Religious / Political Threads Largely Repetitive May 7, 2007 3:21 PM Subscribe
MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics tend to have comments which are basically the same as other MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics.
man, when something brings bugbread to metatalk, it's gotta be the kind of thing that simply cannot be resolved through civil discussion.
posted by shmegegge at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2007
Excellent observation, bugbread!
PS: Your god sucks.
posted by Deathalicious at 3:26 PM on May 7, 2007
PS: Your god sucks.
posted by Deathalicious at 3:26 PM on May 7, 2007
All gods suck, dude.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
In other news, metatalk callouts also deemed largely repetitive.
posted by seanyboy at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by seanyboy at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2007
seanyboy writes "In other news, metatalk callouts also deemed largely repetitive."
True. Except maybe bug reports.
posted by Bugbread at 3:30 PM on May 7, 2007
True. Except maybe bug reports.
posted by Bugbread at 3:30 PM on May 7, 2007
I do believe that many of us, and by that I mean all of us, have noticed it.
I recently pondered this and why I couldn't stop respondingin the threads. While I have not stopped entirely, I have rewritten my own user profile as a reminder of the futility of posting in such threads.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:33 PM on May 7, 2007
I recently pondered this and why I couldn't stop respondingin the threads. While I have not stopped entirely, I have rewritten my own user profile as a reminder of the futility of posting in such threads.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:33 PM on May 7, 2007
It may just be that discussion of any subject becomes repetitive with time, and religion and politics get discussed a lot, hence the repetition. The tornado discussion on the front page is pretty interesting, because we don't discuss tornadoes much, so I've learned a lot about dome houses, construction of fraidy holes in tornado areas, the much greater role of meteorologists on TV, etc. I suppose if we discussed tornadoes a lot, I'd think the topic was repetitive as well.
So maybe it isn't the topic, it's just the frequency with which it comes up. Plus whether or not the topic is one you feel strongly about convincing people that disagree with you about.
posted by Bugbread at 3:38 PM on May 7, 2007
So maybe it isn't the topic, it's just the frequency with which it comes up. Plus whether or not the topic is one you feel strongly about convincing people that disagree with you about.
posted by Bugbread at 3:38 PM on May 7, 2007
Everything is everything...
it's a funky and low down feeling,
what it is
what it is....
posted by y2karl at 3:41 PM on May 7, 2007
it's a funky and low down feeling,
what it is
what it is....
posted by y2karl at 3:41 PM on May 7, 2007
MetaTalk needs tags.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:46 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 3:46 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what exactly bardic wishes me to discuss here.
posted by bugbread at 5:21 PM on May 7
Nothing. He just wanted you gone because you were screwing with his circlejerk.
I missed that post over the weekend (thankfully). That's a real shitty post for Mefi. If one wanted to construct a post that would be an exemplar for people to restake, rehash and regurgitate all of their grudges against their binary-enemy strawman, it would be hard-pressed to beat that. I'm suprised it wasn't deleted.
posted by dios at 3:50 PM on May 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by bugbread at 5:21 PM on May 7
Nothing. He just wanted you gone because you were screwing with his circlejerk.
I missed that post over the weekend (thankfully). That's a real shitty post for Mefi. If one wanted to construct a post that would be an exemplar for people to restake, rehash and regurgitate all of their grudges against their binary-enemy strawman, it would be hard-pressed to beat that. I'm suprised it wasn't deleted.
posted by dios at 3:50 PM on May 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter discussions about [American] religion and politics tend to have comments which are basically the same as other MetaFilter discussions about [American] religion and politics.
posted by CrazyLemonade at 4:01 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by CrazyLemonade at 4:01 PM on May 7, 2007
bugbread: I'm not sure what exactly bardic wishes me to discuss here.
It does seem like meta-discussion.
smallerdemon: the futility of posting in such threads.
To me, the point of political arguments on MetaFilter or other places isn't to try to change the mind of the person you're arguing with--this happens extremely rarely, if ever--but to convince other people who are reading the thread, and who don't yet have a fixed position on the issue.
posted by russilwvong at 4:07 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
It does seem like meta-discussion.
smallerdemon: the futility of posting in such threads.
To me, the point of political arguments on MetaFilter or other places isn't to try to change the mind of the person you're arguing with--this happens extremely rarely, if ever--but to convince other people who are reading the thread, and who don't yet have a fixed position on the issue.
posted by russilwvong at 4:07 PM on May 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
CrazyLemonade:
True. The French politics thread right now is kicking all kinds of butt. Regarding religion, I'd say stuff about Christianity and Islam generally does poorly, whether it's American or not. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and the like tend to fare better.
posted by Bugbread at 4:07 PM on May 7, 2007
True. The French politics thread right now is kicking all kinds of butt. Regarding religion, I'd say stuff about Christianity and Islam generally does poorly, whether it's American or not. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and the like tend to fare better.
posted by Bugbread at 4:07 PM on May 7, 2007
So bugbread - what you're saying, in essence, is "meh"?
One of the most repetitively repeated observations in such posts is that people are repeating themselves or saying something that's been said before, along with predictions of not wendellness and ultimate futility.
Are we witnessing a limitation of the whole mefi model? Will all topics eventually be met with a meh-like response from the regulars? Will mefi eventually become just a soul-deadening series of pathetic one-link posts perpetuated unto infinity in an ultimately fruitless attempt to find something novel to discuss? ... Is this all there is???
posted by scheptech at 6:34 PM on May 7, 2007
One of the most repetitively repeated observations in such posts is that people are repeating themselves or saying something that's been said before, along with predictions of not wendellness and ultimate futility.
Are we witnessing a limitation of the whole mefi model? Will all topics eventually be met with a meh-like response from the regulars? Will mefi eventually become just a soul-deadening series of pathetic one-link posts perpetuated unto infinity in an ultimately fruitless attempt to find something novel to discuss? ... Is this all there is???
posted by scheptech at 6:34 PM on May 7, 2007
To me, the point of political arguments on MetaFilter or other places isn't to try to change the mind of the person you're arguing with--this happens extremely rarely, if ever--but to convince other people who are reading the thread, and who don't yet have a fixed position on the issue.
So, the point is simply to sway individuals who have yet to form an opinion? Yet most responses are not written with that premise. Most responses are written as either logical coherent statements of outrage from either side or illogical incoherent rants from either side. I love the idea that someone sitting on the fence was convinced by one of the logical and coherent statements they read on metafilter (and I welcome examples!), but I suspect the reality is that the overwhelming number and emotion expressed by the illogical and incoherent statements outweigh them to the point that most folks who don't already have a vested interest in a side of an argument don't come back to the thread to watch true believes on both side bicker with each other.
People holding extreme views on anything can often change their minds on big issues, but most often it is from personal life experience. It may indeed be something they read, but rarely it will be something they read on the internet. It will be a book (or books) that presents an entire coherent concept to them, not a hot headed repetitive response to a metafilter post.
I love metafilter, and I am certain it has a great amount of positive influence on people because the userbase on both sides of the political and religious spectrum are often very astute and eloquent, but I simply don't see enough coherent narrative for most readers here to ultimately use responses as a basis for changing their minds.
posted by smallerdemon at 6:41 PM on May 7, 2007
So, the point is simply to sway individuals who have yet to form an opinion? Yet most responses are not written with that premise. Most responses are written as either logical coherent statements of outrage from either side or illogical incoherent rants from either side. I love the idea that someone sitting on the fence was convinced by one of the logical and coherent statements they read on metafilter (and I welcome examples!), but I suspect the reality is that the overwhelming number and emotion expressed by the illogical and incoherent statements outweigh them to the point that most folks who don't already have a vested interest in a side of an argument don't come back to the thread to watch true believes on both side bicker with each other.
People holding extreme views on anything can often change their minds on big issues, but most often it is from personal life experience. It may indeed be something they read, but rarely it will be something they read on the internet. It will be a book (or books) that presents an entire coherent concept to them, not a hot headed repetitive response to a metafilter post.
I love metafilter, and I am certain it has a great amount of positive influence on people because the userbase on both sides of the political and religious spectrum are often very astute and eloquent, but I simply don't see enough coherent narrative for most readers here to ultimately use responses as a basis for changing their minds.
posted by smallerdemon at 6:41 PM on May 7, 2007
To believe any proposition is to believe that the best reasons support that proposition: an argument is a means to determine whether we're missing better reasons, which should change our minds. Many of these threads seem repetitive because there are so many people in the world. There are a lot of reasons to give, and a lot of minds to change, and we're all a little bit wrong, much of the time. We all need a good snarky correction now and then.
Look, whenever we're going at it in those threads, I hope it's clear that when a person exchanges arguments with others, she's testing her beliefs. Who among us really believes that we don't have good reasons to hold our opinions? Don't we all think our opinions are -true-? Part of claiming "p is true" is being willing to assert p, and hear counter-arguments. What lunatic would willingly admit that his reasons are poor, that the evidence indicates x, but still claim to believe y? Try it out: the evidence indicates that Germany invaded Poland in 1939, but yet, against all evidence, I believe that Poland invaded Germany. Does that even make sense?!?
If we take our opinions to be well-founded, why wouldn't we attempt to assert our beliefs against those who hold contrary claims to be true? Either we're right, and we hold the true belief, and therefore we can show that fact to the person who is wrong, or we're wrong, and we discover that the other person's reasons are better than our own, or that some third set of reasons and beliefs answers better still. But in any case, it's part of the nature of believing something to wonder how it could be that another person believes something different. We agree on most things: the sun rises in the west, snow is white, men are mortal. When we discover a disagreement, we naturally engage in an exchange of reasons, seeking the point of departure. That's what language is for, and thus, it's what the internet is for.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:24 PM on May 7, 2007
Look, whenever we're going at it in those threads, I hope it's clear that when a person exchanges arguments with others, she's testing her beliefs. Who among us really believes that we don't have good reasons to hold our opinions? Don't we all think our opinions are -true-? Part of claiming "p is true" is being willing to assert p, and hear counter-arguments. What lunatic would willingly admit that his reasons are poor, that the evidence indicates x, but still claim to believe y? Try it out: the evidence indicates that Germany invaded Poland in 1939, but yet, against all evidence, I believe that Poland invaded Germany. Does that even make sense?!?
If we take our opinions to be well-founded, why wouldn't we attempt to assert our beliefs against those who hold contrary claims to be true? Either we're right, and we hold the true belief, and therefore we can show that fact to the person who is wrong, or we're wrong, and we discover that the other person's reasons are better than our own, or that some third set of reasons and beliefs answers better still. But in any case, it's part of the nature of believing something to wonder how it could be that another person believes something different. We agree on most things: the sun rises in the west, snow is white, men are mortal. When we discover a disagreement, we naturally engage in an exchange of reasons, seeking the point of departure. That's what language is for, and thus, it's what the internet is for.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:24 PM on May 7, 2007
Well personally I learned a lesson by reading the comments during this recent "Weekend of LOLMUSLIMZ." Unfortunately, the lesson I learned was that even though I am really interested in some of the topics and I'm thrilled when I can learn new things from other people's insights & experiences (as well as having an avenue to share my own), the second people start jumping into that whole LOLMUSLIMZ thing & telling eachother to "Die In A Fire" I need to simply click away and never check that thread again.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:42 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 7:42 PM on May 7, 2007
Bugbread, usually you're a good guy, but give it a rest, huh?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:47 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:47 PM on May 7, 2007
Damn, I was just thinking how MeTa had been pretty free of this kind of self-wankery lately.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on May 7, 2007
That's what language is for, and thus, it's what the internet is for.
