What happened to the Dawkins/Atheist post? September 22, 2006 9:57 AM Subscribe
Forgive my ignorance, but what happened to the Dawkins/Atheist post? I was enjoying the article over lunch and when I popped back to the front page, it was gone. Was it a double?
Still disappointed in Baby Balrog for the freeper link. :(
posted by boo_radley at 10:00 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 10:00 AM on September 22, 2006
yeah, but what I want to know is, where the hell is the spell checker? I forgot how to spell Mafia.
posted by crunchland at 10:01 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by crunchland at 10:01 AM on September 22, 2006
Wow, this took less time than I expected.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on September 22, 2006
The article is still there. And if you are interested in mefite's opinions on it, mediareport provided a handy summary.
posted by vacapinta at 10:02 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 10:02 AM on September 22, 2006
Thanking you for the quick response...the discussion clearly wasn't worth the effort.
posted by cyclopz at 10:12 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by cyclopz at 10:12 AM on September 22, 2006
Still disappointed in Baby Balrog for the freeper link. :(
it's even more disappointing that no one refuted it
i've seen similar articles in other places ... from my understanding of history, the numbers cited on freep seem to be accurate
to those who deny the premise of this article - where's your numbers?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM on September 22, 2006
it's even more disappointing that no one refuted it
i've seen similar articles in other places ... from my understanding of history, the numbers cited on freep seem to be accurate
to those who deny the premise of this article - where's your numbers?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM on September 22, 2006
WHEN WILL WE TEACH N00BZ ABOUT ACCESSING URLS? ABOUT EVEN NOTICING URLS? DO N00BZ EVER WONDER WHAT THAT WEIRD STUFF IN THE ADDRESS BAR IS? ABOUT THE WEIRD STUFF IN THE STATUS BAR THAT APPEARS WHEN HOVERING OVER LINK TEXT? DO N00BZ EVEN KNOW WHAT A STATUS BAR, HOVERING, OR LINK TEXT IS? MUST WE FOREVER EXPLAIN TO N00BZ HOW TO OPERATE BROWSERS?
posted by quonsar at 10:30 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by quonsar at 10:30 AM on September 22, 2006
I think if you favorite a thread, you can still get back to it even if it's deleted.
It's too bad that thread was toasted, actually, I just read through the discussian and actually it seemed to be going pretty well.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 AM on September 22, 2006
It's too bad that thread was toasted, actually, I just read through the discussian and actually it seemed to be going pretty well.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 AM on September 22, 2006
it's even more disappointing that no one refuted it
They did refute it, the pointed out it was on free republic. What more do you need?
(But seriously, why even bother reading something posted there?)
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on September 22, 2006
They did refute it, the pointed out it was on free republic. What more do you need?
(But seriously, why even bother reading something posted there?)
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on September 22, 2006
It's too bad that thread was toasted, actually, I just read through the discussian and actually it seemed to be going pretty well.
For the millionth time, too. It's an old article on a topic we've discussed endlessly.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on September 22, 2006
For the millionth time, too. It's an old article on a topic we've discussed endlessly.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on September 22, 2006
Good points, everybody.
But consider this... perhaps, it is atheism that has killed more people than religion?
Chew on THAT.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2006
But consider this... perhaps, it is atheism that has killed more people than religion?
Chew on THAT.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2006
Nah.
posted by interrobang at 10:51 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by interrobang at 10:51 AM on September 22, 2006
It's an old article on a topic we've discussed endlessly.
But... but... we were so close to solving the problem!
Now we'll never have closure.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2006
But... but... we were so close to solving the problem!
Now we'll never have closure.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2006
i've seen similar articles in other places ... from my understanding of history, the numbers cited on freep seem to be accurate
to those who deny the premise of this article - where's your numbers?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM PST on September 22
Dictatorships based on a fear and cultlike veneration can hardly be called secular, my man.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2006
to those who deny the premise of this article - where's your numbers?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:19 AM PST on September 22
Dictatorships based on a fear and cultlike veneration can hardly be called secular, my man.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2006
IM IN UR N00BZ DISREGARDIN UR ADDRESS BAR.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:00 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 11:00 AM on September 22, 2006
IM IN UR N00BZ DISREGARDIN UR ADDRESS BAR.
Damn, that joke is still slaying me.
AAAAAAAAA++++++ WOULD LAUGH AT IN YOUR BASE JOKE AGAIN
posted by GuyZero at 11:03 AM on September 22, 2006
all your in your base are belong to killin ur guys?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:04 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:04 AM on September 22, 2006
It's an old article on a topic we've discussed endlessly.
old article, exactly. on a book that's not even out yet. but, frankly, the tone of the deletion comment is, "enough with Dawkins". which kind of sucks, Dawkins is an important voice. if, say, next month, something good related to his new book comes out, I don't see why one shouldn't post it on the front page.
some people don't like atheism threads? fair enough. some don't like YouTube/GoogleVideo threads. etc.
despite Matt's advice in the "post a new link" page not to post anything that's Iraq-related, we have users (y2karl comes to mind but he's not alone) that consistently link to quality stuff about Iraq. it's all about quality of the posts, not about topics -- religion posts are quite often a good read
posted by matteo at 11:06 AM on September 22, 2006
old article, exactly. on a book that's not even out yet. but, frankly, the tone of the deletion comment is, "enough with Dawkins". which kind of sucks, Dawkins is an important voice. if, say, next month, something good related to his new book comes out, I don't see why one shouldn't post it on the front page.
some people don't like atheism threads? fair enough. some don't like YouTube/GoogleVideo threads. etc.
despite Matt's advice in the "post a new link" page not to post anything that's Iraq-related, we have users (y2karl comes to mind but he's not alone) that consistently link to quality stuff about Iraq. it's all about quality of the posts, not about topics -- religion posts are quite often a good read
posted by matteo at 11:06 AM on September 22, 2006
After -- how many years has this site been up? -- it's hard to think of a subject that "hasn't been done already", is it not? Are we seeing the dawn of a less crowded front page?
posted by clevershark at 11:11 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by clevershark at 11:11 AM on September 22, 2006
let me see if i have this straight
religious person - "god exists"
unreligous person - "i can't take that on faith, prove it to me"
They did refute it, the pointed out it was on free republic. What more do you need?
Dictatorships based on a fear and cultlike veneration can hardly be called secular, my man.
me - "i'd like to see some numbers on religious and non-religious killings that refute this article"
unreligious person - "you'll just have to take it on faith that they're wrong ... look at where it's posted ... look at how i've redefined the terms ... believe me"
numbers talk, bullshit walks ... and a little consistency in standards of evidence and logic would be appreciated
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM on September 22, 2006
religious person - "god exists"
unreligous person - "i can't take that on faith, prove it to me"
They did refute it, the pointed out it was on free republic. What more do you need?
Dictatorships based on a fear and cultlike veneration can hardly be called secular, my man.
me - "i'd like to see some numbers on religious and non-religious killings that refute this article"
unreligious person - "you'll just have to take it on faith that they're wrong ... look at where it's posted ... look at how i've redefined the terms ... believe me"
numbers talk, bullshit walks ... and a little consistency in standards of evidence and logic would be appreciated
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM on September 22, 2006
It was a fine post, until it was Coulterized.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:33 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:33 AM on September 22, 2006
we have users (y2karl comes to mind but he's not alone) that consistently link to quality stuff about Iraq.
And those posts remain while axegrinding LOL BUSH = HITLER post go away. Also, the Iraq situation is changing and evolving. The atheism posts tend to say the same thing over and over and the discussions tend to go the same way, and often they turn into angry aggressive flamewars that aren't real beneficial to the community and spread ill-will. If something new is coming up in the world of atheism -- some sort of discrimination, someone outs themself as an atheist, an atheist runs for president/ceo/whatever -- then a post about atheism would be super. Otherwise it's just another cat declawing thread where the same people fight with the same people about the same topics, forever and always, amen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:39 AM on September 22, 2006
And those posts remain while axegrinding LOL BUSH = HITLER post go away. Also, the Iraq situation is changing and evolving. The atheism posts tend to say the same thing over and over and the discussions tend to go the same way, and often they turn into angry aggressive flamewars that aren't real beneficial to the community and spread ill-will. If something new is coming up in the world of atheism -- some sort of discrimination, someone outs themself as an atheist, an atheist runs for president/ceo/whatever -- then a post about atheism would be super. Otherwise it's just another cat declawing thread where the same people fight with the same people about the same topics, forever and always, amen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:39 AM on September 22, 2006
if, say, next month, something good related to his new book comes out...
