LOL BUSH IS TEH ANTICHRIST - I did NOT say that! But close. November 30, 2006 1:19 PM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: LOL BUSH IS TEH ANTICHRIST. whatever Care to translate that into an intelligible rationale? I didn't say Bush is the anti-Christ, violate Godwin's Law, or anything else. I thought the article made an interesting link between mental illness and certain political attitudes. But is there a daily limit to the number of FPPs perceived as "anti-Bush", or what? Help me out.
BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKELY MENTALLY ILL
You tell me how that's not... shall we say... inciting.
posted by boo_radley at 1:27 PM on November 30, 2006
You tell me how that's not... shall we say... inciting.
posted by boo_radley at 1:27 PM on November 30, 2006
Also SLBOE
posted by boo_radley at 1:28 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 1:28 PM on November 30, 2006
title = wingnuts. It was flagged to hell and most of the comments were jokey "this sucks" type things. It's possible the article and the studies it referred to could have elicited some interesting commentary, but it would have taken a lot more work to turn it into a non-Bush bashing post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
It had potential, could have been fleshed out a little more, but the "clever comment" kiddies got a hold of it then it was doomed.
And I think BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKELY MENTALLY ILL is actually ... some populations who have a particular mentally illness tend to select particular types of leaders, there is a difference
posted by edgeways at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
And I think BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKELY MENTALLY ILL is actually ... some populations who have a particular mentally illness tend to select particular types of leaders, there is a difference
posted by edgeways at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
Are you really -- with a straight face -- going to try to claim that your reason for posting this (69 person) study was to publicize the relationship between mental illness and a preference for authoritarian candidates? Is that result noteworthy to you? Would you have posted this if the study had been of some local congressional race in Podunk, Idaho that reached the same conclusion?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by pardonyou? at 1:31 PM on November 30, 2006
I take up the "descriptive over clever deletion reaons", cause and put it forth for respectfull consideration. It may well diminsh the # of call outs, if "flagged to hell, needs better composing" replaced "LOL BUSH IS TEH ANTICHRIST. whatever".
posted by edgeways at 1:36 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by edgeways at 1:36 PM on November 30, 2006
But but but... that's the only time we get to hear the inner mathowie.
posted by boo_radley at 1:39 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 1:39 PM on November 30, 2006
I vote "no." Okay, I'm ready for my meds, Nurse Ratched.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:45 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:45 PM on November 30, 2006
I like the funny deletion reasons.
And nothing going to stop people complaining about their crappy posts being deleted anyway.
posted by timeistight at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2006
And nothing going to stop people complaining about their crappy posts being deleted anyway.
posted by timeistight at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2006
And I think BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKELY MENTALLY ILL is actually ... some populations who have a particular mentally illness tend to select particular types of leaders, there is a difference
Thank you, edgeways.
Saying that psychotics tend to vote for Bush is not the same as saying Bush supporters tend to be psychotic. Nor is it "Bush bashing" in any sense that I can discern.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2006
Thank you, edgeways.
Saying that psychotics tend to vote for Bush is not the same as saying Bush supporters tend to be psychotic. Nor is it "Bush bashing" in any sense that I can discern.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2006
I will admit that I did think the article has some amusing implications, and would inspire some joking around (thus the title "Wingnuts"), as well as possibly some heated debate.
I.e., perfect MeFi material.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
I.e., perfect MeFi material.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
I guess my point was that it's not too hard to see that this is going to get into "Correlation is not causation" "Yes it is!" territory.
posted by boo_radley at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
("MetaFilter: some joking around, as well as possibly some heated debate.")
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2006
You and I have very different views of what constitutes "perfect MeFi material."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:57 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:57 PM on November 30, 2006
I would enjoy hearing more on your thesis about MetaFilter as a smug, self-congratulatory circle jerk, AE.
posted by Eideteker at 2:11 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 2:11 PM on November 30, 2006
i don't think you're allowed to sloganize your own lines.
posted by Stynxno at 2:19 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Stynxno at 2:19 PM on November 30, 2006
Are you really -- with a straight face -- going to try to claim that your reason for posting this (69 person) study was to publicize the relationship between mental illness and a preference for authoritarian candidates? Is that result noteworthy to you? Would you have posted this if the study had been of some local congressional race in Podunk, Idaho that reached the same conclusion?
posted by pardonyou? at 3:31 PM CST on November 30
[+]
[!]