Is a means of communication actually, itself, communication?
How much of human conversation is meaningful? Sure, we would love to think that all of it is. But you need only go into a bookstore to see how many people go through tremendous efforts to communicate with us in a meaningful way, and how much of that gets through? How much of it is meaningful? Only a small amount gets through at all, and even a smaller amount of that is meaningful. Of course, yes, this does lead us to ask "What is meaningful?" which is, indeed, a damn good point.
I hope it's clear that when a person exchanges arguments with others, she's testing her beliefs. Who among us really believes that we don't have good reasons to hold our opinions?
I do wonder how many people are testing their beliefs as opposed to just testifying their beliefs. When it boils down to the same redundancies repeatedly coming from he same people all the time, it seems unlikely (to me, mind you) that folks are there to challenge their own beliefs as much as state their own beliefs.
I certainly think there may be anecdotal examples of "That metafilter thread changed my life. I have given up my degree in law and I am going off to be join the priesthood." Metafilter's grandest purposed in influencing what people believe might be as an element of part of a greater sum of someone's life and philosophy already in question. It might even be the tip of an iceberg. But I get the feeling that many, many of the posters feel when they are typing their responses that the thread is the entire iceberg, not just the tip.
If we take our opinions to be well-founded, why wouldn't we attempt to assert our beliefs against those who hold contrary claims to be true?
Beliefs are weird things. Is a belief based in "faith" well founded? Sure, if you already believe that "faith" is an important component to holding a belief to start with. If you have found faith to be a bunch of hooey over your own life, then no argument about your belief that depends on faith, no matter how well-founded, is gong to have much impact on those that don't believe in faith.
It is the standard problem of many unresolvable disagreements: each person state's their position based on a set of basic premises. If the sides can't come to an agreement on the beginning premises from the start then there is a stalemate that often devolves into a state of war. In the case of these crazy threads, the "war" is nothing more than a back and forth frenzy of various types of true believers about specific positions.
Contrary to my own... "belief" about all of this, though, I will say that those threads can serve a tremendous purpose primarily for the posters. While not at that specific moment challenging their belief but defending it, it does force them to elucidate what they believe. It may not be, as anotherpanacea points out, their specific goal to test their beliefs as they type what they believe (although, yes, I am guessing there are some cases in which that is accurate), but that elucidation process itself serves a great purpose in enriching one's own self-discovery about one's self, beliefs, and thinking process.
So, while I try hard to avoid those threads because I'm an emotional over-reactor (i.e. I get mad, or sad, or largely unable to respond logically), I guess I can certainly see a larger personal purpose for the threads as a means for people to explore what they believe.
*ponders*
posted by smallerdemon at 8:17 PM on May 7, 2007
Is a means of communication actually, itself, communication?
How much of human conversation is meaningful? Sure, we would love to think that all of it is. But you need only go into a bookstore to see how many people go through tremendous efforts to communicate with us in a meaningful way, and how much of that gets through? How much of it is meaningful? Only a small amount gets through at all, and even a smaller amount of that is meaningful. Of course, yes, this does lead us to ask "What is meaningful?" which is, indeed, a damn good point.
I hope it's clear that when a person exchanges arguments with others, she's testing her beliefs. Who among us really believes that we don't have good reasons to hold our opinions?
I do wonder how many people are testing their beliefs as opposed to just testifying their beliefs. When it boils down to the same redundancies repeatedly coming from he same people all the time, it seems unlikely (to me, mind you) that folks are there to challenge their own beliefs as much as state their own beliefs.
I certainly think there may be anecdotal examples of "That metafilter thread changed my life. I have given up my degree in law and I am going off to be join the priesthood." Metafilter's grandest purposed in influencing what people believe might be as an element of part of a greater sum of someone's life and philosophy already in question. It might even be the tip of an iceberg. But I get the feeling that many, many of the posters feel when they are typing their responses that the thread is the entire iceberg, not just the tip.
If we take our opinions to be well-founded, why wouldn't we attempt to assert our beliefs against those who hold contrary claims to be true?
Beliefs are weird things. Is a belief based in "faith" well founded? Sure, if you already believe that "faith" is an important component to holding a belief to start with. If you have found faith to be a bunch of hooey over your own life, then no argument about your belief that depends on faith, no matter how well-founded, is gong to have much impact on those that don't believe in faith.
It is the standard problem of many unresolvable disagreements: each person state's their position based on a set of basic premises. If the sides can't come to an agreement on the beginning premises from the start then there is a stalemate that often devolves into a state of war. In the case of these crazy threads, the "war" is nothing more than a back and forth frenzy of various types of true believers about specific positions.
Contrary to my own... "belief" about all of this, though, I will say that those threads can serve a tremendous purpose primarily for the posters. While not at that specific moment challenging their belief but defending it, it does force them to elucidate what they believe. It may not be, as anotherpanacea points out, their specific goal to test their beliefs as they type what they believe (although, yes, I am guessing there are some cases in which that is accurate), but that elucidation process itself serves a great purpose in enriching one's own self-discovery about one's self, beliefs, and thinking process.
So, while I try hard to avoid those threads because I'm an emotional over-reactor (i.e. I get mad, or sad, or largely unable to respond logically), I guess I can certainly see a larger personal purpose for the threads as a means for people to explore what they believe.
*ponders*
posted by smallerdemon at 8:17 PM on May 7, 2007
Damn, I was just thinking how MeTa had been pretty free of this kind of self-wankery lately.
MetaMetaTalk... day-um... it is indeed a big ball of self-wankery. Wait a second... isn't wanking necessarily "self-wankery"?
*runs like hell*
posted by smallerdemon at 8:22 PM on May 7, 2007
MetaMetaTalk... day-um... it is indeed a big ball of self-wankery. Wait a second... isn't wanking necessarily "self-wankery"?
*runs like hell*
posted by smallerdemon at 8:22 PM on May 7, 2007
I hope it's clear that when a person exchanges arguments with others, she's testing her beliefs
When I do it, what I'm testing a number of things. But most important among them is your patience.
posted by Clay201 at 9:06 PM on May 7, 2007
When I do it, what I'm testing a number of things. But most important among them is your patience.
posted by Clay201 at 9:06 PM on May 7, 2007
My intent was not to derail
I believe this. It did become a derail though, bardic is right about that. Not your fault really, it had sort started before you even showed up.
I share your difficulty in seeing the point of this thread, but enjoyed the eponysteria and dios's rants about rehashed circlejerks are always good for a laugh. Overall, C+
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:40 PM on May 7, 2007
I believe this. It did become a derail though, bardic is right about that. Not your fault really, it had sort started before you even showed up.
I share your difficulty in seeing the point of this thread, but enjoyed the eponysteria and dios's rants about rehashed circlejerks are always good for a laugh. Overall, C+
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:40 PM on May 7, 2007
Bugbread, like I said in that thread, your point has also been made before, by several people, several times. I personally would answer Nietzsche's demon by trying to murder him as I shrieked and gibbered, but so far this iteration of this existence is the only one you know of, right?
(Lawd, I'm too tired to do anything but rehash. Zap me Science, zap me hard.)
posted by davy at 10:41 PM on May 7, 2007
(Lawd, I'm too tired to do anything but rehash. Zap me Science, zap me hard.)
posted by davy at 10:41 PM on May 7, 2007
Stalin knew several ways to resolve disagreements about religion and politics. Having a canal dug was one; another was having said canal somehow turn out shallower than designed.
posted by davy at 10:44 PM on May 7, 2007
posted by davy at 10:44 PM on May 7, 2007
Are we witnessing a limitation of the whole mefi model? Will all topics eventually be met with a meh-like response from the regulars?
That problem—the rehashedness of common topics—is in my mind one of the most compelling arguments for the sort of aggressive per-topic culling that has only been implemented in transient and cautious fashion on the front page in the past. I know Matt has taken to chopping back the weeds, as it were, on specific topics that hit a really high cycle.
It'd be a major change of moderation practice to do that, but it'd be an interesting experiment—wholesale slaughter of poli/religions/news threads barring the most exceptional, excellent presentations. One, maybe two threads of that sort a day, 90%-ish attrition rate.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that the same people who end up rehashing these arguments in such threads make no other contributions to the site, though, and so it's a hard question: do we create a massive general disincentive for folks who happen to really like that sort of thread, and see some falloff in other threads and parts of the site when those people lose their enthusiasm?
The same thing could be said of the moderation style in AskMe, of course—some folks are vocally opposed to the degree to which that part of the site is kept relatively straight. But at the same time, it's bustling, growing every day, so it's a question of specific users vs. general users; what's better for the site, catering to the status quo-ers or to the potential new folks attracted to what the site might be with the change?
And how do you ask such questions of folks in the grey, who (I think it is fair to say) over-represent the old guard of the site, the curmudgeonly long-timers, proportional to the active membership on the blue and the green?
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:51 PM on May 7, 2007
That problem—the rehashedness of common topics—is in my mind one of the most compelling arguments for the sort of aggressive per-topic culling that has only been implemented in transient and cautious fashion on the front page in the past. I know Matt has taken to chopping back the weeds, as it were, on specific topics that hit a really high cycle.
It'd be a major change of moderation practice to do that, but it'd be an interesting experiment—wholesale slaughter of poli/religions/news threads barring the most exceptional, excellent presentations. One, maybe two threads of that sort a day, 90%-ish attrition rate.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that the same people who end up rehashing these arguments in such threads make no other contributions to the site, though, and so it's a hard question: do we create a massive general disincentive for folks who happen to really like that sort of thread, and see some falloff in other threads and parts of the site when those people lose their enthusiasm?
The same thing could be said of the moderation style in AskMe, of course—some folks are vocally opposed to the degree to which that part of the site is kept relatively straight. But at the same time, it's bustling, growing every day, so it's a question of specific users vs. general users; what's better for the site, catering to the status quo-ers or to the potential new folks attracted to what the site might be with the change?
And how do you ask such questions of folks in the grey, who (I think it is fair to say) over-represent the old guard of the site, the curmudgeonly long-timers, proportional to the active membership on the blue and the green?
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:51 PM on May 7, 2007
However, when I mentioned this . . . it resulted in a little furor.
You're trying to make some point, but all I can hear is Mel Brooks saying "cue the midget."
posted by fleacircus at 11:39 PM on May 7, 2007
You're trying to make some point, but all I can hear is Mel Brooks saying "cue the midget."
posted by fleacircus at 11:39 PM on May 7, 2007
actually, the funniest part is that bardic tells us we should take it to metatalk and when one of us does, he doesn't show up to discuss it
the second funniest part is when he insisted on continuing the alleged "derail" long after i was through with it
that fpp was banal, mediocre and trite ... it was also well-designed to allow the usual bashing and baiting that some like to indulge in here
in short, worst of the web for the worst instincts in us
and yeah, i pointed it out briefly ... so sue me ... bardic and the others don't get to dictate to us how we react ...
how does one derail a train wreck, anyway?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2007
the second funniest part is when he insisted on continuing the alleged "derail" long after i was through with it
that fpp was banal, mediocre and trite ... it was also well-designed to allow the usual bashing and baiting that some like to indulge in here
in short, worst of the web for the worst instincts in us
and yeah, i pointed it out briefly ... so sue me ... bardic and the others don't get to dictate to us how we react ...
how does one derail a train wreck, anyway?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2007
how does one derail a train wreck, anyway?
