Yet another why was it deleted : repulitards or kids with troubles ? July 20, 2007 9:40 AM Subscribe
What's the line between axegrinding (this axegrinding ? or some kind of GodWin rule ? ) which caused the deletion of this post of mine and showing the psycological troubles of bunch of indoctrinated kids that are just parrotting talking points ? It this better and/or acceptable , because it clearly (?) shows a nascar redneck or because he makes fun of Michael Moore, therefore it must be "republitard" BUT it fits under "satire/comedy ?" I tolerate deletion with no problem, and may even accept that I was deemed brutal and deleted, but I would like to understand where the borderline could be, according to you guys.
CALL THE WAAAHMBULANCE!
posted by languagehat at 9:46 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by languagehat at 9:46 AM on July 20, 2007
(?!?)
posted by smackfu at 9:49 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 9:49 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
languagehat writes "CALL THE WAAAHMBULANCE!"
Ah get lost you nincompoop or sumthin' :)
posted by elpapacito at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2007
Ah get lost you nincompoop or sumthin' :)
posted by elpapacito at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2007
Since you wrote "yet another", we know you've seen all of the other "Why was this deleted?" posts lately. That means you've seen the advice in all of them to email the admin that deleted the post. And you've also seen that none of them have generated any results that would be better than the results you'd get by emailing the admin that deleted the post.
So why is this here?
posted by mendel at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
So why is this here?
posted by mendel at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
I found a video that might help you understand where the borderline could be.
posted by box at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by box at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2007
Ah get lost you nincompoop or sumthin' :)
The proper response is to say "LANGUAGE FAT LOL"
posted by ALongDecember at 9:54 AM on July 20, 2007
The proper response is to say "LANGUAGE FAT LOL"
posted by ALongDecember at 9:54 AM on July 20, 2007
The construction of your argument lost you the debate.
posted by ardgedee at 9:54 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by ardgedee at 9:54 AM on July 20, 2007
Yes, yes, continue to talk and talk about this. Leave those cats unpetted.
My secret plan to destroy all cats is working! DEATH TO YOU, FOUL SPEWERS OF ALLERGENS! MY SINUSES SHALL HAVE THEIR DAY!
posted by dw at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2007
My secret plan to destroy all cats is working! DEATH TO YOU, FOUL SPEWERS OF ALLERGENS! MY SINUSES SHALL HAVE THEIR DAY!
posted by dw at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2007
"Yet another" is a pretty good summary of my feelings about it. We get a lot of this And Here's Yet Another Example of How Bad They Are! stuff sometimes—lately it's been kind of a high cycle, with Metatalk threads to match if you click back through the last couple weeks—and the meat link in your post, that video, seemed like pretty much more of the same. It's neither cool/interesting stuff on the web nor even big or surprising news, and there are a lot place on the web where folks can find anti-GOP sentiment in spades.
I can't vouch for the etymology of the Standard Mefi English "axe-grind" usage, but the working definition around here has exactly to do with that "oh and another thing" as relates to issue/agenda posts. Discussion of politics/issues/etc is not forbidden around here, but it shouldn't be lazy in the ideal case, especially considering how ugly some of the threads get.
I don't know if the "Michael Moore's a Dumbass" video from your "this better" link is something from an FPP I didn't read or not, so no comment there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2007
I can't vouch for the etymology of the Standard Mefi English "axe-grind" usage, but the working definition around here has exactly to do with that "oh and another thing" as relates to issue/agenda posts. Discussion of politics/issues/etc is not forbidden around here, but it shouldn't be lazy in the ideal case, especially considering how ugly some of the threads get.
I don't know if the "Michael Moore's a Dumbass" video from your "this better" link is something from an FPP I didn't read or not, so no comment there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2007
mendel writes "So why is this here?"
Because it pleases me ? Not really , I'd just like to hear opinions on this, I don't want a crucifiction of the moderator...even if that'd look good given his hairdo !
posted by elpapacito at 10:01 AM on July 20, 2007
Because it pleases me ? Not really , I'd just like to hear opinions on this, I don't want a crucifiction of the moderator...even if that'd look good given his hairdo !
posted by elpapacito at 10:01 AM on July 20, 2007
Please please me.
No, I mean stop making sense.
No, I really mean, please please make it stop.
posted by OmieWise at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007
No, I mean stop making sense.
No, I really mean, please please make it stop.
posted by OmieWise at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007
Should have been on preview: damn so It looked like I was after a couple deers and a republican, but I don't hunt and don't do republicans either , even if their looks sometime match :)
Jokes aside it really trouble me that the kids still repeat that bullshit over and over without any barely recognizable critical attempt, eventually going in denial..I have seen it soooo much it may, indeed, be nauseating and boring. But it is still going on apparently , rep or dem being only who is doing the trick at the moment.
posted by elpapacito at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007
Jokes aside it really trouble me that the kids still repeat that bullshit over and over without any barely recognizable critical attempt, eventually going in denial..I have seen it soooo much it may, indeed, be nauseating and boring. But it is still going on apparently , rep or dem being only who is doing the trick at the moment.
posted by elpapacito at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007
Your post was just another variation on pointing and laughing at Republicians. Which I'm not against and pretty much support. But it gets old, ya know? There are only so many times you can laugh at people being foolish.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:20 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:20 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
We get a lot of this And Here's Yet Another Example of How Bad They Are! stuff sometimes
What's wrong with mocking the rich and/or powerful? Heck, they should be mocked. They can take it, they're rich! Call me a latte-drinking socialist (even though I prefer au lait), report me to the USCIS, have me investigated by the rotting corpses of McCarthy, Nixon and Cohn, but dammit, I feel the rich and/or powerful should be roundly mocked all day everyday. Society needs to do it to stay healthy and sane, it's been going on at least as long as the historical record extends, and MetaFilter shouldn't try to put a lid on it. If it kept Sumerian slaves from killing themselves, it's good enough for MeFites.
posted by Kattullus at 10:23 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
What's wrong with mocking the rich and/or powerful? Heck, they should be mocked. They can take it, they're rich! Call me a latte-drinking socialist (even though I prefer au lait), report me to the USCIS, have me investigated by the rotting corpses of McCarthy, Nixon and Cohn, but dammit, I feel the rich and/or powerful should be roundly mocked all day everyday. Society needs to do it to stay healthy and sane, it's been going on at least as long as the historical record extends, and MetaFilter shouldn't try to put a lid on it. If it kept Sumerian slaves from killing themselves, it's good enough for MeFites.
posted by Kattullus at 10:23 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
There are only so many times you can laugh at people being foolish.
That's like saying there's only so many glasses of wine you can drink in a lifetime.
Clearly, you've never been to my house.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:24 AM on July 20, 2007
That's like saying there's only so many glasses of wine you can drink in a lifetime.
Clearly, you've never been to my house.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:24 AM on July 20, 2007
I did a search and it turns out that there are actually quite a few places on the internet where you can go to discuss politics and get all outraged and stuff. There are however very community sites dedicated to finding the coolest stuff on the web and sharing it.
posted by LarryC at 10:39 AM on July 20, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by LarryC at 10:39 AM on July 20, 2007 [6 favorites]
No offense to the modsquad, but it has been feeling a bit heavy handed and a bit capricious lately.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:41 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by doctor_negative at 10:41 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have four personal friends from college who were all Republicans and are all now either in the navy or marine corps. Should I make a post about it?
posted by chlorus at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by chlorus at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2007
Linc, in particular, seems to have gone off his meds.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:44 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:44 AM on July 20, 2007
Sometimes when MetaTalk is quiet, disturbed only by requests for ponies or "hey this page is borked", I find myself wishing for some good knock-down, hair-pulling, put-the-popcorn-on fights.
But then we have have weeks like this, where there's bitching and whining every thirty seconds, and it's like - is there something in the water? Is this Metafilter's Saturn return?
posted by rtha at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2007
But then we have have weeks like this, where there's bitching and whining every thirty seconds, and it's like - is there something in the water? Is this Metafilter's Saturn return?
posted by rtha at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2007
"the psycological troubles of bunch of indoctrinated kids that are just parrotting talking points"
"it really trouble me that the kids still repeat that bullshit over and over without any barely recognizable critical attempt, eventually going in denial"
You realize this is precisely what 'they' conclude about today's young protesters, bloggers and provocateurs.
posted by deern the headlice at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2007
"it really trouble me that the kids still repeat that bullshit over and over without any barely recognizable critical attempt, eventually going in denial"
You realize this is precisely what 'they' conclude about today's young protesters, bloggers and provocateurs.
posted by deern the headlice at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2007
deern the headlice writes "this is precisely what 'they' conclude about today's young protesters, bloggers and provocateurs."
Could be , probably is like you said. Yet it would be rather easy to point out, demonstrate there's a lot of ranting and blogging on "their side" as well ; clearly if the person doesn't use the net he is going to just parrot the talking point, but an actual user (not necessarily a pro user) may see a difference..that's a lot better (imho) then a generic conclusion "damn youngsters and their games pc !" ..that doesn't enable the opportunity of mocking the "other" point of view, which is still a chance to get any point to attention.
posted by elpapacito at 10:59 AM on July 20, 2007
Could be , probably is like you said. Yet it would be rather easy to point out, demonstrate there's a lot of ranting and blogging on "their side" as well ; clearly if the person doesn't use the net he is going to just parrot the talking point, but an actual user (not necessarily a pro user) may see a difference..that's a lot better (imho) then a generic conclusion "damn youngsters and their games pc !" ..that doesn't enable the opportunity of mocking the "other" point of view, which is still a chance to get any point to attention.
posted by elpapacito at 10:59 AM on July 20, 2007
Jokes aside it really trouble me that the kids still repeat that bullshit over and over without any barely recognizable critical attempt, eventually going in denial..I have seen it soooo much it may, indeed, be nauseating and boring.
You think that's nauseating and boring, try listening the Last Free Leftists of MetaFilter. Half the time they're breaking one another's arms so they can pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job of fighting the good fight against BushCo. and everyone who else who doesn't fit into their America. Every FPP they make is a nail in the Right's coffin, doncha know. The rest of the time they're rending their garments because we just don't appreciate that they're out there in the digital desert man, suffering for us sinners, hoping that maybe, just maybe, the next shitass FPP, the next bitchy and pointless MeTa will be the one that causes the scales to fall from our eyes - why can't we see what they are doing is right?
Why can't we see that they are here to save us with their dripping condescension and their bourgeois contempt for the corrupt rich and the vulgar poor? Why can't we see as they do, solely in black and white?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:00 AM on July 20, 2007 [13 favorites]
You think that's nauseating and boring, try listening the Last Free Leftists of MetaFilter. Half the time they're breaking one another's arms so they can pat themselves on the back for doing such a good job of fighting the good fight against BushCo. and everyone who else who doesn't fit into their America. Every FPP they make is a nail in the Right's coffin, doncha know. The rest of the time they're rending their garments because we just don't appreciate that they're out there in the digital desert man, suffering for us sinners, hoping that maybe, just maybe, the next shitass FPP, the next bitchy and pointless MeTa will be the one that causes the scales to fall from our eyes - why can't we see what they are doing is right?
Why can't we see that they are here to save us with their dripping condescension and their bourgeois contempt for the corrupt rich and the vulgar poor? Why can't we see as they do, solely in black and white?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:00 AM on July 20, 2007 [13 favorites]
What's the line
Turn around. See that speck in the distance, just before the horizon? That was it.
posted by Skorgu at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2007
Turn around. See that speck in the distance, just before the horizon? That was it.
posted by Skorgu at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2007
Your post was just another variation on pointing and laughing at Republicians. Which I'm not against and pretty much support. But it gets old, ya know?
Exactly.
We could do several screens' worth of LOLREPUBS posts seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. But MetaFilter would become shrill and boring and predictable.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:04 AM on July 20, 2007
Exactly.
We could do several screens' worth of LOLREPUBS posts seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. But MetaFilter would become shrill and boring and predictable.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:04 AM on July 20, 2007
it's seriously getting too hot for this shit.
posted by boo_radley at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2007
Quiet down, you latte-drinking socialist.
posted by cortex
But... I'm a social-drinking latteist!
posted by The Deej at 11:13 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by cortex
But... I'm a social-drinking latteist!
posted by The Deej at 11:13 AM on July 20, 2007
Better latte than never.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:15 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:15 AM on July 20, 2007
I would like to understand where the borderline could be, according to you guys.
the line moves in direct correlation to the femoro-patellar spasm velocity manifested in the moderator.
posted by quonsar at 11:20 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
the line moves in direct correlation to the femoro-patellar spasm velocity manifested in the moderator.
posted by quonsar at 11:20 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
and showing the psycological troubles of bunch of indoctrinated kids that are just parrotting talking points ?
All issues of axegrinding aside, what you describe just isn't the best of the web. Even if I agreed with you 110%, seven minutes of pea-brained suburbanites yammering on about this and that just isn't very compelling to me.
You seem to have a problem that is very common to political activists; you are so deeply committed to your ideals that you can't understand the perspectives of people who don't share your committment. You lose perspective and aren't able to understand why something that moves you to highly pleasurable levels of outrage and self-righteousness bores the rest of us to tears. It's sort of like the reason for the ban on self-linking; you're too deeply involved with the subject matter to judge its actual value as a potential front page post.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2007
All issues of axegrinding aside, what you describe just isn't the best of the web. Even if I agreed with you 110%, seven minutes of pea-brained suburbanites yammering on about this and that just isn't very compelling to me.
You seem to have a problem that is very common to political activists; you are so deeply committed to your ideals that you can't understand the perspectives of people who don't share your committment. You lose perspective and aren't able to understand why something that moves you to highly pleasurable levels of outrage and self-righteousness bores the rest of us to tears. It's sort of like the reason for the ban on self-linking; you're too deeply involved with the subject matter to judge its actual value as a potential front page post.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2007
Politics-related posts should be discouraged. Too often people confuse important for interesting and want to engage the rest of us in their epic struggle against the conservatives, liberals, or whoever without realizing that the material that they actually linked isn't really very interesting.
When someone links a page of mid-nineteenth century calotypes of nude Parisian clowns, they generally honestly believe that the material is interesting on its own merits. They may be wrong, but at least they've earnestly tried to provide the community with something it will like.
Politics posters, though, tend to impose their own agenda on the community, instead of trying to make genuinely interesting posts. The tone is "this is outrageous, amirite" not "look at this; it's fascinating," and that just gets tiresome.
To make matters worse, most Mefites have such poorly-formed political views that the ensuing discussion in politics threads is just an embarrassment to the community.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2007 [12 favorites]
When someone links a page of mid-nineteenth century calotypes of nude Parisian clowns, they generally honestly believe that the material is interesting on its own merits. They may be wrong, but at least they've earnestly tried to provide the community with something it will like.
Politics posters, though, tend to impose their own agenda on the community, instead of trying to make genuinely interesting posts. The tone is "this is outrageous, amirite" not "look at this; it's fascinating," and that just gets tiresome.
To make matters worse, most Mefites have such poorly-formed political views that the ensuing discussion in politics threads is just an embarrassment to the community.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2007 [12 favorites]
I tolerate deletion with no problem, and may even accept that I was deemed brutal and deleted, but I would like to understand where the borderline could be, according to you guys.
Hey there elpapacito,
I've had a few things deleted here, and have even had a few timeouts, and I was finally able to get Jessamyn to move the borderline and concede that my understanding of how the site should work was right - or at least to cut me some extra slack - by confronting her face to face. I don't know if this method will work for you, and as you'll see there were a couple of dicey moments when I thought I would likely get a permaban (and cease and desist order).
Here is the video of that moment (swearing, NSFW).
Hope this helps.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:29 AM on July 20, 2007
Hey there elpapacito,
I've had a few things deleted here, and have even had a few timeouts, and I was finally able to get Jessamyn to move the borderline and concede that my understanding of how the site should work was right - or at least to cut me some extra slack - by confronting her face to face. I don't know if this method will work for you, and as you'll see there were a couple of dicey moments when I thought I would likely get a permaban (and cease and desist order).
Here is the video of that moment (swearing, NSFW).
Hope this helps.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:29 AM on July 20, 2007
Well played, Meatbomb.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:31 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:31 AM on July 20, 2007
LarryC: I did a search and it turns out that there are actually quite a few places on the internet where you can go to discuss politics and get all outraged and stuff. There are however very community sites dedicated to finding the coolest stuff on the web and sharing it.
Hey, did you know there are sites that are specifically for discussing astronomy? Or that there are also sites dedicated to flyfishing, snowglobes, pre-Columbian American history, globalization, philology, chess and photography? What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Politics are a part of life and our culture. I don't feel like it's overwhelming MetaFilter, but then I don't take part in most political threads.
Alvy Ampersand: Why can't we see that they are here to save us with their dripping condescension and their bourgeois contempt for the corrupt rich and the vulgar poor? Why can't we see as they do, solely in black and white?
Yes, Alvy, why can't you see things solely in black and white?
jason's_planet: It's sort of like the reason for the ban on self-linking; you're too deeply involved with the subject matter to judge its actual value as a potential front page post.
That's an interesting point. In the arts there's the eternal debate of who makes a better critic, a fan or a non-fan. To give an example, I've read almost all of Haruki Murakami's fiction and it has had a deep and lasting effect on me. I have very little distance on his work. Now, would I be a good choice to review his latest novel or should someone much less familiar with his books do it? Depending on your outlook, you might think the answer is obvious, but people have been arguing about this for decades, if not centuries.