I actually think that would be an interesting discussion to have (especially given a study with a larger sample size). But yeah, it didn't really seem to be happening in that post.
posted by COBRA! at 2:20 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by pardonyou? at 3:31 PM CST on November 30
[+]
[!]
I actually think that would be an interesting discussion to have (especially given a study with a larger sample size). But yeah, it didn't really seem to be happening in that post.
posted by COBRA! at 2:20 PM on November 30, 2006
Let's not forget that the crap link in question was already posted in comments to an fpp today.
I think that qualifies this as a double post. What say you, o moderators? Is it is or is it ain't a double?
There were many reasons to remove this post and precious few to keep it. Well done draconian mod-bots!
posted by Mister_A at 2:20 PM on November 30, 2006
I think that qualifies this as a double post. What say you, o moderators? Is it is or is it ain't a double?
There were many reasons to remove this post and precious few to keep it. Well done draconian mod-bots!
posted by Mister_A at 2:20 PM on November 30, 2006
pardonyou?:
Are you really -- with a straight face -- going to try to claim that your reason for posting this (69 person) study was to publicize the relationship between mental illness and a preference for authoritarian candidates?
Yes.
This is a theme I have long been intrigued by.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:21 PM on November 30, 2006
Are you really -- with a straight face -- going to try to claim that your reason for posting this (69 person) study was to publicize the relationship between mental illness and a preference for authoritarian candidates?
Yes.
This is a theme I have long been intrigued by.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:21 PM on November 30, 2006
Eideteker, Stynxno: The slogan was my pithy but serious description (proffered in a jokey way) of what I think MeFi is all about.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:26 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:26 PM on November 30, 2006
slogans are fine but i still don't think it's proper to slogan something you said in the comment right above the slogan. at least use a sockpuppet.
posted by Stynxno at 2:29 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Stynxno at 2:29 PM on November 30, 2006
Read Clans of the Alphane Moon for an interesting look at politics and psychopathology.
posted by Mister_A at 2:31 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 2:31 PM on November 30, 2006
Artifice_Eternity: you may want to consult the canonical list.
posted by russilwvong at 2:38 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by russilwvong at 2:38 PM on November 30, 2006
Eideteker, Stynxno: The slogan was my pithy but serious description (proffered in a jokey way) of what I think MeFi is all about.
So you don't think it's about links to interesting things on the web? That explains something or other, that does.
posted by jack_mo at 2:45 PM on November 30, 2006
So you don't think it's about links to interesting things on the web? That explains something or other, that does.
posted by jack_mo at 2:45 PM on November 30, 2006
You can't "violate Godwin's Law". Please do try and keep up.
posted by signal at 2:47 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by signal at 2:47 PM on November 30, 2006
For all you "69 participants" people, that's actually a pretty decent sample size, for social science studies. I've read well-received psychology research with 4 (yes, I do mean four!) participants.
posted by muddgirl at 2:49 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by muddgirl at 2:49 PM on November 30, 2006
You would expect 69 participants to distribute themselves somewhat more evenly.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:53 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:53 PM on November 30, 2006
Was that a sex joke? I can't even tell anymore.
posted by bob sarabia at 2:58 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 2:58 PM on November 30, 2006
For all you "69 participants" people, that's actually a pretty decent sample size, for social science studies.
for all we know, it was a place where republicans are more likely to be
a national survey wouldn't be that hard to come up with ...
*calls up person at random*
"who did you vote for president?"
"______"
"are you psychotic?"
they should tape record the calls, too ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:01 PM on November 30, 2006
for all we know, it was a place where republicans are more likely to be
a national survey wouldn't be that hard to come up with ...
*calls up person at random*
"who did you vote for president?"
"______"
"are you psychotic?"
they should tape record the calls, too ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:01 PM on November 30, 2006
Dang, I opened this thread thinking that Artifice_Eternity was planning a flame out, but he seems to shifting gears to taking it all in good humor. Tease.
posted by LarryC at 3:03 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by LarryC at 3:03 PM on November 30, 2006
bob sarabia: "Was that a sex joke? I can't even tell anymore."
LOL BUSH
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:04 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
LOL BUSH
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:04 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
This is a theme I have long been intrigued by.