Probably by overanalyzing said train wreck and nastily blaming eachother for wrecking the train instead of helping and encouraging eachother to find a way to actually step out of the freaking wreckage towards a safer and quite possibly better place.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:35 AM on May 8, 2007
Probably by overanalyzing said train wreck and nastily blaming eachother for wrecking the train instead of helping and encouraging eachother to find a way to actually step out of the freaking wreckage towards a safer and quite possibly better place.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:35 AM on May 8, 2007
Leastwise a less nasty and personal-attack filled one.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:36 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 1:36 AM on May 8, 2007
I'm not sure what exactly bardic wishes me to discuss here.
Enough talk, we want Thunderdome!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:34 AM on May 8, 2007
Enough talk, we want Thunderdome!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:34 AM on May 8, 2007
bardic and the others don't get to dictate to us how we react
That's true, but that cuts both ways, and if your reaction is to complain about a thread, usually this means you should take your reaction to Metatalk.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:39 AM on May 8, 2007
That's true, but that cuts both ways, and if your reaction is to complain about a thread, usually this means you should take your reaction to Metatalk.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:39 AM on May 8, 2007
and hosted from Uranus writes "I believe this. It did become a derail though, bardic is right about that."
Yeah. I think there were two problems: one is the dynamic of conversations like that (nobody's fault), and the second was me not realizing it and responding (my fault).
That is, if someone says something, and someone else says "take it to meta", that's usually the end of it in the thread (if the person being told to go to Meta has any decency). However, if someone says something and is told "you're wrong", they have a natural tendency to argue why they're right.
The dynamic problem is that, with an exchange like this:
A: I think X.
B: You're wrong, because [whatever].
A: No, but blah blah blah.
C: That's not true. Because yadda yadda yadda.
A: Yes, but blibbidy blabbidy.
D: No, bloop.
From A's perspective, it's "I said something. Someone countered. I countered. Someone countered. I countered." So it's an even exchange, and it feels weird to "give it a rest" when other folks aren't giving it a rest. That is, it feels weird that it's ok for them to provide counterarguments, but when you provide a counterargument, you're being bad.
But from everyone else's perspective, it's not "argument. counter. counter. counter." but "Why does A keep harping on this". After all, A (at three comments) is being way more vocal and tenacious than B, C, or D (at one comment).
So that's just a problem in the dynamics of a conversation like that. The second problem is: I should know that. I should've recognized it, and just let bardic to tell me to "stfu and go away", and not let that get under my skin and to dig my heels in.
But, bardic, a little advice: if you want someone to shut the fuck up and go away, telling them "stfu and go away" is really, really counterproductive. It gets people adrenalined and angry and defensive. Telling them to take it to meta works far, far better.
posted by Bugbread at 5:59 AM on May 8, 2007
Yeah. I think there were two problems: one is the dynamic of conversations like that (nobody's fault), and the second was me not realizing it and responding (my fault).
That is, if someone says something, and someone else says "take it to meta", that's usually the end of it in the thread (if the person being told to go to Meta has any decency). However, if someone says something and is told "you're wrong", they have a natural tendency to argue why they're right.
The dynamic problem is that, with an exchange like this:
A: I think X.
B: You're wrong, because [whatever].
A: No, but blah blah blah.
C: That's not true. Because yadda yadda yadda.
A: Yes, but blibbidy blabbidy.
D: No, bloop.
From A's perspective, it's "I said something. Someone countered. I countered. Someone countered. I countered." So it's an even exchange, and it feels weird to "give it a rest" when other folks aren't giving it a rest. That is, it feels weird that it's ok for them to provide counterarguments, but when you provide a counterargument, you're being bad.
But from everyone else's perspective, it's not "argument. counter. counter. counter." but "Why does A keep harping on this". After all, A (at three comments) is being way more vocal and tenacious than B, C, or D (at one comment).
So that's just a problem in the dynamics of a conversation like that. The second problem is: I should know that. I should've recognized it, and just let bardic to tell me to "stfu and go away", and not let that get under my skin and to dig my heels in.
But, bardic, a little advice: if you want someone to shut the fuck up and go away, telling them "stfu and go away" is really, really counterproductive. It gets people adrenalined and angry and defensive. Telling them to take it to meta works far, far better.
posted by Bugbread at 5:59 AM on May 8, 2007
So once upon a time it was cool to post controversial topics,
then everybody heard the arguments,
then it became uncool to post controversial topics,
(unless some members had never seen them),
(and then even when some members had never seen them),
so the next cool thing was to post "seen it all before etc." in the thread,
then people got sick of seeing "seen it all before etc." in the threads,
so people started posting to metatalk about derails,
so that the derail could occur in metatalk,
then people had "seen it all before etc." in metatalk,
and people got sick of "seen it all before etc." in metatalk,
so now we're discussing this part:
a metatalk about people getting sick of people posting metatalks about metafilter threads regarding controversial topics?
Just trying to keep up.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:16 AM on May 8, 2007
then everybody heard the arguments,
then it became uncool to post controversial topics,
(unless some members had never seen them),
(and then even when some members had never seen them),
so the next cool thing was to post "seen it all before etc." in the thread,
then people got sick of seeing "seen it all before etc." in the threads,
so people started posting to metatalk about derails,
so that the derail could occur in metatalk,
then people had "seen it all before etc." in metatalk,
and people got sick of "seen it all before etc." in metatalk,
so now we're discussing this part:
a metatalk about people getting sick of people posting metatalks about metafilter threads regarding controversial topics?
Just trying to keep up.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:16 AM on May 8, 2007
Personally, I think controversial topics can be super cool. I've often seen them inspire the kind of amazing discourse that makes Mefi incredibly unique & interesting. I've learned a lot from them. For me, it's the unnecessarily testosterone-fueled personal slapfights that make the posts tiresome and unpleasant to read. YMMV, as usual.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:26 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by miss lynnster at 7:26 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's true, but that cuts both ways, and if your reaction is to complain about a thread, usually this means you should take your reaction to Metatalk.
my initial comment was well within the usual bounds of snarkiness that people indulge in all the time around here and you know it ... you chose a fairly mild reply to that and i replied in kind ... others chose to rant and rave in reply and i ignored them ... and most importantly, i just plain dropped it, didn't i?
don't like the squeaky mouse sized comments? ... keep the elephants out of the room, then
there was a lot of baiting and fight-picking going on in that thread ... which is half the reason threads like that are posted ... and taking it to metatalk hasn't worked ... every once in awhile the axegrinders come out and start up with this sophomoric campaign and i'll snark at them if i want to
it's not a crime to tell people they're all wet when they're pissing in the wind
posted by pyramid termite at 7:29 AM on May 8, 2007
my initial comment was well within the usual bounds of snarkiness that people indulge in all the time around here and you know it ... you chose a fairly mild reply to that and i replied in kind ... others chose to rant and rave in reply and i ignored them ... and most importantly, i just plain dropped it, didn't i?
don't like the squeaky mouse sized comments? ... keep the elephants out of the room, then
there was a lot of baiting and fight-picking going on in that thread ... which is half the reason threads like that are posted ... and taking it to metatalk hasn't worked ... every once in awhile the axegrinders come out and start up with this sophomoric campaign and i'll snark at them if i want to
it's not a crime to tell people they're all wet when they're pissing in the wind
posted by pyramid termite at 7:29 AM on May 8, 2007
interestingly, MetaTalk discussions about MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics tend to have comments which are basically the same as other MetaTalk discussions about MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics
posted by matteo at 7:46 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by matteo at 7:46 AM on May 8, 2007
matteo writes "MetaTalk discussions about MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics tend to have comments which are basically the same as other MetaTalk discussions about MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics"
Yup.
posted by Bugbread at 7:50 AM on May 8, 2007
Yup.
posted by Bugbread at 7:50 AM on May 8, 2007
Threads are absolutely what the conversationists make them. If interesting, engaged people with something to say stay in the thread and further the discussion, the thread can be excellent regardless of the initial post quality. If shortsighted one-note complainers take control of the discussion, the thread will devolve. A comment that essentially says "I'm so jaded, and this discussion is so predictable, that it's all worthless," is not likely to push the thread in the former direction.
Sometimes threads never rise above an elementary level of argument. In that case, if you have a more sophisticated discussion you'd like to have, you can lay that out and try to elevate the argument. But if you don't or you don't feel it's worth your time, you can move on and let the thread naturally wane and die as two people carp at one another. I think threads tend to get the discussants they deserve. If more than one person is trying earnestly to engage the topic at a sophisticated level, the thread has a chance of staying interesting.
Lately there have been a lot of meta-arguments thrown out there, like bugbread's comment in the linked thread, about why a point is typical or predictable. Predictability has not much to do with viability. True things, presumably, are predictably true all the time -- and, though it may be tiresome to hear them, repetition does not have the power make them untrue. Similarly, strong arguments are strong arguments, ones which have are continually refined through meetings with assailing points. It's not surprising that often, in threads about religion and politics and the like, two strong arguments meet, and the same supporting points and evidence are brought up. It's not a tragedy. The only shame of it is when nothing elevates the discussion. In really argumentative threads, it's great when people can wipe through all the basic, standard tropes of argument and then start getting to some new ground.
Someone mentioned that the purpose of argument here was not always to convince your opposition, but to convince the silent audience who have not yet made up your mind. There is another purpose, as well, and that is to hone your own thinking and refine your own arguments. Arguing on MetaFilter can allow you to argue more effectively in every arena of life, because if you were properly challenged you will have thought out the issue to a very detailed level, confronted the most likely oppositional arguments and found a way to either take them apart or work around them, and gained some insight into the reasoning of people on the opposing side. I know this ability of improved argument has helped me at work, in writing letters to editors/senators, etc., and in dinner-table discussions about issues of the day. I don't believe arguing here is at all futile. Though some particular threads don't attract enough thought power to result in good arguments. Those are best left alone, though, in my view.
What I'm basically saying: arguments are good. Sometimes impasses aren't really impasses, just plateaus at which we're waiting for the next, new, strong idea to be proposed. When at a plateau, either elevate the argument or leave the thread. Staying inthread only to lob thinly veiled ad hominem attacks brings the overall tone down. I am starting to find the ad hominem gambits really tiresome: I don't have anything to add, so I'll simply say your point is predictable, you're a pathetic individual for caring so much about an internet argument, you have an axe to grind, you just want to be seen as superior, yadda yadda yadda. None of that has anything to do with the content of the argument.
In short: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
posted by Miko at 8:02 AM on May 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
Sometimes threads never rise above an elementary level of argument. In that case, if you have a more sophisticated discussion you'd like to have, you can lay that out and try to elevate the argument. But if you don't or you don't feel it's worth your time, you can move on and let the thread naturally wane and die as two people carp at one another. I think threads tend to get the discussants they deserve. If more than one person is trying earnestly to engage the topic at a sophisticated level, the thread has a chance of staying interesting.
Lately there have been a lot of meta-arguments thrown out there, like bugbread's comment in the linked thread, about why a point is typical or predictable. Predictability has not much to do with viability. True things, presumably, are predictably true all the time -- and, though it may be tiresome to hear them, repetition does not have the power make them untrue. Similarly, strong arguments are strong arguments, ones which have are continually refined through meetings with assailing points. It's not surprising that often, in threads about religion and politics and the like, two strong arguments meet, and the same supporting points and evidence are brought up. It's not a tragedy. The only shame of it is when nothing elevates the discussion. In really argumentative threads, it's great when people can wipe through all the basic, standard tropes of argument and then start getting to some new ground.