When it comes to FPPs I tend to favor the view that people excited by a subject tend to make better posts than those who merely have a passing interest. I've made a lot of posts which are for people with specialized interests which I share. Of course I hope that I draw others in, but I don't particularly bank on it.
Now, the converse of this point is that people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics, are not going to be good judges of the quality of a post on that subject.
posted by Kattullus at 11:40 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Hey, did you know there are sites that are specifically for discussing astronomy? Or that there are also sites dedicated to flyfishing, snowglobes, pre-Columbian American history, globalization, philology, chess and photography? What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Politics are a part of life and our culture. I don't feel like it's overwhelming MetaFilter, but then I don't take part in most political threads.
Alvy Ampersand: Why can't we see that they are here to save us with their dripping condescension and their bourgeois contempt for the corrupt rich and the vulgar poor? Why can't we see as they do, solely in black and white?
Yes, Alvy, why can't you see things solely in black and white?
jason's_planet: It's sort of like the reason for the ban on self-linking; you're too deeply involved with the subject matter to judge its actual value as a potential front page post.
That's an interesting point. In the arts there's the eternal debate of who makes a better critic, a fan or a non-fan. To give an example, I've read almost all of Haruki Murakami's fiction and it has had a deep and lasting effect on me. I have very little distance on his work. Now, would I be a good choice to review his latest novel or should someone much less familiar with his books do it? Depending on your outlook, you might think the answer is obvious, but people have been arguing about this for decades, if not centuries.
When it comes to FPPs I tend to favor the view that people excited by a subject tend to make better posts than those who merely have a passing interest. I've made a lot of posts which are for people with specialized interests which I share. Of course I hope that I draw others in, but I don't particularly bank on it.
Now, the converse of this point is that people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics, are not going to be good judges of the quality of a post on that subject.
posted by Kattullus at 11:40 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
When it comes to FPPs I tend to favor the view that people excited by a subject tend to make better posts than those who merely have a passing interest. I've made a lot of posts which are for people with specialized interests which I share.
But politics is not a "specialized interest." It is the sewer we swim in.
posted by languagehat at 11:46 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
But politics is not a "specialized interest." It is the sewer we swim in.
posted by languagehat at 11:46 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't know if you've heard the news yet, but Tay Zonday is the New Rickroll. Go ahead. Click the link. I dare you. (and move away from the mic to breathe in)
posted by wendell at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by wendell at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2007
finally able to get Jessamyn to move the borderline
She's in that video? Which one is Jessamyn?
posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on July 20, 2007
She's in that video? Which one is Jessamyn?
posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on July 20, 2007
When I first heard Rick Astley sing 'Never Gonna Give You Up,' I pictured in my mind a big, black dude. Just like I thought Christopher Cross (Sailing) would look something like James Taylor and Tracey Chapman (Fast Car) was a preppy college guy.
posted by ericb at 11:58 AM on July 20, 2007
posted by ericb at 11:58 AM on July 20, 2007
When I first heard Cher sing "If I Could Turn Back Time", I thought it was a dude.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2007
Bad deletion IMO.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by sevenyearlurk at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Hey, did you know there are sites that are specifically for discussing astronomy? Or that there are also sites dedicated to flyfishing, snowglobes, pre-Columbian American history, globalization, philology, chess and photography? What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Politics are a part of life and our culture.
Yeah, but you miss a huge difference between politics and all those other topics. Devotees of astronomy, French poetry and various other topics know that their passions are not shared by everyone and that they have to put in some effort to make them interesting to other people. Political activists, on the other hand, seem to believe that their passion is the most important thing in the world and that every minute detail of it should be fascinating to you too even when it isn't. When confronted with glazed eyes and stifled yawns, most people with specialized interests either change the topic or shift the emphasis in order to keep peoples' attention. Political activists increase the volume and the spittle and convince themselves that your failure to be interested in what they have to say reflects a moral failing on your part.
posted by jason's_planet at 12:14 PM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]
Yeah, but you miss a huge difference between politics and all those other topics. Devotees of astronomy, French poetry and various other topics know that their passions are not shared by everyone and that they have to put in some effort to make them interesting to other people. Political activists, on the other hand, seem to believe that their passion is the most important thing in the world and that every minute detail of it should be fascinating to you too even when it isn't. When confronted with glazed eyes and stifled yawns, most people with specialized interests either change the topic or shift the emphasis in order to keep peoples' attention. Political activists increase the volume and the spittle and convince themselves that your failure to be interested in what they have to say reflects a moral failing on your part.
posted by jason's_planet at 12:14 PM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]
people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics, are not going to be good judges of the quality of a post on that subject.
That would be an excellent point, if the deleted post in question wasn't just some lame fodder for a MeFi Two-Minute Hate. One's opinion regarding politics has very little to do with it - do you even know where the admins are on the political spectrum?
Yes, Alvy, why can't you see things solely in black and white?
When people happily pigeonhole themselves it's hardly hypocritical for me to point it out. If anything, they should be heartened that they have succeeded in turning themselves, or at least the perception of themselves, into dull caricatures and shrill cyphers. Hopefully, I've done my part to make hanging on their self-erected crosses a little more bearable.
+0.5 PTs for attempted zing, though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:25 PM on July 20, 2007
That would be an excellent point, if the deleted post in question wasn't just some lame fodder for a MeFi Two-Minute Hate. One's opinion regarding politics has very little to do with it - do you even know where the admins are on the political spectrum?
Yes, Alvy, why can't you see things solely in black and white?
When people happily pigeonhole themselves it's hardly hypocritical for me to point it out. If anything, they should be heartened that they have succeeded in turning themselves, or at least the perception of themselves, into dull caricatures and shrill cyphers. Hopefully, I've done my part to make hanging on their self-erected crosses a little more bearable.
+0.5 PTs for attempted zing, though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:25 PM on July 20, 2007
If these LOLNEOCONs posts were delete-worthy (and I am of a divided mind on that) then the current front pager "O'Reilly vs. Kos" is worse... Hello, mods?
posted by wendell at 12:30 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by wendell at 12:30 PM on July 20, 2007
Don't make fun of conservatives. It's just not fair.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:33 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:33 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
The video was pretty funny, but all the wiki links and odd editorializing added to dress it up as a better post didn't really pull it off.
posted by Manjusri at 12:34 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by Manjusri at 12:34 PM on July 20, 2007
Don't make fun of Blazecock Pileon. It's just too easy.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:41 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:41 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
languagehat: But politics is not a "specialized interest." It is the sewer we swim in.
I don't know about you, but when I'm not paying attention to politics, I barely notice them at all. The 2002 American elections passed me by completely, even though I was in the US, have a lot of politically active friends and read this joint daily. Hating politics is the other side of the being-interested coin.
But yeah, I see your point. Furthermore, politics is the most disliked subject matter on MetaFilter that gets frequent posts. There's an argument to be made that because it's so disliked, it should be pushed out as much as possible. I don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable point of view.
I sympathize with those who are allergic to politics, but I like that MetaFilter is a generalist mess, it's what attracted me to it and why I've remained a reader for 6 years now.
jason's_planet: Devotees of astronomy, French poetry and various other topics know that their passions are not shared by everyone [...] When confronted with glazed eyes and stifled yawns, most people with specialized interests either change the topic or shift the emphasis in order to keep peoples' attention. Political activists increase the volume and the spittle and convince themselves that your failure to be interested in what they have to say reflects a moral failing on your part.
When I lead the revolution, the decision whose ass is up against the wall will be solely based on their knowledge of French poetry and astronomy.
"So you think Rimbaud is a crater on Mars and Betelgeuse wrote mannered 18th Century satiric villanelles, eh? Up against the wall, bourgeois scum!"
You're right, though, politics attract certain types boors and bores in huge numbers. Sports attract different types. I still follow politics and sports, though my level of interest in each waxes and wanes. There are a lot of things that I don't like, but I don't want to sequester myself from any topic.
Alvy Ampersand: That would be an excellent point, if the deleted post in question wasn't just some lame fodder for a MeFi Two-Minute Hate.One's opinion regarding politics has very little to do with it - do you even know where the admins are on the political spectrum?
Well, I was trying to make a more general point.
I don't know in minute details the political opinions of the admins, but that's not what concerns me. A lot of MeFites vehemently dislike discussion of politics and talk about it at great length, killing many threads about political subjects. I don't like it when people stomp on discussion. Yeah, people shouldn't force their opinions on others. Sometimes it's best that people don't speak at all. I just dislike seeing knee-jerk snarking about political discussion. Knee-jerk snarking about politicians, now that's another matter entirely. It's a sign of a healthy society when politicians get mocked day in day out.
cortex: When I first heard Cher sing "If I Could Turn Back Time", I thought it was a dude.
The ravages of steroids use...
posted by Kattullus at 12:41 PM on July 20, 2007
I don't know about you, but when I'm not paying attention to politics, I barely notice them at all. The 2002 American elections passed me by completely, even though I was in the US, have a lot of politically active friends and read this joint daily. Hating politics is the other side of the being-interested coin.
But yeah, I see your point. Furthermore, politics is the most disliked subject matter on MetaFilter that gets frequent posts. There's an argument to be made that because it's so disliked, it should be pushed out as much as possible. I don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable point of view.
I sympathize with those who are allergic to politics, but I like that MetaFilter is a generalist mess, it's what attracted me to it and why I've remained a reader for 6 years now.
jason's_planet: Devotees of astronomy, French poetry and various other topics know that their passions are not shared by everyone [...] When confronted with glazed eyes and stifled yawns, most people with specialized interests either change the topic or shift the emphasis in order to keep peoples' attention. Political activists increase the volume and the spittle and convince themselves that your failure to be interested in what they have to say reflects a moral failing on your part.
When I lead the revolution, the decision whose ass is up against the wall will be solely based on their knowledge of French poetry and astronomy.
"So you think Rimbaud is a crater on Mars and Betelgeuse wrote mannered 18th Century satiric villanelles, eh? Up against the wall, bourgeois scum!"
You're right, though, politics attract certain types boors and bores in huge numbers. Sports attract different types. I still follow politics and sports, though my level of interest in each waxes and wanes. There are a lot of things that I don't like, but I don't want to sequester myself from any topic.
Alvy Ampersand: That would be an excellent point, if the deleted post in question wasn't just some lame fodder for a MeFi Two-Minute Hate.One's opinion regarding politics has very little to do with it - do you even know where the admins are on the political spectrum?
Well, I was trying to make a more general point.
I don't know in minute details the political opinions of the admins, but that's not what concerns me. A lot of MeFites vehemently dislike discussion of politics and talk about it at great length, killing many threads about political subjects. I don't like it when people stomp on discussion. Yeah, people shouldn't force their opinions on others. Sometimes it's best that people don't speak at all. I just dislike seeing knee-jerk snarking about political discussion. Knee-jerk snarking about politicians, now that's another matter entirely. It's a sign of a healthy society when politicians get mocked day in day out.
cortex: When I first heard Cher sing "If I Could Turn Back Time", I thought it was a dude.
The ravages of steroids use...
posted by Kattullus at 12:41 PM on July 20, 2007
"people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics"
I am a huge political junkie. We just don't do it well here.
posted by LarryC at 12:45 PM on July 20, 2007
I am a huge political junkie. We just don't do it well here.
posted by LarryC at 12:45 PM on July 20, 2007
jason's_planet writes "very common to political activists"
That's very interesting because I don't think I am one , in the classical sense of the word. I don't proselitize, I don't say my idea is the best and yours sux, I do say that you may be right and believe that, I usually bother checking out if I am just spitting out nonsense, even if I probably don't do that with 100% accuracy and commitment.
And If I was in denial, why should I be frequently hanging around here as opposed to hanging on Kos or Freep, where my assumedly polar ideas are more likely to be represented ? Why should I put myself into isolation ? Activist usually like to hear their points confirmed or mildly attacked.
jason's_planet writes "You lose perspective and aren't able to understand why something that moves you to highly pleasurable levels of outrage and self-righteousness bores the rest of us to tears."
That's a good description of some type of activists, but how did you get the sensation I was one ? Could it be that you just knee-jerk reacted and jumped to supreme conclusion i am a left/right nut , because I linked to a video showing some people saying something ?
I could related to that , as backyard "politics" can be intensely frustrating.
posted by elpapacito at 12:46 PM on July 20, 2007
That's very interesting because I don't think I am one , in the classical sense of the word. I don't proselitize, I don't say my idea is the best and yours sux, I do say that you may be right and believe that, I usually bother checking out if I am just spitting out nonsense, even if I probably don't do that with 100% accuracy and commitment.
And If I was in denial, why should I be frequently hanging around here as opposed to hanging on Kos or Freep, where my assumedly polar ideas are more likely to be represented ? Why should I put myself into isolation ? Activist usually like to hear their points confirmed or mildly attacked.
jason's_planet writes "You lose perspective and aren't able to understand why something that moves you to highly pleasurable levels of outrage and self-righteousness bores the rest of us to tears."
That's a good description of some type of activists, but how did you get the sensation I was one ? Could it be that you just knee-jerk reacted and jumped to supreme conclusion i am a left/right nut , because I linked to a video showing some people saying something ?
I could related to that , as backyard "politics" can be intensely frustrating.
posted by elpapacito at 12:46 PM on July 20, 2007
Now, the converse of this point is that people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics, are not going to be good judges of the quality of a post on that subject.
Don't assume that the people who dislike politics posts on Metafilter dislike politics. I like a spirited, informed, rational political debate as much as the next guy, but I've never seen that on Metafilter.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:53 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Don't assume that the people who dislike politics posts on Metafilter dislike politics. I like a spirited, informed, rational political debate as much as the next guy, but I've never seen that on Metafilter.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:53 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Just to throw a little gasoline in the fire, why isn't the current Bill O'Rielly thread getting axed? It doesn't seem to offer anything above LOLREPUBLICANZ which makes it right up there with elpapacito's post (which was at least new subject matter, BO bashing is a mefi national pastime).
posted by doctor_negative at 12:53 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by doctor_negative at 12:53 PM on July 20, 2007
Why can't we see that they are here to save us with their dripping condescension and their bourgeois contempt for the corrupt rich and the vulgar poor? Why can't we see as they do, solely in black and white?
I'm sorry, Alvy, that you find MeFi so oppressive. Perhaps you might want to stop and consider that those "Last Free Leftists of MetaFilter" who chafe at you so much have contributed better posts, in higher quantity, over a longer period of time, than you.
posted by mkultra at 12:56 PM on July 20, 2007
I'm sorry, Alvy, that you find MeFi so oppressive. Perhaps you might want to stop and consider that those "Last Free Leftists of MetaFilter" who chafe at you so much have contributed better posts, in higher quantity, over a longer period of time, than you.
posted by mkultra at 12:56 PM on July 20, 2007
I tolerate deletion with no problem
whereas I prefer to practice my unproblematic tolerance of deletion in silence.
Could it be set up so that all postings to etiquette/policy are given the default title "Let's have a pointless discussion about the semantics of subjective values"?
posted by nanojath at 12:56 PM on July 20, 2007
whereas I prefer to practice my unproblematic tolerance of deletion in silence.
Could it be set up so that all postings to etiquette/policy are given the default title "Let's have a pointless discussion about the semantics of subjective values"?
posted by nanojath at 12:56 PM on July 20, 2007
@elpapacito: he "knee jerk reacted and jump to supreme conclusion" about your political leanings/level of activism based on the fact that you thought a 7 minute video with no real entertainment value or potential to encourage any meaningful or interesting discussion was front page material because LOL REPUBLICANS!
It was a shitty post that had no potential beyond "amirite?!" That you came off as a left wing nutter for feeling the need to share it with MeFi should come as no surprise.
posted by tocts at 12:58 PM on July 20, 2007
It was a shitty post that had no potential beyond "amirite?!" That you came off as a left wing nutter for feeling the need to share it with MeFi should come as no surprise.
posted by tocts at 12:58 PM on July 20, 2007
Just to throw a little gasoline in the fire, why isn't the current Bill O'Rielly thread getting axed?
Numbers one and two are both traveling today, and I'm away from mefi on and off doing my dayjob. It's not a great thread and I don't think deleting it would be a bridge too far, but as a presentation it's not terrible and it's gotten all of two flags. I'll got take a look at how the thread itself is going.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:58 PM on July 20, 2007
Numbers one and two are both traveling today, and I'm away from mefi on and off doing my dayjob. It's not a great thread and I don't think deleting it would be a bridge too far, but as a presentation it's not terrible and it's gotten all of two flags. I'll got take a look at how the thread itself is going.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:58 PM on July 20, 2007
nanojath writes "whereas I prefer to practice my unproblematic tolerance of deletion in silence"
Good for you, let me reassure you that tolerating silently will yeld absolutely no attention to the fact somebody is being deleted (which isn't necessarily despicable) for "good" or "bad" or "any" reason. I guess it's not only semantics of my subjective values ?
tocts writes "That you came off as a left wing nutter for feeling the need to share it with MeFi should come as no surprise."
Are you saying the mod efforts to reasonably depolarize mefi are being ignored by prejudiced people, thinking that Mefi is Kos in disguise ? Damn, that come as no surprise as well !
posted by elpapacito at 1:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Good for you, let me reassure you that tolerating silently will yeld absolutely no attention to the fact somebody is being deleted (which isn't necessarily despicable) for "good" or "bad" or "any" reason. I guess it's not only semantics of my subjective values ?
tocts writes "That you came off as a left wing nutter for feeling the need to share it with MeFi should come as no surprise."