Interesting response, coming just a few posts after you acknowledged that part of your motivation was, in part, the "amusing implications" that would "inspire some joking around." Again, without the "crazy people are Bush supporters/Bush supporters are crazy" angle, I don't think you post this. But I could be wrong; people tell me it's happened before.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:07 PM on November 30, 2006
Interesting response, coming just a few posts after you acknowledged that part of your motivation was, in part, the "amusing implications" that would "inspire some joking around." Again, without the "crazy people are Bush supporters/Bush supporters are crazy" angle, I don't think you post this. But I could be wrong; people tell me it's happened before.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:07 PM on November 30, 2006
for all we know, it was a place where republicans are more likely to be
Actually, we know the study was conducted at 3 Connecticut mental institutions. Connecticut went for Clinton in 1996, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. So I guess if Republicans are more likely to be in a mental institution in a Blue State...that doesn't sound very unreasonable, actually.
posted by muddgirl at 3:20 PM on November 30, 2006
Actually, we know the study was conducted at 3 Connecticut mental institutions. Connecticut went for Clinton in 1996, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. So I guess if Republicans are more likely to be in a mental institution in a Blue State...that doesn't sound very unreasonable, actually.
posted by muddgirl at 3:20 PM on November 30, 2006
I bet all those charred corpses in Iraq find that post totally lollersome, too, and clearly endorse its deletion
posted by matteo at 3:20 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by matteo at 3:20 PM on November 30, 2006
I wonder how Saddam did among the psychotics?
posted by timeistight at 3:33 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by timeistight at 3:33 PM on November 30, 2006
these bitchy dismissive deletion reasons are what needs to be deleted, i think. We make an effort to post something--an effort should be made to tell why it's not postworthy.
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
When I noticed (with much pleasure) that that wretched post was gone, I made a little bet with myself that there would be a whiny post about it in MeTa. I win!
I like the funny deletion reasons.
Me too. Don't listen to the sobersides, Matt.
posted by languagehat at 3:35 PM on November 30, 2006
I like the funny deletion reasons.
Me too. Don't listen to the sobersides, Matt.
posted by languagehat at 3:35 PM on November 30, 2006
This did not wendell.
This statement is not intended as a statement of endorsement for either the thread or its deletion. Your mileage may appear closer than they are. Close cover before rinse repeat. I am not void in Vermont.
posted by wendell at 3:37 PM on November 30, 2006
This statement is not intended as a statement of endorsement for either the thread or its deletion. Your mileage may appear closer than they are. Close cover before rinse repeat. I am not void in Vermont.
posted by wendell at 3:37 PM on November 30, 2006
I wonder how Saddam did among the psychotics?
Much better if the study had been done in Iraq, except they would have had a shortage of psychotic subjects after Saddam's sons died.
posted by wendell at 3:41 PM on November 30, 2006
Much better if the study had been done in Iraq, except they would have had a shortage of psychotic subjects after Saddam's sons died.
posted by wendell at 3:41 PM on November 30, 2006
Jesus Fucking Murphy.
Listen up, you. All of you who aren't moderators: this isn't your site. This isn't a democracy. This isn't your blog. All callouts of posts getting deleted are nothing more than a sign that screams "I have a sense of self-entitlement the size of an El Paso breakfast."
Shut up already. If you don't like that your precious story was deleted, submit it somewhere else. But quit whining about how unfair it was that it got nuked here.
On the other hand, you could keep doing it so that we know who needs to take the short bus to the next meetup.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:46 PM on November 30, 2006
Listen up, you. All of you who aren't moderators: this isn't your site. This isn't a democracy. This isn't your blog. All callouts of posts getting deleted are nothing more than a sign that screams "I have a sense of self-entitlement the size of an El Paso breakfast."
Shut up already. If you don't like that your precious story was deleted, submit it somewhere else. But quit whining about how unfair it was that it got nuked here.
On the other hand, you could keep doing it so that we know who needs to take the short bus to the next meetup.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:46 PM on November 30, 2006
Shit. I guess I should mention: I'm not brown-nosing. I don't think the moderation here is particularly skilful or evenhanded. Whether or not the post was good is irrelevant; whether or not Joe User should have been banned or not is irrelevant. Complaining about how the mods run their site is just fuckin’ stupid.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:48 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by solid-one-love at 3:48 PM on November 30, 2006
I didn't love the post, though it was interesting, and maybe it was deleteworthy, but wouldn't it be better for all concerned if matthowie wasn't so pointlessly rude and patronising when he deletes stuff?
This message gets the trifecta because it was rude, patronising and apparently unrelated to the post. Antichrist? What the hell? The story's about mental illness, so at least go with "LOL BUSH SUPPORTERZ R CRAYZEE! whatever."