Someone mentioned that the purpose of argument here was not always to convince your opposition, but to convince the silent audience who have not yet made up your mind. There is another purpose, as well, and that is to hone your own thinking and refine your own arguments. Arguing on MetaFilter can allow you to argue more effectively in every arena of life, because if you were properly challenged you will have thought out the issue to a very detailed level, confronted the most likely oppositional arguments and found a way to either take them apart or work around them, and gained some insight into the reasoning of people on the opposing side. I know this ability of improved argument has helped me at work, in writing letters to editors/senators, etc., and in dinner-table discussions about issues of the day. I don't believe arguing here is at all futile. Though some particular threads don't attract enough thought power to result in good arguments. Those are best left alone, though, in my view.
What I'm basically saying: arguments are good. Sometimes impasses aren't really impasses, just plateaus at which we're waiting for the next, new, strong idea to be proposed. When at a plateau, either elevate the argument or leave the thread. Staying inthread only to lob thinly veiled ad hominem attacks brings the overall tone down. I am starting to find the ad hominem gambits really tiresome: I don't have anything to add, so I'll simply say your point is predictable, you're a pathetic individual for caring so much about an internet argument, you have an axe to grind, you just want to be seen as superior, yadda yadda yadda. None of that has anything to do with the content of the argument.
In short: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
posted by Miko at 8:02 AM on May 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
mockery isn't argument or discussion and there is a point where people's motivations become important and axe grinding becomes a factor
by defining the discussion so narrowly, you miss the actual context of what is going on
and pointing out banality is a perfectly legitimate response to banality ... if you can't see that as a legitimate part of the discussion, too bad
posted by pyramid termite at 8:19 AM on May 8, 2007
by defining the discussion so narrowly, you miss the actual context of what is going on
and pointing out banality is a perfectly legitimate response to banality ... if you can't see that as a legitimate part of the discussion, too bad
posted by pyramid termite at 8:19 AM on May 8, 2007
If interesting, engaged people with something to say stay in the thread and further the discussion
Therein lies the problem: there isn't any of that anymore on Metafilter. The same threads are taken over by the same boring, repetitive, soapboxers who love nothing more than to regurgitate and pontificate about whats wrong with "those people." No discussion about lolxtians, evil neocons, abortion, Iraq, _____ (insert lightning rod topic) is ever "further"ed. The same stuff is advocated by the same people with no intention in engaging in thoughtful or meaningful discussion. They just want to talk about the rightness of their cause and the wrongness of the other side. So you get the same positions, the same catalog of evils, the same snarks, the same strawman bashing.
There is another purpose, as well, and that is to hone your own thinking and refine your own arguments. Arguing on MetaFilter can allow you to argue more effectively in every arena of life, because if you were properly challenged you will have thought out the issue to a very detailed level, confronted the most likely oppositional arguments and found a way to either take them apart or work around them, and gained some insight into the reasoning of people on the opposing side.
That sounds spiffy and all, but anyone who has ever seen a post such as the one linked in the thread knowns that it does not happen here. It's the same shit over and over and over. There is no enlightened and fair-minded disputation with an interest towards higher and more refined thinking, or any other special-sounding thing.
In short: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
How about "talk about the link or leave the thread" because 99% of the time the "discussion" is not based on the link in those threads. The link just serves as pretext for the same litany of beefs about the generalized topic from the same users. That thread is an excellent example.
Answer me this: why do you have talk about that stuff here? I appreciate your desire to develop your argumentation skills. But why here? What is it about this site that you feel this is the place you need to have the Final Argument about religion? Why do you feel compelled to talk about that here? Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company? Do you understand the reason for that ol' nugget of wisdom?
posted by dios at 8:22 AM on May 8, 2007
Therein lies the problem: there isn't any of that anymore on Metafilter. The same threads are taken over by the same boring, repetitive, soapboxers who love nothing more than to regurgitate and pontificate about whats wrong with "those people." No discussion about lolxtians, evil neocons, abortion, Iraq, _____ (insert lightning rod topic) is ever "further"ed. The same stuff is advocated by the same people with no intention in engaging in thoughtful or meaningful discussion. They just want to talk about the rightness of their cause and the wrongness of the other side. So you get the same positions, the same catalog of evils, the same snarks, the same strawman bashing.
There is another purpose, as well, and that is to hone your own thinking and refine your own arguments. Arguing on MetaFilter can allow you to argue more effectively in every arena of life, because if you were properly challenged you will have thought out the issue to a very detailed level, confronted the most likely oppositional arguments and found a way to either take them apart or work around them, and gained some insight into the reasoning of people on the opposing side.
That sounds spiffy and all, but anyone who has ever seen a post such as the one linked in the thread knowns that it does not happen here. It's the same shit over and over and over. There is no enlightened and fair-minded disputation with an interest towards higher and more refined thinking, or any other special-sounding thing.
In short: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
How about "talk about the link or leave the thread" because 99% of the time the "discussion" is not based on the link in those threads. The link just serves as pretext for the same litany of beefs about the generalized topic from the same users. That thread is an excellent example.
Answer me this: why do you have talk about that stuff here? I appreciate your desire to develop your argumentation skills. But why here? What is it about this site that you feel this is the place you need to have the Final Argument about religion? Why do you feel compelled to talk about that here? Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company? Do you understand the reason for that ol' nugget of wisdom?
posted by dios at 8:22 AM on May 8, 2007
I'd just like to add that the 'silent audience' approach is pretty troublesome. I'm sure there are many lurkers on metafilter, but I think it's best to engage the people you're talking with. Threads get snarky and useless when people stop actually engaging with the points and arguments of their interlocutors and start trying to make themselves seem witty. Generally, those attempts fail, and the result is a loss of comity and friendliness.
Now, I recognize that there are people who argue in bad faith: some people take positions they don't really hold, or seem intractable in the face of mounting evidence. In such situations, you can ignore someone or you can attempt to discover their true reasons and beliefs... but I think you lose a lot of credibility when you go pointlessly negative in an effort to broadcast your disdain to the supposed audience. Of course the temptation always looms especially high when the subject is well-trod and the conversants are particularly clueless... but I think it's a bad strategy and I know I tend to note the people who go pointlessly negative and avoid them in the future. I doubt I'm the only one.
As for derailing comments, while they can sometimes be irritating, thread policing for off-topic comments is equally useless. Sometimes one conversation leads to another, and on the internet you can keep many discussions going at once. Let's allow for that diversity as much as possible, shall we?
dios: Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company? Do you understand the reason for that ol' nugget of wisdom?
You know, I think this is a regional difference. In my family, discussing politics and religion is what company is for.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:33 AM on May 8, 2007
Now, I recognize that there are people who argue in bad faith: some people take positions they don't really hold, or seem intractable in the face of mounting evidence. In such situations, you can ignore someone or you can attempt to discover their true reasons and beliefs... but I think you lose a lot of credibility when you go pointlessly negative in an effort to broadcast your disdain to the supposed audience. Of course the temptation always looms especially high when the subject is well-trod and the conversants are particularly clueless... but I think it's a bad strategy and I know I tend to note the people who go pointlessly negative and avoid them in the future. I doubt I'm the only one.
As for derailing comments, while they can sometimes be irritating, thread policing for off-topic comments is equally useless. Sometimes one conversation leads to another, and on the internet you can keep many discussions going at once. Let's allow for that diversity as much as possible, shall we?
dios: Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company? Do you understand the reason for that ol' nugget of wisdom?
You know, I think this is a regional difference. In my family, discussing politics and religion is what company is for.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:33 AM on May 8, 2007
No discussion about lolxtians, evil neocons, abortion, Iraq, _____ (insert lightning rod topic) is ever "further"ed. The same stuff is advocated by the same people with no intention in engaging in thoughtful or meaningful discussion.
for the most part ... and certainly in this case ... you're right, but it should be pointed out that often people do link to other news stories which have a certain amount of interest and that alone can make a discussion somewhat worthwhile
that wasn't going on here, though
Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company?
this is polite company? ... you're kind of dating yourself here ... i know, because my dad used to say the same thing
i don't think that's something people say much anymore
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 AM on May 8, 2007
for the most part ... and certainly in this case ... you're right, but it should be pointed out that often people do link to other news stories which have a certain amount of interest and that alone can make a discussion somewhat worthwhile
that wasn't going on here, though
Did you mother ever teach you that you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company?
this is polite company? ... you're kind of dating yourself here ... i know, because my dad used to say the same thing
i don't think that's something people say much anymore
posted by pyramid termite at 8:35 AM on May 8, 2007
you're kind of dating yourself
Apropos of nothing, I enjoy reading that as an impossibly genteel rewrite of "go fuck yourself".
"Hey, buddy, nice driving! Why don't you go pursue a blooming romantic self-interest!"
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:39 AM on May 8, 2007
Apropos of nothing, I enjoy reading that as an impossibly genteel rewrite of "go fuck yourself".
"Hey, buddy, nice driving! Why don't you go pursue a blooming romantic self-interest!"
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:39 AM on May 8, 2007
dios writes "'If interesting, engaged people with something to say stay in the thread and further the discussion' - Therein lies the problem: there isn't any of that anymore on Metafilter."
That's not true. It's common on unusual issues, and rare on usual issues, but it's not extinct. Recently, I've noticed Firas has been making interesting comments on issues which have otherwise gone into a rut (actually, I quite had my hopes up that the thread on this particular issue was going to pull out of repetitiveness, until Firas left because the scope of the discussion was too wide for him to feel comfortable making cogent points.)
dios writes "How about 'talk about the link or leave the thread' because 99% of the time the 'discussion' is not based on the link in those threads. The link just serves as pretext for the same litany of beefs about the generalized topic from the same users. That thread is an excellent example. "
Yeah, but even then, to be fair, they may not be talking about the link, but they're talking about, in very general terms, a topic brought up by the link. Pyramid Termite's initial comment was a bit difficult to parse: was it saying "the stuff in the link is the same old repetitive shit repeated", or was it saying "posting this type of link is the same old repetitive shit repeated"? In the first case, it's an on-topic comment. In the latter case, it's a MeTa comment, and should have been here.
Ideally, of course, we would talk about the stuff in the link, not just random stuff that occurred to us by reading the link (for example, the Sarkozy thread is pretty good because, for the most part, it's actually about Sarkozy, despite a few attempts to make the discussion about Hillary Clinton because some folks would rather discuss Clinton than the actual topic of the post). However, sometimes the tangential stuff is more interesting than the actual linked material. So it really ends up in a case-by-case basis.
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 AM on May 8, 2007
That's not true. It's common on unusual issues, and rare on usual issues, but it's not extinct. Recently, I've noticed Firas has been making interesting comments on issues which have otherwise gone into a rut (actually, I quite had my hopes up that the thread on this particular issue was going to pull out of repetitiveness, until Firas left because the scope of the discussion was too wide for him to feel comfortable making cogent points.)
dios writes "How about 'talk about the link or leave the thread' because 99% of the time the 'discussion' is not based on the link in those threads. The link just serves as pretext for the same litany of beefs about the generalized topic from the same users. That thread is an excellent example. "
Yeah, but even then, to be fair, they may not be talking about the link, but they're talking about, in very general terms, a topic brought up by the link. Pyramid Termite's initial comment was a bit difficult to parse: was it saying "the stuff in the link is the same old repetitive shit repeated", or was it saying "posting this type of link is the same old repetitive shit repeated"? In the first case, it's an on-topic comment. In the latter case, it's a MeTa comment, and should have been here.
