This question is great, but the answers are not September 24, 2006 4:40 PM Subscribe
This is a fine example of a decent question and good responses made much less satisfying because they are interspersed with responses from assholes who are just posting to see their names.
Obviously, Matt needs to work hard to make the flagging option compatible with all browsers, across the board.
posted by interrobang at 4:58 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by interrobang at 4:58 PM on September 24, 2006
Could you link to the bad answers? Or at least give a better description of what you consider to be a bad answer? Because a one or two word answer to this question seems perfectly appropriate, of unsatisfying.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:59 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:59 PM on September 24, 2006
if satisfying, not of satisfying.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:00 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:00 PM on September 24, 2006
if unsatisfying. For christ's sake, I'm very sorry.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:01 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:01 PM on September 24, 2006
Because a one or two word answer to this question seems perfectly appropriate, of unsatisfying.
It does? I too see a lot of answers like these where it seems as if the answerers had been put on the spot:
Q: Quick! Name someone more evil than Hitler who predates Hitler!
As if they are on a quiz show. How do I know how to judge whether the answer is right?
Usually the poster is looking for thoughtful responses, hopefully ones with sources or justifications. Those, understandably, take time and/or expertise to compose and so those answers tend to come later in the thread. Most of the earlier ones are just noise.
posted by vacapinta at 5:07 PM on September 24, 2006
It does? I too see a lot of answers like these where it seems as if the answerers had been put on the spot:
Q: Quick! Name someone more evil than Hitler who predates Hitler!
As if they are on a quiz show. How do I know how to judge whether the answer is right?
Usually the poster is looking for thoughtful responses, hopefully ones with sources or justifications. Those, understandably, take time and/or expertise to compose and so those answers tend to come later in the thread. Most of the earlier ones are just noise.
posted by vacapinta at 5:07 PM on September 24, 2006
I see no answers worse than the trivial question, and some far better.
posted by davy at 5:26 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by davy at 5:26 PM on September 24, 2006
Bugger, ignore my previous comment and then forget about this one.
posted by econous at 5:28 PM on September 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by econous at 5:28 PM on September 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
the devil!
posted by blue_beetle at 5:39 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 5:39 PM on September 24, 2006
Do I win?
posted by blue_beetle at 5:39 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 5:39 PM on September 24, 2006
There is clearly no problem to be solved and no real correct answer to the question as posed. This looked like a bit of harmless Sunday-afternoon chatfilter and so many people including me just threw in quick answers without giving it a lot of thought. In retrospect I'll agree that strictly speaking I should have just left it alone.
posted by teleskiving at 5:42 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by teleskiving at 5:42 PM on September 24, 2006
'asshole' is a bit hard, don't you think? Unless there was a bunch of noise deleted, that I didn't notice..
It's always great when people do your homework for you, but maybe the question was to simply collate a bunch of possible paths for investigation.
What would be helpful (in open question situations) is encouraging posters to get into the habit of explaining why an answer was marked 'best' and even summarising the findings of the thread - a bit like the sci-fi book thread.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:07 PM on September 24, 2006
It's always great when people do your homework for you, but maybe the question was to simply collate a bunch of possible paths for investigation.
What would be helpful (in open question situations) is encouraging posters to get into the habit of explaining why an answer was marked 'best' and even summarising the findings of the thread - a bit like the sci-fi book thread.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:07 PM on September 24, 2006
I agree. Most respondents are not even trying to answer the question as asked, they're just naming Bad People off the top of their heads. SC den B started it off on the wrong foot with the ridiculous idea that Napoleon was comparable. (Some people with deficient historical senses agreed with him.) The only possible answer to the question is "there weren't any," but that's apparently too boring and obvious.
posted by languagehat at 6:08 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by languagehat at 6:08 PM on September 24, 2006
(I agree with the Mayor, that is.)
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on September 24, 2006
SC den B started it off on the wrong foot with the ridiculous idea that Napoleon was comparable. (Some people with deficient historical senses agreed with him.) The only possible answer to the question is "there weren't any," but that's apparently too boring and obvious.
Which is all your opinion. Back that up with newspaper articles from before Hitler's time and you might have a point. But as your comment stands, here and in the original thread, it's all just opinion.