GodlessBlue?
some people don't like atheism threads? fair enough. some don't like YouTube/GoogleVideo threads. etc.
Disengenuous. You of all people should be able to appreciate the different between the content of an FPP and how the content is presented. If every YouTube FPP was about people being hit in the groin, you'd be right. And it would be awesome.
There are new and interesting stories coming out of Iraq everyday. A Dawkins on Atheism post is essentially dog bites man, regardless of how articulate or entertaining it may be.
As for the Freeper link, was the content generated there?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:41 AM on September 22, 2006
GodlessBlue?
some people don't like atheism threads? fair enough. some don't like YouTube/GoogleVideo threads. etc.
Disengenuous. You of all people should be able to appreciate the different between the content of an FPP and how the content is presented. If every YouTube FPP was about people being hit in the groin, you'd be right. And it would be awesome.
There are new and interesting stories coming out of Iraq everyday. A Dawkins on Atheism post is essentially dog bites man, regardless of how articulate or entertaining it may be.
As for the Freeper link, was the content generated there?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:41 AM on September 22, 2006
Or what that Book Lady said.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:42 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:42 AM on September 22, 2006
matteo: "... which kind of sucks, Dawkins is an important voice."
Ech, pop science = pop religion = all the same damned bullshit.
posted by koeselitz at 11:49 AM on September 22, 2006
Ech, pop science = pop religion = all the same damned bullshit.
posted by koeselitz at 11:49 AM on September 22, 2006
numbers talk, bullshit walks ... and a little consistency in standards of evidence and logic would be appreciated
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM PST on September 22
Well, the Crusades count as an example of Christianity being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. George W. Bush sending troops to kill thousands of "enemy combatants" who just happen to be Muslim does not.
A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance atheism counts as atheism being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance his or his party's personal power does not.
There will be murder and war no matter who is in charge and what their views on the supernatural are. But if we're going to points fingers at an ideology, then intent counts.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:56 AM on September 22, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM PST on September 22
Well, the Crusades count as an example of Christianity being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. George W. Bush sending troops to kill thousands of "enemy combatants" who just happen to be Muslim does not.
A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance atheism counts as atheism being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance his or his party's personal power does not.
There will be murder and war no matter who is in charge and what their views on the supernatural are. But if we're going to points fingers at an ideology, then intent counts.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:56 AM on September 22, 2006
I think it was a mistake to delete that thread. The rising tide of religion in the US, which has no counterpart in the rest of the developed world, but is mirrored in poor countries, is one of the most wondrous and mysterious and significant issues any thread possibly could address. Not only that, the thread produced an excellent comment from weapons-grade pandemonium which is the best criticism of Dawkin's approach to all this I have seen yet.
The world-weary, jaded tone of "yeah he does that a lot," if it is the true reason for the deletion, bespeaks a moderator dangerously close to burnout, and makes me wonder if I'm foolish to take this place so seriously, when someone who has such power over it appears to regard it with an attitude hard to distinguish from contempt.
posted by jamjam at 12:08 PM on September 22, 2006
The world-weary, jaded tone of "yeah he does that a lot," if it is the true reason for the deletion, bespeaks a moderator dangerously close to burnout, and makes me wonder if I'm foolish to take this place so seriously, when someone who has such power over it appears to regard it with an attitude hard to distinguish from contempt.
posted by jamjam at 12:08 PM on September 22, 2006
Please.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:12 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:12 PM on September 22, 2006
I hate to point this out, cyclopz, but you're aware that your browser likely has a history list, right? As in, if you were viewing the thread before lunch, left your desk, and came back to find the thread no longer on the front page, you can go into your browser history and find the page address again. Handy, that; much easier than a MeTa thread.
posted by delfuego at 12:15 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by delfuego at 12:15 PM on September 22, 2006
"This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members."
Unless Number One is tired of the topic.
posted by landis at 12:18 PM on September 22, 2006
Unless Number One is tired of the topic.
posted by landis at 12:18 PM on September 22, 2006
The rising tide of religion in the US, which has no counterpart in the rest of the developed world, but is mirrored in poor countries, is one of the most wondrous and mysterious and significant issues any thread possibly could address.
Setting aside entirely the question of wondrousness and myeteriousness metrics and where that topic would rate therein, Metafilter is not (I dare venture) a venue for "addressing issues" so much as "posting interesting shit on the web".
We get issues posts, and they live or die on their relative merits and originality. And when an issue starts coming up over and over again, merit and originality plummet.
The world-weary, jaded tone of "yeah he does that a lot," if it is the true reason for the deletion, bespeaks a moderator dangerously close to burnout, and makes me wonder if I'm foolish to take this place so seriously, when someone who has such power over it appears to regard it with an attitude hard to distinguish from contempt.
You are, perhaps, foolish to take your own probing analysis of Matt's (or Jess's?) mental state (based on an offhand remark) so seriously. It's just a snarky little deletion comment.
posted by cortex at 12:31 PM on September 22, 2006
Setting aside entirely the question of wondrousness and myeteriousness metrics and where that topic would rate therein, Metafilter is not (I dare venture) a venue for "addressing issues" so much as "posting interesting shit on the web".
We get issues posts, and they live or die on their relative merits and originality. And when an issue starts coming up over and over again, merit and originality plummet.
The world-weary, jaded tone of "yeah he does that a lot," if it is the true reason for the deletion, bespeaks a moderator dangerously close to burnout, and makes me wonder if I'm foolish to take this place so seriously, when someone who has such power over it appears to regard it with an attitude hard to distinguish from contempt.
You are, perhaps, foolish to take your own probing analysis of Matt's (or Jess's?) mental state (based on an offhand remark) so seriously. It's just a snarky little deletion comment.
posted by cortex at 12:31 PM on September 22, 2006
What jessamyn said. There are all sorts of topics that are among "the most wondrous and mysterious and significant issues any thread possibly could address" but that isn't sufficient cause to save a thread around here.
posted by vacapinta at 12:32 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 12:32 PM on September 22, 2006
Well, the Crusades count as an example of Christianity being responsible for pain, suffering, and death.
A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance atheism counts as atheism being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance his or his party's personal power does not.
the problem here is that you're assuming that actions like this can only have one motive ... certainly, a good part of the crusades' motivation was religious ... but greed, power, getting rid of "troublemakers" in christendom, and the old unfortunate bloodlust of people had their role to play, also
as far as advancing, say, the communist party's power, it's only fair to point out that atheism was a tenet of communism, one that was often enforced against the religious with extreme force ... again, greed, power, and all of that had a role to play, but there was often an anti-religious aspect to it, too ... why else would priests in russia or monks in tibet be sent to prison simply because they were priests and monks?
the point being that just as religion was an important component in medieval europe, atheism was an important component in soviet russia and other communist states ... one can't seperate this from the actions of the society as a whole, nor can one really point to it as the *only* cause of those actions
i don't think that the statement that more wars are caused by religion stands up well against the historical numbers or against the complexities of history
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 PM on September 22, 2006
A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance atheism counts as atheism being responsible for pain, suffering, and death. A leader massacring thousands or millions to advance his or his party's personal power does not.
the problem here is that you're assuming that actions like this can only have one motive ... certainly, a good part of the crusades' motivation was religious ... but greed, power, getting rid of "troublemakers" in christendom, and the old unfortunate bloodlust of people had their role to play, also
as far as advancing, say, the communist party's power, it's only fair to point out that atheism was a tenet of communism, one that was often enforced against the religious with extreme force ... again, greed, power, and all of that had a role to play, but there was often an anti-religious aspect to it, too ... why else would priests in russia or monks in tibet be sent to prison simply because they were priests and monks?