Ideally, of course, we would talk about the stuff in the link, not just random stuff that occurred to us by reading the link (for example, the Sarkozy thread is pretty good because, for the most part, it's actually about Sarkozy, despite a few attempts to make the discussion about Hillary Clinton because some folks would rather discuss Clinton than the actual topic of the post). However, sometimes the tangential stuff is more interesting than the actual linked material. So it really ends up in a case-by-case basis.
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 AM on May 8, 2007
pyramid termite writes "you're kind of dating yourself here ... i know, because my dad used to say the same thing"
By the same token, you're dating yourself. (Dios says "my mom said X". You said "You're dating yourself. I know, because my dad said X").
My parents never said this, but I heard other people say it. Thus I am also dating myself.
(So, I assume we're all 32 years old?)
And, with that exchange, we have now reached a 100% parity with the original discussion. "This is X" "Your comment is X" "Actually, both of your comments are X, as is the comment I'm making now". Now all we need is another iteration in AskMe, and we can call it a trilogy
posted by Bugbread at 8:53 AM on May 8, 2007
By the same token, you're dating yourself. (Dios says "my mom said X". You said "You're dating yourself. I know, because my dad said X").
My parents never said this, but I heard other people say it. Thus I am also dating myself.
(So, I assume we're all 32 years old?)
And, with that exchange, we have now reached a 100% parity with the original discussion. "This is X" "Your comment is X" "Actually, both of your comments are X, as is the comment I'm making now". Now all we need is another iteration in AskMe, and we can call it a trilogy
posted by Bugbread at 8:53 AM on May 8, 2007
No discussion about lolxtians, evil neocons, abortion, Iraq, _____ (insert lightning rod topic) is ever "further"ed.
I wouldn't say that's at all true. Some of these threads do suck - maybe most of them. But pick your threads. I was once involved in an incredibly good thread on abortion about a year ago. Since then I haven't gotten involved in any because they weren't really getting into new territory; I've been following my own rule, either develop the discussion or don't get into it. Sometimes you just don't have the energy, and that's all right. Again, threads are as good as participants make them.
If you're not interested in the topic, after all, you don't have to comment.
99% of the time the "discussion" is not based on the link in those threads.
That's what I think is great and unusual about MetaFilter.
Answer me this: why do you have talk about that stuff here?
Well, I don't get involved in too many of the typically contentious threads because I stay away from topics that a) I don't know a lot about, b) I don't care a lot about, and c) are not developing into an interesting discussion. But in answer to your question, when I do get involved in threads about controversial topics, it's because I consider this a pretty important forum. MetaFilter has quite a few well-informed, intelligent participants who have spent some serious time understanding their topics. I don't want to miss out on what they have to say. When it's at its best, a good thread is akin to a discussion in a great seminar, where a lot of points of view can be aired, examined, tested, and debated. We have so few places in the world where we can engage with ideas and talk about them at a level which might get us somewhere. To passively receive a link and not create a discussion around the link topic is no different to me than watching a great program on TV. Informative, interesting, but one-way. This site has a commenting feature in order to encourage discussion - it'd be a pity not to take advantage of it to do some more thinking.
Politics and religion are among the most important human activities. I couldn't imagine not being able to discuss them. Of course, my upbringing was like anotherpanacea's -- it's all right to talk about things that are important and about which people can feel impassioned.
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on May 8, 2007
I wouldn't say that's at all true. Some of these threads do suck - maybe most of them. But pick your threads. I was once involved in an incredibly good thread on abortion about a year ago. Since then I haven't gotten involved in any because they weren't really getting into new territory; I've been following my own rule, either develop the discussion or don't get into it. Sometimes you just don't have the energy, and that's all right. Again, threads are as good as participants make them.
If you're not interested in the topic, after all, you don't have to comment.
99% of the time the "discussion" is not based on the link in those threads.
That's what I think is great and unusual about MetaFilter.
Answer me this: why do you have talk about that stuff here?
Well, I don't get involved in too many of the typically contentious threads because I stay away from topics that a) I don't know a lot about, b) I don't care a lot about, and c) are not developing into an interesting discussion. But in answer to your question, when I do get involved in threads about controversial topics, it's because I consider this a pretty important forum. MetaFilter has quite a few well-informed, intelligent participants who have spent some serious time understanding their topics. I don't want to miss out on what they have to say. When it's at its best, a good thread is akin to a discussion in a great seminar, where a lot of points of view can be aired, examined, tested, and debated. We have so few places in the world where we can engage with ideas and talk about them at a level which might get us somewhere. To passively receive a link and not create a discussion around the link topic is no different to me than watching a great program on TV. Informative, interesting, but one-way. This site has a commenting feature in order to encourage discussion - it'd be a pity not to take advantage of it to do some more thinking.
Politics and religion are among the most important human activities. I couldn't imagine not being able to discuss them. Of course, my upbringing was like anotherpanacea's -- it's all right to talk about things that are important and about which people can feel impassioned.
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on May 8, 2007
What is it about this site that you feel this is the place you need to have the Final Argument about religion?
I was curious about this myself, so I asked the strawman and he says he never said such a thing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:16 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
I was curious about this myself, so I asked the strawman and he says he never said such a thing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:16 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
in all fairness, blazecock, there are people who do attempt to have the final argument about religion here ... miko isn't one of them, but there are others
Thus I am also dating myself.
*cues america*
"this is for all the lonely people ..."
posted by pyramid termite at 9:26 AM on May 8, 2007
Thus I am also dating myself.
*cues america*
"this is for all the lonely people ..."
posted by pyramid termite at 9:26 AM on May 8, 2007
in all fairness, blazecock, there are people who do attempt to have the final argument about religion here ... miko isn't one of them, but there are others
Call them out individually then, but leave the poor strawman alone. Or better yet: Walk past the threads you don't personally approve of.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:29 AM on May 8, 2007
Call them out individually then, but leave the poor strawman alone. Or better yet: Walk past the threads you don't personally approve of.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:29 AM on May 8, 2007
Opposites attract. Sometimes they fuck. Then you get jizz and quim and grease all over the place, and it can all smell pretty funky. Most other people, though, don't like to walk in on that smell, and don't feel like sleeping under those sheets. Some do, though, or they at least feel like sitting on the ottoman, drinking beer and giving pointers. Sometimes the participants themselves can't handle the mess, and they quickly shower and leave, though half of them will be right back when they finish the paper route. Just strongly held beliefs, fucking all night in a rented room.
I was there. I drank beer; it ran down my mustache but never went into my mouth. I was given a flowing robe to wear, but a titmouse flew over me and cackled, "Flowing robe! Flowing robe!" I thought she was saying, "Throw the robe!" So I threw it as far as I could. I asked for a cap but received a slap. I was given red slippers, but a raven flew over me and cawed, "Red slippers! Red slippers!" I thought he was crying, "Robbed slippers!" So I quickly threw them away. This is not the tale, but a flourish, for fun. The tale itself has not begun!
posted by breezeway at 9:34 AM on May 8, 2007
I was there. I drank beer; it ran down my mustache but never went into my mouth. I was given a flowing robe to wear, but a titmouse flew over me and cackled, "Flowing robe! Flowing robe!" I thought she was saying, "Throw the robe!" So I threw it as far as I could. I asked for a cap but received a slap. I was given red slippers, but a raven flew over me and cawed, "Red slippers! Red slippers!" I thought he was crying, "Robbed slippers!" So I quickly threw them away. This is not the tale, but a flourish, for fun. The tale itself has not begun!
posted by breezeway at 9:34 AM on May 8, 2007
Call them out individually then, but leave the poor strawman alone.
it's a fair question and your calling it a strawman doesn't answer it
Walk past the threads you don't personally approve of.
walk past the politics you don't personally approve of
walk past the religions you don't personally approve of
walk past the music you don't personally approve of
walk past ____ you don't personally approve of
i can use that argument against discussing anything ... so that's not a real answer either
no, certain posts are going to get a negative reaction and you're just going to have to put up with that ... this is metafilter.com not stepfordsheep.com
posted by pyramid termite at 9:40 AM on May 8, 2007
it's a fair question and your calling it a strawman doesn't answer it
Walk past the threads you don't personally approve of.
walk past the politics you don't personally approve of
walk past the religions you don't personally approve of
walk past the music you don't personally approve of
walk past ____ you don't personally approve of
i can use that argument against discussing anything ... so that's not a real answer either
no, certain posts are going to get a negative reaction and you're just going to have to put up with that ... this is metafilter.com not stepfordsheep.com
posted by pyramid termite at 9:40 AM on May 8, 2007
What does "the final argument about religion" even mean?
posted by Bugbread at 9:40 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by Bugbread at 9:40 AM on May 8, 2007
It's Old Testament. I think Leviticus and sodomy are involved, or something.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:42 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:42 AM on May 8, 2007
Miko, I understand where you are coming from, and I think, at its base, your point is valid. It just seems that the abstracted and idealized view of the discussion here is detached from the reality.
MetaFilter has quite a few well-informed, intelligent participants who have spent some serious time understanding their topics.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think the "quite a few" are crowded out, shouted down, or turned off by the repetitions of the same people and same arguments. It's really disappointing that we can't have a good discussion about good topics because we know that a group certain will appear in the thread to regurgitate and snark the discussion into the old rut.
Now suppose I wanted to make a post about a piece of legislation for permitting prayer in school in rural Mississippi being advocated by a group concerned about morally adrift children. One can be certain there would be a number of lolxtian comment. There would be something about stupid rednecks in the South. There would be something about how Republicans is codeword for evangelicalism's bitch. There would be painfully superficial comments about rights and constitutionality. There may even be some comments about the people are afraid of the gay or something like that, as well as links outing the teacher who was at the front of the movement. Basically, the whole discussion would be focused on what is wrong the people advocating it. Now, there *could* be a discussion similar to one we had here well over a year ago which was a nuanced and respectful discussion between people who disagreed with each other. Or we could have an interesting discussion about the impact of forced changes on historical traditions in rural communities. Or we could have an informed discussion about the psychological needs (or lack thereof) for children in developmental years without a fixed moral compass. Unfortunately, I doubt that would happen because we would be slammed with the comments I mentioned above and any real discussion would be drowned or crowded out or stillborn. And Mefi proper is worse off for it.
I'm not saying there is a solution here or that discussion is hopefully lost. What I am saying is that given the current dynamics of the site, there is a very strong probability that any discussion with a religious or political component will be co-opted into a painfully redundant thread that isn't about a dialogue, but rather repetitive rants of grievances. So what are we to do?
posted by dios at 9:43 AM on May 8, 2007
MetaFilter has quite a few well-informed, intelligent participants who have spent some serious time understanding their topics.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think the "quite a few" are crowded out, shouted down, or turned off by the repetitions of the same people and same arguments. It's really disappointing that we can't have a good discussion about good topics because we know that a group certain will appear in the thread to regurgitate and snark the discussion into the old rut.
Now suppose I wanted to make a post about a piece of legislation for permitting prayer in school in rural Mississippi being advocated by a group concerned about morally adrift children. One can be certain there would be a number of lolxtian comment. There would be something about stupid rednecks in the South. There would be something about how Republicans is codeword for evangelicalism's bitch. There would be painfully superficial comments about rights and constitutionality. There may even be some comments about the people are afraid of the gay or something like that, as well as links outing the teacher who was at the front of the movement. Basically, the whole discussion would be focused on what is wrong the people advocating it. Now, there *could* be a discussion similar to one we had here well over a year ago which was a nuanced and respectful discussion between people who disagreed with each other. Or we could have an interesting discussion about the impact of forced changes on historical traditions in rural communities. Or we could have an informed discussion about the psychological needs (or lack thereof) for children in developmental years without a fixed moral compass. Unfortunately, I doubt that would happen because we would be slammed with the comments I mentioned above and any real discussion would be drowned or crowded out or stillborn. And Mefi proper is worse off for it.