And blaming this on Den Beste is laughable. Not that I'm defending the guy, the as davy points out earlier in this thread, they question is so vague and (arguably) stupid, you can't be surprised with one word answers.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:16 PM on September 24, 2006
Which is all your opinion. Back that up with newspaper articles from before Hitler's time and you might have a point. But as your comment stands, here and in the original thread, it's all just opinion.
And blaming this on Den Beste is laughable. Not that I'm defending the guy, the as davy points out earlier in this thread, they question is so vague and (arguably) stupid, you can't be surprised with one word answers.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:16 PM on September 24, 2006
I thought about arguing on AskMe, Languagehat, but Napolean is a credible answer when it comes to the way that Hitler functions rhetorically. Was "Napolean" the pure embodiement of evil? No. Was he trotted out to condemn enemies of socialism, of aristocracy, of populism, of democrats, of republicans? Yeah.
"Napoleanism" was a charge used by both sides of Bismark's parlaiment. "Napoleanism" was used by Lenin against early enemies of Bolshevism. "Napoleanism" was a charge levied against John Quincy Adams by Andrew Jackson's supporters.
Was Napolean a universal villian? No. Neither is Hitler (I'd bet that people in Asia have quite closer genocidal dictators). Was Napolean a rhetorical shorthand for any assorted ideological difference, generally negatively? Yeah.
posted by klangklangston at 6:21 PM on September 24, 2006
"Napoleanism" was a charge used by both sides of Bismark's parlaiment. "Napoleanism" was used by Lenin against early enemies of Bolshevism. "Napoleanism" was a charge levied against John Quincy Adams by Andrew Jackson's supporters.
Was Napolean a universal villian? No. Neither is Hitler (I'd bet that people in Asia have quite closer genocidal dictators). Was Napolean a rhetorical shorthand for any assorted ideological difference, generally negatively? Yeah.
posted by klangklangston at 6:21 PM on September 24, 2006
There are some weak answers in there, but overall I'd say it's answered as well as could be expected for that question. I found this one a much better example of people not answering the question. Every answer other than the one rightly marked as best is either wrong, or seems to be answering some other question.
posted by sfenders at 6:24 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by sfenders at 6:24 PM on September 24, 2006
i drafted a reply to ssF's question that proposed the 'young turks', with their atrocities against the armenians of the ottoman empire, and i put in links from the armenian national institute...but before i submited my answer, i realized that i was far from the authority in such a huge sea of history nerds and wikipedia dorks, and i was just sort of throwing something out there you know? and there were already too many stupid answers, and i felt like the question was intriguing, but too subjective to contribute a definitive answer anyway. so hey lesson learned right guys. im just going to stick to giving lukewarm advice in the sex, fashion, and beauty threads from now on because what the hell do i care about these complicated man things and their shiny machines of war?
posted by naxosaxur at 6:40 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by naxosaxur at 6:40 PM on September 24, 2006
The naxosaur is cute when she's being dismissive.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:44 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:44 PM on September 24, 2006
assholes who are just posting to see their names
I've checked twice, but I don't see your response...
All kidding aside, although it's about a subject I find interesting, it's a weak question verging on chatfilter. Like vacapinta and sfenders say, it's answered as well as could be expected.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:45 PM on September 24, 2006
I've checked twice, but I don't see your response...
All kidding aside, although it's about a subject I find interesting, it's a weak question verging on chatfilter. Like vacapinta and sfenders say, it's answered as well as could be expected.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:45 PM on September 24, 2006
I think most of the evil scions listed are well known enough to need no further explanation. I still don't see that any of these guys topped Hitler as the symbol of pure evil, other than Satan, but whatever. This has to be the lamest call out in quite some time. Are things really so boring here this weekend that you have to manufacture a controversy, or have you just been tipping a few back?
posted by caddis at 7:50 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:50 PM on September 24, 2006
exlotuseater exlotuseater.
haha twice. [I'm not evil, I just like to see my name.]
posted by exlotuseater at 8:01 PM on September 24, 2006
haha twice. [I'm not evil, I just like to see my name.]
posted by exlotuseater at 8:01 PM on September 24, 2006
This has to be the lamest call out in quite some time.
i agree ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:15 PM on September 24, 2006
i agree ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:15 PM on September 24, 2006
Alright, short straw calls this one out...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:22 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:22 PM on September 24, 2006
The biggest part of that thread is that no one stated the obvious:
Pre-Hilter
posted by cortex at 9:22 PM on September 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Pre-Hilter
posted by cortex at 9:22 PM on September 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
your mom
posted by loquacious at 9:34 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by loquacious at 9:34 PM on September 24, 2006
Napolean.