Are you saying the mod efforts to reasonably depolarize mefi are being ignored by prejudiced people, thinking that Mefi is Kos in disguise ? Damn, that come as no surprise as well !
posted by elpapacito at 1:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Don't make fun of Blazecock Pileon. It's just too easy.
Oh, great. NOW you tell me.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Oh, great. NOW you tell me.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:13 PM on July 20, 2007
I'll got take a look at how the thread itself is going.
It's been over 20 minutes and he isn't back yet. I think they got him.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:18 PM on July 20, 2007
It's been over 20 minutes and he isn't back yet. I think they got him.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:18 PM on July 20, 2007
Perhaps you might want to stop and consider that those "Last Free Leftists of MetaFilter" who chafe at you so much have contributed better posts, in higher quantity, over a longer period of time, than you.
So, my opinion lacks validity because I'm a relatively new member who spends most of his internet time on MeFi and doesn't pad his FPP count with News/KneejerkFilter? That's a hoot. To be honest, the people I derided make up a very vocal, but incredibly small minority who think that just because their politics are "right", their posts or posts related to their interests or pander to their prejudices are untouchable. FWIW, I don't consider elpapacito to be one of them, or you. If I touched a nerve because you recognized yourself in my spiel or consider yourself one of them, well, que sera, sera.
I'm sorry, Alvy, that you find MeFi so oppressive.
When tallying my contributions to the site against those of my "betters" did you compare the number of frivolous and entitled MeTas posted? I don't find MeFi oppressive at all, I'm just getting sick the bleating knobs who do.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:22 PM on July 20, 2007
So, my opinion lacks validity because I'm a relatively new member who spends most of his internet time on MeFi and doesn't pad his FPP count with News/KneejerkFilter? That's a hoot. To be honest, the people I derided make up a very vocal, but incredibly small minority who think that just because their politics are "right", their posts or posts related to their interests or pander to their prejudices are untouchable. FWIW, I don't consider elpapacito to be one of them, or you. If I touched a nerve because you recognized yourself in my spiel or consider yourself one of them, well, que sera, sera.
I'm sorry, Alvy, that you find MeFi so oppressive.
When tallying my contributions to the site against those of my "betters" did you compare the number of frivolous and entitled MeTas posted? I don't find MeFi oppressive at all, I'm just getting sick the bleating knobs who do.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:22 PM on July 20, 2007
Just to throw a little gasoline in the fire, why isn't the current Bill O'Rielly thread getting axed?
Numbers one and two are both traveling today, and I'm away from mefi on and off doing my dayjob. It's not a great thread and I don't think deleting it would be a bridge too far, but as a presentation it's not terrible and it's gotten all of two flags. I'll got take a look at how the thread itself is going.
posted by cortex at 2:58 PM on July 20
As opposed to the absolutely horrible presentation of an interesting topic in this thread that, because of the shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing, the otherwise interesting topic resulted in a thread which makes the whole site look like we are GED mooks with 80 IQs who couldn't discuss a topic intelligent if we subcontracted out to intelligent-topic-discussers. A post that editorialized with the inflammatory language of "coup d'etat" and refers that language to an article which doesn't come close to that poisons the well from the outset. And so look at how crappy that discussion is that ended up consisting of much more than another thread on impeachment and protesting with nary a coherent discussion of the putative topic.
When you leave up shit like that, the Broken Windows theory is proven time and time again, and you end up with a piece of garbage like the Bill O'Reilly post.
It really feels like this quality is on a negative trajectory that makes this site seem very mundane. When we are arguing over whether a turd like that Turd O'Reilly post was good enough when it consisted of nothing more than partisan-blog sources, we've already lost our way. That something which should clearly be deleted for the rampant editorializing remains as well is depressing.
It really, really, really isn't that hard to try to direct this site towards quality posts by deleting all the ones which are nothing more than agenda pieces. It's really not that hard. Delete them all until people quit having questions about them instead of letting marginal ones across.
What ever happened to smart, intelligent Metafilter? This place feels more and more like it is a small step above yahoo comments at the end of news stories there.
posted by dios at 1:24 PM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
Numbers one and two are both traveling today, and I'm away from mefi on and off doing my dayjob. It's not a great thread and I don't think deleting it would be a bridge too far, but as a presentation it's not terrible and it's gotten all of two flags. I'll got take a look at how the thread itself is going.
posted by cortex at 2:58 PM on July 20
As opposed to the absolutely horrible presentation of an interesting topic in this thread that, because of the shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing, the otherwise interesting topic resulted in a thread which makes the whole site look like we are GED mooks with 80 IQs who couldn't discuss a topic intelligent if we subcontracted out to intelligent-topic-discussers. A post that editorialized with the inflammatory language of "coup d'etat" and refers that language to an article which doesn't come close to that poisons the well from the outset. And so look at how crappy that discussion is that ended up consisting of much more than another thread on impeachment and protesting with nary a coherent discussion of the putative topic.
When you leave up shit like that, the Broken Windows theory is proven time and time again, and you end up with a piece of garbage like the Bill O'Reilly post.
It really feels like this quality is on a negative trajectory that makes this site seem very mundane. When we are arguing over whether a turd like that Turd O'Reilly post was good enough when it consisted of nothing more than partisan-blog sources, we've already lost our way. That something which should clearly be deleted for the rampant editorializing remains as well is depressing.
It really, really, really isn't that hard to try to direct this site towards quality posts by deleting all the ones which are nothing more than agenda pieces. It's really not that hard. Delete them all until people quit having questions about them instead of letting marginal ones across.
What ever happened to smart, intelligent Metafilter? This place feels more and more like it is a small step above yahoo comments at the end of news stories there.
posted by dios at 1:24 PM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
YM "stupid not-proofreading." HTH.
I do that all the time too, for what it's worth. I'm just suggesting that 'tis a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
or, y'know, whatever.
posted by dersins at 1:35 PM on July 20, 2007
I do that all the time too, for what it's worth. I'm just suggesting that 'tis a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
or, y'know, whatever.
posted by dersins at 1:35 PM on July 20, 2007
I should clarify one thing: acting like retarded mooks isn't always a bad thing. There are obvious times and places for it. But in threads which we leave up for the sole justification that they are "important news events that should be discussed," producing discussions indistinguishable from yahoo forums is an embarrassment to this site.
posted by dios at 1:38 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by dios at 1:38 PM on July 20, 2007
What ever happened to smart, intelligent Metafilter?
9/11 changed everything.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:40 PM on July 20, 2007
9/11 changed everything.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:40 PM on July 20, 2007
Don't make fun of Blazecock Pileon. It's just too easy.
Given how many times conservatives have been made into FPPs for the dumb shit they've been caught saying and doing of late, the irony in this is too hilarious for words.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2007
Given how many times conservatives have been made into FPPs for the dumb shit they've been caught saying and doing of late, the irony in this is too hilarious for words.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2007
A post that editorialized with the inflammatory language of "coup d'etat" and refers that language to an article which doesn't come close to that poisons the well from the outset.
That article came close and for many conservatives, the phrase coup d'etat is not at all that inflammatory a word to use to describe the President's present claim to executive privilege.
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2007
That article came close and for many conservatives, the phrase coup d'etat is not at all that inflammatory a word to use to describe the President's present claim to executive privilege.
In evaluating President George W. Bush's latest outlandish invocation of executive privilege, through White House counsel Fred Fielding, to stonewall Congress over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, turn your memory clock back approximately 35 years to the spring of 1973.*Impeachment as a word is on the public table to stay. We are living in interesting times. There is no escape from that.
The nation was transfixed by the testimony of John Dean, former White House counsel, before the Senate Watergate committee. He meticulously recounted presidential conversations in the Oval Office that implicated both himself and President Richard M. Nixon in obstruction of justice. Mr. Dean's unbosoming of presidential communications led to the voting of three articles of impeachment against Mr. Nixon by the House judiciary committee and the president's subsequent resignation on Aug. 9, 1974. President Nixon never sought to silence Dean by claiming a constitutional privilege to keep confidential presidential communications, which Congress sought in exercising its authority to investigate crime or maladministration in the executive branch...
Mr. Fielding served as Dean's deputy. He has never maintained that President Nixon could have muzzled Dean by invoking executive privilege. But that is the inescapable implication of his defense of President Bush's prerogative to silence former presidential aides Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers, whom Congress has subpoenaed, and to shield presidential documents that have also been subpoenaed. Fielding elaborated his reasons in a July 9, 2007 letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees. If his unconvincing rationale is accepted, the congressional power to check executive-branch lawlessness or maladministration will be crippled. A second edition of Watergate could go undetected.
Bruce Fein - Executive Nonsense
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2007
...the absolutely horrible presentation of an interesting topic in this thread that, because of the shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing, the otherwise interesting topic resulted in a thread which makes the whole site look like we are GED mooks with 80 IQs who couldn't discuss a topic intelligent if we subcontracted out to intelligent-topic-discussers.
I respectfully disagree. There are interesting and insightful comments being made in that thread -- with links to valuable supporting commentary (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and many more).
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I respectfully disagree. There are interesting and insightful comments being made in that thread -- with links to valuable supporting commentary (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and many more).
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
This thread is too long for me to bother reading. I say it was a good deletion, since that results in even less reading. I have to make time for the new Harry Potter book.
posted by misha at 2:11 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by misha at 2:11 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
And dios -- why not participate in that thread?
You did, early on, but cortex deleted your derailment: "Big derail excised. More discussing, less discussing the lack or not of discussing, okay?".
After that you dropped out. Others have asked you for your thoughts/opinions: "...so dios, if you have any enlightened suggestions about any of this, feel free to throw 'em out there rather than just kvetching." and "dios or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong there.".
posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
You did, early on, but cortex deleted your derailment: "Big derail excised. More discussing, less discussing the lack or not of discussing, okay?".
After that you dropped out. Others have asked you for your thoughts/opinions: "...so dios, if you have any enlightened suggestions about any of this, feel free to throw 'em out there rather than just kvetching." and "dios or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong there.".
posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
As opposed to the absolutely horrible presentation of an interesting topic in this thread that, because of the shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing, the otherwise interesting topic resulted in a thread which makes the whole site look like we are GED mooks with 80 IQs who couldn't discuss a topic intelligent if we subcontracted out to intelligent-topic-discussers. A post that editorialized with the inflammatory language of "coup d'etat" and refers that language to an article which doesn't come close to that poisons the well from the outset. And so look at how crappy that discussion is that ended up consisting of much more than another thread on impeachment and protesting with nary a coherent discussion of the putative topic.Oh, hey! You're over in this thread, which isn't about the thread I posted (though I checked here earlier because I figured you'd pull this -- guess I was just a step ahead of you, huh?) rather than the thread you shitted on and then left. Way to contribute to the discussion!
Other interesting points:
1. The link title is a joke based on the lyrics of a stupid pop song I was listening to when I posted it. You can see in the thread title where I mangled one of the lyrics to fit my lame joke. Sorry that I offended your delicate sensibilities.
2. Discussion looks like it's going OK to me, no thanks to you. To think that I sent you a complimentary email back when you made a somewhat coherent comment on the Libby commutation thread (which was a one-link post, but for some reason didn't merit a complaint), but now you won't join a discussion on a more serious topic, even after I specifically asked you for your opinion and if you would clarify how your opinion on Libby jives with your opinion on the topic at hand.
3. "Poisoning the well" is a term I first brought to our little exchanges, and I'll thank you not to use it until you can stop being a hypocrite about it. Thanks!
posted by spiderwire at 2:34 PM on July 20, 2007
Blumenthal's video is hilarious, and shouldn't have been deleted, IMO.
Those photos SCDB has of the mods must be pretty incriminating.
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on July 20, 2007
Those photos SCDB has of the mods must be pretty incriminating.
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on July 20, 2007
shitty, shitty framing and editorializing
spiderwire, it is in fact just that.
posted by peacay at 2:44 PM on July 20, 2007
spiderwire, it is in fact just that.
posted by peacay at 2:44 PM on July 20, 2007
Blumenthal's video is hilarious, and shouldn't have been deleted, IMO.
BTW -- I had linked to that video a day before in a previous thread -- and folks who want to watch it can do so by accessing it in that "still open" thread.
posted by ericb at 2:47 PM on July 20, 2007
BTW -- I had linked to that video a day before in a previous thread -- and folks who want to watch it can do so by accessing it in that "still open" thread.
posted by ericb at 2:47 PM on July 20, 2007
Addendum to 3: I'll cop to your accusation of poor framing. However, "poisoning the well" strikes me as more applicable to behavior such as
dios: shitting on a thread, getting your whine deleted, waiting until the thread reaches 180 comments, and then bitching on an unrelated MeTa thread [you]
as opposed to, say:
me: posting an inflammatory/"shitty" FPP (again, apologies), then posting almost 30 comments to the thread (most of which aren't, I think, totally vapid, and some of which tried to calm people down), including 6 additional links to what I felt were decent discussions
But OK. I'm Pot. Nice to meet you, Kettle. Who cares?
However: next time, if this is as serious a concern as you seem to indicate, please have the guts to make a real MeTa post so I can address the issue conscientiously rather than having to go hunt for you blackballing me. I would honestly appreciate the candor and the fair opportunity to respond to you politely, rather than like this, where you're going behind my back. I believe that this is the second time you've done this to me when you didn't approve of a putatively political thread I posted, and I find it insulting. Please stop.
posted by spiderwire at 2:48 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
dios: shitting on a thread, getting your whine deleted, waiting until the thread reaches 180 comments, and then bitching on an unrelated MeTa thread [you]
as opposed to, say:
me: posting an inflammatory/"shitty" FPP (again, apologies), then posting almost 30 comments to the thread (most of which aren't, I think, totally vapid, and some of which tried to calm people down), including 6 additional links to what I felt were decent discussions
But OK. I'm Pot. Nice to meet you, Kettle. Who cares?
However: next time, if this is as serious a concern as you seem to indicate, please have the guts to make a real MeTa post so I can address the issue conscientiously rather than having to go hunt for you blackballing me. I would honestly appreciate the candor and the fair opportunity to respond to you politely, rather than like this, where you're going behind my back. I believe that this is the second time you've done this to me when you didn't approve of a putatively political thread I posted, and I find it insulting. Please stop.
posted by spiderwire at 2:48 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Legal threads are especially bad. The poster and 90% of the people making comments generally have no idea whatsoever what's actually going on in the linked article.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:59 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:59 PM on July 20, 2007
spiderwire, it is in fact just that.
Not disputing that I suck at FPPs. That's why I almost never make 'em.
Look, the stupid "Coup D'Etat" joke -- believe me, I'm sorry, and I wish I could change it, largely because it's really fucking dumb, though also because didn't intend it to be inflammatory at the time. It was just a song, it struck me as funny, and like 90% of things that strike me as funny, it wasn't. I have a pretty miserable sense of humor.
I'm honestly really sorry for the way I framed the FPP, because it is a serious topic deserving serious discussion. I felt so bad about it that right before cortex deleted the argument I was having with dios, I was writing an email asking if I could please change the post title.
After cortex' triage, I instead spent all day trying to be constructive on that thread -- precisely for the purpose of salvaging it and avoiding its devolution. That's more than dios can say. I think I managed to help a bit. But just so we're clear, I'm disputing dios' methods: shitting on the thread, posting here hours later, etc. I think that's low. I'm also disputing his claim that the thread turned out horribly. I do concede that the post sucks. But as per usual, the rest of what he said is precisely the sort of inflammatory claptrap he's claiming to be above.
posted by spiderwire at 3:00 PM on July 20, 2007
Not disputing that I suck at FPPs. That's why I almost never make 'em.
Look, the stupid "Coup D'Etat" joke -- believe me, I'm sorry, and I wish I could change it, largely because it's really fucking dumb, though also because didn't intend it to be inflammatory at the time. It was just a song, it struck me as funny, and like 90% of things that strike me as funny, it wasn't. I have a pretty miserable sense of humor.
I'm honestly really sorry for the way I framed the FPP, because it is a serious topic deserving serious discussion. I felt so bad about it that right before cortex deleted the argument I was having with dios, I was writing an email asking if I could please change the post title.
After cortex' triage, I instead spent all day trying to be constructive on that thread -- precisely for the purpose of salvaging it and avoiding its devolution. That's more than dios can say. I think I managed to help a bit. But just so we're clear, I'm disputing dios' methods: shitting on the thread, posting here hours later, etc. I think that's low. I'm also disputing his claim that the thread turned out horribly. I do concede that the post sucks. But as per usual, the rest of what he said is precisely the sort of inflammatory claptrap he's claiming to be above.
posted by spiderwire at 3:00 PM on July 20, 2007
[non-sequitur]
posted by blue_beetle at 3:00 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by blue_beetle at 3:00 PM on July 20, 2007
The poster and 90% of the people making comments generally have no idea whatsoever what's actually going on in the linked article.
I'm well aware of "what's going on" in the linked article, ass. If you have a specific dispute or correction, you're welcome to bring it up with me instead of playing amateur mindreader.
posted by spiderwire at 3:02 PM on July 20, 2007
I'm well aware of "what's going on" in the linked article, ass. If you have a specific dispute or correction, you're welcome to bring it up with me instead of playing amateur mindreader.
posted by spiderwire at 3:02 PM on July 20, 2007
I'm well aware of "what's going on" in the linked article, ass.