the point being that just as religion was an important component in medieval europe, atheism was an important component in soviet russia and other communist states ... one can't seperate this from the actions of the society as a whole, nor can one really point to it as the *only* cause of those actions
i don't think that the statement that more wars are caused by religion stands up well against the historical numbers or against the complexities of history
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 PM on September 22, 2006
Fair enough. How about "Wars are caused by people who have an ideology which include one vital component: This ideology should be enforced on other people."
posted by vacapinta at 12:51 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by vacapinta at 12:51 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
Ah, Metamagical Themas territory!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:06 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:06 PM on September 22, 2006
and often they turn into angry aggressive flamewars that aren't real beneficial to the community and spread ill-will
I blame God
posted by matteo at 1:10 PM on September 22, 2006
I blame God
posted by matteo at 1:10 PM on September 22, 2006
The Stalinist purges in the Soviet Union all had one thing in common. They were an attempt to maintain Stalin's grip on power. It's true that Stalin went after the religious, because he saw them as a threat. He went after damn near everyone else, too. Engineers and scientists were executed and sent to the gulags for being engineers and scientists. That doesn't mean that the Soviet purges were primarily anti-science. The essence of those purges were authoritarianism. You were meant to follow Stalin, no matter what. If that meant turning in your own family, so be it.
It's bizarre to try and peg atheists like Dawkins with the same brush as Stalin. Dawkins is a humanist and a skeptic. Both of those result in a rejection of authoritarianism (and hence religion, which Dawkins views as an authoritarian institution). If Dawkins had lived during Stalin's time, he'd be one of the first to be purged. Atheism isn't an idiology ---it's a rejection of certain types of ideology (religion). Communism is an ideology. Humanism is an ideology. If you want to compare ideologies, you should stack humanism up against religion, not atheism.
posted by Humanzee at 1:18 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
It's bizarre to try and peg atheists like Dawkins with the same brush as Stalin. Dawkins is a humanist and a skeptic. Both of those result in a rejection of authoritarianism (and hence religion, which Dawkins views as an authoritarian institution). If Dawkins had lived during Stalin's time, he'd be one of the first to be purged. Atheism isn't an idiology ---it's a rejection of certain types of ideology (religion). Communism is an ideology. Humanism is an ideology. If you want to compare ideologies, you should stack humanism up against religion, not atheism.
posted by Humanzee at 1:18 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
pyramid termite: you are in for such a paddling.
posted by boo_radley at 1:20 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 1:20 PM on September 22, 2006
delfuego...I appreciate your attempt to be diplomatic in dancing around my browser skills or lack thereof. I am perfectly comfortable using a browser. As it happens, my work internet filter prevents access to MeFi as a "chat" site. I have access to most filtered sites through another piece of software using its own dedicated pipe that the tech police haven't figured out yet. Unfortunately, that piece of software gives me very little control over the browser beyond back/forward/stop/refresh and does not display an address bar. So I apologize for troubling any of you with my question.
Returning to the Dawkins thing...I know double posts drive many of you regulars to distraction...I can only visit intermittantly and sometimes doubles point out something interesting that I missed the first time around...
You may now return to your navel gazing...
posted by cyclopz at 1:25 PM on September 22, 2006
Returning to the Dawkins thing...I know double posts drive many of you regulars to distraction...I can only visit intermittantly and sometimes doubles point out something interesting that I missed the first time around...
You may now return to your navel gazing...
posted by cyclopz at 1:25 PM on September 22, 2006
I think it was a mistake to delete that thread. The rising tide of religion in the US [blah blah blah]
Oh for fuck's sake. So having yet another thread where Team Atheist hollers "God suXX0rz and besides he doesn't exist and he kills people!" and Team Religion hollers "Does too exist because I know and besides atheists kill more people!"... this is going to affect the world how exactly? If you need it for your personal stimulation, please go read one of the many pre-existing threads that consist of such exchanges. Posting more of it because it gives you a thrill is not what MetaFilter is for.
posted by languagehat at 1:38 PM on September 22, 2006
Oh for fuck's sake. So having yet another thread where Team Atheist hollers "God suXX0rz and besides he doesn't exist and he kills people!" and Team Religion hollers "Does too exist because I know and besides atheists kill more people!"... this is going to affect the world how exactly? If you need it for your personal stimulation, please go read one of the many pre-existing threads that consist of such exchanges. Posting more of it because it gives you a thrill is not what MetaFilter is for.
posted by languagehat at 1:38 PM on September 22, 2006
You know what we need, we need at MeRant section. Instead of deleting these highly amusing threads, just shunt 'em over to MeRant.
posted by scheptech at 1:40 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by scheptech at 1:40 PM on September 22, 2006
Remember rinkjustice and bevets?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:41 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:41 PM on September 22, 2006
I have access to most filtered sites through another piece of software using its own dedicated pipe that the tech police haven't figured out yet. Unfortunately, that piece of software gives me very little control over the browser beyond back/forward/stop/refresh and does not display an address bar.
Have you looked into TorPark?
posted by timeistight at 1:50 PM on September 22, 2006
Have you looked into TorPark?
posted by timeistight at 1:50 PM on September 22, 2006
It's about the links, not the discussion, right? Whenever this subject comes up, lots of relative long-timers do flip-flops and say that no, we can't have posts criticizing religion because the discussion is unpleasant, even if the link is reasonable (Salon articles are pretty common on the front page). Please hope me and get your argument straight.
Humanzee wrote: Atheism isn't an idiology ---it's a rejection of certain types of ideology (religion). Communism is an ideology. Humanism is an ideology. If you want to compare ideologies, you should stack humanism up against religion, not atheism.
At least somebody seems to have a brain today.
posted by bardic at 1:50 PM on September 22, 2006
Humanzee wrote: Atheism isn't an idiology ---it's a rejection of certain types of ideology (religion). Communism is an ideology. Humanism is an ideology. If you want to compare ideologies, you should stack humanism up against religion, not atheism.
At least somebody seems to have a brain today.
posted by bardic at 1:50 PM on September 22, 2006
pyramid termite: Ha, yes, bullshit walks. My objection remains that Freeper articles don't really unite in any way. Starforce 5's original comment -- the one that Baby Balrog linked to -- was a far better way to express any anti-atheist thought than "lol if we were all atheists we'd stop killing each other lol and everybody would get free icecream lol".
Getting down to petty bullshit brass tacks: To have you then argue that there are merits to such a post, that I have somehow done anyone a disservice by not carefully reading, examining and considering such ill-conceived apologist nonsense.
Fine.
I'll start, at the urging of the Freeper article, by playing the "who killed more?" game, repulsive and pointless as it may be. Let us discard ethical considerations, and consider the number of people killed posted within the article. We'll also put aside questions of culpability that may arise, e.g. "How much responsibility does the head of state have for actions taken in the name of a country?".
I refer here to the table listed under the heading "The 20th Century's Bloodiest Murderers", reproduced below for convenience.
Ruler Country Reign Start Reign End Total People Killed Reign Length People Killed per year Joseph Stalin Soviet Union 1929 1953 42,672,000 24 1,778,000 Mao Tse-tung China 1923 1976 37,828,000 53 713,736 Adolf Hitler Germany 1933 1945 20,946,000 6 1,745,500 Chiang Kai-shek China 1921 1948 10,214,000 27 378,296 Vladimir Lenin Soviet Union 1917 1924 4,017,000 7 573,857 Tojo Hideki Japan 1941 1945 3,990,000 4 997,500 Pol Pot Cambodia 1968 1987 2,397,000 19 126,158 Yahya Khan Pakistan 1971 1972 1,500,000 1 1,500,000 Josip Tito Yugoslavia 1941 1987 1,172,000 46 25,478
Firstly, how are we to reconcile the numbers that are listed for Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung? They are both Chinese leaders whose apparent reigns overlapped. There are probably several ways, but at a glance, it's odd. Do the overlapping years count against both? Were deaths that years divided equally between the two?