posted by crunchland at 9:55 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:55 PM on September 24, 2006
I agree you with Mayor Curley. But then I was called a whiny, pedantic, tedious fool when I was complaining about it. So, not sure you want me on your side.
posted by meech at 10:03 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by meech at 10:03 PM on September 24, 2006
Still stings, 6 months later, huh?
posted by crunchland at 10:07 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by crunchland at 10:07 PM on September 24, 2006
Mayor Curley
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on September 24, 2006
People have been equating Bad People with the Evil Spirit since before writing took off; Hitler is no exception. This callout, however, is exceptionally lame.
posted by davy at 10:13 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by davy at 10:13 PM on September 24, 2006
lawrence welk
posted by pyramid termite at 10:40 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 10:40 PM on September 24, 2006
klangklangston : "'Napoleanism' was a charge used by both sides of Bismark's parlaiment. 'Napoleanism' was used by Lenin against early enemies of Bolshevism. 'Napoleanism' was a charge levied against John Quincy Adams by Andrew Jackson's supporters. "
Now, see, THAT is a good answer to the question in AskMe (er, except for the way Napoleonism is spelled). An answer, and some extra information that separates the answer from the other "probably pulled out of posters' asses" answers.
posted by Bugbread at 10:44 PM on September 24, 2006
Now, see, THAT is a good answer to the question in AskMe (er, except for the way Napoleonism is spelled). An answer, and some extra information that separates the answer from the other "probably pulled out of posters' asses" answers.
posted by Bugbread at 10:44 PM on September 24, 2006
Some people with deficient historical senses agreed with him
Oh, horseshit, languagehat. There's a perfectly defensible, historically sensible position that Napoleon answers the question as asked.
Jesus, when you get pedantic, you really get pedantic.
posted by mediareport at 10:59 PM on September 24, 2006
Oh, horseshit, languagehat. There's a perfectly defensible, historically sensible position that Napoleon answers the question as asked.
Jesus, when you get pedantic, you really get pedantic.
posted by mediareport at 10:59 PM on September 24, 2006
Usually the poster is looking for thoughtful responses, hopefully ones with sources or justifications.
I get the same feeling from recommend-this-X threads. Answers that are just a title without any explanation always strike me as unhelpful. If you care enough to answer the question, why not take the time to make your answer thoughtful?
posted by mediareport at 11:07 PM on September 24, 2006
I get the same feeling from recommend-this-X threads. Answers that are just a title without any explanation always strike me as unhelpful. If you care enough to answer the question, why not take the time to make your answer thoughtful?
posted by mediareport at 11:07 PM on September 24, 2006
This is a fine example of a decent question
No, it's not. It's a one sentence questions that pratically begs for short answers. There is no depth to this question and so it got answered exactly how it was asked.
It's also good to note that the original poster wasn't complaining about the thread and the person who started this call out DID NOT offer such answers within the thread.
Finally, this call out was started because the person felt answers were "much less satisfying", which is just about as lamely subjective as you can get, who then goes on to call people names and then use his telepathic powers for evil (the quote: assholes who are just posting to see their names).
Very classy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:22 AM on September 25, 2006
No, it's not. It's a one sentence questions that pratically begs for short answers. There is no depth to this question and so it got answered exactly how it was asked.
It's also good to note that the original poster wasn't complaining about the thread and the person who started this call out DID NOT offer such answers within the thread.
Finally, this call out was started because the person felt answers were "much less satisfying", which is just about as lamely subjective as you can get, who then goes on to call people names and then use his telepathic powers for evil (the quote: assholes who are just posting to see their names).
Very classy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:22 AM on September 25, 2006
Brandon Blatcher : "It's also good to note that the original poster wasn't complaining about the thread and the person who started this call out DID NOT offer such answers within the thread."