I'm not saying there is a solution here or that discussion is hopefully lost. What I am saying is that given the current dynamics of the site, there is a very strong probability that any discussion with a religious or political component will be co-opted into a painfully redundant thread that isn't about a dialogue, but rather repetitive rants of grievances. So what are we to do?
posted by dios at 9:43 AM on May 8, 2007
What does "the final argument about religion" even mean?
i take it to mean "proof" that there is or is not a god or that theists are or are not crazy or ... you know ... the usual bullshit
posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 AM on May 8, 2007
i take it to mean "proof" that there is or is not a god or that theists are or are not crazy or ... you know ... the usual bullshit
posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 AM on May 8, 2007
What does "the final argument about religion" even mean?
posted by bugbread at 11:40 AM on May 8
The absolutely painful belief of some people that they have solved the question of religion v. atheism (or which belief system is correct) once and for all and there comment will be the one that conclusively ends the discussion. The existence of a god/gods has been something that has been discussed and disputed for about the last 4,000 years. But the brilliant citizens of Metafilter have resolved the issue themselves once and for all and those who don't accept their viewpoint are ignorant fools who must be mocked... but have no fear, because the brilliant citizen of Metafilter is going to explain right now what the conclusive answer on the argument is! Or, the general view of the discussion that it is not a completely personalized issue, but rather one that can be conclusively resolved by argumentation in a Mefi thread.
posted by dios at 9:49 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by bugbread at 11:40 AM on May 8
The absolutely painful belief of some people that they have solved the question of religion v. atheism (or which belief system is correct) once and for all and there comment will be the one that conclusively ends the discussion. The existence of a god/gods has been something that has been discussed and disputed for about the last 4,000 years. But the brilliant citizens of Metafilter have resolved the issue themselves once and for all and those who don't accept their viewpoint are ignorant fools who must be mocked... but have no fear, because the brilliant citizen of Metafilter is going to explain right now what the conclusive answer on the argument is! Or, the general view of the discussion that it is not a completely personalized issue, but rather one that can be conclusively resolved by argumentation in a Mefi thread.
posted by dios at 9:49 AM on May 8, 2007
it's a fair question and your calling it a strawman doesn't answer it
A strawman is silent. There's no answer for that question, because the premise is assumed to be true, though it is false, and addresses no specific behavior.
As such, the question intends entirely to denigrate the diverse collection of users at Metafilter, as opposed to improving the quality of discussion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:54 AM on May 8, 2007
A strawman is silent. There's no answer for that question, because the premise is assumed to be true, though it is false, and addresses no specific behavior.
As such, the question intends entirely to denigrate the diverse collection of users at Metafilter, as opposed to improving the quality of discussion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:54 AM on May 8, 2007
pyramid termite writes "it's a fair question and your calling it a strawman doesn't answer it"
Very well: it's a fair question. But the only person who can answer it is someone who believes that this is the place for the final argument about religion. Unless one of them steps up to answer it, it's not going to get answered. Personally, I'm not sure that one of them even exists (except maybe Bevet). So it's not, perhaps, a very useful question.
pyramid termite writes "i can use that argument against discussing anything ... so that's not a real answer either"
Sure. And "don't strike hammers against people's heads" is a good argument, but you can use that argument against anything: "don't strike hammers against coconuts", "don't strike hammers against nails".
The difference is: we have different rules here for threads, comments, and commenters than we do for religion itself, politics itself, or music itself. You're not allowed to link to a site you've worked on. You are allowed to tell your neighbor about it. Different rules for linking on MetaFilter than for talking in real life.
In the same way, one of the rules about discussion is: "Discussion of links or the topics therein are the domain of the thread for the post with the link/topic. Discussion of that discussion is the domain of MetaTalk".
I violated that in-thread by pointing out that calling a comment predictable in a thread like that is not much of a counterargument, because all comments in threads like that are predictable. I didn't intend that to mean "so, don't talk about it". I didn't mean it as some grand condemnation of those threads. I just meant "there may be problems with someone's argument, but 'it's predictable' isn't really one of them". In my followup, I tried to be a bit more fair and look at why that is common in MeFi religion/politics threads, not as an attack, but from a more neutral standpoint.
Regardless, it didn't belong there. I certainly didn't feel nearly strongly enough to MeTa it, and just intended to point it out and move on, but if it's a comment about the discussion, as opposed to the actual topic, it should have either been put in MeTa, or just stayed in my head.
The only reason I ended getting all tweaked was that people were interpreting it as pissing on attempts to discuss the topic, interpreting it as me saying that people shouldn't talk about it, and telling me to "stfu and go away". The first two were not what I was trying to do, so I tried to clarify, and the third was so combative that my adrenaline got all pumping, I got pissed off, and my reasoning went to hell.
posted by Bugbread at 9:57 AM on May 8, 2007
Very well: it's a fair question. But the only person who can answer it is someone who believes that this is the place for the final argument about religion. Unless one of them steps up to answer it, it's not going to get answered. Personally, I'm not sure that one of them even exists (except maybe Bevet). So it's not, perhaps, a very useful question.
pyramid termite writes "i can use that argument against discussing anything ... so that's not a real answer either"
Sure. And "don't strike hammers against people's heads" is a good argument, but you can use that argument against anything: "don't strike hammers against coconuts", "don't strike hammers against nails".
The difference is: we have different rules here for threads, comments, and commenters than we do for religion itself, politics itself, or music itself. You're not allowed to link to a site you've worked on. You are allowed to tell your neighbor about it. Different rules for linking on MetaFilter than for talking in real life.
In the same way, one of the rules about discussion is: "Discussion of links or the topics therein are the domain of the thread for the post with the link/topic. Discussion of that discussion is the domain of MetaTalk".
I violated that in-thread by pointing out that calling a comment predictable in a thread like that is not much of a counterargument, because all comments in threads like that are predictable. I didn't intend that to mean "so, don't talk about it". I didn't mean it as some grand condemnation of those threads. I just meant "there may be problems with someone's argument, but 'it's predictable' isn't really one of them". In my followup, I tried to be a bit more fair and look at why that is common in MeFi religion/politics threads, not as an attack, but from a more neutral standpoint.
Regardless, it didn't belong there. I certainly didn't feel nearly strongly enough to MeTa it, and just intended to point it out and move on, but if it's a comment about the discussion, as opposed to the actual topic, it should have either been put in MeTa, or just stayed in my head.
The only reason I ended getting all tweaked was that people were interpreting it as pissing on attempts to discuss the topic, interpreting it as me saying that people shouldn't talk about it, and telling me to "stfu and go away". The first two were not what I was trying to do, so I tried to clarify, and the third was so combative that my adrenaline got all pumping, I got pissed off, and my reasoning went to hell.
posted by Bugbread at 9:57 AM on May 8, 2007
Thanks for the "final argument about religion" clarification.
I wonder why individual folks take part in that discussion. I understand that some of them may think of it as an intellectual exercise, of refining how to express their opinion, and how to counter other peoples' argument. I understand some people may be doing it in order to convince undecided and quiet third parties. I understand some (a very small number) may be doing it because they're really open to being convinced that they're wrong, and the other side is right ("You know, that's pretty persuasive. I guess there is a god, after all").
But in all three of those examples, you're talking about cool heads. If you're in the discussion for one of those reasons, you're probably not going to get angry or insulting: it doesn't help you refine your own arguments, it doesn't convince third parties, and, if you're open to changing your own position, you probably don't feel strongly enough to get angry in the first place.
But people do get angry in those threads. Often. And, far more often than that, in religious threads, they get really insulting. Why are all these people in the threads? What are the goals they are trying to achieve? It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on May 8, 2007
I wonder why individual folks take part in that discussion. I understand that some of them may think of it as an intellectual exercise, of refining how to express their opinion, and how to counter other peoples' argument. I understand some people may be doing it in order to convince undecided and quiet third parties. I understand some (a very small number) may be doing it because they're really open to being convinced that they're wrong, and the other side is right ("You know, that's pretty persuasive. I guess there is a god, after all").
But in all three of those examples, you're talking about cool heads. If you're in the discussion for one of those reasons, you're probably not going to get angry or insulting: it doesn't help you refine your own arguments, it doesn't convince third parties, and, if you're open to changing your own position, you probably don't feel strongly enough to get angry in the first place.
But people do get angry in those threads. Often. And, far more often than that, in religious threads, they get really insulting. Why are all these people in the threads? What are the goals they are trying to achieve? It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on May 8, 2007
Ultima ratio strawhominem
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:16 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:16 AM on May 8, 2007
Blazecock Pileon writes "Ultima ratio strawhominem"
That's the one that came out after Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny, right?
posted by Bugbread at 10:29 AM on May 8, 2007
That's the one that came out after Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny, right?
posted by Bugbread at 10:29 AM on May 8, 2007
miss lynnster writes "Hey look! Puppy fight!"
Puppy fights are much cuter than toddler fights.
posted by Bugbread at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2007
Puppy fights are much cuter than toddler fights.
posted by Bugbread at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2007
Q: So what are we to do?
A: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
What not to do: bitch that people are even having the discussion, that's it's pointless and stupid to even bother trying.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2007
A: take part in the discussion, or leave the thread.
What not to do: bitch that people are even having the discussion, that's it's pointless and stupid to even bother trying.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2007
Well, everyone knows the first rule of toddler fight is not to squeal to the cops about toddler fight. What are they, crying little babies!!????
Oh. Right. Nevermind.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:40 AM on May 8, 2007
Oh. Right. Nevermind.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:40 AM on May 8, 2007
A strawman is silent. There's no answer for that question, because the premise is assumed to be true, though it is false, and addresses no specific behavior.
there are people for which it is true and it does address specific behavior i have seen on this site ... those particular people don't seem to be here to answer the question, but it doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate question ... it just means that you're not able to answer it
As such, the question intends entirely to denigrate the diverse collection of users at Metafilter, as opposed to improving the quality of discussion.
wrong ... it's trying to discern the motivations of certain posters for doing certain things ... seeing as they're not around, we probably aren't going to get an answer, but it's not a strawman
i didn't ask the question anyway ...
"Discussion of links or the topics therein are the domain of the thread for the post with the link/topic. Discussion of that discussion is the domain of MetaTalk".
it's my perception that this is not a hard and fast rule ... and i didn't violate it with my first comment in that thread anymore than the "LOLCONGRESS" or the "." comment did
blazecock pileon, in fact violated it by attacking my comment as specious etc ... (and heywood mongroot broke another rule with his reply) ... and, yeah, my reply to bp went over that line
but then i dropped it, didn't i?
in the meantime several others, including you, bugbread, continue on it, with bardic and davy actively trying to get me back into the fray
and yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread
the truth is that the people who supposedly were defending that thread's integrity were the ones who were derailing it, not i ... and people can just point their fingers at someone else as i'm not having it
posted by pyramid termite at 10:49 AM on May 8, 2007
there are people for which it is true and it does address specific behavior i have seen on this site ... those particular people don't seem to be here to answer the question, but it doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate question ... it just means that you're not able to answer it
As such, the question intends entirely to denigrate the diverse collection of users at Metafilter, as opposed to improving the quality of discussion.
wrong ... it's trying to discern the motivations of certain posters for doing certain things ... seeing as they're not around, we probably aren't going to get an answer, but it's not a strawman
i didn't ask the question anyway ...