Secondly, the reigns of each ruler are quite disparate. Mao ruled for 53 years, and thus had the longest period of time in order to rack up numbers. I have added an average of people killed per year to provide another perspective: The Chinese dictators killed consistently, but in low number. Stalin and Hitler killed people in far larger numbers, but over shorter times. Further, I suspect that it might be more accurate to gauge Hitler's killings from 1939, the year the Holocaust started. Doing so puts him in the #1 position.
Thirdly, the majority of these men (I'm not to sure who Yahya Khan is) assumed power using strong cults of personality, typically during crippling national crises. More than religion (or communism) being the foundation of each man's power, it was their cult of personality that propelled them to power. Do you think that it's coincidence that Maoism, Stalinism, and even Titoism are discrete and separate forms of communism?
Fourthly, I'm not sure how well anyone is served by examining these top ten. To say that all "less bloody murderers" are totally irrelevant is not true.
So there's some contestations of Freeper data. It's inaccurate, measured over different times, and points more to the dangers of charismatic leaders than non-religious leaders.
Let's examine the article in pieces now. ¶2
¶3:
¶4:
... Oh my god, I've spent way too long on this. I have to go back to work.
posted by boo_radley at 1:53 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
Getting down to petty bullshit brass tacks: To have you then argue that there are merits to such a post, that I have somehow done anyone a disservice by not carefully reading, examining and considering such ill-conceived apologist nonsense.
Fine.
I'll start, at the urging of the Freeper article, by playing the "who killed more?" game, repulsive and pointless as it may be. Let us discard ethical considerations, and consider the number of people killed posted within the article. We'll also put aside questions of culpability that may arise, e.g. "How much responsibility does the head of state have for actions taken in the name of a country?".
I refer here to the table listed under the heading "The 20th Century's Bloodiest Murderers", reproduced below for convenience.
Firstly, how are we to reconcile the numbers that are listed for Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung? They are both Chinese leaders whose apparent reigns overlapped. There are probably several ways, but at a glance, it's odd. Do the overlapping years count against both? Were deaths that years divided equally between the two?
Secondly, the reigns of each ruler are quite disparate. Mao ruled for 53 years, and thus had the longest period of time in order to rack up numbers. I have added an average of people killed per year to provide another perspective: The Chinese dictators killed consistently, but in low number. Stalin and Hitler killed people in far larger numbers, but over shorter times. Further, I suspect that it might be more accurate to gauge Hitler's killings from 1939, the year the Holocaust started. Doing so puts him in the #1 position.
Thirdly, the majority of these men (I'm not to sure who Yahya Khan is) assumed power using strong cults of personality, typically during crippling national crises. More than religion (or communism) being the foundation of each man's power, it was their cult of personality that propelled them to power. Do you think that it's coincidence that Maoism, Stalinism, and even Titoism are discrete and separate forms of communism?
Fourthly, I'm not sure how well anyone is served by examining these top ten. To say that all "less bloody murderers" are totally irrelevant is not true.
So there's some contestations of Freeper data. It's inaccurate, measured over different times, and points more to the dangers of charismatic leaders than non-religious leaders.
Let's examine the article in pieces now. ¶2
Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gunI wish the author had addressed this.
¶3:
There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.This is, of course, nonsense. If you commit an act of murder against someone and claim it in the name of God, I'm not going to split hairs and ask if you were properly interpreting scripture. This is a simplistic device for the apologist to distance himself from any possible misdeed. Further, there are many references to violence against non-believers in the bible. [1, 2, quite a bit of Ezekiel].
¶4:
It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.Well, it's my understanding that when Muslims talk about the sword, it's in reference to jihad, the inner struggle between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harhb, which dwell in the hearts of men. Sort of like how the Christian God is a Sword and Shield. Metaphors.
... Oh my god, I've spent way too long on this. I have to go back to work.
posted by boo_radley at 1:53 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
Posting more of it because it gives you a thrill is not what MetaFilter is for. - languagehat
Hey hypocrite. Which side are you on, exactly? Skipping it if it doesn't interest you, or understanding that MeFi is no one's soapbox?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:54 PM on September 22, 2006
Hey hypocrite. Which side are you on, exactly? Skipping it if it doesn't interest you, or understanding that MeFi is no one's soapbox?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:54 PM on September 22, 2006
Congratulations, SeizeTheDay - you just won the annual "Purposefully Obtuse" award. You can claim your prize at the front desk.
posted by muddgirl at 2:04 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by muddgirl at 2:04 PM on September 22, 2006
If it's okay with you, I'll trade you my "Useless Snark" award. Seems fitting.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:06 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:06 PM on September 22, 2006
Sorry. I have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to languagehat. *makes moony eyes*
posted by muddgirl at 2:08 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by muddgirl at 2:08 PM on September 22, 2006
Hey, we all have our favorites here, right?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:10 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:10 PM on September 22, 2006
You are, perhaps, foolish to take your own probing analysis of Matt's (or Jess's?) mental state (based on an offhand remark) so seriously. It's just a snarky little deletion comment.
You may well be right, cortex. I'll do my best to keep your stricture in mind.
posted by jamjam at 2:17 PM on September 22, 2006
You may well be right, cortex. I'll do my best to keep your stricture in mind.
posted by jamjam at 2:17 PM on September 22, 2006
makes me wonder if I'm foolish to take this place so seriously
If you're taking a blog on the internet seriously, period, then you probably need to step back and re-evaluate things.
Hell, most of the problems here are caused by people who think that this is their soapbox from which they will save the world and make peace and justice issue forth from every monitor.
posted by darukaru at 2:35 PM on September 22, 2006
If you're taking a blog on the internet seriously, period, then you probably need to step back and re-evaluate things.
Hell, most of the problems here are caused by people who think that this is their soapbox from which they will save the world and make peace and justice issue forth from every monitor.
posted by darukaru at 2:35 PM on September 22, 2006
most of the problems here are caused by people who think that this is their soapbox from which they will save the world and make peace and justice issue forth from every monitor
No, most of the problems here are caused by people acting like assholes (I include myself in this category). The blue has been pretty strong lately, especially during the August sweepstakes thing.
Dare I say the unthinkable? If you don't like it, skip it.
posted by bardic at 2:37 PM on September 22, 2006
No, most of the problems here are caused by people acting like assholes (I include myself in this category). The blue has been pretty strong lately, especially during the August sweepstakes thing.
Dare I say the unthinkable? If you don't like it, skip it.
posted by bardic at 2:37 PM on September 22, 2006
What is wrong with taking this place seriously? Most of the people here are intelligent and highly passionate about things. If we are not to take intelligent people commenting on important issues seriously, then what deserves our "seriousness"?
I could just as easily say, "If you're taking words printed on paper seriously . . . .
posted by landis at 2:41 PM on September 22, 2006
I could just as easily say, "If you're taking words printed on paper seriously . . . .
posted by landis at 2:41 PM on September 22, 2006
They were an attempt to maintain Stalin's grip on power.
so? ... it would be an extraordinarily naive reading of medieval history to claim that popes, emperors and kings weren't also motivated by that
More than religion (or communism) being the foundation of each man's power, it was their cult of personality that propelled them to power.
but kings and popes never indulged in anything like a cult of personality?
you can nitpick at those figures all you'd like, but the bottom line is that those wars had little or nothing to do with religion ... which was one of the basic points of the freeper article
"The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. "
that assertion, by your own figures, has been refuted
"The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination."
i don't think that's arguable, either ... you can of course claim that atheism was not a major active component in many of these cases and there's a good argument for that ... but you should also note that *i* haven't been using "atheist" wars as a contrast, but non-religious wars ... and what i did say was that the motivations for wars are more complex than having just *one* motive ... meaning that just as we can't eliminate power and greed from either kind of war we've been talking about, neither can we eliminate religion or atheism as factors, when they are part of the societies involved in these wars
If you commit an act of murder against someone and claim it in the name of God, I'm not going to split hairs and ask if you were properly interpreting scripture.
well, someone should, because that person's followers sure aren't going to do it ... i certainly don't deny that religious fanatics have murdered people ... the question is, how accurately are they following the beliefs of their religion?
