of some formal education in comparative evolution and creationism, I am completely sympathetic to the thrust of dios's contention in this post. The argument is extraordinarily stale, the very existence of these threads drains away a tiny bit of my will to live.
Nevertheless, a post's virtue should never be evaluated on the basis of its discussion alone. Dios probably could have more productively merely asked or suggested that the community might avoid the discussion, not the post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:29 PM on April 19, 2006
I think the "X is hurting MetaFilter and needs to stop!!" MeTa posts are hurting MetaFilter, and need to stop.
posted by fleacircus at 2:53 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by fleacircus at 2:53 PM on April 19, 2006
I haven't parsed his complaint as being that the Creationist argument isn't being given a fair shake, just that evolution/creation threads follow incredibly identical and therefore redundant paths.
That's a symptom of the problem he's describing. The very first line of his post makes it clear: "We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution." He may have misled you by wording the post in a manner such that it seems as though both sides are to blame. He makes it clearer later on in the thread, though:
Look through the threads and find the number of posts which actually support creationism. Look hard. There may be one or two per thread, if that. Then, sort through those comments to find the ones dios is talking about: posts which add nothing to the discussion, or in which the author insults those whom he disagrees with.
Will you find any? No, you won't. If you look really, really hard, and find one or two, you've found the exceptions to the rule.
Now, this is the reason I consider this whole thread a troll: dios picks a topic pretty much everybody on Metafilter agrees upon. He then posts a missive on MeTa calling for the removal of all future posts about this topic, simply because everybody agrees with each other in every post about said topic.
Isn't this an outrageous demand? Of course it is! Look at how many responses it's generated! And, look at how many times poor dios has been insulted and harassed throughout this thread! It worked exactly as planned!
Could he have done this with any other popular topic here on MeFi? Sure! He picked the evolution debate specifically because it was fresh and because one side of the debate enjoys near-unanimous support.
This MeTa is a troll. Plain as day.
posted by wakko at 3:09 PM on April 19, 2006
That's a symptom of the problem he's describing. The very first line of his post makes it clear: "We obviously can't have respectful discussions about evolution." He may have misled you by wording the post in a manner such that it seems as though both sides are to blame. He makes it clearer later on in the thread, though:
At the very least, the two or three jackasses who repeated the "summon bevets" thing should be given a timeout until the message is clear.He gives no counterexamples from the creationist camp. This is because none exist!
Look through the threads and find the number of posts which actually support creationism. Look hard. There may be one or two per thread, if that. Then, sort through those comments to find the ones dios is talking about: posts which add nothing to the discussion, or in which the author insults those whom he disagrees with.
Will you find any? No, you won't. If you look really, really hard, and find one or two, you've found the exceptions to the rule.
Now, this is the reason I consider this whole thread a troll: dios picks a topic pretty much everybody on Metafilter agrees upon. He then posts a missive on MeTa calling for the removal of all future posts about this topic, simply because everybody agrees with each other in every post about said topic.
Isn't this an outrageous demand? Of course it is! Look at how many responses it's generated! And, look at how many times poor dios has been insulted and harassed throughout this thread! It worked exactly as planned!
Could he have done this with any other popular topic here on MeFi? Sure! He picked the evolution debate specifically because it was fresh and because one side of the debate enjoys near-unanimous support.
This MeTa is a troll. Plain as day.
posted by wakko at 3:09 PM on April 19, 2006
...This MeTa is a troll. Plain as day.
Wakko nailed it. And Wakko knows a thing or two about trolling.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:16 PM on April 19, 2006
Wakko nailed it. And Wakko knows a thing or two about trolling.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:16 PM on April 19, 2006
wakko : "It worked exactly as planned!"
I was with you up to this point. I guess I don't see why it is self-evident that it's planned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't have been planned. I just don't see what switches it from "possible troll" to "plain as day".
posted by Bugbread at 3:27 PM on April 19, 2006
I was with you up to this point. I guess I don't see why it is self-evident that it's planned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't have been planned. I just don't see what switches it from "possible troll" to "plain as day".
posted by Bugbread at 3:27 PM on April 19, 2006
Shorter EB: I trust dios -- but then, I'm a sucker.
with love
posted by fleacircus at 3:30 PM on April 19, 2006
with love
posted by fleacircus at 3:30 PM on April 19, 2006
Man, I should start reading through dios's old threads. He's got the lot of you chasing your own tails. One gets the impression he could start a major flamewar with a single line post saying "I love happy puppets".