A compromise would be to have both. The snottiness and the rational explanation.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:53 PM on November 30, 2006
This message gets the trifecta because it was rude, patronising and apparently unrelated to the post. Antichrist? What the hell? The story's about mental illness, so at least go with "LOL BUSH SUPPORTERZ R CRAYZEE! whatever."
A compromise would be to have both. The snottiness and the rational explanation.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:53 PM on November 30, 2006
matteo : "I bet all those charred corpses in Iraq find that post totally lollersome, too, and clearly endorse its deletion"
Scientific studies indicate that a stunning 100% of charred corpses are dead, and therefore are highly unlikely to give a damn what is posted on MetaFilter.
posted by Bugbread at 4:09 PM on November 30, 2006
Scientific studies indicate that a stunning 100% of charred corpses are dead, and therefore are highly unlikely to give a damn what is posted on MetaFilter.
posted by Bugbread at 4:09 PM on November 30, 2006
We make an effort to post something--an effort should be made to tell why it's not postworthy.
AE's post consisted entirely of a link that was used in a comment to an earlier FPP. Not quite an effort of Beltranean proportions.
posted by dorisfromregopark at 4:11 PM on November 30, 2006
AE's post consisted entirely of a link that was used in a comment to an earlier FPP. Not quite an effort of Beltranean proportions.
posted by dorisfromregopark at 4:11 PM on November 30, 2006
So if Matt agrees to change the deletion reason to ""LOL BUSH SUPPORTERZ R CRAYZEE! whatever." can we consider this thread satisfactorily closed?
posted by vacapinta at 4:16 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 4:16 PM on November 30, 2006
Listen up, you. All of you who aren't moderators: this isn't your site. This isn't a democracy. This isn't your blog.
translation - "this is MY outlet to take out my frustrations on total strangers by acting like a self righteous asshole"
you and everyone else who does it ... it's tiresome ... knock it off ... you're not improving the site, you're pissing all over it
posted by pyramid termite at 4:18 PM on November 30, 2006
translation - "this is MY outlet to take out my frustrations on total strangers by acting like a self righteous asshole"
you and everyone else who does it ... it's tiresome ... knock it off ... you're not improving the site, you're pissing all over it
posted by pyramid termite at 4:18 PM on November 30, 2006
In tit-for-tat thinking, though, Matt ought to have used a deletion reason that was used in a comment in an earlier deletion complaint.
posted by cortex at 4:19 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by cortex at 4:19 PM on November 30, 2006
So, pyramid termite, how many MetaTalk posts have I made? You go on and count, then get back to me.
By my admittedly hasty count, you have made an infinitely greater number of posts complaining about the moderation. I ain't the one "pissing all over", Chuckles.
Seriously, over and over and over again you demonstrate that you live in some kind of Bizarro World where reality cannot penetrate your senses.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:24 PM on November 30, 2006
By my admittedly hasty count, you have made an infinitely greater number of posts complaining about the moderation. I ain't the one "pissing all over", Chuckles.
Seriously, over and over and over again you demonstrate that you live in some kind of Bizarro World where reality cannot penetrate your senses.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:24 PM on November 30, 2006
OK I agree with the deletion. But not because I LOVE PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!!!!! GO "THE W"!!!!!!!!! Only because it's a single link to obvious flame-bait.
Besides.... when is the last time Bush came across as "authoritarian"???? COME ON!!!!!!!
Go The W!!!!!!
posted by The Deej at 4:30 PM on November 30, 2006
Besides.... when is the last time Bush came across as "authoritarian"???? COME ON!!!!!!!
Go The W!!!!!!
posted by The Deej at 4:30 PM on November 30, 2006
Scientific studies indicate that a stunning 100% of charred corpses are dead, and therefore are highly unlikely to give a damn what is posted on MetaFilter.
Interestingly, while we're chatting about mental problems, the inability to accept descriptions of the world in figurative or metaphorical terms is a cognitive deficit symptomatic of schizophrenia. No joke.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:31 PM on November 30, 2006
Interestingly, while we're chatting about mental problems, the inability to accept descriptions of the world in figurative or metaphorical terms is a cognitive deficit symptomatic of schizophrenia. No joke.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:31 PM on November 30, 2006
So, pyramid termite, how many MetaTalk posts have I made?
what you and people like you do here is much worse
think about it
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 4:37 PM on November 30, 2006
what you and people like you do here is much worse
think about it
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 4:37 PM on November 30, 2006
>So if Matt agrees to change the deletion reason to ""LOL BUSH SUPPORTERZ R CRAYZEE! whatever." can we consider this thread satisfactorily closed?