Well, it's my understanding that when Muslims talk about the sword, it's in reference to jihad, the inner struggle between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harhb, which dwell in the hearts of men. Sort of like how the Christian God is a Sword and Shield. Metaphors.
or, as the history of the crusades (not to mention the reformation) and the first few hundred years of islam demonstrated, there were times when religion as a sword was taken literally ... and it's only fair to point out that the first 300 years of christianity and islam played out quite differently
i tend to see this as more coming from human nature than from what kind of holy book they read, but there's no doubt that what people regard as holy can be an influence
i'll repeat it again ... "religion causes most wars" is simplistic and misleading
posted by pyramid termite at 2:51 PM on September 22, 2006
so? ... it would be an extraordinarily naive reading of medieval history to claim that popes, emperors and kings weren't also motivated by that
More than religion (or communism) being the foundation of each man's power, it was their cult of personality that propelled them to power.
but kings and popes never indulged in anything like a cult of personality?
you can nitpick at those figures all you'd like, but the bottom line is that those wars had little or nothing to do with religion ... which was one of the basic points of the freeper article
"The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. "
that assertion, by your own figures, has been refuted
"The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination."
i don't think that's arguable, either ... you can of course claim that atheism was not a major active component in many of these cases and there's a good argument for that ... but you should also note that *i* haven't been using "atheist" wars as a contrast, but non-religious wars ... and what i did say was that the motivations for wars are more complex than having just *one* motive ... meaning that just as we can't eliminate power and greed from either kind of war we've been talking about, neither can we eliminate religion or atheism as factors, when they are part of the societies involved in these wars
If you commit an act of murder against someone and claim it in the name of God, I'm not going to split hairs and ask if you were properly interpreting scripture.
well, someone should, because that person's followers sure aren't going to do it ... i certainly don't deny that religious fanatics have murdered people ... the question is, how accurately are they following the beliefs of their religion?
Well, it's my understanding that when Muslims talk about the sword, it's in reference to jihad, the inner struggle between the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harhb, which dwell in the hearts of men. Sort of like how the Christian God is a Sword and Shield. Metaphors.
or, as the history of the crusades (not to mention the reformation) and the first few hundred years of islam demonstrated, there were times when religion as a sword was taken literally ... and it's only fair to point out that the first 300 years of christianity and islam played out quite differently
i tend to see this as more coming from human nature than from what kind of holy book they read, but there's no doubt that what people regard as holy can be an influence
i'll repeat it again ... "religion causes most wars" is simplistic and misleading
posted by pyramid termite at 2:51 PM on September 22, 2006
Ugh, take it to MetaTalk, for . . . oh.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:53 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:53 PM on September 22, 2006
How about "Wars are caused by people who have an ideology which include one vital component: This ideology should be enforced on other people."
i think if we include "land, people, toys etc etc should all belong to ME" as an ideology, that pretty much covers it
posted by pyramid termite at 2:57 PM on September 22, 2006
i think if we include "land, people, toys etc etc should all belong to ME" as an ideology, that pretty much covers it
posted by pyramid termite at 2:57 PM on September 22, 2006
But having an invisible sky wizard looking out for you every step of the way sure helps. (I know mine does.)
posted by bardic at 3:01 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:01 PM on September 22, 2006
What is wrong with taking this place seriously?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "take seriously".
I frankly take Metafilter very seriously in some respects—I have not found a site at which I have developed a stronger sense of community, and I care that this place continues to exist and thrive in its own weird way. I argue about potential changes, about administrative proposals, etc.
I care for Metafilter like I might care for a favorite restaurant or club or bookstore. I like what's on the menu and I like the other patrons. I enjoy the atmosphere of the place. And I would be similarly distraught by the closing down of mefi as I would be with one of those venues—not shattered, but bummed and a no doubt out of sorts for a while as I figure out what to do or where to go when looking for what mefi used to provide.
And I take seriously the arguments of other (rational, engaging) mefites—I love the silliness of which this place and these folks are capable, but I don't discount everything as a lark, because I enjoy the fundamental intelligence and insight behind that silliness, and the sharp, forceful debate that sometimes appears.
However, there is taking the site seriously in the sense of respecting the merit of the place and it's community, and there is the entirely different matter of taking the site seriously in the sense of considering everything that happens here to be Serious Business.
Calls for exacting, prompt, prescriptive moderation; complaints about the failure of Matt and Jess, or of mefites as a group, to attend closely and sensitively to Joe Member's pet post or comment or objection; demands that long-standing mefi standards (of behavior, functionality, conversation) be modified or ignored to accomodate the desires of new or newly-outspoken members—these all are things that I have seen again and again manifest as Serious Business, things that fly in the face of the well-balanced and easy-going policy of not taking things too seriously.
This is a website. It's not your website; it's not your thesis defense; it's not a police state. Acting like it is any of those, and being upset when the community you're hijacking doesn't play along, is precisely what I would call taking this place too seriously.
I thought jamjam's complaint about the perceived mental construct (invoking things like contempt and burnout based on his emotionally biased interpretation of a neutral and run-of-the-mill deletion) is a good example. It's not that he's wrong to have an interest in the religion-in-America topic, but what he brings to mefi does not define what mefi is obliged to provide to him, and his failure to deal gracefully with that was definitely Taking Things Too Seriously. It happens. It's human. I've done that sort of thing too. But it's silly and out of line.
posted by cortex at 3:08 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "take seriously".
I frankly take Metafilter very seriously in some respects—I have not found a site at which I have developed a stronger sense of community, and I care that this place continues to exist and thrive in its own weird way. I argue about potential changes, about administrative proposals, etc.
I care for Metafilter like I might care for a favorite restaurant or club or bookstore. I like what's on the menu and I like the other patrons. I enjoy the atmosphere of the place. And I would be similarly distraught by the closing down of mefi as I would be with one of those venues—not shattered, but bummed and a no doubt out of sorts for a while as I figure out what to do or where to go when looking for what mefi used to provide.
And I take seriously the arguments of other (rational, engaging) mefites—I love the silliness of which this place and these folks are capable, but I don't discount everything as a lark, because I enjoy the fundamental intelligence and insight behind that silliness, and the sharp, forceful debate that sometimes appears.
However, there is taking the site seriously in the sense of respecting the merit of the place and it's community, and there is the entirely different matter of taking the site seriously in the sense of considering everything that happens here to be Serious Business.
Calls for exacting, prompt, prescriptive moderation; complaints about the failure of Matt and Jess, or of mefites as a group, to attend closely and sensitively to Joe Member's pet post or comment or objection; demands that long-standing mefi standards (of behavior, functionality, conversation) be modified or ignored to accomodate the desires of new or newly-outspoken members—these all are things that I have seen again and again manifest as Serious Business, things that fly in the face of the well-balanced and easy-going policy of not taking things too seriously.
This is a website. It's not your website; it's not your thesis defense; it's not a police state. Acting like it is any of those, and being upset when the community you're hijacking doesn't play along, is precisely what I would call taking this place too seriously.
I thought jamjam's complaint about the perceived mental construct (invoking things like contempt and burnout based on his emotionally biased interpretation of a neutral and run-of-the-mill deletion) is a good example. It's not that he's wrong to have an interest in the religion-in-America topic, but what he brings to mefi does not define what mefi is obliged to provide to him, and his failure to deal gracefully with that was definitely Taking Things Too Seriously. It happens. It's human. I've done that sort of thing too. But it's silly and out of line.
posted by cortex at 3:08 PM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
Dawkins is so softly spoken he must be gay, therefore anything he says is biased against life and truth and beauty and nature and God. Obv. No? A proud stand up straight atheist couldn't possibly sound so shrill. If the fucking wanker could drop an octave he'd sound like a bloody islamofacist. And these islamofarts, according to my entirely valid beliefs, like it up the arse from Allah should it please him[Dawkins]. Luckily Dawkins is the single best thing the atheist believer has, and presents no threat to, supposedly, irrational belief. You should understand that atheists also have faith, they are believers and that we are all born muslim. Fact. Those few of you that can even contemplate an objective reality somehow outside the narrative of an individual experience might disgust me. I defecate in your face. You love it.
posted by econous at 3:12 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by econous at 3:12 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Which side are you on, exactly? Skipping it if it doesn't interest you, or understanding that MeFi is no one's soapbox?