I'm not sure that I'm following the second half of that argument. Mayor Curley is saying "If you know the answer, answer. If you don't, shut up. Don't just guess." Now, whether this is justified for this question, and whether the answers are guesses or all those terms were really used like Hitler is now, all aside, I don't see how it's particularly noteworthy that Mayor Curley DID NOT offer such answers within the thread. Except insofar as it is noteworthy that he's practicing what he preaches, but I don't think that's what you were aiming at.
posted by Bugbread at 4:10 AM on September 25, 2006
I'm not sure that I'm following the second half of that argument. Mayor Curley is saying "If you know the answer, answer. If you don't, shut up. Don't just guess." Now, whether this is justified for this question, and whether the answers are guesses or all those terms were really used like Hitler is now, all aside, I don't see how it's particularly noteworthy that Mayor Curley DID NOT offer such answers within the thread. Except insofar as it is noteworthy that he's practicing what he preaches, but I don't think that's what you were aiming at.
posted by Bugbread at 4:10 AM on September 25, 2006
Mayor Curley is saying "If you know the answer, answer. If you don't, shut up. Don't just guess."
Which is kinda foolish. What's wrong with guessing?
As for the rest, rather than having a silly callout, he could have just given the sort of answer he thinks is best within the thread, therfore leading by example. He did not, which, IMO, makes his callout even sillier.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:24 AM on September 25, 2006
Which is kinda foolish. What's wrong with guessing?
As for the rest, rather than having a silly callout, he could have just given the sort of answer he thinks is best within the thread, therfore leading by example. He did not, which, IMO, makes his callout even sillier.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:24 AM on September 25, 2006
Finally, this call out was started because the person felt answers were "much less satisfying", which is just about as lamely subjective as you can get
You're right. I should have pulled out my MetaCounter, which measures the number of subatomic Good Question particles and then gives a scientific readout of a question's quality. But it's somewhere in the basement. So I thought I'd just use an adjective and no one would call me on it.
(How exactly was I supposed to quantify a reduction in quality? Up yours, Jeff Davis.)
It's also good to note that the original poster wasn't complaining about the thread and the person who started this call out DID NOT offer such answers within the thread.
You're saying that the questions are purely for the original poster and readers have no right to make judgements? Then why aren't the answers emailed to the asker?
And I have to have a decent answer before I can criticize people not reading the question? I will keep that in mind and make sure that I shit in a thread right before I run to metatalk next time.
(On preview: If I don't know the answer, I don't know the answer. It doesn't preclude me from realize that some previous answers didn't even really address the question and others were weak guesses.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 AM on September 25, 2006
You're right. I should have pulled out my MetaCounter, which measures the number of subatomic Good Question particles and then gives a scientific readout of a question's quality. But it's somewhere in the basement. So I thought I'd just use an adjective and no one would call me on it.
(How exactly was I supposed to quantify a reduction in quality? Up yours, Jeff Davis.)
It's also good to note that the original poster wasn't complaining about the thread and the person who started this call out DID NOT offer such answers within the thread.
You're saying that the questions are purely for the original poster and readers have no right to make judgements? Then why aren't the answers emailed to the asker?
And I have to have a decent answer before I can criticize people not reading the question? I will keep that in mind and make sure that I shit in a thread right before I run to metatalk next time.
(On preview: If I don't know the answer, I don't know the answer. It doesn't preclude me from realize that some previous answers didn't even really address the question and others were weak guesses.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 AM on September 25, 2006
Which is kinda foolish. What's wrong with guessing?
No doubt! It happens all the time in foreign language questions and medical advice. And it's AWESOME!
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:35 AM on September 25, 2006
No doubt! It happens all the time in foreign language questions and medical advice. And it's AWESOME!
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:35 AM on September 25, 2006
(On preview: If I don't know the answer, I don't know the answer. It doesn't preclude me from realize that some previous answers didn't even really address the question and others were weak guesses.)
If you don't know the answer, how do you know that an answer someone else gives is a weak guess or doesn't address the question?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:51 AM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
If you don't know the answer, how do you know that an answer someone else gives is a weak guess or doesn't address the question?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:51 AM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Now, see, THAT is a good answer to the question in AskMe (er, except for the way Napoleonism is spelled). "
To be fair, I was really drunk. Hence also not being assed to dig around through old coursepacks to find citations (though I'm not going to now, because I'm lazy and hung over. I would like to endorse the Trader Joe's wine selection though...)
posted by klangklangston at 5:31 AM on September 25, 2006
To be fair, I was really drunk. Hence also not being assed to dig around through old coursepacks to find citations (though I'm not going to now, because I'm lazy and hung over. I would like to endorse the Trader Joe's wine selection though...)
posted by klangklangston at 5:31 AM on September 25, 2006
If you don't know the answer, how do you know that an answer someone else gives is a weak guess or doesn't address the question?