No. He can post that if he wants, but I think he owes us the thirty seconds it would take him to write "One link news post, likely to cause flameage, not the best of the web" after it. Or whatever his reason actually was. We still don't know.
>this isn't your site. This isn't a democracy.
No, it isn't. It's a service for which we were charged money. Not a huge amount of money, but still.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:42 PM on November 30, 2006
No. He can post that if he wants, but I think he owes us the thirty seconds it would take him to write "One link news post, likely to cause flameage, not the best of the web" after it. Or whatever his reason actually was. We still don't know.
>this isn't your site. This isn't a democracy.
No, it isn't. It's a service for which we were charged money. Not a huge amount of money, but still.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:42 PM on November 30, 2006
AmbroseChapel: It's a service for which we were charged money.
Afraid I have to disagree. If I recall correctly, the $5 is considered a donation.
posted by russilwvong at 4:49 PM on November 30, 2006
Afraid I have to disagree. If I recall correctly, the $5 is considered a donation.
posted by russilwvong at 4:49 PM on November 30, 2006
Can I get to post here without donating the $5 then? Surely the word "donation" is just a polite fiction?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:52 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:52 PM on November 30, 2006
Can I get to post here without donating the $5 then?
If you ask nicely, probably. But more to the point, the service you paid for was posting access to mefi, not compulsory administrative explanations.
posted by cortex at 4:59 PM on November 30, 2006
If you ask nicely, probably. But more to the point, the service you paid for was posting access to mefi, not compulsory administrative explanations.
posted by cortex at 4:59 PM on November 30, 2006
hey so serious question: is a one-link fpp to an article that was linked in comments to another fpp the same dang day a double or what?
posted by Mister_A at 5:14 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 5:14 PM on November 30, 2006
Surely the word "donation" is just a polite fiction?
No, because if you're not happy you don't get your money back.
posted by russilwvong at 5:19 PM on November 30, 2006
No, because if you're not happy you don't get your money back.
posted by russilwvong at 5:19 PM on November 30, 2006
M_A: generally, it depends on if the link was any good or not. In this case, it is a double, because the link sucked.
posted by muddgirl at 5:20 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by muddgirl at 5:20 PM on November 30, 2006
I like the funny deletion reasons.
Me too - some days, they are the only thing worth reading here. Besides, if you really need to question all but maybe 1% of deleted threads, you are clearly missing the point of MetaFilter in the first place. Which the people posting those threads in the first place obviously do.
posted by dg at 5:38 PM on November 30, 2006
Me too - some days, they are the only thing worth reading here. Besides, if you really need to question all but maybe 1% of deleted threads, you are clearly missing the point of MetaFilter in the first place. Which the people posting those threads in the first place obviously do.
posted by dg at 5:38 PM on November 30, 2006
He can post that if he wants, but I think he owes us the thirty seconds it would take him to write "One link news post, likely to cause flameage, not the best of the web" after it.
If matt deletes a post you can safely assume it's not the best of the web, for whatever reason. If he did think it was best of the web, he wouldn't delete it. Simple.
posted by justgary at 5:49 PM on November 30, 2006
If matt deletes a post you can safely assume it's not the best of the web, for whatever reason. If he did think it was best of the web, he wouldn't delete it. Simple.
posted by justgary at 5:49 PM on November 30, 2006
funny deletion reasons +
humorless issue grinders -
however this is an inevitable downside of the whole paid Mefi account thing – people don't think of themselves as guests here so much anymore. Instead "I made the effort of making a post" even/ especially when, apparently, not much effort was involved.
posted by furiousthought at 5:59 PM on November 30, 2006
humorless issue grinders -
however this is an inevitable downside of the whole paid Mefi account thing – people don't think of themselves as guests here so much anymore. Instead "I made the effort of making a post" even/ especially when, apparently, not much effort was involved.
posted by furiousthought at 5:59 PM on November 30, 2006
"BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKELY MENTALLY ILL"
Do forgive me for falling down on the job, okay?
posted by davy at 6:05 PM on November 30, 2006
Do forgive me for falling down on the job, okay?