I haven't seen someone dominate a community like this since vintage Usenet days.
posted by tkolar at 5:17 PM on April 19, 2006
I haven't seen someone dominate a community like this since vintage Usenet days.
posted by tkolar at 5:17 PM on April 19, 2006
Tkolar,
If you want to check out past MetaDominators, dhoyt, parisparamus, and alexreynolds/rothko also make interesting reads.
posted by Bugbread at 5:23 PM on April 19, 2006
If you want to check out past MetaDominators, dhoyt, parisparamus, and alexreynolds/rothko also make interesting reads.
posted by Bugbread at 5:23 PM on April 19, 2006
I have gotten enough of a sense of your posting habits that my suggestion wasn't directed at you specifically.
Rrrr. That sort of pale-skinned, diluted superciliousness always gives me a semi-horn in the worst way.
posted by Decani at 7:13 PM on April 19, 2006
Rrrr. That sort of pale-skinned, diluted superciliousness always gives me a semi-horn in the worst way.
posted by Decani at 7:13 PM on April 19, 2006
Decani : "Rrrr. That sort of pale-skinned, diluted superciliousness always gives me a semi-horn in the worst way."
I know a place that rents rooms by the hour. Let's go.
posted by Bugbread at 8:28 PM on April 19, 2006
I know a place that rents rooms by the hour. Let's go.
posted by Bugbread at 8:28 PM on April 19, 2006
This MeTa is a troll. Plain as day.
Zackly. The dios is neither benevolent nor malevolent - it merely sees this site and its inhabitants as just a Sim game to be tweaked.
I'm just electrons! Shiny shiny electrons! Wheeeeeee!
posted by hangashore at 8:34 PM on April 19, 2006
Zackly. The dios is neither benevolent nor malevolent - it merely sees this site and its inhabitants as just a Sim game to be tweaked.
I'm just electrons! Shiny shiny electrons! Wheeeeeee!
posted by hangashore at 8:34 PM on April 19, 2006
And I feel sorry for (and point and laugh at) the folks who share your thoughts hangashore.
posted by Witty at 9:47 AM on April 20, 2006
posted by Witty at 9:47 AM on April 20, 2006
Nothing you do matters in the long run. Everything will be los t when the sun supernovas. It's all for naught. Weep, gnash, wail, it matters not. Such is the way of those who know.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:07 PM on April 20, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 2:07 PM on April 20, 2006
^^ All the more reason that if you don't like it, you should skip it. You know, sarcasticly and all.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 2:22 PM on April 20, 2006
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 2:22 PM on April 20, 2006
five fresh fish wrote...
Nothing you do matters in the long run.
Exactly. And since things lack any intrinsic importance on their own, we are free to assign any relative values we like to them.
I'm pretty sure this fact accounts for both professional sports and internet flame wars.
posted by tkolar at 4:46 PM on April 20, 2006
Nothing you do matters in the long run.
Exactly. And since things lack any intrinsic importance on their own, we are free to assign any relative values we like to them.
I'm pretty sure this fact accounts for both professional sports and internet flame wars.
posted by tkolar at 4:46 PM on April 20, 2006
ohhhh this thread has me in stitches.
Why can't I get metafilter in the mail?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:47 AM on April 22, 2006
Why can't I get metafilter in the mail?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:47 AM on April 22, 2006
Nothing you do matters in the long run. Everything will be los t when the sun supernovas. It's all for naught. Weep, gnash, wail, it matters not. Such is the way of those who know.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:07 PM PST on April 20
Our sun isn't large enough to supernova; it will probably become a red giant, then a white dwarf.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:38 AM on April 24, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 2:07 PM PST on April 20
Our sun isn't large enough to supernova; it will probably become a red giant, then a white dwarf.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:38 AM on April 24, 2006
"Our sun isn't large enough to supernova..."
Not if it catches a passing rogue star or brown dwarf. It's not like I'm spoiled for how this solar system ends or anything, I'm just pointing out the possibility. I really have no knowledge of the frequency of the resulting pulsar or the extinction of nascent life in a system within what now is known as the Orion nebula. This is all just wild speculation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:04 AM on April 24, 2006
Not if it catches a passing rogue star or brown dwarf. It's not like I'm spoiled for how this solar system ends or anything, I'm just pointing out the possibility. I really have no knowledge of the frequency of the resulting pulsar or the extinction of nascent life in a system within what now is known as the Orion nebula. This is all just wild speculation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:04 AM on April 24, 2006
I don't get it, EB.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:13 AM on April 24, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:13 AM on April 24, 2006
This was just an example of the portion of my sense of humor that no one, ever, "gets". That should probably tell me something, I suppose.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:37 AM on April 24, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:37 AM on April 24, 2006
Metafilter n'a que de l'haine pour les croyants. <snap>
posted by blue_beetle at 3:09 PM on April 24, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 3:09 PM on April 24, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by keswick at 12:29 PM on April 18, 2006