Because I can understand the question without knowing a good answer. And therefore I can recognize that "here is a historical figure that I personally think is evil" does not answer the question.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:33 AM on September 25, 2006
Because I can understand the question without knowing a good answer. And therefore I can recognize that "here is a historical figure that I personally think is evil" does not answer the question.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:33 AM on September 25, 2006
There's a perfectly defensible, historically sensible position that Napoleon answers the question as asked.
Well, obviously in some sense this is a matter of opinion. But there were plenty of favorable responses to Napoleon even in the countries that were fighting him; he was seen as a bringer of enlightenment and modernity to places that had been mired in medieval repression by church and nobles for centuries. Yes, of course a lot of people hated him, but that's true for any conqueror type. I don't think any reputable historian would endorse the idea that Napoleon was a Hitler figure in the sense the questioner was asking about.
"'Napoleanism' was a charge used by both sides of Bismark's parlaiment. 'Napoleanism' was used by Lenin against early enemies of Bolshevism. 'Napoleanism' was a charge levied against John Quincy Adams by Andrew Jackson's supporters. "
So anyone who was used as a stick to beat political opponents with was Hitler? I guess Cromwell was Hitler too. And King George. And Bill Clinton.
And blaming this on Den Beste is laughable.
No it's not. It may not be correct—it's certainly possible that even if the first answer had been sensible ("There's no such figure") people would still have jumped in to name their favorite Bad Guys—but it's certainly not "laughable" to suggest that his starting the thread off that way set it on its course.
posted by languagehat at 6:05 AM on September 25, 2006
Well, obviously in some sense this is a matter of opinion. But there were plenty of favorable responses to Napoleon even in the countries that were fighting him; he was seen as a bringer of enlightenment and modernity to places that had been mired in medieval repression by church and nobles for centuries. Yes, of course a lot of people hated him, but that's true for any conqueror type. I don't think any reputable historian would endorse the idea that Napoleon was a Hitler figure in the sense the questioner was asking about.
"'Napoleanism' was a charge used by both sides of Bismark's parlaiment. 'Napoleanism' was used by Lenin against early enemies of Bolshevism. 'Napoleanism' was a charge levied against John Quincy Adams by Andrew Jackson's supporters. "
So anyone who was used as a stick to beat political opponents with was Hitler? I guess Cromwell was Hitler too. And King George. And Bill Clinton.
And blaming this on Den Beste is laughable.
No it's not. It may not be correct—it's certainly possible that even if the first answer had been sensible ("There's no such figure") people would still have jumped in to name their favorite Bad Guys—but it's certainly not "laughable" to suggest that his starting the thread off that way set it on its course.
posted by languagehat at 6:05 AM on September 25, 2006
And therefore I can recognize that "here is a historical figure that I personally think is evil" does not answer the question.
I think that argument was used for criticizing "Napoleon" as an answer, and that reasoning was shot down in quick order. I agree with you to a degree, but not knowing the right answer allows some responses which you, personally, may not necessarily agree with.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:11 AM on September 25, 2006
I think that argument was used for criticizing "Napoleon" as an answer, and that reasoning was shot down in quick order. I agree with you to a degree, but not knowing the right answer allows some responses which you, personally, may not necessarily agree with.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:11 AM on September 25, 2006
Brandon Blatcher writes "he could have just given the sort of answer he thinks is best within the thread, therfore leading by example. He did not, which, IMO, makes his callout even sillier."
As someone who doesn't know the precursor to Hitler, the best answer he could give would be no answer. And that's exactly what he did. He led by example. Are you saying he should have written an answer that would somehow be a good example of not writing anything? Or is the argument "If you really thought the answers were bad, you could have just known the answer"? If it were that easy to know the answer, nobody would ever need to ask a question.
posted by Bugbread at 6:34 AM on September 25, 2006
As someone who doesn't know the precursor to Hitler, the best answer he could give would be no answer. And that's exactly what he did. He led by example. Are you saying he should have written an answer that would somehow be a good example of not writing anything? Or is the argument "If you really thought the answers were bad, you could have just known the answer"? If it were that easy to know the answer, nobody would ever need to ask a question.
posted by Bugbread at 6:34 AM on September 25, 2006
"So anyone who was used as a stick to beat political opponents with was Hitler? I guess Cromwell was Hitler too. And King George. And Bill Clinton."