posted by davy at 6:05 PM on November 30, 2006
I changed the reason for deletion. The original one was mine, not Matt's anyhow. The article was a single link post to something that had already been posted in another thread and wasn't that great to begin with. The addition of the "wingnut" title made it guaranteed not to go well. If you'd like me to change the reason for deletion to "double post" I can do that as well. I don't think the wisecrack reasons for deletion will go away but careful readers will notice they're often appropriate to the level of OMG contained in the original post. A single link Psychotics4Bush post isn't really a good link to something neat on the web.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:06 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:06 PM on November 30, 2006
No, it isn't. It's a service for which we were charged money. Not a huge amount of money, but still.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
THE PROPHECY HAS COME TO PASS
posted by fishfucker at 6:13 PM on November 30, 2006
Little-endian or big-endian, we're all Lilliputians - if only we could agree that the sole purpose of MetaFilter is to provide us with stuff to talk about on MetaTalk.
posted by jack_mo at 6:16 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by jack_mo at 6:16 PM on November 30, 2006
The funniest thing to me is people who think that their $5 cover charge gives them some sort of perpetual entitlement to what they consider to be proper service.
The post sucked and the reason for deletion reflected that suckage. The implication of the post, reinforced by the “Wingnuts” post title, was that crazy people like Bush, therefore people who like Bush are crazy. Bad logic is bad enough, but bad logic that quotes science is best left to the professionals in the Bush administration itself.
posted by found missing at 6:26 PM on November 30, 2006
The post sucked and the reason for deletion reflected that suckage. The implication of the post, reinforced by the “Wingnuts” post title, was that crazy people like Bush, therefore people who like Bush are crazy. Bad logic is bad enough, but bad logic that quotes science is best left to the professionals in the Bush administration itself.
posted by found missing at 6:26 PM on November 30, 2006
Moronic. The more psychotic the person, the more likely they are to not vote at all, not realise there is an election, or to be unable to register, offer valid ID, post a legal vote, etc etc etc . Who they might, in theory, vote for is an almost entirely moot point.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:47 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:47 PM on November 30, 2006
My $5 gave me the right to scoff at the rest of y'all bourgeois Metafiltristes, especially those who (I say falsely) consider themseves "liberal", "progressive" or "radical". So there. (My voices told me to post this.)
posted by davy at 6:58 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by davy at 6:58 PM on November 30, 2006
I find the impulse to complain about people complaing weird. And a sign that you don't really understand the true joys of MetaTalk. I mean, a good portion of MetaTalk is people complaining: sometimes everyone agrees and makes fun of the asshole being complained about; sometimes everyone doesn't and then we all make fun of the asshole who posted the thread. Saying, "You're complaining!" is like pointing on the strings on a puppet.
posted by dame at 7:24 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by dame at 7:24 PM on November 30, 2006
>If matt deletes a post you can safely assume it's not the best of the web, for whatever reason. If he did think it was best of the web, he wouldn't delete it. Simple.
Wow. Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?
>The funniest thing to me is people who think that their $5 cover charge gives them some sort of perpetual entitlement to what they consider to be proper service.
But you don't explain why you think it's so funny. Oh, wait, do you still think you get points for being more blasé and cynical than the next person? I used to think like that when I was a teenager.
I don't mind the snark, I just think it improves the site when an actual reason is given along with it. That's my outrageous "sense of entitlement". I like this site. I think MeFi ought to get better, not worse, as time goes on and I think paying five bucks gets me membership in the club of people who have a right to say so.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:28 PM on November 30, 2006
Wow. Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?
>The funniest thing to me is people who think that their $5 cover charge gives them some sort of perpetual entitlement to what they consider to be proper service.
But you don't explain why you think it's so funny. Oh, wait, do you still think you get points for being more blasé and cynical than the next person? I used to think like that when I was a teenager.
I don't mind the snark, I just think it improves the site when an actual reason is given along with it. That's my outrageous "sense of entitlement". I like this site. I think MeFi ought to get better, not worse, as time goes on and I think paying five bucks gets me membership in the club of people who have a right to say so.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:28 PM on November 30, 2006
I can't figure out why you'd want to consider this a "service" that you have some sort of minimal expectation of certain things from. It's the internet with an admission fee.
There is some theory, somewhere, that I can't think of right now, about the fact that people value things more when they have to pay for them, even if it's an amount of money that's entirely pointless. Even one cent is enough to make people think differently about what they're "buying".
I think the $5, while not a meaningless amount of money, at least keeps out the most casual idiots and makes us perhaps take the place a little more seriously... and that's basically it.
Maybe it should be scaled so people start realizing it's just a barrier to entry and not some sort of "entitlement to service" thing. I don't know. I suppose that would make MetaFilter elitist, but then, it probably already is, by that definition...
posted by blacklite at 7:30 PM on November 30, 2006
There is some theory, somewhere, that I can't think of right now, about the fact that people value things more when they have to pay for them, even if it's an amount of money that's entirely pointless. Even one cent is enough to make people think differently about what they're "buying".