Given that the latter is going to happen (but really shouldn't) the best option is to choose the former. These aren't mutually exclusive positions.
posted by Cyrano at 3:12 PM on September 22, 2006
Given that the latter is going to happen (but really shouldn't) the best option is to choose the former. These aren't mutually exclusive positions.
posted by Cyrano at 3:12 PM on September 22, 2006
There are good theoretical grounds for thinking religion could mitigate genocide. Religions 'want' converts more than corpses, whereas areligious conquest would seem to have a tendency simply to regard any existing population as a sort of verminous infestation to be extirpated as expeditiously as possible.
posted by jamjam at 3:17 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by jamjam at 3:17 PM on September 22, 2006
Ideology and atheism peak in performance when confused.
posted by econous at 3:18 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by econous at 3:18 PM on September 22, 2006
Cortex, you're conflating mere bitching (desire for more consistent moderation) with thought police wanting to come along and close down your favorite restaurant of ideas. Or something like that. Mefi has and will always have issues. Putting pressure on the admins to do something about it doesn't equal an ideological putsch. Matthowie doesn't like certain topics -- fine. So he should continue to be as transparent as he can be with his decisions.
posted by bardic at 3:21 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:21 PM on September 22, 2006
My invisible sky wizard told me to eat apples covered in honey tonight after a nice dinner of braised lamb, then say some prayers and do some thinking over the next ten days, at the end of which I'll do some more organized thinking and prepare for the next year. He also told me to apologize to a bunch of people.
One of the most important things my invisible sky wizard told me was not to use him to stick my nose in other people's fucking business, and to give other people treats, like not being a dick to them. Those were his words, too, because my invisible sky wizard is both vengeful and a potty mouth.
posted by Captaintripps at 3:23 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
One of the most important things my invisible sky wizard told me was not to use him to stick my nose in other people's fucking business, and to give other people treats, like not being a dick to them. Those were his words, too, because my invisible sky wizard is both vengeful and a potty mouth.
posted by Captaintripps at 3:23 PM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
we are all born muslim
posted by econous at 3:12 PM PST on September 22
lol babies are dumb
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:24 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by econous at 3:12 PM PST on September 22
lol babies are dumb
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:24 PM on September 22, 2006
+-------------------+
| Mor'a'ns |
+-+-------+-------+-+
| | |
| | |
+-------+ +----+----+ +-------+
| You +--+ Islam +--+ Fuck |
+-------+ +---------+ +-------+
posted by econous at 3:26 PM on September 22, 2006 My invisible sky wizard totally screwed me over on the bills this month. The fucker.
posted by bardic at 3:27 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:27 PM on September 22, 2006
Cortex, you're conflating mere bitching (desire for more consistent moderation) with thought police wanting to come along and close down your favorite restaurant of ideas. Or something like that. Mefi has and will always have issues. Putting pressure on the admins to do something about it doesn't equal an ideological putsch. Matthowie doesn't like certain topics -- fine. So he should continue to be as transparent as he can be with his decisions.
Oh, don't get me wrong, bardic. I'm generally pretty conservative about keeping the featureset static around here, and other folks are in favor of more actively tweaking the site, and neither position is wrong.
My complaint is not about requests for transparency, nor about requests for feature additions or changes (or against those). My complaint is about the sheer bloody-minded insistence that such requests be acquiesced to or debated endlessly.
I believe the site ultimately does very well with a shrug-and-fix approach to moderation—Matt and Jess don't run around making declarations, we don't have a detailed lists of prescriptions and prohibitions, etc. When something bothers Matt, he does something about it. When it doesn't, he doesn't, unless an overwhelming community reponse becomes itself enough of a bother to motivate him to take action. That, honestly, seems like a pretty solid approach.
So folks raising issues, cool. Folks being a little persistent about those issues, understandable. Folks being self-absorbed pains in the ass about what they want changed? Fuck no. Proceed to the exit, and attend to the screendoor backswing while you're at it.
posted by cortex at 3:41 PM on September 22, 2006
Oh, don't get me wrong, bardic. I'm generally pretty conservative about keeping the featureset static around here, and other folks are in favor of more actively tweaking the site, and neither position is wrong.
My complaint is not about requests for transparency, nor about requests for feature additions or changes (or against those). My complaint is about the sheer bloody-minded insistence that such requests be acquiesced to or debated endlessly.
I believe the site ultimately does very well with a shrug-and-fix approach to moderation—Matt and Jess don't run around making declarations, we don't have a detailed lists of prescriptions and prohibitions, etc. When something bothers Matt, he does something about it. When it doesn't, he doesn't, unless an overwhelming community reponse becomes itself enough of a bother to motivate him to take action. That, honestly, seems like a pretty solid approach.
So folks raising issues, cool. Folks being a little persistent about those issues, understandable. Folks being self-absorbed pains in the ass about what they want changed? Fuck no. Proceed to the exit, and attend to the screendoor backswing while you're at it.
posted by cortex at 3:41 PM on September 22, 2006
That, honestly, seems like a pretty solid approach.
Actually, by definition, it's not an approach. It's a laissez-faire attitude that serves the site pretty well in most instances. And it's probably the only one that could possibly work, given the ratio of mods to members.
Folks being self-absorbed pains in the ass about what they want changed? Fuck no.
I agree, but I honestly can't name more than two users who do this a whole lot. And they do it in the blue via frequent thread-crapping moreso than in the gray via "calls for administrative change."
posted by bardic at 3:53 PM on September 22, 2006
Actually, by definition, it's not an approach. It's a laissez-faire attitude that serves the site pretty well in most instances. And it's probably the only one that could possibly work, given the ratio of mods to members.
Folks being self-absorbed pains in the ass about what they want changed? Fuck no.
I agree, but I honestly can't name more than two users who do this a whole lot. And they do it in the blue via frequent thread-crapping moreso than in the gray via "calls for administrative change."
posted by bardic at 3:53 PM on September 22, 2006
I don't take everything that happens here seriously; I've laughed out loud here more than I have most other places (both real and online) I frequent. But I do take it seriously when it seems that posts that don't sit well w/ Matt are deleted, especially when said posts have 50+ comments.
I quote again: "This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members." I know that MeFi is supposedly "The Best of the Web", but I don't see that edict on the "About" page.
The thing that drew me to MeFi years ago, and prompted me to pony up a fiver recently, was the discussion of the links, not so much the links themselves. I know that MeFi is many things to many people; I'm just concerned with the pattern I notice of discussion being stimied rather than fostered.
posted by landis at 3:53 PM on September 22, 2006
I quote again: "This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members." I know that MeFi is supposedly "The Best of the Web", but I don't see that edict on the "About" page.
The thing that drew me to MeFi years ago, and prompted me to pony up a fiver recently, was the discussion of the links, not so much the links themselves. I know that MeFi is many things to many people; I'm just concerned with the pattern I notice of discussion being stimied rather than fostered.
posted by landis at 3:53 PM on September 22, 2006
Hey hypocrite.