Yeah, any desire on my part to educate you just evaporated. I'm sure dios feels the same way.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2007
Yeah, any desire on my part to educate you just evaporated. I'm sure dios feels the same way.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2007
Ooh! "Educate" me, then. It sounds sexy!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:07 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:07 PM on July 20, 2007
Speaking of which, Mr. President, don't bitch at me about "legal threads" -- last time I asked a legal question on MeFi, you led off with "This is good question," proceeded to give an answer that the only lawyer on the thread disagreed with, and left. IANAL(Y), but frankly, bite me.
posted by spiderwire at 3:10 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 3:10 PM on July 20, 2007
Yeah. I'm in the 90%.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:11 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:11 PM on July 20, 2007
I do concede that the post sucks.
posted by spiderwire at 5:00 PM on July 20
And yet it remains. What else needs to be said when the poster himself admits it sucks?
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 5:00 PM on July 20
And yet it remains. What else needs to be said when the poster himself admits it sucks?
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on July 20, 2007
Yeah, any desire on my part to educate you just evaporated. I'm sure dios feels the same way.
Oh, I assure you, my disappointment is overwhelming.
I'm sorry you mistook me as asking for your opinion -- what I said was that if you had a disagreement, you should have brought it up in the thread or elsewhere, rather than casting about baseless judgments regarding others' understanding. Again, that makes you an ass.
posted by spiderwire at 3:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Oh, I assure you, my disappointment is overwhelming.
I'm sorry you mistook me as asking for your opinion -- what I said was that if you had a disagreement, you should have brought it up in the thread or elsewhere, rather than casting about baseless judgments regarding others' understanding. Again, that makes you an ass.
posted by spiderwire at 3:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Also, I just read what you linked, and that guy agrees with me. Maybe you meant to link elsewhere?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:13 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:13 PM on July 20, 2007
dios: And yet it remains. What else needs to be said when the poster himself admits it sucks?
Surely deleting the post with 200 comments is the right solution, yes?
Perhaps we could have a MeTa post to rewrite it! Or maybe you, in your infinite wisdom, could do the same.
Seriously. Put your ego where your mouth is. Write your alternate version, and if it's neutral, I'll support it. Knock yourself out.
posted by spiderwire at 3:16 PM on July 20, 2007
Surely deleting the post with 200 comments is the right solution, yes?
Perhaps we could have a MeTa post to rewrite it! Or maybe you, in your infinite wisdom, could do the same.
Seriously. Put your ego where your mouth is. Write your alternate version, and if it's neutral, I'll support it. Knock yourself out.
posted by spiderwire at 3:16 PM on July 20, 2007
Also, I just read what you linked, and that guy agrees with me. Maybe you meant to link elsewhere?
Yes. The comment I linked does dispute the last two grafs of your response there, but this comment is perhaps more specific:
"Justiciability is solely a question of whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case under Article III . It has nothing to do with the power of the Executive Branch to commute a sentence."
Regardless, this is not a germane discussion. Your insult was inappropriate, but maybe not the general sentiment, so if it'll prevent a general derail, we can discuss it over email.
posted by spiderwire at 3:20 PM on July 20, 2007
Yes. The comment I linked does dispute the last two grafs of your response there, but this comment is perhaps more specific:
"Justiciability is solely a question of whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case under Article III . It has nothing to do with the power of the Executive Branch to commute a sentence."
Regardless, this is not a germane discussion. Your insult was inappropriate, but maybe not the general sentiment, so if it'll prevent a general derail, we can discuss it over email.
posted by spiderwire at 3:20 PM on July 20, 2007
"Justiciability is solely a question of whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case under Article III . It has nothing to do with the power of the Executive Branch to commute a sentence."
That's basically what I said, jackass. Look, I only said your question was "good" because I was trying to be nice. The fact that you had apparently thought so hard about it yet not come to the right answer was frankly shocking.
Now I learn you're not only dumb but abrasive too. It's little wonder dios doesn't bother to take you seriously.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:23 PM on July 20, 2007
That's basically what I said, jackass. Look, I only said your question was "good" because I was trying to be nice. The fact that you had apparently thought so hard about it yet not come to the right answer was frankly shocking.
Now I learn you're not only dumb but abrasive too. It's little wonder dios doesn't bother to take you seriously.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:23 PM on July 20, 2007
spiderwire, look, you're a smart and cool guy and I loved your comment for salvaging my shitty pirate thread, but let's get a couple things straight:
1) Not commenting is not a crime. People have lives and responsibilities; commenting on MeFi is not one of them.
2) If a thread turns shitty, that doesn't mean it's the responsibility of people who point this out to wander into the muck and try to dredge out the informed and rational debate.
Besides, dios knows that if he tried that, the thread will instantly become a bunch of "LOL DIOS TEH GHEY" "WHY DOES METAFILTER REVOLVE AROUND DIOS" irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
posted by nasreddin at 3:23 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
1) Not commenting is not a crime. People have lives and responsibilities; commenting on MeFi is not one of them.
2) If a thread turns shitty, that doesn't mean it's the responsibility of people who point this out to wander into the muck and try to dredge out the informed and rational debate.
Besides, dios knows that if he tried that, the thread will instantly become a bunch of "LOL DIOS TEH GHEY" "WHY DOES METAFILTER REVOLVE AROUND DIOS" irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
posted by nasreddin at 3:23 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Surely deleting the post with 200 comments is the right solution, yes?
No. It should have been deleted when the first 50 shitty comments were in it when I flagged it and commented about how not a single person had actually talked about the issue. And had it been deleted then, I would have done a quality post on the issue myself because it is an interesting topic that was so unfortunately poorly posted.
It's great you spent time to direct the conversation to the actual issues, but for the most part, the comments about are about 10 to 1 people saying things which rate one notch above comments on a yahoo post ("Lets strike!" "Impeachment!" "When does revolution start" "Time for action" blah blah blah). Sorry I don't have the patience to try to resurrect your crappy post. I, instead, went to a topic that was a quality post and contributed there to a more intelligent discussion. The quality of your post sucked and should have been deleted, and it led to poor comments which you admitted you had to try to save it from... in other words, my exact charge all along. But your subsequent actions don't effect the validity of my initial charge.
Hopefully something comes from this. Hopefully you will think about quality before posting another stinker like that.
posted by dios at 3:24 PM on July 20, 2007
No. It should have been deleted when the first 50 shitty comments were in it when I flagged it and commented about how not a single person had actually talked about the issue. And had it been deleted then, I would have done a quality post on the issue myself because it is an interesting topic that was so unfortunately poorly posted.
It's great you spent time to direct the conversation to the actual issues, but for the most part, the comments about are about 10 to 1 people saying things which rate one notch above comments on a yahoo post ("Lets strike!" "Impeachment!" "When does revolution start" "Time for action" blah blah blah). Sorry I don't have the patience to try to resurrect your crappy post. I, instead, went to a topic that was a quality post and contributed there to a more intelligent discussion. The quality of your post sucked and should have been deleted, and it led to poor comments which you admitted you had to try to save it from... in other words, my exact charge all along. But your subsequent actions don't effect the validity of my initial charge.
Hopefully something comes from this. Hopefully you will think about quality before posting another stinker like that.
posted by dios at 3:24 PM on July 20, 2007
there's a lot of comments here. before I read them all, is there a flamout in the thread?
posted by matty at 3:36 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by matty at 3:36 PM on July 20, 2007
Jesus, what a bitch fest...
posted by SweetJesus at 3:36 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by SweetJesus at 3:36 PM on July 20, 2007
dios thinks that his thread-craps somehow better the site. It's cute, really. Baby makes poo-poo and wonders why we all don't clap for him. Cortex/mathowie/Jessamyn clean it up, but rarely do anything about the larger issue.
That said, here's the thing -- lots of people find politics to be interesting, and lots of political opinion and coverage takes place on the web these days. Don't like it? MOVE THE FUCK ON YOU WHINY LITTLE BABIES. Seriously, there are tons of FPP's out there, and instead of participating in the ones you like, or better yet, making your own post-worthy set of links, you complain. And that's your right, but I shall forever reserve the right to yell back at you in all caps.
As for the Blumenthal video, I thought it was pretty interesting myself, but will shed no tears over its deletion. The editing was amateurish, but the fact that it took place across from the Arlington Cemetary was kind of insane, no?
posted by bardic at 3:40 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
That said, here's the thing -- lots of people find politics to be interesting, and lots of political opinion and coverage takes place on the web these days. Don't like it? MOVE THE FUCK ON YOU WHINY LITTLE BABIES. Seriously, there are tons of FPP's out there, and instead of participating in the ones you like, or better yet, making your own post-worthy set of links, you complain. And that's your right, but I shall forever reserve the right to yell back at you in all caps.
As for the Blumenthal video, I thought it was pretty interesting myself, but will shed no tears over its deletion. The editing was amateurish, but the fact that it took place across from the Arlington Cemetary was kind of insane, no?
posted by bardic at 3:40 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
This has really been a whiny, bitchy week or two of shitty near-flameouts, and constant flameoutus-interruptus. Does no one have pride or principle enough to really and truly lose their shit over something in which they claim to believe? Come on, people! Where are your spines?
posted by nevercalm at 3:40 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by nevercalm at 3:40 PM on July 20, 2007
Mr. President: That's basically what I said, jackass.
... um ... no, it's not? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, chief, not law. Your argument was more wrong than mine -- you may have noticed that I asked about it on MeTa, in an effort to learn more, which I did. Apparently that wasn't the case for you, sorry.
Now I learn you're not only dumb but abrasive too.
Would claiming -- again, baselessly -- that a poster doesn't understand the topic they're posting about count as abrasive? Hypocrite.
nasreddin:1) Not commenting is not a crime. People have lives and responsibilities; commenting on MeFi is not one of them.
Shitting on a thread, leaving, and then complaining on an only-tangientially-related MeTa thread hours later is bad form. When a poster makes a habit of it, like dios does, it rises to the level of malfeasance. I would most certainly not be complaining if he didn't do this constantly and flagrantly.
2) If a thread turns shitty, that doesn't mean it's the responsibility of people who point this out to wander into the muck and try to dredge out the informed and rational debate.
Besides, dios knows that if he tried that, the thread will instantly become a bunch of "LOL DIOS TEH GHEY" "WHY DOES METAFILTER REVOLVE AROUND DIOS" irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
First: this thread was about a completely different topic until dios made a comment derailing it in order to grind an axe over the WaPo thread. There was nothing upthread about the thread I posted. He fabricated this complaint because he wasn't satisfied that his little kabuki dance failed the first time.
Second: what's even more amazing is that he actually did exactly what you suggest. He posted in the thread with the exact same complaint he made here, got his comment deleted, and then came here 150 comments later to whine. That's ridiculous. This wouldn't even be an issue if he hadn't come here and made it one.
I think you're a perfectly cool guy too, but I think you're getting hoodwinked here. This is entirely smoke 'n' mirrors. The reason dios gets yelled at is because he habitually ruins what could otherwise be decent discussions and then suddenly gets overcome with the vapors at the horrible debasement of the MeFi discourse. It's a tired act.
posted by spiderwire at 3:41 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
... um ... no, it's not? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, chief, not law. Your argument was more wrong than mine -- you may have noticed that I asked about it on MeTa, in an effort to learn more, which I did. Apparently that wasn't the case for you, sorry.
Now I learn you're not only dumb but abrasive too.
Would claiming -- again, baselessly -- that a poster doesn't understand the topic they're posting about count as abrasive? Hypocrite.
nasreddin:1) Not commenting is not a crime. People have lives and responsibilities; commenting on MeFi is not one of them.
Shitting on a thread, leaving, and then complaining on an only-tangientially-related MeTa thread hours later is bad form. When a poster makes a habit of it, like dios does, it rises to the level of malfeasance. I would most certainly not be complaining if he didn't do this constantly and flagrantly.
2) If a thread turns shitty, that doesn't mean it's the responsibility of people who point this out to wander into the muck and try to dredge out the informed and rational debate.
Besides, dios knows that if he tried that, the thread will instantly become a bunch of "LOL DIOS TEH GHEY" "WHY DOES METAFILTER REVOLVE AROUND DIOS" irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
First: this thread was about a completely different topic until dios made a comment derailing it in order to grind an axe over the WaPo thread. There was nothing upthread about the thread I posted. He fabricated this complaint because he wasn't satisfied that his little kabuki dance failed the first time.
Second: what's even more amazing is that he actually did exactly what you suggest. He posted in the thread with the exact same complaint he made here, got his comment deleted, and then came here 150 comments later to whine. That's ridiculous. This wouldn't even be an issue if he hadn't come here and made it one.
I think you're a perfectly cool guy too, but I think you're getting hoodwinked here. This is entirely smoke 'n' mirrors. The reason dios gets yelled at is because he habitually ruins what could otherwise be decent discussions and then suddenly gets overcome with the vapors at the horrible debasement of the MeFi discourse. It's a tired act.
posted by spiderwire at 3:41 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Ech. The O'Reilly thread has a lot of stupid in it, but seems to have settled down to actual discussion. I don't think we need to talk about the guy much, but the post did cover the angles on this pretty well.
The coup d'etat thread was not great either, but I feel less strongly about it than dios does—we talked about it some via email earlier in the day.
Either one could be deleted, in my opionion, but not everything that is potential deletable will get nuked, and we may be seeing the difference between one mod at the desk vs. three. I've had a pretty busy day in Real Job Land, so my main concern has been keeping fires from spreading. A couple of contentious political threads that manage to be self-contained is a blech but livable compromise, there, especially on a day that's already had a couple of other particularly weak or agitatey posts nuked along with a self-linker banned.
If I was feeling more trigger happy, we might be having the opposite argument in a complementary metatalk thread right now, I guess. Or the exact same one, even. But here we are, and I appreciate people at least keeping this stuff pretty much in one place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on July 20, 2007
The coup d'etat thread was not great either, but I feel less strongly about it than dios does—we talked about it some via email earlier in the day.
Either one could be deleted, in my opionion, but not everything that is potential deletable will get nuked, and we may be seeing the difference between one mod at the desk vs. three. I've had a pretty busy day in Real Job Land, so my main concern has been keeping fires from spreading. A couple of contentious political threads that manage to be self-contained is a blech but livable compromise, there, especially on a day that's already had a couple of other particularly weak or agitatey posts nuked along with a self-linker banned.
If I was feeling more trigger happy, we might be having the opposite argument in a complementary metatalk thread right now, I guess. Or the exact same one, even. But here we are, and I appreciate people at least keeping this stuff pretty much in one place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on July 20, 2007
... um ... no, it's not? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, chief, not law. Your argument was more wrong than mine -- you may have noticed that I asked about it on MeTa, in an effort to learn more, which I did. Apparently that wasn't the case for you, sorry.
I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse at this point or not. Nothing you've linked to comes anywhere near contradicting what I said.
"Justiciability is solely a question of whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case under Article III . It has nothing to do with the power of the Executive Branch to commute a sentence."
I specifically said that the Libby case (which involved the pardon power) did not present a justiciable question. I spent a lot more time developing the idea of justiciability for you, but I reached the same conclusion as the other poster, and everything both of us said is correct and in agreement.
I likewise specifically indicated that the exercise of the pardon power didn't interfere with the prosecution's or judge's discharge of their duties.
You clearly aren't following this discussion at all. My argument was correct. You just didn't understand it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:53 PM on July 20, 2007
I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse at this point or not. Nothing you've linked to comes anywhere near contradicting what I said.
"Justiciability is solely a question of whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case under Article III . It has nothing to do with the power of the Executive Branch to commute a sentence."
I specifically said that the Libby case (which involved the pardon power) did not present a justiciable question. I spent a lot more time developing the idea of justiciability for you, but I reached the same conclusion as the other poster, and everything both of us said is correct and in agreement.
I likewise specifically indicated that the exercise of the pardon power didn't interfere with the prosecution's or judge's discharge of their duties.
You clearly aren't following this discussion at all. My argument was correct. You just didn't understand it.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:53 PM on July 20, 2007
No. It should have been deleted when the first 50 shitty comments were in it when I flagged it and commented about how not a single person had actually talked about the issue. And had it been deleted then, I would have done a quality post on the issue myself because it is an interesting topic that was so unfortunately poorly posted.
So your argument is that (1) I should have waited around for you to post, (2) After your whine got deleted, it was appropriate to come into an unrelated thread 4 hours later and post the exact same complaint? Did you take over the site from Matt when I wasn't paying attention?
Because it looks to me like cortex saw your flag, deleted your post, and then you decided to come here and complain some more. That sounds like openly thumbing your nose at the mods to me, but I guess that's not new to you, is it?
Also -- and again -- how is my post any worse than the one-line, one-link Libby commutation post that you commented on with nary a peep? Or was that one OK because it didn't have a political bent you disapproved of?
It's great you spent time to direct the conversation to the actual issues, but for the most part, the comments about are about 10 to 1 people saying things which rate one notch above comments on a yahoo post ("Lets strike!" "Impeachment!" "When does revolution start" "Time for action" blah blah blah).
So your claim is that if you'd written your Nobel-prize-winning FPP, none of that would have happened? The quality of political discourse on MeFi is my fault, then?
Because it sounds to me like what you're complaining about it people who don't contribute to the discussion, like, for example, people who complain about the form of threads rather than their content and then leave, or people who post single inflammatory comments, and then leave. But I don't do that. So I wouldn't know.
But your subsequent actions don't effect the validity of my initial charge.