You're missing a fairly important point— Napoleon was used by a far greater bredth of political writers than any of the examples you cite.
Yes, people like Hegel liked Napoleon, and he was (especially early on) seen as a bringer of enlightenment. But hey, people like Henry Ford (who did publish fewer works of reknown than Hegel) liked Hitler. And Napoleon was still used as a political boogieman nearly 100 years after his threat had passed. Cromwell, George and Clinton all had (or have) far more limited rhetorical use.
From my view, this question is akin to another where the asker wanted to know what hat had the logo that they described. The "best" answer is that no hat had exactly that logo, but that a Cubs hat was by far the closest.
Even now, there is no universal consensus on Hitler being pure evil, and there is unlikely to ever be. The most recent contender, though in some ways substantively different, is Napoleon. But ESPECIALLY in Europe of the late 1840s-1890s, with the 1848 revolutions as an explicit touchpoint, Napoleonism was used much like "fascism" is used today.
"I don't think any reputable historian would endorse the idea that Napoleon was a Hitler figure in the sense the questioner was asking about."
I think that is because most reputable historians would correct the question before answering, and I would wager that many of them would cite Napoleon as a similar, if not equally reviled, character as far as his use in argument as a signifier.
posted by klangklangston at 7:03 AM on September 25, 2006
You're missing a fairly important point— Napoleon was used by a far greater bredth of political writers than any of the examples you cite.
Yes, people like Hegel liked Napoleon, and he was (especially early on) seen as a bringer of enlightenment. But hey, people like Henry Ford (who did publish fewer works of reknown than Hegel) liked Hitler. And Napoleon was still used as a political boogieman nearly 100 years after his threat had passed. Cromwell, George and Clinton all had (or have) far more limited rhetorical use.
From my view, this question is akin to another where the asker wanted to know what hat had the logo that they described. The "best" answer is that no hat had exactly that logo, but that a Cubs hat was by far the closest.
Even now, there is no universal consensus on Hitler being pure evil, and there is unlikely to ever be. The most recent contender, though in some ways substantively different, is Napoleon. But ESPECIALLY in Europe of the late 1840s-1890s, with the 1848 revolutions as an explicit touchpoint, Napoleonism was used much like "fascism" is used today.
"I don't think any reputable historian would endorse the idea that Napoleon was a Hitler figure in the sense the questioner was asking about."
I think that is because most reputable historians would correct the question before answering, and I would wager that many of them would cite Napoleon as a similar, if not equally reviled, character as far as his use in argument as a signifier.
posted by klangklangston at 7:03 AM on September 25, 2006
I thought I'd posted this in MeTa a few hours ago. Guess it didn't take:
++++++++++++++++++
As noted in Metatalk, I agree it was a hastily composed question, which led to some understandably offtarget answers, compounded by my being too busy to check in immediately after asking it. There were some helpful answers, though, which I'll go in and note.
Probably too late now, but I was getting at this: Today, when we speak of evil personified, Hitler is almost the shortcut for that, even (especially, I guess) in the most casual conversation.
Me: "My boss, grrr, he's the worst person in the history of the world."
You: "Worse than Hitler?"
For most of us alive today, Hitler is the go-to bad guy, the proper noun we attach to the abstraction of pure evil. Who was that guy pre-Hitler? If Jefferson had called 18th-century Godwin on John Adams at the Constitutional Convention, who would Adams have been alluding to?
The question was intended to be much more about cultural norms and touchpoints than about historically bad people.
Same comments x-posted to the Metatalk thread. Thanks to all who weighed in, apologies for seeming to throw out a flip chat question.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:07 AM on September 25, 2006
++++++++++++++++++
As noted in Metatalk, I agree it was a hastily composed question, which led to some understandably offtarget answers, compounded by my being too busy to check in immediately after asking it. There were some helpful answers, though, which I'll go in and note.
Probably too late now, but I was getting at this: Today, when we speak of evil personified, Hitler is almost the shortcut for that, even (especially, I guess) in the most casual conversation.
Me: "My boss, grrr, he's the worst person in the history of the world."
You: "Worse than Hitler?"