I think the $5, while not a meaningless amount of money, at least keeps out the most casual idiots and makes us perhaps take the place a little more seriously... and that's basically it.
Maybe it should be scaled so people start realizing it's just a barrier to entry and not some sort of "entitlement to service" thing. I don't know. I suppose that would make MetaFilter elitist, but then, it probably already is, by that definition...
posted by blacklite at 7:30 PM on November 30, 2006
Wow. Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?Matthowie's got me locked in his basement dungeon right now.
posted by bigbigdog at 7:35 PM on November 30, 2006
I spell his name with two T's because I love him now.
posted by bigbigdog at 7:39 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by bigbigdog at 7:39 PM on November 30, 2006
Wow. Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?
Matt has the delete button. I don't have one. Obviously you don't. If accepting that fact equals Stockholm Syndrome, so be it.
You keep fighting the good fight. I think you've got about a bucks worth of complaining left.
posted by justgary at 7:42 PM on November 30, 2006
Matt has the delete button. I don't have one. Obviously you don't. If accepting that fact equals Stockholm Syndrome, so be it.
You keep fighting the good fight. I think you've got about a bucks worth of complaining left.
posted by justgary at 7:42 PM on November 30, 2006
"I think the $5, while not a meaningless amount of money, at least keeps out the most casual idiots"
But it fails to bar more formal idiots. I won't name names, I'll just quietly blush.
posted by davy at 9:33 PM on November 30, 2006
But it fails to bar more formal idiots. I won't name names, I'll just quietly blush.
posted by davy at 9:33 PM on November 30, 2006
I think the $5, while not a meaningless amount of money, at least keeps out the most casual idiots and makes us perhaps take the place a little more seriously... and that's basically it.
No, the fact that you had to find a back door into the site or be ready to sign up on the third full moon of the apocalypse which was when the joining window was open for precisely 4.678564 seconds used to fulfil that function. Now, any idiot with $5 can get in. How seriously do you take something you spent five bucks on?
posted by dg at 10:36 PM on November 30, 2006
No, the fact that you had to find a back door into the site or be ready to sign up on the third full moon of the apocalypse which was when the joining window was open for precisely 4.678564 seconds used to fulfil that function. Now, any idiot with $5 can get in. How seriously do you take something you spent five bucks on?
posted by dg at 10:36 PM on November 30, 2006
"I am not void in Vermont."
I've voided myself in Vermont more than once. And I look forward to doing it again sometime.
posted by Eideteker at 10:36 PM on November 30, 2006
I've voided myself in Vermont more than once. And I look forward to doing it again sometime.
posted by Eideteker at 10:36 PM on November 30, 2006
I'm left wondering, why do we really care what the deletion reason was? The post is DELETED for christ's sake, move on. Matt could say, "cause my mom said so" it's his site, he and his mods can do with it as they like.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:00 PM on November 30, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 11:00 PM on November 30, 2006
I enjoy the wisecrack reasons for deletion, I view them as recompense for a crappy post.
posted by Joeforking at 2:01 AM on December 1, 2006
posted by Joeforking at 2:01 AM on December 1, 2006
Blazecock Pileon : "the inability to accept descriptions of the world in figurative or metaphorical terms is a cognitive deficit symptomatic of schizophrenia. No joke."
I believe it, and I'm cool with using figurative and metaphorical terms. However, the underlying message in this particular case was "this post should remain, because people are dying due to Bush's authoritarianism", and I don't see any way where discussing this particular study on MetaFilter would help stop these people dying. Basically, it's using a metaphorical term to make an argument that doesn't make sense, used because it's emotional, and to mask the fact that the underlying argument is weak, and couched in sarcasm in order to add even one more level of abstraction and obfuscation. It's metaphor used, not to make a complex argument more understandable, but to make a weak argument sound stronger.
When I see metaphors abused that way, I just choose not to play the commenter's game.
posted by Bugbread at 5:13 AM on December 1, 2006
I believe it, and I'm cool with using figurative and metaphorical terms. However, the underlying message in this particular case was "this post should remain, because people are dying due to Bush's authoritarianism", and I don't see any way where discussing this particular study on MetaFilter would help stop these people dying. Basically, it's using a metaphorical term to make an argument that doesn't make sense, used because it's emotional, and to mask the fact that the underlying argument is weak, and couched in sarcasm in order to add even one more level of abstraction and obfuscation. It's metaphor used, not to make a complex argument more understandable, but to make a weak argument sound stronger.