...And if you bringing it up again when you'd be shot down, after you'd been proved wrong (since, contrary to your prophecy, the thread turned out fine, no thanks to you) was the same thing as your "initial charge," you might have a point. But what you're doing here is merely repeating your original complaint, which isn't analogous at all -- it just makes you a prick.
And it's "affect," twit.
Hopefully something comes from this. Hopefully you will think about quality before posting another stinker like that.
Sure. Will you, in exchange, agree to never post on a politics thread again, since (1) You universally complain about them, and (2) You apparently can't be bothered to follow up on your original comments? Or will you instead at last just cop to being a troll? Because for complaining about the level of discussion as much as you do, you don't seem to try to do much about it -- either on this thread, that thread, or any other politics thread I've ever seen you comment on. Rather, your MO has consistently been to do the opposite. So yes, in the interest of raising the level of discourse on MeFi, I'll make that trade. What do you think?
posted by spiderwire at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2007
So your argument is that (1) I should have waited around for you to post, (2) After your whine got deleted, it was appropriate to come into an unrelated thread 4 hours later and post the exact same complaint? Did you take over the site from Matt when I wasn't paying attention?
Because it looks to me like cortex saw your flag, deleted your post, and then you decided to come here and complain some more. That sounds like openly thumbing your nose at the mods to me, but I guess that's not new to you, is it?
Also -- and again -- how is my post any worse than the one-line, one-link Libby commutation post that you commented on with nary a peep? Or was that one OK because it didn't have a political bent you disapproved of?
It's great you spent time to direct the conversation to the actual issues, but for the most part, the comments about are about 10 to 1 people saying things which rate one notch above comments on a yahoo post ("Lets strike!" "Impeachment!" "When does revolution start" "Time for action" blah blah blah).
So your claim is that if you'd written your Nobel-prize-winning FPP, none of that would have happened? The quality of political discourse on MeFi is my fault, then?
Because it sounds to me like what you're complaining about it people who don't contribute to the discussion, like, for example, people who complain about the form of threads rather than their content and then leave, or people who post single inflammatory comments, and then leave. But I don't do that. So I wouldn't know.
But your subsequent actions don't effect the validity of my initial charge.
...And if you bringing it up again when you'd be shot down, after you'd been proved wrong (since, contrary to your prophecy, the thread turned out fine, no thanks to you) was the same thing as your "initial charge," you might have a point. But what you're doing here is merely repeating your original complaint, which isn't analogous at all -- it just makes you a prick.
And it's "affect," twit.
Hopefully something comes from this. Hopefully you will think about quality before posting another stinker like that.
Sure. Will you, in exchange, agree to never post on a politics thread again, since (1) You universally complain about them, and (2) You apparently can't be bothered to follow up on your original comments? Or will you instead at last just cop to being a troll? Because for complaining about the level of discussion as much as you do, you don't seem to try to do much about it -- either on this thread, that thread, or any other politics thread I've ever seen you comment on. Rather, your MO has consistently been to do the opposite. So yes, in the interest of raising the level of discourse on MeFi, I'll make that trade. What do you think?
posted by spiderwire at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2007
Mr. President: If it makes you feel better, you're right, and I'm wrong -- take my sincerity on that point as you will. I said don't care to derail, and when I said email me if you want to complain, I meant it. That is all.
posted by spiderwire at 3:58 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 3:58 PM on July 20, 2007
spiderwire writes "The reason dios gets yelled at is because he habitually ruins what could otherwise be decent discussions and then suddenly gets overcome with the vapors at the horrible debasement of the MeFi discourse. It's a tired act."
I'd only change this a little bit -- when an FPP that touches on politics or Bush or Iraq is made, the usual suspects (dios and LarryC, although the latter has the decency to keep his meta-commentary in metatalk) come along saying a) how totally virginally "apolitical" they are and b) political posts all of a sudden have to set the gold-standard for "best of the web," ignoring the many more LOLCATS/furry porn/Hasselhoff FPP's we see on a daily basis.
Thing is, the political threads (and the religion ones) can be great, shitty, or get 10 comments and nobody really cares. They tend towards the suck precisely because the same whiny babies derail the thread every single time, as if metatalk didn't exist.
Ya know, maybe the commentary in the Blumenthal video thread, had it been allowed to stay up, wouldn't have been all that sterling. But instead of the same ten vocally librul mefites (myself included I guess) saying something like, "that was interesting, yet again the bizarre reticence of the chickenhawks" we get, yet again, a bitch-fest that drives more traffic to said video than it ever would in the first place, perhaps more than it ever deserved.
Irony motherfuckers? Do you speak it?
posted by bardic at 4:09 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'd only change this a little bit -- when an FPP that touches on politics or Bush or Iraq is made, the usual suspects (dios and LarryC, although the latter has the decency to keep his meta-commentary in metatalk) come along saying a) how totally virginally "apolitical" they are and b) political posts all of a sudden have to set the gold-standard for "best of the web," ignoring the many more LOLCATS/furry porn/Hasselhoff FPP's we see on a daily basis.
Thing is, the political threads (and the religion ones) can be great, shitty, or get 10 comments and nobody really cares. They tend towards the suck precisely because the same whiny babies derail the thread every single time, as if metatalk didn't exist.
Ya know, maybe the commentary in the Blumenthal video thread, had it been allowed to stay up, wouldn't have been all that sterling. But instead of the same ten vocally librul mefites (myself included I guess) saying something like, "that was interesting, yet again the bizarre reticence of the chickenhawks" we get, yet again, a bitch-fest that drives more traffic to said video than it ever would in the first place, perhaps more than it ever deserved.
Irony motherfuckers? Do you speak it?
posted by bardic at 4:09 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Christ, what an asshole.
posted by found missing at 4:10 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 4:10 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
The coup d'etat thread was not great either, but I feel less strongly about it than dios does—we talked about it some via email earlier in the day.
Whoawhoawhoawhoa -- if he flagged it, and you emailed about it, then wasn't the issue decided? If so, why are we having this entire discussion/flamewar, which he started without any provocation whatsoever? His comment was entirely directed at my post -- it had nothing to do with this thread except for the analogy he made to what was an apparently settled issue. What the hell?
BTW -- you're welcome to email me to fix a crappy post/comment of mine; I'm not averse to criticism...
But here we are, and I appreciate people at least keeping this stuff pretty much in one place.
I definitely appreciate the job you do and you not deleting my stupid thread -- my concern is with dios being allowed to stir the pot on non-issues. Apparently you guys had settled the issue, but then he comes here and starts an argument because he's feeling pissy -- there was nothing in this thread about my post prior to his comment. This is an artificial controversy that he ginned up after resolving the issue through flagging, commenting, and emailing the admins.
But in addition to that, he has the audacity to say that I caused a putatively poor thread due to "shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing" -- what happened to not insulting other members? I try to be a good sport about stuff, but I find that really insulting, and I don't think that's an unreasonable reaction. Even if this wasn't typical behavior for him and he hadn't done stuff like this time and time again, I'd be taken aback. The fact that he continually gets away with this sort of thing is mind-boggling. I mean... wow.
posted by spiderwire at 4:10 PM on July 20, 2007
Whoawhoawhoawhoa -- if he flagged it, and you emailed about it, then wasn't the issue decided? If so, why are we having this entire discussion/flamewar, which he started without any provocation whatsoever? His comment was entirely directed at my post -- it had nothing to do with this thread except for the analogy he made to what was an apparently settled issue. What the hell?
BTW -- you're welcome to email me to fix a crappy post/comment of mine; I'm not averse to criticism...
But here we are, and I appreciate people at least keeping this stuff pretty much in one place.
I definitely appreciate the job you do and you not deleting my stupid thread -- my concern is with dios being allowed to stir the pot on non-issues. Apparently you guys had settled the issue, but then he comes here and starts an argument because he's feeling pissy -- there was nothing in this thread about my post prior to his comment. This is an artificial controversy that he ginned up after resolving the issue through flagging, commenting, and emailing the admins.
But in addition to that, he has the audacity to say that I caused a putatively poor thread due to "shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing" -- what happened to not insulting other members? I try to be a good sport about stuff, but I find that really insulting, and I don't think that's an unreasonable reaction. Even if this wasn't typical behavior for him and he hadn't done stuff like this time and time again, I'd be taken aback. The fact that he continually gets away with this sort of thing is mind-boggling. I mean... wow.
posted by spiderwire at 4:10 PM on July 20, 2007
(btw, NOT ANTI-LOLCATS/furry porn/Hasselhoff. It just amuses me that the gold-medal standard only gets dragged out so cynically time and time again.)
posted by bardic at 4:13 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by bardic at 4:13 PM on July 20, 2007
Stop being defensive. We know very well what you think. Go for a walk.
posted by peacay at 4:13 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by peacay at 4:13 PM on July 20, 2007
possible superfluous emphasis: dios independently turned the latter half of this unrelated thread into a flamewar -- on a topic that he'd already dealt with four hours earlier via flagging, derailing, emailing an admin, and comment deletion.
even if he wasn't known for bad behavior on political threads, would that sort of thing be tolerated for most other members? i feel like most of us know better than to do that sort of thing -- i would think that with his history, he's know better than anyone.
posted by spiderwire at 4:18 PM on July 20, 2007
even if he wasn't known for bad behavior on political threads, would that sort of thing be tolerated for most other members? i feel like most of us know better than to do that sort of thing -- i would think that with his history, he's know better than anyone.
posted by spiderwire at 4:18 PM on July 20, 2007
Just a few things, then I'm done with this.
after you'd been proved wrong
I was proved wrong? Really? Lets see... my claim was as follows: your editorializing and poor framing was bad and should result in a deleted post because such framing is not fitting for this site and leads to poor discussion. That was my claim. You are now saying that I was wrong? Because funny thing is, you above admitted that everything about my claim was correct. In this thread alone, above, you said the following:
- "Not disputing that I suck at FPPs.
- "believe me, I'm sorry, and I wish I could change it, largely because it's really fucking dumb,"
- "I'm honestly really sorry for the way I framed the FPP, because it is a serious topic deserving serious discussion.
- "I felt so bad about it that right before cortex deleted the argument I was having with dios, I was writing an email asking if I could please change the post title."
- "After cortex' triage, I instead spent all day trying to be constructive on that thread -- precisely for the purpose of salvaging it and avoiding its devolution."
- "I admit that the post sucked."
In other words, you admitted that the post was everything I said it was and that the discussion was something that you had to "salvage" and "avoid the devolution." But you are now saying that I was wrong when I point that out ab initio? Try some coherence.
how is my post any worse than the one-line, one-link Libby commutation post that you commented on with nary a peep?
That one didn't have the shitty editorializing that you included in your post and your title?
The quality of political discourse on MeFi is my fault, then?
No. You writing a shitty post which begets the lowest level of discourse is your fault.
If so, why are we having this entire discussion/flamewar, which he started without any provocation whatsoever?
Did it occur from you from the comment you quoted that cortex asked for me to just point it out here instead of making an entire Metatalk post? Didn't think so.
he has the audacity to say that I caused a putatively poor thread due to "shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing" -- what happened to not insulting other members?
How is correctly calling your post what it is "insulting" you?
Because for complaining about the level of discussion as much as you do, you don't seem to try to do much about it -- either on this thread, that thread, or any other politics thread I've ever seen you comment on. Rather, your MO has consistently been to do the opposite.
I already linked to one contribution that I made today which pretty much disproves your allegation (as does a lot of my posting history).
_____________
Look, I'm not arguing this anymore. I made my point. Hopefully you will learn from it. But it was a shitty post, and shitty posts lead to shitty discussions. See the entire history of Metafilter for proof of this. Go look at every post made where there are multiple sources and it is offered in non-inflammatory or agenda-driven terms and you will see that without fail that the discussion in those threads are of a significantly higher quality than comments that are in turds like your post. Quality begets quality; shit begets shit. That was my point and why it should be deleted.
If you want to insult me further and tell me how wrong I am, then fine. Your comments are like water off a duck's back for me. You do a poor job of presenting your case and your defense, and yet you seem to want to rail and call names. Have fun with that. I'll be leaving for the weekend.
posted by dios at 4:32 PM on July 20, 2007
after you'd been proved wrong
I was proved wrong? Really? Lets see... my claim was as follows: your editorializing and poor framing was bad and should result in a deleted post because such framing is not fitting for this site and leads to poor discussion. That was my claim. You are now saying that I was wrong? Because funny thing is, you above admitted that everything about my claim was correct. In this thread alone, above, you said the following:
- "Not disputing that I suck at FPPs.
- "believe me, I'm sorry, and I wish I could change it, largely because it's really fucking dumb,"
- "I'm honestly really sorry for the way I framed the FPP, because it is a serious topic deserving serious discussion.
- "I felt so bad about it that right before cortex deleted the argument I was having with dios, I was writing an email asking if I could please change the post title."
- "After cortex' triage, I instead spent all day trying to be constructive on that thread -- precisely for the purpose of salvaging it and avoiding its devolution."
- "I admit that the post sucked."
In other words, you admitted that the post was everything I said it was and that the discussion was something that you had to "salvage" and "avoid the devolution." But you are now saying that I was wrong when I point that out ab initio? Try some coherence.
how is my post any worse than the one-line, one-link Libby commutation post that you commented on with nary a peep?
That one didn't have the shitty editorializing that you included in your post and your title?
The quality of political discourse on MeFi is my fault, then?
No. You writing a shitty post which begets the lowest level of discourse is your fault.
If so, why are we having this entire discussion/flamewar, which he started without any provocation whatsoever?
Did it occur from you from the comment you quoted that cortex asked for me to just point it out here instead of making an entire Metatalk post? Didn't think so.
he has the audacity to say that I caused a putatively poor thread due to "shitty, shitty, shitty framing and editorializing" -- what happened to not insulting other members?
How is correctly calling your post what it is "insulting" you?
Because for complaining about the level of discussion as much as you do, you don't seem to try to do much about it -- either on this thread, that thread, or any other politics thread I've ever seen you comment on. Rather, your MO has consistently been to do the opposite.
I already linked to one contribution that I made today which pretty much disproves your allegation (as does a lot of my posting history).
_____________
Look, I'm not arguing this anymore. I made my point. Hopefully you will learn from it. But it was a shitty post, and shitty posts lead to shitty discussions. See the entire history of Metafilter for proof of this. Go look at every post made where there are multiple sources and it is offered in non-inflammatory or agenda-driven terms and you will see that without fail that the discussion in those threads are of a significantly higher quality than comments that are in turds like your post. Quality begets quality; shit begets shit. That was my point and why it should be deleted.
If you want to insult me further and tell me how wrong I am, then fine. Your comments are like water off a duck's back for me. You do a poor job of presenting your case and your defense, and yet you seem to want to rail and call names. Have fun with that. I'll be leaving for the weekend.
posted by dios at 4:32 PM on July 20, 2007
Not since my salad days.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:39 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:39 PM on July 20, 2007
Well, I've never been good at dressing so I'll take your word for it...
posted by jonmc at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by jonmc at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2007
Did it occur from you from the comment you quoted that cortex asked for me to just point it out here instead of making an entire Metatalk post? Didn't think so.
Before anything else -- you're saying that cortex greenlit you to make this comment in response to something cortex said in this thread, phrased in that tone, 4 hours after the thread had been made, you bitched about it, and got overruled? Is that what you're saying?
posted by spiderwire at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2007
Before anything else -- you're saying that cortex greenlit you to make this comment in response to something cortex said in this thread, phrased in that tone, 4 hours after the thread had been made, you bitched about it, and got overruled? Is that what you're saying?
posted by spiderwire at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2007
I don't think the admins (not just cortex) have a very clear idea of what kind of political posts are acceptable at the beginning of "yet another" U.S. election cycle. There's been so much shit about politics posted here in past cycles that you could argue it's generally not bad that they're setting the bar low for deletion of political posts.
Still, their thinking seems to be a work in progress at this point. I think we're gonna see a lot more deletions of political posts in the future, and many people are not going to be happy about that. Some of them will probably leave for sites like Kos.
Whether that will be a bad thing for Mefi is an open question.
posted by mediareport at 4:41 PM on July 20, 2007
Still, their thinking seems to be a work in progress at this point. I think we're gonna see a lot more deletions of political posts in the future, and many people are not going to be happy about that. Some of them will probably leave for sites like Kos.
Whether that will be a bad thing for Mefi is an open question.
posted by mediareport at 4:41 PM on July 20, 2007
dios writes "Go look at every post made where there are multiple sources and it is offered in non-inflammatory or agenda-driven terms and you will see that without fail that the discussion in those threads are of a significantly higher quality than comments that are in turds like your post. Quality begets quality; shit begets shit. That was my point and why it should be deleted."
Honest question -- how many of your comments did cortex have to excise from that thread? Because you sound all prim and proper as the Pretend Mayor of Mefiville, but the fact is you're a habitual thread-crapper. You always have been. And in a sense, I'm OK with that -- it'd be nice if you got tempo-banned for such behavior, as a lot of others would, but hey, so be it. But if you're going to try and enforce your own "law" when you see an FPP you don't like, instead of taking it to meta, you're a troll, plain and simple. You have no leg to stand on when it comes to deciding what's "shit" and what's "good."