"Discussion of links or the topics therein are the domain of the thread for the post with the link/topic. Discussion of that discussion is the domain of MetaTalk".
it's my perception that this is not a hard and fast rule ... and i didn't violate it with my first comment in that thread anymore than the "LOLCONGRESS" or the "." comment did
blazecock pileon, in fact violated it by attacking my comment as specious etc ... (and heywood mongroot broke another rule with his reply) ... and, yeah, my reply to bp went over that line
but then i dropped it, didn't i?
in the meantime several others, including you, bugbread, continue on it, with bardic and davy actively trying to get me back into the fray
and yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread
the truth is that the people who supposedly were defending that thread's integrity were the ones who were derailing it, not i ... and people can just point their fingers at someone else as i'm not having it
posted by pyramid termite at 10:49 AM on May 8, 2007
pyramid termite writes "and, yeah, my reply to bp went over that line
"but then i dropped it, didn't i?
"in the meantime several others, including you, bugbread, continue on it, with bardic and davy actively trying to get me back into the fray
"and yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread"
We got a little bit of logical disconnect, here: "My reply to bp went over that line" - "yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread".
If I'm parsing you right, you're saying "I violated guidelines - yet people seem to think that I violated guidelines". Am I misreading you?
As for me continuing on it: yes, I've admitted a few times that what I did was wrong, and should have either come to MeTa or just stayed in my head. You won't get any disagreement from me.
posted by Bugbread at 10:55 AM on May 8, 2007
"but then i dropped it, didn't i?
"in the meantime several others, including you, bugbread, continue on it, with bardic and davy actively trying to get me back into the fray
"and yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread"
We got a little bit of logical disconnect, here: "My reply to bp went over that line" - "yet people seem to think that i'm violating guidelines and derailing the thread".
If I'm parsing you right, you're saying "I violated guidelines - yet people seem to think that I violated guidelines". Am I misreading you?
As for me continuing on it: yes, I've admitted a few times that what I did was wrong, and should have either come to MeTa or just stayed in my head. You won't get any disagreement from me.
posted by Bugbread at 10:55 AM on May 8, 2007
One can be certain there would be a number of lolxtian comment. There would be something about stupid rednecks in the South. There would be something about...
But what is the alternative? That we require each new user to read the entire archives and not repeat any observations or arguments that have already been brought up?
Why are all these people in the threads? What are the goals they are trying to achieve? It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me.
Well, me too, and there are a lot of possible answers - perhaps as many as there are individuals, perhaps slightly fewer. But all we can do about a bad discussion is either get in there and try to make it more serious, somehow helping it move toward a resolution of some kind, or just let the kids fight it out on the playground until their views do change, they are more informed, and they begin making better contributions in future threads which we might enjoy participating in more.
In a way, this problem has existed in nearly every community I've been a part of (in meatspace, I mean). It's the equivalent of the fresh-faced new hire saying "Hey, why don't we try X?" when they don't know that you tried X two years ago and after tweaking it endlessly, it failed and won't be implemented again. We're not in a classroom together experiencing the same curriculum, so we don't all have a shared knowledge base and we don't know what's been discussed before ad nauseum. There will always have to be some place for people to get started. I recognize that bailing on these threads doesn't really encourage people to get more sophisticated about what they're saying, but I think it's better to bail than only to complain if you aren't going to participate in adding to the available information.
Another reason for the repetition: Let's say I have Position A on an Issue. Let's say I wrote a thesis on Position A and have extensive experience with it in my job, and spend a lot of time talking and thinking about it. I have reviewed a lot of information and discussion of Issue and have arrived at a strong and well-supported belief in Position A that I advocate.
Now, most arguments from Position B, if they are less well developed, are not going to make a dent. I probably already have considered them and can answer them. So no matter how many people say "B! B! B!", I am unlikely to change my position, because I've already given their arguments thought and still don't think they're strong, and hopefully I can explain why. And I should explain why if I'm participating in the thread. This looks like me being obstinate about A, but it's really just a strong and solid position that I'm sticking to unless there's a definite challenge that knocks out part of the argument. I can't help it if people saying "B" keep repeating themselves even after I've shown problems with the B argument. Some people around here don't have a strong background in argument and aren't willing to concede the loss of a point - or don't even recognize when they've lost one. But that doesn't make A less valid, even if it looks like I'm just grinding an ax. Basically, the position is unlikely to change based on widely available information, because it's based on more detailed, maybe more in-depth information.
However, I am certainly ready to reconsider Position A if some new information or a new argument comes along. As soon as someone says "C!" I probably have something serious to chew on, and take it from there. At this point in the conversation you tend to see a lot of questions, showing evidence of thinking -- "But what would that mean for...? How do you reconcile that with...? Have you looked at the logical extension of....?" and so on. Definitely, not all threads ever get to this point.
I think there's just a natural curse in discussion that means when someone's thought a position out to level 20, but they're consistently challenged at only level 5, they're not going to change their position. But once they're challenged at level 20, they might very well change. Then the discussion might evolve to a new level.
I'm not sure what we can do, if anything, about people at level 5 who won't go to level 6 even when 5 has been taken apart. B! B! B!
I do share your frustration, bugbread. I just think it might an inherent problem of talking about ideas with other people in any situation.
As a side note, my whole perspective on argument has been significantly shaped by being challenged in discussions at MeFi. I got my ass raked over the coals in a couple of early arguments, and from that, I learned to think harder about shit that I'm saying and be sure I was ready to defend it, or be willing to concede a point when I was wrong. But on some level you have to care, not be here to just troll or to hammer on your point.
posted by Miko at 11:02 AM on May 8, 2007
But what is the alternative? That we require each new user to read the entire archives and not repeat any observations or arguments that have already been brought up?
Why are all these people in the threads? What are the goals they are trying to achieve? It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me.
Well, me too, and there are a lot of possible answers - perhaps as many as there are individuals, perhaps slightly fewer. But all we can do about a bad discussion is either get in there and try to make it more serious, somehow helping it move toward a resolution of some kind, or just let the kids fight it out on the playground until their views do change, they are more informed, and they begin making better contributions in future threads which we might enjoy participating in more.
In a way, this problem has existed in nearly every community I've been a part of (in meatspace, I mean). It's the equivalent of the fresh-faced new hire saying "Hey, why don't we try X?" when they don't know that you tried X two years ago and after tweaking it endlessly, it failed and won't be implemented again. We're not in a classroom together experiencing the same curriculum, so we don't all have a shared knowledge base and we don't know what's been discussed before ad nauseum. There will always have to be some place for people to get started. I recognize that bailing on these threads doesn't really encourage people to get more sophisticated about what they're saying, but I think it's better to bail than only to complain if you aren't going to participate in adding to the available information.
Another reason for the repetition: Let's say I have Position A on an Issue. Let's say I wrote a thesis on Position A and have extensive experience with it in my job, and spend a lot of time talking and thinking about it. I have reviewed a lot of information and discussion of Issue and have arrived at a strong and well-supported belief in Position A that I advocate.
Now, most arguments from Position B, if they are less well developed, are not going to make a dent. I probably already have considered them and can answer them. So no matter how many people say "B! B! B!", I am unlikely to change my position, because I've already given their arguments thought and still don't think they're strong, and hopefully I can explain why. And I should explain why if I'm participating in the thread. This looks like me being obstinate about A, but it's really just a strong and solid position that I'm sticking to unless there's a definite challenge that knocks out part of the argument. I can't help it if people saying "B" keep repeating themselves even after I've shown problems with the B argument. Some people around here don't have a strong background in argument and aren't willing to concede the loss of a point - or don't even recognize when they've lost one. But that doesn't make A less valid, even if it looks like I'm just grinding an ax. Basically, the position is unlikely to change based on widely available information, because it's based on more detailed, maybe more in-depth information.
However, I am certainly ready to reconsider Position A if some new information or a new argument comes along. As soon as someone says "C!" I probably have something serious to chew on, and take it from there. At this point in the conversation you tend to see a lot of questions, showing evidence of thinking -- "But what would that mean for...? How do you reconcile that with...? Have you looked at the logical extension of....?" and so on. Definitely, not all threads ever get to this point.
I think there's just a natural curse in discussion that means when someone's thought a position out to level 20, but they're consistently challenged at only level 5, they're not going to change their position. But once they're challenged at level 20, they might very well change. Then the discussion might evolve to a new level.
I'm not sure what we can do, if anything, about people at level 5 who won't go to level 6 even when 5 has been taken apart. B! B! B!
I do share your frustration, bugbread. I just think it might an inherent problem of talking about ideas with other people in any situation.
As a side note, my whole perspective on argument has been significantly shaped by being challenged in discussions at MeFi. I got my ass raked over the coals in a couple of early arguments, and from that, I learned to think harder about shit that I'm saying and be sure I was ready to defend it, or be willing to concede a point when I was wrong. But on some level you have to care, not be here to just troll or to hammer on your point.
posted by Miko at 11:02 AM on May 8, 2007
it's not a case of logical disconnect ... it's a case of nuance and gray areas ... and what people did afterwards ... not to mention that the most blatant violation in that thread was barely referenced there and hasn't been referenced at all here
strange how that works, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:04 AM on May 8, 2007
strange how that works, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:04 AM on May 8, 2007
but anyway, i think you, bugbread, and i have explained our roles as honestly as we should in this whole thing and it's my opinion that the worst offenders aren't even here, so i don't think there's much point left
posted by pyramid termite at 11:06 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 11:06 AM on May 8, 2007
blazecock pileon, in fact violated it by attacking my comment as specious etc
Pyramid Termite, I don't know you from Adam, but I'll address your comment right now:
Your comment was specious, because you equated followers of Christianity with the Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where no such comparison exists.
There is no two minutes of hate for Christians, you don't get a "bullet in the brain" for following Christianity, and gold-trim, leatherbound editions of the Holy Bible can still be purchased at your local Borders for $49.99, plus tax — no Memory Hole for your religious text of choice.
Your comment was tired and predictable: There is no war on Christianity in the United States, despite whatever right-wing punditry you choose to believe. Either that, or you have not read Nineteen Eighty-Four with much care, and you do not comprehend what symbol Goldstein represents.
It's no personal attack to point out where your shrill hyperbole failed, and your attempt to recast it as personal is dishonest.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:08 AM on May 8, 2007
Pyramid Termite, I don't know you from Adam, but I'll address your comment right now:
Your comment was specious, because you equated followers of Christianity with the Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where no such comparison exists.
There is no two minutes of hate for Christians, you don't get a "bullet in the brain" for following Christianity, and gold-trim, leatherbound editions of the Holy Bible can still be purchased at your local Borders for $49.99, plus tax — no Memory Hole for your religious text of choice.
Your comment was tired and predictable: There is no war on Christianity in the United States, despite whatever right-wing punditry you choose to believe. Either that, or you have not read Nineteen Eighty-Four with much care, and you do not comprehend what symbol Goldstein represents.
It's no personal attack to point out where your shrill hyperbole failed, and your attempt to recast it as personal is dishonest.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:08 AM on May 8, 2007
Blazecock Pileon writes "Ultima ratio strawhominem"
That's the one that came out after Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny, right?
posted by bugbread at 1:29 PM on May 8 [+] [!]
nonono, you're thinking of Ultima VI: Beating The Franchise Till It Bleeds. that's what came after Ultima V.