Oh, come on. Like muddgirl says (and I like the moony eyes!), you're deliberately being obtuse. It's silly to compare y2karl's informative posts on an ongoing, constantly changing topic of immediate importance with yet another post to yet another interchangeable Dawkins rant about religion. Proof: the former produces informed, intelligent commentary plus useful further links (along, of course, with the usual moronic whining about "war2karl" and the like); the latter produces nothing but chest-beating self-affirmation for atheists plus the kind of pointless back-and-forth I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying the former should stay because I like y2karl and the latter should go because I don't like Dawkins; I'm saying the former is good MeTa posting and the latter isn't. Is that clear enough?
posted by languagehat at 3:56 PM on September 22, 2006
Oh, come on. Like muddgirl says (and I like the moony eyes!), you're deliberately being obtuse. It's silly to compare y2karl's informative posts on an ongoing, constantly changing topic of immediate importance with yet another post to yet another interchangeable Dawkins rant about religion. Proof: the former produces informed, intelligent commentary plus useful further links (along, of course, with the usual moronic whining about "war2karl" and the like); the latter produces nothing but chest-beating self-affirmation for atheists plus the kind of pointless back-and-forth I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying the former should stay because I like y2karl and the latter should go because I don't like Dawkins; I'm saying the former is good MeTa posting and the latter isn't. Is that clear enough?
posted by languagehat at 3:56 PM on September 22, 2006
The thing that drew me to MeFi years ago, and prompted me to pony up a fiver recently, was the discussion of the links, not so much the links themselves.
That's nice, but it doesn't change the rules. MeFi is primarily about links. If it weren't, double posts would be fine. We all like the discussion, but that's not the focus of the site (even if it's the focus of your visiting).
posted by languagehat at 3:58 PM on September 22, 2006
That's nice, but it doesn't change the rules. MeFi is primarily about links. If it weren't, double posts would be fine. We all like the discussion, but that's not the focus of the site (even if it's the focus of your visiting).
posted by languagehat at 3:58 PM on September 22, 2006
Then perhaps the "About" page should be changed to make this clearer.
posted by landis at 4:00 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by landis at 4:00 PM on September 22, 2006
pointless back-and-forth
As opposed to what other kind? Oh, that's right -- back-and-forth of which languagehat approves.
posted by bardic at 4:01 PM on September 22, 2006
As opposed to what other kind? Oh, that's right -- back-and-forth of which languagehat approves.
posted by bardic at 4:01 PM on September 22, 2006
As to the point of FPP, "These are the starting points for discussions, and are ideally unique, interesting, valuable links accompanied by commentary that starts an engaging conversation."
I take this to mean, "Hey, look what I found. What do you think about it?" Not, "Hey, look what I found!"
Which says to me that the links are prmarily there for the discussion, not simply to click on.
In other words, if you go by the "About" page, this site is primarily about discussion, not links in and of themselves.
posted by landis at 4:07 PM on September 22, 2006
I take this to mean, "Hey, look what I found. What do you think about it?" Not, "Hey, look what I found!"
Which says to me that the links are prmarily there for the discussion, not simply to click on.
In other words, if you go by the "About" page, this site is primarily about discussion, not links in and of themselves.
posted by landis at 4:07 PM on September 22, 2006
Ha! The day has arrived when I agree with bardic.
The problem, Mr. hat, is that you're engaging in obviously biased conclusions based on very faulty assumptions. I'm equating the Dawkins thread and y2karl's rant because they're both opinionated, the resulting discussions have been done to death, and rarely does any positive result occur from allowing the conversations to occur (as can be seen by about a million past threads discussing THE EXACT SAME THING.
Your assumption is that Karl's posts are "good for MetaFilter" and create fruitful discussions while Dawkin's post (though "new" to MeFi, would be a pointless back-and-forth). I maintain that both would end the same. bardic disagrees, but at least his point is consistent. Yours is not.
You are a hypocrite. Hell so am I. But you're making a two-faced argument in the same day, which necessitates a call-out.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:13 PM on September 22, 2006
The problem, Mr. hat, is that you're engaging in obviously biased conclusions based on very faulty assumptions. I'm equating the Dawkins thread and y2karl's rant because they're both opinionated, the resulting discussions have been done to death, and rarely does any positive result occur from allowing the conversations to occur (as can be seen by about a million past threads discussing THE EXACT SAME THING.
Your assumption is that Karl's posts are "good for MetaFilter" and create fruitful discussions while Dawkin's post (though "new" to MeFi, would be a pointless back-and-forth). I maintain that both would end the same. bardic disagrees, but at least his point is consistent. Yours is not.
You are a hypocrite. Hell so am I. But you're making a two-faced argument in the same day, which necessitates a call-out.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:13 PM on September 22, 2006
Man, I really need that edit function. But my points are readable, if mangled.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:14 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:14 PM on September 22, 2006
metafiler: i came for the links and the discussion, but i stayed for the pissing elephants
posted by pyramid termite at 4:16 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 4:16 PM on September 22, 2006
Actually, I can live without the pissing elephants.
posted by landis at 4:17 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by landis at 4:17 PM on September 22, 2006
Actually, as mentioned in the y2karl thread, I think it does stand on its own merits -- the articles were from sources I don't normally get too, and the writing linked to was good. The only problem came from thread-crappers, as usual. A Dawkins post could probably pass muster, but it would require more than just an article about a book that isn't out.
As for the eternal links vs. discussion debate? Well, we know it's all about the links, right?
(This being what Wallace Stevens called a "Supreme Fiction." Of course it's not about the fucking links. It's about the personalities, but the sacrosanct "link > discussion" ideal fools us into thinking that spending time on mefi is much more edifying than it actually is. It's usenet with more bells and whistles and tantrums. And I happen to very much like and enjoy usenet with more bells and whistles and tantrums.)
posted by bardic at 4:32 PM on September 22, 2006
As for the eternal links vs. discussion debate? Well, we know it's all about the links, right?
(This being what Wallace Stevens called a "Supreme Fiction." Of course it's not about the fucking links. It's about the personalities, but the sacrosanct "link > discussion" ideal fools us into thinking that spending time on mefi is much more edifying than it actually is. It's usenet with more bells and whistles and tantrums. And I happen to very much like and enjoy usenet with more bells and whistles and tantrums.)
posted by bardic at 4:32 PM on September 22, 2006
landis, don't be such a pedant. The About page says one thing and it's about the site in general. The "post a link" page is more specific about what a post is: "Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else?"
The guidelines are more specific yet. "A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."
I do take it seriously when it seems that posts that don't sit well w/ Matt are deleted, especially when said posts have 50+ comments.
A few things here, and I'm sorry to say this in the "maybe you haven't been here long" tone of voice:
- Mathowie and I remove almost nothing that hasn't also been flagged, this is the "community policing" part. You may not agree with the deletion, but it's not just mathowie with a bug up his ass that gets a post removed.
- the number of comments in a thread is no indicator of the quality of a thread, and references to "but it had N comments!" don't really have a lot of weight, though we'd prefer to remove threads that break guidelines earlier rather than later to avoid people feeling that their special contributions were axed
- you can think the site is about whatever you want, based on a strict construction of what the About page says, but there are a lot of accumulated threads in MetaTalk that disagree with you. You don't have to like it, but please don't act like this has never come up before, if it's the case that you just haven't read the many threads that have addressed this very thing, the same threads that many of the posters here have read.
Also, FWIW, I'd personally love a few fewer y2k posts on nearly identical "this is todays news about Iraq" topics, but people don't flag them, they really don't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:37 PM on September 22, 2006
The guidelines are more specific yet. "A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."
I do take it seriously when it seems that posts that don't sit well w/ Matt are deleted, especially when said posts have 50+ comments.
A few things here, and I'm sorry to say this in the "maybe you haven't been here long" tone of voice:
- Mathowie and I remove almost nothing that hasn't also been flagged, this is the "community policing" part. You may not agree with the deletion, but it's not just mathowie with a bug up his ass that gets a post removed.
- the number of comments in a thread is no indicator of the quality of a thread, and references to "but it had N comments!" don't really have a lot of weight, though we'd prefer to remove threads that break guidelines earlier rather than later to avoid people feeling that their special contributions were axed
- you can think the site is about whatever you want, based on a strict construction of what the About page says, but there are a lot of accumulated threads in MetaTalk that disagree with you. You don't have to like it, but please don't act like this has never come up before, if it's the case that you just haven't read the many threads that have addressed this very thing, the same threads that many of the posters here have read.