For most of us alive today, Hitler is the go-to bad guy, the proper noun we attach to the abstraction of pure evil. Who was that guy pre-Hitler? If Jefferson had called 18th-century Godwin on John Adams at the Constitutional Convention, who would Adams have been alluding to?
The question was intended to be much more about cultural norms and touchpoints than about historically bad people.
Same comments x-posted to the Metatalk thread. Thanks to all who weighed in, apologies for seeming to throw out a flip chat question.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:07 AM on September 25, 2006
How exactly was I supposed to quantify a reduction in quality?
My point was that your callout was nitpicking and highly subjective in it's reasoning, so there's not going to be a "good" answer to it, just people "debating" back and forth.
You're saying that the questions are purely for the original poster and readers have no right to make judgements?
This is not a "rights" issue. It's not even an issue. You have certain views on the quality of the answers, which you expressed. I think you're overthinking it a bit much and we clearly disagree on that. In the midst of all this, nothing has changed and the world has moved.
And I have to have a decent answer before I can criticize people not reading the question?
People clearly read and understood the question, they simply responded differently than you would have liked. No biggie, but since the original poster wasn't bothered by it (as seen by his response here), I didn't understand why you would be, especially considering that there were plenty of the type of answers you would seemingly like.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:56 AM on September 25, 2006
My point was that your callout was nitpicking and highly subjective in it's reasoning, so there's not going to be a "good" answer to it, just people "debating" back and forth.
You're saying that the questions are purely for the original poster and readers have no right to make judgements?
This is not a "rights" issue. It's not even an issue. You have certain views on the quality of the answers, which you expressed. I think you're overthinking it a bit much and we clearly disagree on that. In the midst of all this, nothing has changed and the world has moved.
And I have to have a decent answer before I can criticize people not reading the question?
People clearly read and understood the question, they simply responded differently than you would have liked. No biggie, but since the original poster wasn't bothered by it (as seen by his response here), I didn't understand why you would be, especially considering that there were plenty of the type of answers you would seemingly like.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:56 AM on September 25, 2006
Thanks to all who weighed in, apologies for seeming to throw out a flip chat question.
It's not a bad question. It does start with an assumption (that there was someone as universally used as western shorthand for Bad Personified before Hitler), but it seems well within the scope of the question to dispute your assumption and call that an answer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:01 AM on September 25, 2006
It's not a bad question. It does start with an assumption (that there was someone as universally used as western shorthand for Bad Personified before Hitler), but it seems well within the scope of the question to dispute your assumption and call that an answer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:01 AM on September 25, 2006
For most of us alive today, Hitler is the go-to bad guy, the proper noun we attach to the abstraction of pure evil.
No. For most people, Hitler is not the go-to bad guy. "Most people" includes all of Asia, most of which appears to have little knowledge of how we in the West view Hitler. Hence the occassional Hitler-themed restaurant and advertising.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on September 25, 2006
No. For most people, Hitler is not the go-to bad guy. "Most people" includes all of Asia, most of which appears to have little knowledge of how we in the West view Hitler. Hence the occassional Hitler-themed restaurant and advertising.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on September 25, 2006
Well, obviously in some sense this is a matter of opinion.
Well, I guess that'll do for an apology. Next time, try to realize that *before* you start dropping insults on those who disagree.
"Deficient historical senses," my ass.
posted by mediareport at 10:12 AM on September 25, 2006
Well, I guess that'll do for an apology. Next time, try to realize that *before* you start dropping insults on those who disagree.
"Deficient historical senses," my ass.
posted by mediareport at 10:12 AM on September 25, 2006
From my view, this question is akin to another where the asker wanted to know what hat had the logo that they described. The "best" answer is that no hat had exactly that logo, but that a Cubs hat was by far the closest.
Well, from my point of view the question is akin to asking "what did people wear on their heads before hats?" But I can see your point of view, and your answers have been consistently thoughtful and presumably useful to the questioner.
Well, I guess that'll do for an apology.
It wasn't an apology in any sense, it was a clarification that I don't consider my opinion as equivalent to the tablets handed down from Mount Sinai. I continue to maintain that saying Napoleon = Hitler shows deficient historical sense. If you don't like it, tough. And if you can't take an atmosphere less civil than your favorite Pall Mall club, you've come to the wrong website.
posted by languagehat at 12:02 PM on September 25, 2006
Well, from my point of view the question is akin to asking "what did people wear on their heads before hats?" But I can see your point of view, and your answers have been consistently thoughtful and presumably useful to the questioner.