Ultima: Ratio Strawhominem was the final expansion to Ultima Online, right after Ultima Online: Penultima Online.
posted by shmegegge at 11:14 AM on May 8, 2007
That's the one that came out after Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny, right?
posted by bugbread at 1:29 PM on May 8 [+] [!]
nonono, you're thinking of Ultima VI: Beating The Franchise Till It Bleeds. that's what came after Ultima V.
Ultima: Ratio Strawhominem was the final expansion to Ultima Online, right after Ultima Online: Penultima Online.
posted by shmegegge at 11:14 AM on May 8, 2007
The real problem with that thread was that the discussion got splayed over about seven separate issues. It wasn't well focused. A couple people started picking up on each other's points, but there were three or four of those concurrently. Firas was sensible to drop out, because you can't do much in that sort of random barrage of stuff; in all the points about evolution, congress, Supreme Court, Jesus Christ, the 2004 election, rhetoric, and all that, there was never really even a single central point in discussion.
posted by Miko at 11:18 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by Miko at 11:18 AM on May 8, 2007
pyramid termite: stop apologizing for your comment. Now that I go back and look at it, there is nothing wrong with it. Your reaction was to reference Emmanuel Goldstein from Orwell's book 1984. That is a particularly apt comparison.
Within the context of Metafilter, there is the equivalent of "two minutes of hate" for Christians which seems to appear about every day. It gets deleted often, but its there nonetheless. It allows people to vent their spleen about their hate for religion and its adherents. And if you take up the cause, get ready for a lynching and the name-calling. The threads go up, and people are supposed to hate and yell at it and display their anger and hostility.
It's a really good comparison within the context of the site that you hit on. Thus, it's a legitimate reaction to the thread. No need to apologize for it. It was only received with hostility because people don't like you pointing out their predictable and insipid behavior. Trust me on that.
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Within the context of Metafilter, there is the equivalent of "two minutes of hate" for Christians which seems to appear about every day. It gets deleted often, but its there nonetheless. It allows people to vent their spleen about their hate for religion and its adherents. And if you take up the cause, get ready for a lynching and the name-calling. The threads go up, and people are supposed to hate and yell at it and display their anger and hostility.
It's a really good comparison within the context of the site that you hit on. Thus, it's a legitimate reaction to the thread. No need to apologize for it. It was only received with hostility because people don't like you pointing out their predictable and insipid behavior. Trust me on that.
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on May 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
blazecock, if you have to spend hundreds of words refuting a 5 word post, then it's a lot more on target than you care to admit
ps i'm no fan of right-wing punditry ... or knee-jerk anythingism ... now, THAT was a straw man
pps you still haven't explained why your comment wasn't a violation of guidelines, seeing as it was an attack on the quality of discussion
posted by pyramid termite at 11:23 AM on May 8, 2007
ps i'm no fan of right-wing punditry ... or knee-jerk anythingism ... now, THAT was a straw man
pps you still haven't explained why your comment wasn't a violation of guidelines, seeing as it was an attack on the quality of discussion
posted by pyramid termite at 11:23 AM on May 8, 2007
and dios, thank you
posted by pyramid termite at 11:24 AM on May 8, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 11:24 AM on May 8, 2007
Blazecock Pileon: I agree with almost everything you said in your last comment, except the "there is no two minutes hate" part. If we're talking about America, sure. But I interpreted pyramid termite's comment to be in reference to MetaFilter, not America. And MetaFilter definitely has its two-minutes hate for Christianity. It may be justified, and it may not. I'm not really in any position to determine it. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't think that MeFi has it's fairly common share of 2-minutes-lol-xian.
(And, again, none of that's in relation to whether the comment should or shouldn't have been in the thread. It's just in reference to whether MeFi has a two-minutes-hate or not)
posted by Bugbread at 11:24 AM on May 8, 2007
(And, again, none of that's in relation to whether the comment should or shouldn't have been in the thread. It's just in reference to whether MeFi has a two-minutes-hate or not)
posted by Bugbread at 11:24 AM on May 8, 2007
Er: my comment shmegegge writes "Ultima: Ratio Strawhominem was the final expansion to Ultima Online, right after Ultima Online: Penultima Online."
Personally, I'm looking forward to the joint-release of "Final Fantasy: Ultima" and "Ultima: Final Fantasy".
pyramid termite writes "blazecock, if you have to spend hundreds of words refuting a 5 word post, then it's a lot more on target than you care to admit"
Nah. People spend pages and pages providing arguments and evidence refuting statements like "blacks shouldn't have the right to vote". That doesn't mean that the statement is on target. Nor does spending a lot of words indicate that something isn't on target. The ratio of the length of a comment to the length of its response doesn't indicate anything.
posted by Bugbread at 11:30 AM on May 8, 2007
Personally, I'm looking forward to the joint-release of "Final Fantasy: Ultima" and "Ultima: Final Fantasy".
pyramid termite writes "blazecock, if you have to spend hundreds of words refuting a 5 word post, then it's a lot more on target than you care to admit"
Nah. People spend pages and pages providing arguments and evidence refuting statements like "blacks shouldn't have the right to vote". That doesn't mean that the statement is on target. Nor does spending a lot of words indicate that something isn't on target. The ratio of the length of a comment to the length of its response doesn't indicate anything.
posted by Bugbread at 11:30 AM on May 8, 2007
blazecock, if you have to spend hundreds of words refuting a 5 word post, then it's a lot more on target than you care to admit
Read the book, or don't, I don't care, but you really do not understand the full implications and meaning of your comment.
pps you still haven't explained why your comment wasn't a violation of guidelines, seeing as it was an attack on the quality of discussion
There was no "attack on the qualty of discussion", whatever that is. It was a response to your shrill hyperbole, and one I am quickly beginning to regret making, let alone explaining.
If you really think that my response is a personal attack, just wait until someone calls you a "worthless asshole" a couple times for no reason. Or you get your Metafilter account hacked, instead. So far you got off lightly, I think.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:21 PM on May 8, 2007
Read the book, or don't, I don't care, but you really do not understand the full implications and meaning of your comment.
pps you still haven't explained why your comment wasn't a violation of guidelines, seeing as it was an attack on the quality of discussion
There was no "attack on the qualty of discussion", whatever that is. It was a response to your shrill hyperbole, and one I am quickly beginning to regret making, let alone explaining.
If you really think that my response is a personal attack, just wait until someone calls you a "worthless asshole" a couple times for no reason. Or you get your Metafilter account hacked, instead. So far you got off lightly, I think.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:21 PM on May 8, 2007
Blazecock Pileon writes "If you really think that my response is a personal attack"
I'm not seeing the part where he's saying it's a personal attack. The only person who has mentioned attacks being personal are dios (and he's talking about general conversation, not this one in particular), and miss lynster, who is talking specifically about this conversation, but I can't tell who she's talking about. He's saying your attack was on his comment (which is true, and, once again, I'm not talking about whether it was justified or not, or appropriate or not), but I'm not seeing anything where he's saying it was anything personal.
posted by Bugbread at 2:38 PM on May 8, 2007
I'm not seeing the part where he's saying it's a personal attack. The only person who has mentioned attacks being personal are dios (and he's talking about general conversation, not this one in particular), and miss lynster, who is talking specifically about this conversation, but I can't tell who she's talking about. He's saying your attack was on his comment (which is true, and, once again, I'm not talking about whether it was justified or not, or appropriate or not), but I'm not seeing anything where he's saying it was anything personal.
posted by Bugbread at 2:38 PM on May 8, 2007
I wasn't just talking about this conversation. There were more than a few posts over the weekend where people started insulting eachother personally, discourse evolved into patronizing nastiness, and comments had to be deleted. Yes, there was this... but if I recall there was also one during which dirtynumbangelboy's sexual orientation was picked apart... one where someone told someone to die in a fire... and more but I don't remember the details.
As I said before I never was singling anyone out. There just appeared to be some kind of general testosterone-fueled personal nastiness in the water which has made some conversations unpleasant to read and uninviting to share in. I learn a lot from those who disagree with me & I enjoy having controversial discussions with people, but not so much when there's so little mutual respect between the participants in a debate.
I mean, damn. Die in a FIRE!??? wtf?
Anyhow, so you guys can resume slap fighting eachother now, I'm going back to looking at bare-butt babies pissing off cobras. Buh-bye.
posted by miss lynnster at 4:40 PM on May 8, 2007
As I said before I never was singling anyone out. There just appeared to be some kind of general testosterone-fueled personal nastiness in the water which has made some conversations unpleasant to read and uninviting to share in. I learn a lot from those who disagree with me & I enjoy having controversial discussions with people, but not so much when there's so little mutual respect between the participants in a debate.
I mean, damn. Die in a FIRE!??? wtf?
Anyhow, so you guys can resume slap fighting eachother now, I'm going back to looking at bare-butt babies pissing off cobras. Buh-bye.
posted by miss lynnster at 4:40 PM on May 8, 2007
Read the book, or don't, I don't care, but you really do not understand the full implications and meaning of your comment.
i understand satire ... do you?
There was no "attack on the qualty of discussion", whatever that is.
it's precisely what you've been complaining about
It was a response to your shrill hyperbole, and one I am quickly beginning to regret making, let alone explaining.
ah, the sweet voice of returning sanity ...
If you really think that my response is a personal attack, just wait until someone calls you a "worthless asshole" a couple times for no reason.
that seems unlikely to me
Or you get your Metafilter account hacked, instead. So far you got off lightly, I think.
how dramatic for you ... ever hear of sendsys bombs? ... dictionary sporging? ... the meow wars? ... the alt.life.sucks wars? ... hipcrime? ... the kook cabal? ... the cult of tracker? ... post forging? ... skippy the bush kangaroo? ... ever wonder why groups.google.com has such incomplete records for quite a few newsgroups in 1998-99?
and you're trying to frighten me with a couple of "worthless assholes" and one account hacking?
the stories i could tell ...
now i'm going to tell you what i came here to tell you ... you're making a mountain out of a molehill ... buck up, quit whining and get a life ...
got it? ... good
over and OUT
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 PM on May 8, 2007
i understand satire ... do you?
There was no "attack on the qualty of discussion", whatever that is.
it's precisely what you've been complaining about
It was a response to your shrill hyperbole, and one I am quickly beginning to regret making, let alone explaining.
ah, the sweet voice of returning sanity ...
If you really think that my response is a personal attack, just wait until someone calls you a "worthless asshole" a couple times for no reason.
that seems unlikely to me
Or you get your Metafilter account hacked, instead. So far you got off lightly, I think.
how dramatic for you ... ever hear of sendsys bombs? ... dictionary sporging? ... the meow wars? ... the alt.life.sucks wars? ... hipcrime? ... the kook cabal? ... the cult of tracker? ... post forging? ... skippy the bush kangaroo? ... ever wonder why groups.google.com has such incomplete records for quite a few newsgroups in 1998-99?
and you're trying to frighten me with a couple of "worthless assholes" and one account hacking?
the stories i could tell ...
now i'm going to tell you what i came here to tell you ... you're making a mountain out of a molehill ... buck up, quit whining and get a life ...
got it? ... good
over and OUT
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 PM on May 8, 2007
Saith cortex: "folks in the grey, who (I think it is fair to say) over-represent the old guard of the site, the curmudgeonly long-timers."
I've been promoted! I am a n00b no more!
posted by davy at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2007
I've been promoted! I am a n00b no more!
posted by davy at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2007
Here's your cane and your rolled-up newspaper. You'll receive the commemorative grey pipe via mail in six to eight weeks.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:57 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:57 PM on May 10, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I'm not sure what exactly bardic wishes me to discuss here.
posted by Bugbread at 3:21 PM on May 7, 2007