Also, FWIW, I'd personally love a few fewer y2k posts on nearly identical "this is todays news about Iraq" topics, but people don't flag them, they really don't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:37 PM on September 22, 2006
Yes, I haven't been a member here for very long, but I've read the site almost daily for the last three years or so. So while I may not know every little thing, I think I've got a pretty good sense of the place.
And yes, I understand that threads can quickly inflate due to random crap. It's the ones where the discussion seems fairly on topic and get wiped that bother me.
As to my pedantry: I already live in a country where written guidelines are twisted to mean whatever one wants them to. All I ask is, if the written rules aren't to be taken as "rules", then change them. If it's good enough for congress . . . .
And I should say that I'm not mad at anyone. Just frustrated a little. Sorry.
posted by landis at 4:57 PM on September 22, 2006
And yes, I understand that threads can quickly inflate due to random crap. It's the ones where the discussion seems fairly on topic and get wiped that bother me.
As to my pedantry: I already live in a country where written guidelines are twisted to mean whatever one wants them to. All I ask is, if the written rules aren't to be taken as "rules", then change them. If it's good enough for congress . . . .
And I should say that I'm not mad at anyone. Just frustrated a little. Sorry.
posted by landis at 4:57 PM on September 22, 2006
Your assumption is that Karl's posts are "good for MetaFilter" and create fruitful discussions
No. Pay attention. What I'm saying is that Karl is posting new and interesting links that I enjoy for their own merits, regardless of the discussion. In fact, it wouldn't make any difference to me if there were no discussion at all; if I came into a thread and found no comments, I'd add a "thanks, y2karl" and go away content. If there is a discussion (which of course in practice there is), it's generally interesting because he posts new and interesting links, but the discussion is not the point. I doubt you can tell me with a straight face that anyone posts or reads those Dawkins rants purely for their merits as new and interesting things found on the internet. They're posted so that people can go on about how dumb religion is (and argue with the usual crew of theists who drop by to defend the deity). I've seen a lot of those threads, and very rarely is there anything the slightest new about them.
On occasion there is a genuinely interesting post about religion that provokes a genuinely interesting discussion, in which I'm happy to take part. I'm not complaining about those posts.
Actually, as mentioned in the y2karl thread, I think it does stand on its own merits -- the articles were from sources I don't normally get too, and the writing linked to was good. The only problem came from thread-crappers, as usual. A Dawkins post could probably pass muster, but it would require more than just an article about a book that isn't out.
So you agree with me, but you're insulting me anyway? What a sweet guy you are.
posted by languagehat at 5:07 PM on September 22, 2006
No. Pay attention. What I'm saying is that Karl is posting new and interesting links that I enjoy for their own merits, regardless of the discussion. In fact, it wouldn't make any difference to me if there were no discussion at all; if I came into a thread and found no comments, I'd add a "thanks, y2karl" and go away content. If there is a discussion (which of course in practice there is), it's generally interesting because he posts new and interesting links, but the discussion is not the point. I doubt you can tell me with a straight face that anyone posts or reads those Dawkins rants purely for their merits as new and interesting things found on the internet. They're posted so that people can go on about how dumb religion is (and argue with the usual crew of theists who drop by to defend the deity). I've seen a lot of those threads, and very rarely is there anything the slightest new about them.
On occasion there is a genuinely interesting post about religion that provokes a genuinely interesting discussion, in which I'm happy to take part. I'm not complaining about those posts.
Actually, as mentioned in the y2karl thread, I think it does stand on its own merits -- the articles were from sources I don't normally get too, and the writing linked to was good. The only problem came from thread-crappers, as usual. A Dawkins post could probably pass muster, but it would require more than just an article about a book that isn't out.
So you agree with me, but you're insulting me anyway? What a sweet guy you are.
posted by languagehat at 5:07 PM on September 22, 2006
Also, FWIW, I'd personally love a few fewer y2k posts on nearly identical "this is todays news about Iraq" topics, but people don't flag them, they really don't.
Okay, I just went back and flagged his last year's worth. Now what?
posted by timeistight at 5:11 PM on September 22, 2006
Okay, I just went back and flagged his last year's worth. Now what?
posted by timeistight at 5:11 PM on September 22, 2006
If God doesn't have physical substance, is it possible to make an unlimited number of exact copies of Him, kinda like .mp3s? Because I think it would be cool to have my own copy of God that I didn't have to share with anyone.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2006
I just went back and flagged his last year's worth. Now what?
Now you have just clogged up the flag queue and made my evening suck, thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:18 PM on September 22, 2006
Now you have just clogged up the flag queue and made my evening suck, thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:18 PM on September 22, 2006
Now you have just clogged up the flag queue and made my evening suck, thank you.
Wait, he actually did it? Bad timeistight! No motherfucking cookie!
posted by cortex at 5:45 PM on September 22, 2006
Wait, he actually did it? Bad timeistight! No motherfucking cookie!
posted by cortex at 5:45 PM on September 22, 2006
I'm equating the Dawkins thread and y2karl's rant because they're both opinionated, the resulting discussions have been done to death
Um, no. The links in y2karl's post are about shit that's actually happening. To real, up-until-the-guy-shot-them-in-the-head-a-few-times people. There's a certainty there that transcends debate. The Dawkins thread, well, I think ID and creationism are 'fraid of the dark bullshit, but there's at least some Nobody Really Knows For Sure room to wiggle there.
On the other hand, you can count the bodies in a Baghdad morgue. (That being said, for reasons that I will soon make clear, I don't think this was one of y2karl's better efforts.)
the articles were from sources I don't normally get too
I'm going to grant that maybe everyone doesn't read the interweb sites in the same order I do, but I saw half of y2karl's links other places before his post hit the front page.
If the BBC and nytimes don't fly across your radar at least once a day, you're not trying very hard. I'm not stumping for the merits of either, but you should at least know what they're saying.
posted by Cyrano at 5:49 PM on September 22, 2006
Um, no. The links in y2karl's post are about shit that's actually happening. To real, up-until-the-guy-shot-them-in-the-head-a-few-times people. There's a certainty there that transcends debate. The Dawkins thread, well, I think ID and creationism are 'fraid of the dark bullshit, but there's at least some Nobody Really Knows For Sure room to wiggle there.
On the other hand, you can count the bodies in a Baghdad morgue. (That being said, for reasons that I will soon make clear, I don't think this was one of y2karl's better efforts.)
the articles were from sources I don't normally get too
I'm going to grant that maybe everyone doesn't read the interweb sites in the same order I do, but I saw half of y2karl's links other places before his post hit the front page.
If the BBC and nytimes don't fly across your radar at least once a day, you're not trying very hard. I'm not stumping for the merits of either, but you should at least know what they're saying.
posted by Cyrano at 5:49 PM on September 22, 2006
Wait, he actually did it?
It wasn't as tough to clean up as I thought, my evening is through sucking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:03 PM on September 22, 2006
It wasn't as tough to clean up as I thought, my evening is through sucking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:03 PM on September 22, 2006
I just flagged every post and comment for the past three months. Cancel your plans, jessamyn. :o
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:20 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:20 PM on September 22, 2006
Now you have just clogged up the flag queue
Sure are a lot of them, eh?
posted by timeistight at 6:51 PM on September 22, 2006
Sure are a lot of them, eh?
posted by timeistight at 6:51 PM on September 22, 2006
What a pack of fucking knobs.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:02 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:02 PM on September 22, 2006
Alvy, you forgot to put "MetaFilter:" in front of that.
posted by yhbc at 8:02 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by yhbc at 8:02 PM on September 22, 2006
Actually I considered that as my follow-up comment.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:12 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:12 PM on September 22, 2006
I just flagged every post and comment for the past three months.
posted by pyramid termite at 9:00 PM on September 22, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 9:00 PM on September 22, 2006
« Older Did the spell check button on MeFi comments go... | Admin please fix the title of my FPP! Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by majick at 9:59 AM on September 22, 2006