Well, I guess that'll do for an apology.
It wasn't an apology in any sense, it was a clarification that I don't consider my opinion as equivalent to the tablets handed down from Mount Sinai. I continue to maintain that saying Napoleon = Hitler shows deficient historical sense. If you don't like it, tough. And if you can't take an atmosphere less civil than your favorite Pall Mall club, you've come to the wrong website.
posted by languagehat at 12:02 PM on September 25, 2006
Pre-Hilter
Yeah. Those Boncentration Bamps were really what made him into the embodiment of evil. That and his attempts at annexing Poland.
posted by hoborg at 12:08 PM on September 25, 2006
Yeah. Those Boncentration Bamps were really what made him into the embodiment of evil. That and his attempts at annexing Poland.
posted by hoborg at 12:08 PM on September 25, 2006
This is a fucking stupid callout. And I'm sure Hitler would agree with me on that.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:27 PM on September 25, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:27 PM on September 25, 2006
And if you can't take an atmosphere less civil than your favorite Pall Mall club, you've come to the wrong website.
You afraid to play whist with my boyz! Come to White's and talk that smack! We get all Guy Fawkez on yo' ass!
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:28 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
You afraid to play whist with my boyz! Come to White's and talk that smack! We get all Guy Fawkez on yo' ass!
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:28 PM on September 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
I continue to maintain that saying Napoleon = Hitler shows deficient historical sense.
Maintain away, my good pedant. Maintain away. The unprovoked broadband insult just surprised me coming from you, is all.
Rest assured I've revised my opinions accordingly.
posted by mediareport at 2:00 PM on September 25, 2006
Maintain away, my good pedant. Maintain away. The unprovoked broadband insult just surprised me coming from you, is all.
Rest assured I've revised my opinions accordingly.
posted by mediareport at 2:00 PM on September 25, 2006
I think it's okay for people to not always take everything so damn seriously all the time. Sometimes there should be room for the half assed snark or the poorly thought out comment.
posted by MythMaker at 3:27 PM on September 25, 2006
posted by MythMaker at 3:27 PM on September 25, 2006
Brandon Blatcher writes "No biggie, but since the original poster wasn't bothered by it (as seen by his response here)"
I think we parsed what stupidsexyFlanders wrote totally differently.
stupidsexyFlanders : "I agree it was a hastily composed question, which led to some understandably offtarget answers, compounded by my being too busy to check in immediately after asking it. There were some helpful answers, though, which I'll go in and note.
...
"The question was intended to be much more about cultural norms and touchpoints than about historically bad people."
I read that as "There were a lot of crappy answers, but that was my fault for phrasing the question poorly. There were some good answers, too."
So, no, it doesn't look like stupidsexyFlanders is tearing his hair out or gnashing his teeth, but I don't think he's saying that the kind of answers he got were the type he was trying to get.
mediareport : "The unprovoked broadband insult just surprised me coming from you, is all.
"Rest assured I've revised my opinions accordingly."
I think languagehat is just having a bad day. His attitude in this thread is a little different than usual.
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2006
I think we parsed what stupidsexyFlanders wrote totally differently.
stupidsexyFlanders : "I agree it was a hastily composed question, which led to some understandably offtarget answers, compounded by my being too busy to check in immediately after asking it. There were some helpful answers, though, which I'll go in and note.
...
"The question was intended to be much more about cultural norms and touchpoints than about historically bad people."
I read that as "There were a lot of crappy answers, but that was my fault for phrasing the question poorly. There were some good answers, too."
So, no, it doesn't look like stupidsexyFlanders is tearing his hair out or gnashing his teeth, but I don't think he's saying that the kind of answers he got were the type he was trying to get.
mediareport : "The unprovoked broadband insult just surprised me coming from you, is all.
"Rest assured I've revised my opinions accordingly."
I think languagehat is just having a bad day. His attitude in this thread is a little different than usual.
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2006
Actually, I am having a bad day. (I've spoken with at least half a dozen different bank underlings, who disagree with each other and have confused me thoroughly.) Discount accordingly.
posted by languagehat at 3:50 PM on September 25, 2006
posted by languagehat at 3:50 PM on September 25, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:40 PM on September 24, 2006