But nice of you to tuck your tail under your nuts and flee yet again, oh master of the quality, apolitical FPP.
posted by bardic at 4:43 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
Honest question -- how many of your comments did cortex have to excise from that thread? Because you sound all prim and proper as the Pretend Mayor of Mefiville, but the fact is you're a habitual thread-crapper. You always have been. And in a sense, I'm OK with that -- it'd be nice if you got tempo-banned for such behavior, as a lot of others would, but hey, so be it. But if you're going to try and enforce your own "law" when you see an FPP you don't like, instead of taking it to meta, you're a troll, plain and simple. You have no leg to stand on when it comes to deciding what's "shit" and what's "good."
But nice of you to tuck your tail under your nuts and flee yet again, oh master of the quality, apolitical FPP.
posted by bardic at 4:43 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
ceci n'est pas un flameout.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by blue_beetle at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2007
That's a good description of some type of activists, but how did you get the sensation I was one ?
What other type of person would post a seven-minute video of buttheads acting like buttheads and think it was appropriate for the front page?
And If I was in denial, why should I be frequently hanging around here as opposed to hanging on Kos or Freep, where my assumedly polar ideas are more likely to be represented ? Why should I put myself into isolation ? Activist usually like to hear their points confirmed or mildly attacked.
MetaFilter isn't an explicitly political board the way those two are but it's got a definite lefty bent. Let me put it to you this way -- I don't buy the idea that a leftist would go "into isolation" by posting on MetaFilter. You wouldn't be alone. You would certainly hear those views confirmed, supported, rat-owned, however you want to put it.
posted by jason's_planet at 4:54 PM on July 20, 2007
What other type of person would post a seven-minute video of buttheads acting like buttheads and think it was appropriate for the front page?
And If I was in denial, why should I be frequently hanging around here as opposed to hanging on Kos or Freep, where my assumedly polar ideas are more likely to be represented ? Why should I put myself into isolation ? Activist usually like to hear their points confirmed or mildly attacked.
MetaFilter isn't an explicitly political board the way those two are but it's got a definite lefty bent. Let me put it to you this way -- I don't buy the idea that a leftist would go "into isolation" by posting on MetaFilter. You wouldn't be alone. You would certainly hear those views confirmed, supported, rat-owned, however you want to put it.
posted by jason's_planet at 4:54 PM on July 20, 2007
What other type of person would post a seven-minute video of buttheads acting like buttheads and think it was appropriate for the front page?
anyone who's ever seen pictures from a meetup.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
anyone who's ever seen pictures from a meetup.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think we're gonna see a lot more deletions of political posts in the future, and many people are not going to be happy about that. Some of them will probably leave for sites like Kos.
Metafilter is better off without anyone who would even consider leaving for Kos.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:01 PM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
Metafilter is better off without anyone who would even consider leaving for Kos.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:01 PM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
Whoawhoawhoawhoa -- if he flagged it, and you emailed about it, then wasn't the issue decided?
That's overstating it. I didn't tell him not to speak of it again, I just told him that I disagreed with him and that if he wanted to take it to metatalk that was fine with me. That's what this place is for, ultimately, even if I may not think that that particular complaint (whether stated here or in a new thread) was going to change much or go well.
I think his presentation here was kind of unrestrained, but metatalk threads don't have the same sort of presumption of topicality that, say, AskMe or to a degree the blue has—hollering is still hollering, but it's not as much of a transgression.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:02 PM on July 20, 2007
That's overstating it. I didn't tell him not to speak of it again, I just told him that I disagreed with him and that if he wanted to take it to metatalk that was fine with me. That's what this place is for, ultimately, even if I may not think that that particular complaint (whether stated here or in a new thread) was going to change much or go well.
I think his presentation here was kind of unrestrained, but metatalk threads don't have the same sort of presumption of topicality that, say, AskMe or to a degree the blue has—hollering is still hollering, but it's not as much of a transgression.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:02 PM on July 20, 2007
Also, broccoli rabe is Hitlerfood and jonmc should die in a motel shower stall for even mentioning it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:03 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:03 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
bardic: 3 or 4. After about 20 comments, dios said that the post was shitty and partisan. I more or less agreed and said the only solution was to try to improve the discussion (I want to be clear that I was extra-civil to him before I stumbled on this thread), and asked him if this comment he made raised the issue to the level of nonpartisanship -- i.e., he said that everyone should serve -- I asked whether it follows that everyone should respond to subpoenas, etc. He didn't respond to that, and shortly after that cortex cleaned up the thread.
In retrospect, aside from dios' derail, the thread wasn't significantly worse than many other MeFi politics discussions, a few standout comments notwithstanding. Only dios' deleted comments were completely substance-free. All the more reason why his extraordinarily belated protest here is that much more hypocritical -- the issue is not at all with his quality complaint, but rather that he didn't see fit to post it until 4 hours later, even though he apparently had more than enough time to carefully craft his oh-so-wonderful redistricting comment.
posted by spiderwire at 5:04 PM on July 20, 2007
In retrospect, aside from dios' derail, the thread wasn't significantly worse than many other MeFi politics discussions, a few standout comments notwithstanding. Only dios' deleted comments were completely substance-free. All the more reason why his extraordinarily belated protest here is that much more hypocritical -- the issue is not at all with his quality complaint, but rather that he didn't see fit to post it until 4 hours later, even though he apparently had more than enough time to carefully craft his oh-so-wonderful redistricting comment.
posted by spiderwire at 5:04 PM on July 20, 2007
cortex: Gotcha. That strikes me as substantively different from what dios said, so I'm clear now.
dios: Your criticism is incoherent; you're responding to an argument I conceded. Nothing you said has a damn thing to do with the subject at hand, although your faux outrage is, as always, top-notch.
First. I'm not going to dignify your assertion that my post somehow lowered the level of discourse on a thread with a response -- as a lawyer, you should know better than to even make that argument, let alone expect reasonable people to bite. Try again.
Second. You're -- perhaps willfully -- ignoring the problem at issue, I imagine because it's the same problem that you've been called out for continuously during you entire sorry tenure here. You posted off-topic whines on a thread, had them deleted, and then posted flamebait to an unrelated thread 4 hours after the issue was resolved. Period.
That is substantive proof that you consider yourself above the rules of MetaFilter.
Newsflash: when the rest of us disapprove of a thread, we flag it and move on. In egregious instances, we post new MeTa threads about them -- in a timely fashion. You apparently think that these rules do not apply to you. You post comments with zero substance to blue threads. You email the admins to bitch about your personal gripes. Your ignorance of basic decorum does not redound to your credit. Pointing to one comment you made on a non-contentious thread doesn't redeem your behavior today, nor does it nullify your long history of trolling. If anyone isn't well aware of your miserable track record on this account, I'm certainly not wasting my time explaining it. It's not hard to click on your username and see it, plain as day.
You are a troll. Your schtick is old and transparent. Go. Away.
Everyone else, enjoy your weekends. I'm out.
posted by spiderwire at 5:21 PM on July 20, 2007
dios: Your criticism is incoherent; you're responding to an argument I conceded. Nothing you said has a damn thing to do with the subject at hand, although your faux outrage is, as always, top-notch.
First. I'm not going to dignify your assertion that my post somehow lowered the level of discourse on a thread with a response -- as a lawyer, you should know better than to even make that argument, let alone expect reasonable people to bite. Try again.
Second. You're -- perhaps willfully -- ignoring the problem at issue, I imagine because it's the same problem that you've been called out for continuously during you entire sorry tenure here. You posted off-topic whines on a thread, had them deleted, and then posted flamebait to an unrelated thread 4 hours after the issue was resolved. Period.
That is substantive proof that you consider yourself above the rules of MetaFilter.
Newsflash: when the rest of us disapprove of a thread, we flag it and move on. In egregious instances, we post new MeTa threads about them -- in a timely fashion. You apparently think that these rules do not apply to you. You post comments with zero substance to blue threads. You email the admins to bitch about your personal gripes. Your ignorance of basic decorum does not redound to your credit. Pointing to one comment you made on a non-contentious thread doesn't redeem your behavior today, nor does it nullify your long history of trolling. If anyone isn't well aware of your miserable track record on this account, I'm certainly not wasting my time explaining it. It's not hard to click on your username and see it, plain as day.
You are a troll. Your schtick is old and transparent. Go. Away.
Everyone else, enjoy your weekends. I'm out.
posted by spiderwire at 5:21 PM on July 20, 2007
Also, broccoli rabe is Hitlerfood and jonmc should die in a motel shower stall for even mentioning it.
Pips made me honey mustard salmon with parsley orzo and garlic broccoli rabe tonight and it was delicious, herr cortex...I mean, dude.
posted by jonmc at 5:25 PM on July 20, 2007
What ever happened to smart, intelligent Metafilter?
you joined
posted by matteo at 5:30 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
you joined
posted by matteo at 5:30 PM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]
matteo, somebody's attacking broccoli rabe. as a felloe italian you must join me in the fight against this madness.
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 20, 2007
So many holier-than-thou jackasses ... on both sides of the ... can you call this a "debate?" I guess so ... ... on both sides of the debate, and so little time.
What's the URL for PerspectiveFilter?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:48 PM on July 20, 2007
What's the URL for PerspectiveFilter?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:48 PM on July 20, 2007
“Now, the converse of this point is that people who dislike something intensely, in this instance politics, are not going to be good judges of the quality of a post on that subject.”
One of the things that is most infuriating to me about those like yourself who defend these types of posts is that you are so certain (or, alternatively, dishonestly claim) that everyone who doesn't agree with you are a) conservatives, and/or b) not interested in politics. Because neither is true of me. I'm quite leftist and reading political news and commentary on the web accounts for 80% of what I do on the web. That's part of why I don't like it here. I get it elsewhere, and at a much higher quality.
And the other thing that is truly infuriating to many of us that don't like most political posts is that they are, in fact, all about activism and the poster. Sure, MeFi is a lefty site and probably a portion of political posts are posted by people thinking, "Hey, this is very interesting, I bet that the rest of the MeFi community would find it interesting, too". But a very large portion of them are "I'm outraged about this, I can post it to MeFi so everyone else knows about it, too". How do I know that people are thinking that? Well, when the defenses of such posts on MeTa so often involve accusations that people who don't like the posts are people who are bad people who are not interested in how awful the world is and would rather watch You Tube videos, that's a big clue. Rarely when someone posts in a thread about, say, 19th century Carmelite monks that they aren't very interested in the subject is the rejoiner that they should be and, if they're not, they're bad people because of it.
If MetaFilter was a community that was aggressively uninformed about politics and social issues, if MetaFilter was filled with people who say, with disdain, "I hate politics, it's all bullshit", if MetaFilter were a general-purpose weblog where the occasional political post was met with such disdain, then perhaps I'd agree with the activists here. But MetaFilter isn't at all like this. MetaFilter is full of people who display a good familiarity with political and social issues and the result is a community that quite certainly allows a moderate amount of political discourse. What it, or at least many of us, don't like is crappy political posts that are merely more of the same of people's need to express their outrage at the GOP and Bush. It's certainly not the case that this bugs me because I don't feel outrage at Bush and the GOP. I just happen to realize that the front page of MetaFilter isn't my own personal forum for expressing these feelings.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:54 PM on July 20, 2007 [9 favorites]
One of the things that is most infuriating to me about those like yourself who defend these types of posts is that you are so certain (or, alternatively, dishonestly claim) that everyone who doesn't agree with you are a) conservatives, and/or b) not interested in politics. Because neither is true of me. I'm quite leftist and reading political news and commentary on the web accounts for 80% of what I do on the web. That's part of why I don't like it here. I get it elsewhere, and at a much higher quality.
And the other thing that is truly infuriating to many of us that don't like most political posts is that they are, in fact, all about activism and the poster. Sure, MeFi is a lefty site and probably a portion of political posts are posted by people thinking, "Hey, this is very interesting, I bet that the rest of the MeFi community would find it interesting, too". But a very large portion of them are "I'm outraged about this, I can post it to MeFi so everyone else knows about it, too". How do I know that people are thinking that? Well, when the defenses of such posts on MeTa so often involve accusations that people who don't like the posts are people who are bad people who are not interested in how awful the world is and would rather watch You Tube videos, that's a big clue. Rarely when someone posts in a thread about, say, 19th century Carmelite monks that they aren't very interested in the subject is the rejoiner that they should be and, if they're not, they're bad people because of it.
If MetaFilter was a community that was aggressively uninformed about politics and social issues, if MetaFilter was filled with people who say, with disdain, "I hate politics, it's all bullshit", if MetaFilter were a general-purpose weblog where the occasional political post was met with such disdain, then perhaps I'd agree with the activists here. But MetaFilter isn't at all like this. MetaFilter is full of people who display a good familiarity with political and social issues and the result is a community that quite certainly allows a moderate amount of political discourse. What it, or at least many of us, don't like is crappy political posts that are merely more of the same of people's need to express their outrage at the GOP and Bush. It's certainly not the case that this bugs me because I don't feel outrage at Bush and the GOP. I just happen to realize that the front page of MetaFilter isn't my own personal forum for expressing these feelings.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:54 PM on July 20, 2007 [9 favorites]
"Will Fuli Obtuse please pick up the brown discourtesy phone?"
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:07 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:07 PM on July 20, 2007
What it, or at least many of us, don't like is crappy political posts that are merely more of the same of people's need to express their outrage at the GOP and Bush.
You know EB is serious when he makes grammar mistakes, though for most of us it's par for the course ;)
Actually -- what I wanted to say is that this more accurately reflects what I was trying to apologize for. I regret the fact that I often write poorly, but I don't apologize for it, and I'm skeptical of the notion that poorly-written posts necessitate poor threads.**
I do agree that partisan posts encourage a level of rah-rah that tends to mess up the discussions. I do apologize for the partisan nature of the post, and that aspect of the post was a snafu -- it did not come off at all as I intended. A better option would have been just the one-line news post.
That also reminds me of something which I've been meaning to mention for a while. dios is partially right about another thing that deserves much emphasis -- the one-line NewsFilter posts are highly preferable, in a way. For example, the Scooter Libby commutation thread I was pointing to. We often hear complaints about this sort of FPP, but in the case of politics posts (a) it prevents the discussion from being tainted from the outset, as my post did, and (b) at least it takes up less room on the FPP while providing an outlet for discussion. Since we know we're going to be having these discussions anyway, isn't it clear that this is the best format?
Anyway -- that's certainly something I'll be keeping in mind if I ever post another politics NewsFilter topic -- which probably won't happen for a long, long while.
*[On the subject of my post quality, and as a specific aside to dios: I'm also highly averse to people who take any sort of contrition as an opportunity to attack rather than settle differences amicably. By admitting my misgivings about my post, I was trying to open a ground for mutual agreement -- and yet, every time I do this with you (and I've done it before), it turns into "Ha! I'm right and you're a fool!" It makes me want to come at you full-bore every time -- maybe that's what you're looking for, but it's hardly conducive to your professed goal of reasoned MeFi discourse, and one of the main reason I tend to doubt your sincerity on that point.
dios, I sincerely hope you don't take that sort of attitude home with you on the weekends, and I wish you wouldn't bring it here. I often find myself wanting to make concessions to you in the interests of embracing you in the community, so that flamewars like the above don't happen -- but I can't recall ever seeing you give ground on any issue. I know that others feel the same -- and when people talk about how you tend to turn every thread into a flamewar (as nasreddin alluded to above), this is, I think, a large part of the mechanic at work. No strategy works against you but offense. Everything else is either ignored or exploited.
As such, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you come into a thread like you did earlier today with both guns blazing, and then take umbrage at the predictable fusillade of "insults" that came back at you. It's a frustratingly predictable passive-aggressive strategy to shoot first and then play the victim, and while it might occasionally win you arguments, I don't think it wins you any friends. I really wish that wasn't the case. I don't know if this is intentional on your part, but it happens, and it doesn't have to.]
posted by spiderwire at 6:25 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
You know EB is serious when he makes grammar mistakes, though for most of us it's par for the course ;)
Actually -- what I wanted to say is that this more accurately reflects what I was trying to apologize for. I regret the fact that I often write poorly, but I don't apologize for it, and I'm skeptical of the notion that poorly-written posts necessitate poor threads.**
I do agree that partisan posts encourage a level of rah-rah that tends to mess up the discussions. I do apologize for the partisan nature of the post, and that aspect of the post was a snafu -- it did not come off at all as I intended. A better option would have been just the one-line news post.
That also reminds me of something which I've been meaning to mention for a while. dios is partially right about another thing that deserves much emphasis -- the one-line NewsFilter posts are highly preferable, in a way. For example, the Scooter Libby commutation thread I was pointing to. We often hear complaints about this sort of FPP, but in the case of politics posts (a) it prevents the discussion from being tainted from the outset, as my post did, and (b) at least it takes up less room on the FPP while providing an outlet for discussion. Since we know we're going to be having these discussions anyway, isn't it clear that this is the best format?
Anyway -- that's certainly something I'll be keeping in mind if I ever post another politics NewsFilter topic -- which probably won't happen for a long, long while.
*[On the subject of my post quality, and as a specific aside to dios: I'm also highly averse to people who take any sort of contrition as an opportunity to attack rather than settle differences amicably. By admitting my misgivings about my post, I was trying to open a ground for mutual agreement -- and yet, every time I do this with you (and I've done it before), it turns into "Ha! I'm right and you're a fool!" It makes me want to come at you full-bore every time -- maybe that's what you're looking for, but it's hardly conducive to your professed goal of reasoned MeFi discourse, and one of the main reason I tend to doubt your sincerity on that point.
dios, I sincerely hope you don't take that sort of attitude home with you on the weekends, and I wish you wouldn't bring it here. I often find myself wanting to make concessions to you in the interests of embracing you in the community, so that flamewars like the above don't happen -- but I can't recall ever seeing you give ground on any issue. I know that others feel the same -- and when people talk about how you tend to turn every thread into a flamewar (as nasreddin alluded to above), this is, I think, a large part of the mechanic at work. No strategy works against you but offense. Everything else is either ignored or exploited.