When I see metaphors abused that way, I just choose not to play the commenter's game.
posted by Bugbread at 5:13 AM on December 1, 2006
AmbroseChapel : "Wow. Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?"
Yes. I have. It's when people who haven't chosen to become hostages / prisoners start to sympathize with their captors.
However, in the case of MeFi, I was able to read MeFi, and its deletion reasons, for years before signing up. I knew what kinds of reasons Matt (and Jessamyn, whose reasons are quite similar) posts as deletion reasons. And I signed up anyway.
So it's less like "Stockholm Syndrome" than it is going to "Cold Hamburger Hut", listening to the guy next to you saying "You should make this hamburger hot! I paid!" and saying "Dude, wtf, you knew it was a cold hamburger place, and came voluntarily. What's your deal?"
Yeah, sure, I'd prefer if Matt and Jessamyn gave more detailed deletion reasons, as it would possibly just slightly help decrease the amount of "why was this deleted" MeTas (but not eliminate them completely). But I'm not going to get all angry that they don't. If it bothered me so much, I wouldn't have signed up for MeFi in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 5:23 AM on December 1, 2006
Yes. I have. It's when people who haven't chosen to become hostages / prisoners start to sympathize with their captors.
However, in the case of MeFi, I was able to read MeFi, and its deletion reasons, for years before signing up. I knew what kinds of reasons Matt (and Jessamyn, whose reasons are quite similar) posts as deletion reasons. And I signed up anyway.
So it's less like "Stockholm Syndrome" than it is going to "Cold Hamburger Hut", listening to the guy next to you saying "You should make this hamburger hot! I paid!" and saying "Dude, wtf, you knew it was a cold hamburger place, and came voluntarily. What's your deal?"
Yeah, sure, I'd prefer if Matt and Jessamyn gave more detailed deletion reasons, as it would possibly just slightly help decrease the amount of "why was this deleted" MeTas (but not eliminate them completely). But I'm not going to get all angry that they don't. If it bothered me so much, I wouldn't have signed up for MeFi in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 5:23 AM on December 1, 2006
Metafilter: some kind of Bizarro World where reality cannot penetrate your senses.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 AM on December 1, 2006
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 AM on December 1, 2006
This is the worst example of whatever it is that I have ever seen.
posted by Mister_A at 7:13 AM on December 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister_A at 7:13 AM on December 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: this is the worst example of whatever it is that I have ever seen.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:46 AM on December 1, 2006
posted by Meatbomb at 7:46 AM on December 1, 2006
>If matt deletes a post you can safely assume it's not the best of the web, for whatever reason. If he did think it was best of the web, he wouldn't delete it. Simple.
What this reminds me of:
"The police only arrest guilty people." --Edwin Meese III
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:51 PM on December 1, 2006
What this reminds me of:
"The police only arrest guilty people." --Edwin Meese III
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:51 PM on December 1, 2006
"The police only arrest guilty people." --Edwin Meese III
Please. It means there are two admins with delete buttons. If only the best of the web stays, and a post is deleted, in their opinion it's not the best of the web on metafilter. In your opinion, on another site, sure, it might be. But not here.
It's not a difficult concept, so maybe you're being intentionally dense.
posted by justgary at 1:34 PM on December 1, 2006
Please. It means there are two admins with delete buttons. If only the best of the web stays, and a post is deleted, in their opinion it's not the best of the web on metafilter. In your opinion, on another site, sure, it might be. But not here.
It's not a difficult concept, so maybe you're being intentionally dense.
posted by justgary at 1:34 PM on December 1, 2006
Well, it was badly phrased, but the intended meaning should have been clear anyway. To be accurate, it probably should have said "If matt deletes a post you can safely assume he doesn't consider it the best of the web, for whatever reason."
Now, if you really want to get pedantic, I'd say it's about a 49% chance that he doesn't consider it the best of the web, and a 49% chance that he does think it's the best of the web, but it's a double. And 2% miscellaneous. But that's just being pedantic.
posted by Bugbread at 5:13 PM on December 1, 2006
Now, if you really want to get pedantic, I'd say it's about a 49% chance that he doesn't consider it the best of the web, and a 49% chance that he does think it's the best of the web, but it's a double. And 2% miscellaneous. But that's just being pedantic.
posted by Bugbread at 5:13 PM on December 1, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by GuyZero at 1:24 PM on November 30, 2006