As such, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you come into a thread like you did earlier today with both guns blazing, and then take umbrage at the predictable fusillade of "insults" that came back at you. It's a frustratingly predictable passive-aggressive strategy to shoot first and then play the victim, and while it might occasionally win you arguments, I don't think it wins you any friends. I really wish that wasn't the case. I don't know if this is intentional on your part, but it happens, and it doesn't have to.]
posted by spiderwire at 6:25 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I like well-constructed political posts.
Thus, I refute Ethereal Bligh.
If you don't like it, skip it. If it's a bad FPP, flag it or go to meta. Even better, go out there and make some awesome FPP's, champ. And if they fall short of the mark like almost all of them do, alas.
Spiderwire's post wasn't stellar, but it wasn't horrible either. And even if it was blatantly awful, are you defending the right of Deputy Dios to go into any thread his doesn't like, drop trow, and start laying turds?
posted by bardic at 6:36 PM on July 20, 2007
Thus, I refute Ethereal Bligh.
If you don't like it, skip it. If it's a bad FPP, flag it or go to meta. Even better, go out there and make some awesome FPP's, champ. And if they fall short of the mark like almost all of them do, alas.
Spiderwire's post wasn't stellar, but it wasn't horrible either. And even if it was blatantly awful, are you defending the right of Deputy Dios to go into any thread his doesn't like, drop trow, and start laying turds?
posted by bardic at 6:36 PM on July 20, 2007
The O'Reilly/Kos thread was a weird interesting story and different from the traditional "look at these assholes..." type of threads which, whether they're on the subject of politics or not, rarely make good posts. However, it was borderline definitely.
dios, you've been shitting in more threads than usual lately and I'd appreciate if you'd keep your rancor in MeTa or off the site altogether unless you want to be less abrasive or take some unscheduled time off.
Cortex and mathowie and I have been thinking about what to do with political posts with the coming election and while we haven't come to any actual decisions, we're looking at political posts more closely in that "is this a neat thing on the web that would start an interesting discussion that most people haven't aready heard of" MeFi shouldn't suck for all non-political junkies or non-Americans during election season. On the other hand US politics are important to the world at large in some ways so there's a balance to be struck. However more of these "look at these assholes" posts are unlikely to make the cut.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 PM on July 20, 2007
dios, you've been shitting in more threads than usual lately and I'd appreciate if you'd keep your rancor in MeTa or off the site altogether unless you want to be less abrasive or take some unscheduled time off.
Cortex and mathowie and I have been thinking about what to do with political posts with the coming election and while we haven't come to any actual decisions, we're looking at political posts more closely in that "is this a neat thing on the web that would start an interesting discussion that most people haven't aready heard of" MeFi shouldn't suck for all non-political junkies or non-Americans during election season. On the other hand US politics are important to the world at large in some ways so there's a balance to be struck. However more of these "look at these assholes" posts are unlikely to make the cut.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 PM on July 20, 2007
“I like well-constructed political posts.
Thus, I refute Ethereal Bligh.”
Did I claim that you didn't? My comment was refuting that claim, implicit or implicit, that those of us who dislike such posts are either conservatives or apolitical, or both. I made no claims about whether or not there exist people who think and feel differently than I think and feel.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:25 PM on July 20, 2007
Thus, I refute Ethereal Bligh.”
Did I claim that you didn't? My comment was refuting that claim, implicit or implicit, that those of us who dislike such posts are either conservatives or apolitical, or both. I made no claims about whether or not there exist people who think and feel differently than I think and feel.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:25 PM on July 20, 2007
“You know EB is serious when he makes grammar mistakes, though for most of us it's par for the course ;)”
I am usually serious, so you're right. But if only it were true that I usually limit my grammatical and spelling mistakes to comments made when I am overwrought. In truth, my spelling and grammar are both poor, in terms of natural facility. That I no longer regularly embarrass myself on this account has everything to do with the fact that I'm middle-aged and have been writing in public for many years at this point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:30 PM on July 20, 2007
I am usually serious, so you're right. But if only it were true that I usually limit my grammatical and spelling mistakes to comments made when I am overwrought. In truth, my spelling and grammar are both poor, in terms of natural facility. That I no longer regularly embarrass myself on this account has everything to do with the fact that I'm middle-aged and have been writing in public for many years at this point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:30 PM on July 20, 2007
...a frustratingly predictable passive-aggressive strategy to shoot first and then play the victim...
He shoots, he scores.
posted by y2karl at 7:31 PM on July 20, 2007
He shoots, he scores.
posted by y2karl at 7:31 PM on July 20, 2007
I love reading through a thread like this, coming to the end, and realizing that I still have no idea why people are fighting.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 7:42 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 7:42 PM on July 20, 2007
I love reading through a thread like this, coming to the end, and realizing that I still have no idea why people are fighting.
Tell me about it.
posted by SteveTheRed at 7:51 PM on July 20, 2007
Tell me about it.
posted by SteveTheRed at 7:51 PM on July 20, 2007
EB: I'm middle-aged and have been writhing in public for many years at this point.
Fixed that up a bit.
Sorry....couldn't resist.
posted by nevercalm at 8:37 PM on July 20, 2007
Fixed that up a bit.
Sorry....couldn't resist.
posted by nevercalm at 8:37 PM on July 20, 2007
Does no one have pride or principle enough to really and truly lose their shit over something in which they claim to believe?
Just wait until George Bush has his colonoscopy at Camp David tomorrow (yep, it's still Friday here in Boston, as I post this) and loses his shit (which will surely "hit-the-fan," and not just the Harry Potter fans) when he discovers that Cheney has usurped control as the "Grand Leader of the Amurican Peoples (So, Help Us God)."
posted by ericb at 8:54 PM on July 20, 2007
Just wait until George Bush has his colonoscopy at Camp David tomorrow (yep, it's still Friday here in Boston, as I post this) and loses his shit (which will surely "hit-the-fan," and not just the Harry Potter fans) when he discovers that Cheney has usurped control as the "Grand Leader of the Amurican Peoples (So, Help Us God)."
posted by ericb at 8:54 PM on July 20, 2007
I'm sure this has been suggested, and maybe it's a bad idea: why not an election.meta site. Or politics.meta...
The disadvantage is, of course, perhaps giving the site a split personality.
On the plus side, having a place for political discussions would keep the blue from looking like a politics blog, especially as the US election nears. Another plus is that, even though we are all grownups and responsible for what we read and post, having the politics on another page would prevent getting sucked in to a political thread when you are browsing the blue without any thought of politics. ("Hmmm.. let's see, Cat Dancing With Hot Dog... YouTube link to a working clock made of nude people... iPhone still cool... Bush Kills Puppies!??!?! WHAT!!!!! Oh, that will not stand!!!" )
On the other hand, if you are in the mood for a fight (which political threads inevitably turn into, even if they are polite) and in the mood for politics, you can just go that part of the site (the purple!) and have a ball.
posted by The Deej at 8:56 PM on July 20, 2007
The disadvantage is, of course, perhaps giving the site a split personality.
On the plus side, having a place for political discussions would keep the blue from looking like a politics blog, especially as the US election nears. Another plus is that, even though we are all grownups and responsible for what we read and post, having the politics on another page would prevent getting sucked in to a political thread when you are browsing the blue without any thought of politics. ("Hmmm.. let's see, Cat Dancing With Hot Dog... YouTube link to a working clock made of nude people... iPhone still cool... Bush Kills Puppies!??!?! WHAT!!!!! Oh, that will not stand!!!" )
On the other hand, if you are in the mood for a fight (which political threads inevitably turn into, even if they are polite) and in the mood for politics, you can just go that part of the site (the purple!) and have a ball.
posted by The Deej at 8:56 PM on July 20, 2007
Man, this is still going? I would have figured you True-Blues would be out there tearin' things up by now... y'know, because the President of your country is sort of up to some pretty wacky hijinx, even by his standards... and, y'know, there might be more important things going on right now than winning MeTa... just thowin' that out there... yeah.
Then again, it is the weekend - and really, who has time to actually DO shit that matters? Some preachin' to the choir comments and a lazy ass post about Mitt Romney abusing his laminating machine privileges really is just as effective, amirite?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:56 PM on July 20, 2007
Then again, it is the weekend - and really, who has time to actually DO shit that matters? Some preachin' to the choir comments and a lazy ass post about Mitt Romney abusing his laminating machine privileges really is just as effective, amirite?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:56 PM on July 20, 2007
Republican politicians and ideas are kind of like how porn is getting more and more hardcore because it invariably loses its ability to shock over time. So it's going to be awesome when, like, John McCain shitting on a picture of Jesus while fellating a 10 year-old boy won't make the blue because too many people whine that it's too "LOL REPUBLICANZ" in nature. Can we please stop picking on the poor dears? I mean, that's just not very fair and balanced of us, ya know, given the fact that Michael Moore is really overweight.
(A large portion of Mitt Romney's staff were impersonating police officers? Jesus fucking Christ.)
posted by bardic at 9:04 PM on July 20, 2007
(A large portion of Mitt Romney's staff were impersonating police officers? Jesus fucking Christ.)
posted by bardic at 9:04 PM on July 20, 2007
having the politics on another page would prevent getting sucked in to a political thread
The best way to avoid getting "sucked in" to a thread is not to click on it in the first place, especially if you know it's going to raise your heart-rate.
Numbers one, two, and three have enough to do as it is. Saving us from ourselves shouldn't be added to the list.
posted by bardic at 9:06 PM on July 20, 2007
The best way to avoid getting "sucked in" to a thread is not to click on it in the first place, especially if you know it's going to raise your heart-rate.
Numbers one, two, and three have enough to do as it is. Saving us from ourselves shouldn't be added to the list.
posted by bardic at 9:06 PM on July 20, 2007
why not an election.meta site
Such a site would need low FPP standards to justify its existence - a glut of subpar posts, the one thing needed to make such a subsite viable, would be the very thing that'd kill it, IMO. Also, part of MeFi's appeal is the wide range of topics (Cue a bunch of folks who only read FPPs on certain topics via RSS). There's an assload of niche blogs out there already, so I'm not sure why Matt would want to dilute The Blue and/or set a precedent for the Balkanization of MetaFilter. (Cue Matt saying he wants to dilute The Blue and/or set a precedent for the Balkanization of MetaFilter).
Buuuut, I would support an iPhone gulag- er, I mean subsite.
No, I meant gulag. (And well put, bardic)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:10 PM on July 20, 2007
Such a site would need low FPP standards to justify its existence - a glut of subpar posts, the one thing needed to make such a subsite viable, would be the very thing that'd kill it, IMO. Also, part of MeFi's appeal is the wide range of topics (Cue a bunch of folks who only read FPPs on certain topics via RSS). There's an assload of niche blogs out there already, so I'm not sure why Matt would want to dilute The Blue and/or set a precedent for the Balkanization of MetaFilter. (Cue Matt saying he wants to dilute The Blue and/or set a precedent for the Balkanization of MetaFilter).
Buuuut, I would support an iPhone gulag- er, I mean subsite.
No, I meant gulag. (And well put, bardic)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:10 PM on July 20, 2007
Just wait until George Bush has his colonoscopy at Camp David tomorrow (yep, it's still Friday here in Boston, as I post this) and loses his shit (which will surely "hit-the-fan," and not just the Harry Potter fans) when he discovers that Cheney has usurped control as the "Grand Leader of the Amurican Peoples (So, Help Us God)."
I think I speak for everyone when I say -- "what the fuck?"
night
posted by spiderwire at 9:32 PM on July 20, 2007
I think I speak for everyone when I say -- "what the fuck?"
night
posted by spiderwire at 9:32 PM on July 20, 2007
S'true. Dick Cheney will officially be POTUS for a few hours tomorrow.
Just bought my Rapture bumper-sticker myself.
posted by bardic at 9:34 PM on July 20, 2007
Just bought my Rapture bumper-sticker myself.
posted by bardic at 9:34 PM on July 20, 2007
No, I got the part part about the operation -- even mentioned earlier today that it's a sort of horrid irony, considering what he's done to the country in the last month -- I'm talking about everything after that
posted by spiderwire at 9:38 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 9:38 PM on July 20, 2007
The best way to avoid getting "sucked in" to a thread is not to click on it in the first place, especially if you know it's going to raise your heart-rate.
Eggggggzackly. Which is why I said "we are all grownups and responsible for what we read and post."
Getting sucked in is not an issue for me. I'm just thinking of the overall quality of the site. I personally don't care one way or the other; I rarely read the political threads, and even more rarely post in them.
And I'm not even saying such a move would be a good thing or not.
Such a site would need low FPP standards to justify its existence - a glut of subpar posts, the one thing needed to make such a subsite viable, would be the very thing that'd kill it, IMO.
Why? Who cares if there's 5 posts on it for the day? The mods can decide if something is worth putting on the blue, in the interest of keeping diversity there, much like they decide sidebars today. Whether this is more or less work than moderating the political posts on the blue would be for the mods to decide.
I'm only tossing this out here because it looks like there are plenty of people to whom it might matter. I'm not one of them.
posted by The Deej at 9:38 PM on July 20, 2007
Eggggggzackly. Which is why I said "we are all grownups and responsible for what we read and post."
Getting sucked in is not an issue for me. I'm just thinking of the overall quality of the site. I personally don't care one way or the other; I rarely read the political threads, and even more rarely post in them.
And I'm not even saying such a move would be a good thing or not.
Such a site would need low FPP standards to justify its existence - a glut of subpar posts, the one thing needed to make such a subsite viable, would be the very thing that'd kill it, IMO.
Why? Who cares if there's 5 posts on it for the day? The mods can decide if something is worth putting on the blue, in the interest of keeping diversity there, much like they decide sidebars today. Whether this is more or less work than moderating the political posts on the blue would be for the mods to decide.
I'm only tossing this out here because it looks like there are plenty of people to whom it might matter. I'm not one of them.
posted by The Deej at 9:38 PM on July 20, 2007
this place is getting awfully predictable, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:41 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 9:41 PM on July 20, 2007
PANCAKES
what do you mean, getting awfully predictable?
posted by spiderwire at 9:45 PM on July 20, 2007
what do you mean, getting awfully predictable?
posted by spiderwire at 9:45 PM on July 20, 2007
this place is getting awfully predictable, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite
I knew you were going to say that.
posted by The Deej at 9:45 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by pyramid termite
I knew you were going to say that.
posted by The Deej at 9:45 PM on July 20, 2007
nevercalm: Does no one have pride or principle enough to really and truly lose their shit over something in which they claim to believe?
ericb: Just wait until George Bush has his colonoscopy at Camp David tomorrow (yep, it's still Friday here in Boston, as I post this) and loses his shit (which will surely "hit-the-fan," and not just the Harry Potter fans) when he discovers that Cheney has usurped control as the "Grand Leader of the Amurican Peoples (So, Help Us God)."
spiderwire: I think I speak for everyone when I say - "what the fuck?"
It was meant as a joke. Obviously, my attempt at humor failed (just like some of Jay Leno's).
Get it -- colonoscopy | losing one's shit over something, etc., etc., etc..
Bada-buump.
posted by ericb at 10:01 PM on July 20, 2007
ericb: Just wait until George Bush has his colonoscopy at Camp David tomorrow (yep, it's still Friday here in Boston, as I post this) and loses his shit (which will surely "hit-the-fan," and not just the Harry Potter fans) when he discovers that Cheney has usurped control as the "Grand Leader of the Amurican Peoples (So, Help Us God)."
spiderwire: I think I speak for everyone when I say - "what the fuck?"
It was meant as a joke. Obviously, my attempt at humor failed (just like some of Jay Leno's).
Get it -- colonoscopy | losing one's shit over something, etc., etc., etc..
Bada-buump.
posted by ericb at 10:01 PM on July 20, 2007
Based on this thread, it's clear I have no sense of humor, so I probably missed it -- the Harry Potter thing is what threw me.
posted by spiderwire at 10:17 PM on July 20, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 10:17 PM on July 20, 2007
John McCain shitting on a picture of Jesus while fellating a 10 year-old boy...
THE ARISTOCRATS!!!
...won't make the blue because too many people whine that it's too "LOL REPUBLICANZ" in nature.
Good thing you'll always be in the front lines of the Keyboard Froth Brigade.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:37 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
THE ARISTOCRATS!!!
...won't make the blue because too many people whine that it's too "LOL REPUBLICANZ" in nature.
Good thing you'll always be in the front lines of the Keyboard Froth Brigade.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:37 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes, yes, but oh my holy walrus noises have you watched that Rick Astley video? What the ever loving hell was that? Even though I'm the right age to have watched that when it first came out, I've never seen it before and I'm just...
I don't even know anymore...
Why did anyone let him on camera? What disorder makes his backup women spin around and around? Why was this video never weaponized to destroy the funk capability of our enemies?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:54 PM on July 20, 2007
I don't even know anymore...
Why did anyone let him on camera? What disorder makes his backup women spin around and around? Why was this video never weaponized to destroy the funk capability of our enemies?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:54 PM on July 20, 2007
His UG Krishnamurti links were the best things I have ever seen on mefi.Wasn't permanent bannination a little harsh?
Wait, what? I posted about UG once, I'm not going to be banned, am I?
(I'd have posted in that thread, but it was closed. Coincidence? I think not.)
posted by homunculus at 11:02 PM on July 20, 2007
Wait, what? I posted about UG once, I'm not going to be banned, am I?
(I'd have posted in that thread, but it was closed. Coincidence? I think not.)
posted by homunculus at 11:02 PM on July 20, 2007
I must say these recent deletion decisions have been pretty poor. The idiotic Bill O'Reilly nonsense drama stays but the actually interesting and insightful NR cruise essay goes? Seriously?
And I agree with "raising the bar" for political posts but, at the same time, I'd also like to see some kind of deeper understanding of what's good and what's not.
I did a search and it turns out that there are actually quite a few places on the internet where you can go to discuss politics and get all outraged and stuff.
Who cares? Mefi has a long history of political links, a significant portion of the membership enjoy such threads, and quite often PoliticsFilter actually does a good job illuminating an issue and teasing out the different threads such that vibrant discussion can take place. The community has pretty definitively spoken on whether political FPPs are acceptable and if you don't like it then you can go somewhere else.
Too often people confuse important for interesting..
I'd second this though I don't think "interesting" is quite the right word. Some people find the daily activities of celebrities to be interesting. But there are political FPPs that do point to deeper principles and larger ideas and are so compelling that, yes, you do want to share them with total strangers. I don't think bad political FPPs are the result of hyper-partisan operatives at all. It seems the basic problem with a lot of crap political FPPs is that people just don't understand (or perhaps just don't appreciate) their audience. It's this distorted understanding of the blue's audience (which is compounded by the liberal majority on Mefi) that leads to FPPs like the Bill O'Reilly one where something important or even interesting to only a small, select group is mistaken as something that will appeal to everybody.
At this point I think a good test for political FPPs might be whether the post is so compelling that even somebody who is not a Mefite would want to click on the links. If some random Tom or Jane or perhaps even someone from New Zealand would be intrigued then that suggests the post is more than just shallow partisan nonsense and there's actually something deeper going on. I would hold this and this up as recent exemplary posts.
posted by nixerman at 2:16 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
And I agree with "raising the bar" for political posts but, at the same time, I'd also like to see some kind of deeper understanding of what's good and what's not.
I did a search and it turns out that there are actually quite a few places on the internet where you can go to discuss politics and get all outraged and stuff.
Who cares? Mefi has a long history of political links, a significant portion of the membership enjoy such threads, and quite often PoliticsFilter actually does a good job illuminating an issue and teasing out the different threads such that vibrant discussion can take place. The community has pretty definitively spoken on whether political FPPs are acceptable and if you don't like it then you can go somewhere else.
Too often people confuse important for interesting..
I'd second this though I don't think "interesting" is quite the right word. Some people find the daily activities of celebrities to be interesting. But there are political FPPs that do point to deeper principles and larger ideas and are so compelling that, yes, you do want to share them with total strangers. I don't think bad political FPPs are the result of hyper-partisan operatives at all. It seems the basic problem with a lot of crap political FPPs is that people just don't understand (or perhaps just don't appreciate) their audience. It's this distorted understanding of the blue's audience (which is compounded by the liberal majority on Mefi) that leads to FPPs like the Bill O'Reilly one where something important or even interesting to only a small, select group is mistaken as something that will appeal to everybody.
At this point I think a good test for political FPPs might be whether the post is so compelling that even somebody who is not a Mefite would want to click on the links. If some random Tom or Jane or perhaps even someone from New Zealand would be intrigued then that suggests the post is more than just shallow partisan nonsense and there's actually something deeper going on. I would hold this and this up as recent exemplary posts.
posted by nixerman at 2:16 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
I am pretty sure this all goes back to the age-old dilemma of whether we are here for discussions or for links. When you come right down to it, we are here for links, but we also like to have intelligent discussions about the topics therein. (Most of us, anyway.)
If a post is so anemic that a discussion about it is not going to revolve around the content of the links, i.e., if it's an Israel/Palestine post where the content's so lame that we've all read it before and we just roll out the same old arguments, then it's not a good post. On the other hand, you could make a Bill O'Reilly post tomorrow if it had new information that people genuinely would not be aware of, was interesting, could provoke intelligent discussion.
So I guess what I am saying is that the general rule is if it's the same old shit, no one cares. I don't know if elpapacito's post was good or not, to be honest, because it's practically 4:30 AM and I'm not going to watch the video, but honestly I would err on the side of leaving it just because, hey, it's elpapacito, and if we all thought it sucked, we would have commented such in the thread.
Deleting is like taking someone aside and telling them no. It really seems to me like it should be reserved for things that are completely inarguable. If it's borderline, and the community doesn't like it, the poster will find out really quick. Tadah, self-policing.
posted by blacklite at 4:25 AM on July 21, 2007
If a post is so anemic that a discussion about it is not going to revolve around the content of the links, i.e., if it's an Israel/Palestine post where the content's so lame that we've all read it before and we just roll out the same old arguments, then it's not a good post. On the other hand, you could make a Bill O'Reilly post tomorrow if it had new information that people genuinely would not be aware of, was interesting, could provoke intelligent discussion.
So I guess what I am saying is that the general rule is if it's the same old shit, no one cares. I don't know if elpapacito's post was good or not, to be honest, because it's practically 4:30 AM and I'm not going to watch the video, but honestly I would err on the side of leaving it just because, hey, it's elpapacito, and if we all thought it sucked, we would have commented such in the thread.
Deleting is like taking someone aside and telling them no. It really seems to me like it should be reserved for things that are completely inarguable. If it's borderline, and the community doesn't like it, the poster will find out really quick. Tadah, self-policing.
posted by blacklite at 4:25 AM on July 21, 2007
Wait, is this going to turn into yet another suggestion of poli.mefi? Cuz, you know, this thread will officially be a rerun if so.
B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E
For all you pissed off about LOLREPUBLIKINS I found some LOLDEMOKRATZ for you.
posted by nevercalm at 6:44 AM on July 21, 2007
B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E
For all you pissed off about LOLREPUBLIKINS I found some LOLDEMOKRATZ for you.
posted by nevercalm at 6:44 AM on July 21, 2007
I made my point. Hopefully you will learn from it.
Assuming dios' point is that his thread-shitting comments and constant whining will get deleted, we already knew that would happen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:55 AM on July 21, 2007
Assuming dios' point is that his thread-shitting comments and constant whining will get deleted, we already knew that would happen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:55 AM on July 21, 2007
I don't think elpapacito's thread should have been deleted. That strikes me as an attempt to prove that Metafilter really is "even-handed" and "non-partisan," that it ain't a "leftist echo-chamber" after all. Which is of course true in world terms, given that Metafilter and Mefites are actually center-rightist like Hillary Clinton, but, as in the right-skewed U.S.A. Hillary is the next best thing to a Henry Wallace, in U.S. terms this site is indeed what ParisParamus and dios said it is. Which has as we see just produced the odd phenomenon of "liberals" closing ranks to favor the closing of a "liberal" thread and/or the "spanking" of a good "liberal" for complaining about a deletion that just last month would have been unimaginable; it's like the Hundred Flowers in reverse.
That it's actually right-wing around here will be confirmed if one tries defending the right of the KKK to march, of NAMBLA to exist, or of Iraqi quislings to whore out their own damn country. (Not that I view those things as in any way equivalent, just that they're all rather unpopular here.) Real "progressives" will not shout down Free Speech, at least not to the extent that a Mod has to delete an innocuous "liberal" thread just to "keep a balance."
posted by davy at 8:20 AM on July 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
That it's actually right-wing around here will be confirmed if one tries defending the right of the KKK to march, of NAMBLA to exist, or of Iraqi quislings to whore out their own damn country. (Not that I view those things as in any way equivalent, just that they're all rather unpopular here.) Real "progressives" will not shout down Free Speech, at least not to the extent that a Mod has to delete an innocuous "liberal" thread just to "keep a balance."
posted by davy at 8:20 AM on July 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
why not an election.meta site
That is the obvious solution, except that Matt has shot it down on the reasonable grounds that he does not want to host a site that he would not find interesting.
The other possible solution is some kind of mandatory system of categories along with a customizable user filter. When you posted you would have to choose one or more categories from a list (much as on AskMe). Individual users could set their preferences to ignore all posts in the Apple/iPhone or news/politics categories.
Finally, the MondoMeta Greasemonkey script offers considerable belief to users who dislike certain kinds of posts. You can set it so that Metafilter does not display any post with certain key words or any post at all by a specific user. A few weeks of adding key terms and a few agenda-driven posters can make a huge difference in your enjoyment of the site.
I am pleased to learn that the mods are talking about what some of see as a problem.
posted by LarryC at 8:21 AM on July 21, 2007
That is the obvious solution, except that Matt has shot it down on the reasonable grounds that he does not want to host a site that he would not find interesting.
The other possible solution is some kind of mandatory system of categories along with a customizable user filter. When you posted you would have to choose one or more categories from a list (much as on AskMe). Individual users could set their preferences to ignore all posts in the Apple/iPhone or news/politics categories.
Finally, the MondoMeta Greasemonkey script offers considerable belief to users who dislike certain kinds of posts. You can set it so that Metafilter does not display any post with certain key words or any post at all by a specific user. A few weeks of adding key terms and a few agenda-driven posters can make a huge difference in your enjoyment of the site.
I am pleased to learn that the mods are talking about what some of see as a problem.
posted by LarryC at 8:21 AM on July 21, 2007
mefi sucks a little more with each additional moderator.
posted by quonsar at 8:42 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by quonsar at 8:42 AM on July 21, 2007
Aye, too many cooks and not enough Quonsars!
posted by davy at 9:23 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by davy at 9:23 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Or perhaps I should say instead 'Too many COOKS and NOT ENOUGH KOOKS!1!'
(Does James 'Kibo' Parry have a Mefi account?)
posted by davy at 9:39 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
(Does James 'Kibo' Parry have a Mefi account?)
posted by davy at 9:39 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
mefi sucks a little more with each additional moderator.
posted by quonsar
MeFi moderates a little more with each additional suck.
posted by The Deej at 9:40 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by quonsar
MeFi moderates a little more with each additional suck.
posted by The Deej at 9:40 AM on July 21, 2007
""MeFi moderates a little more with each additional suck."
So Deej, ARE kneepads one-size-fits-all?
posted by davy at 9:51 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
So Deej, ARE kneepads one-size-fits-all?
posted by davy at 9:51 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh piffle, davy; you're hardly in a position to accuse anyone of sycophancy. And you're being willfully obtuse by not acknowledging the FPP wasn't very good and the odds of it being redeemed by the comments was pretty slim.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think more moderators is bad for the site, quonsar?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:20 AM on July 21, 2007
Just out of curiosity, why do you think more moderators is bad for the site, quonsar?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:20 AM on July 21, 2007
Does James 'Kibo' Parry have a Mefi account?
God, that'd be something.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 AM on July 21, 2007
God, that'd be something.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 AM on July 21, 2007
So Deej, ARE kneepads one-size-fits-all?
posted by davy
Well, you'd be the expert on that but I can tell you that suck is equal opportunity.
posted by The Deej at 10:49 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by davy
Well, you'd be the expert on that but I can tell you that suck is equal opportunity.
posted by The Deej at 10:49 AM on July 21, 2007
"And Here's Yet Another Example of How Bad They Are!"
And as we (the US) continue our descent into the sewer, you don't want to worry your pretty little heads about it. Oh no, lets look at pictures of puppies and argue about music instead of looking at the real world.
You're part of the problem, cortex.
It's pretty disgusting, really.
posted by 2sheets at 11:02 AM on July 21, 2007
And as we (the US) continue our descent into the sewer, you don't want to worry your pretty little heads about it. Oh no, lets look at pictures of puppies and argue about music instead of looking at the real world.
You're part of the problem, cortex.
It's pretty disgusting, really.
posted by 2sheets at 11:02 AM on July 21, 2007
2sheets broke my Faceti-O-Meter.
Are you freaking serious?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on July 21, 2007
Are you freaking serious?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on July 21, 2007
What's the solution, 2sheets?
posted by rockhopper at 11:08 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by rockhopper at 11:08 AM on July 21, 2007
And as we (the US) continue our descent into the sewer, let's post links on Metafilter and make public displays of our outrage to people who already believe the same things that we do. Let's not roll up our sleeves and get to work in the real world. Oh no, let's look at links from Kos and argue about whether Cheney is more like Hitler or Mussolini instead of working in the real world.
You're part of the problem, 2sheets.
It's pretty amusing, really.
posted by LarryC at 11:13 AM on July 21, 2007
You're part of the problem, 2sheets.
It's pretty amusing, really.
posted by LarryC at 11:13 AM on July 21, 2007
As your country continues its decent into the sewer, you're playing shibboleth inspector on a fucking links blog. Grow the fuck up, get some balls, and do something substantial to help your country and yourself instead of insulting people whose politics or activities you don't have clue fucking one about.
Or browse Twitter for a while, maybe there's gonna be a Flash Mob forming up that you can pretend is really a protest.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Or browse Twitter for a while, maybe there's gonna be a Flash Mob forming up that you can pretend is really a protest.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Or, what LarryC said. He's part of the problem, too.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on July 21, 2007
You know what I blame this on the downfall of? Metafilter.
posted by found missing at 11:17 AM on July 21, 2007
posted by found missing at 11:17 AM on July 21, 2007
Said Alvy: "Oh piffle, davy; you're hardly in a position to accuse anyone of sycophancy."
Please, do provide examples of my sycophancy. I'd have less difficulty showing you a slice of the many times I've been flamed by our fellow enlisted Mefites and publicly bitch-slapped and/or time-outed by Mefi's Mod Squad. Nobody wants to sit through, nor do I want to compose, a list of links to all the individual flamings and bitch-slappings I've gotten here. Sometimes I swear I must be the poor Mefite's dios; I'm surprised I ain't been banned yet.
Saying things damn near nobody wants to hear is the opposite of sycophancy. And you should know, your public utterances have been favored 474 times more often than mine though I joined up a year earlier than you did. You'll also notice I link to nobody, favorite nothing, and am far more likely to receive from our compeers death threats than blowjobs.
So have fun on your knees. I hear those meetups are great places to come across other desperate-for-approval hipsters manques.
posted by davy at 11:20 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Please, do provide examples of my sycophancy. I'd have less difficulty showing you a slice of the many times I've been flamed by our fellow enlisted Mefites and publicly bitch-slapped and/or time-outed by Mefi's Mod Squad. Nobody wants to sit through, nor do I want to compose, a list of links to all the individual flamings and bitch-slappings I've gotten here. Sometimes I swear I must be the poor Mefite's dios; I'm surprised I ain't been banned yet.
Saying things damn near nobody wants to hear is the opposite of sycophancy. And you should know, your public utterances have been favored 474 times more often than mine though I joined up a year earlier than you did. You'll also notice I link to nobody, favorite nothing, and am far more likely to receive from our compeers death threats than blowjobs.
So have fun on your knees. I hear those meetups are great places to come across other desperate-for-approval hipsters manques.
posted by davy at 11:20 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
And you should know, your public utterances have been favored 474 times more often than mine
i really hate this "favorites" argument ... stop it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 AM on July 21, 2007
i really hate this "favorites" argument ... stop it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 AM on July 21, 2007
And as we (the US) continue our descent into the sewer, you don't want to worry your pretty little heads about it. Oh no, lets look at pictures of puppies and argue about music instead of looking at the real world.
Only if you believe that Metafilter is the best and only outlet for political outrage does this complaint make sense. There's a whole goddamned Internet out there, including sites devoted specifically to, and far more successful at, blogging and discussing politics and policy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:30 AM on July 21, 2007
Only if you believe that Metafilter is the best and only outlet for political outrage does this complaint make sense. There's a whole goddamned Internet out there, including sites devoted specifically to, and far more successful at, blogging and discussing politics and policy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:30 AM on July 21, 2007
I linked to the example, davy. You're not the poor man's dios, you're a bargain basement quonsar, who, bye-the-by, probably has more favorites than both of us put together AND has attended meet-ups! Horrors! Hope I didn't just shatter your belief system, MeFi's Lonely Man.
Nice to see you're actually making mostly intelligible comments today. Coherency looks good on you, you should try it more often.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:32 AM on July 21, 2007
Nice to see you're actually making mostly intelligible comments today. Coherency looks good on you, you should try it more often.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:32 AM on July 21, 2007
Your ONE example of my "sycophancy" is me PICKING ON quonsar? (I wonder why HE thinks I bold and italic the capital Q which he himself never uses.) I bet you thought picking on Jessamyn's nose piercing was an example of my winning charm, eh? Do you think Hitler was really a Zionist?
Grow an IQ, dip.
posted by davy at 11:43 AM on July 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
Grow an IQ, dip.
posted by davy at 11:43 AM on July 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
Hey pyramid termite, feel free to Favorite and Link to me!
posted by davy at 11:45 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by davy at 11:45 AM on July 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Your ONE example of my "sycophancy" is me PICKING ON quonsar?
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment, it felt more like an attempt at ingratiation than any sort of jab. Ouch, capitalization! It's like Don Rickles meets Mavis Beacon! I'm not about to trawl your comment history though. No man is that strong.
The point was, quonsar is the spoiler, the guy who tells it like it is and doesn't hold back, who gets glee from baiting people (Myself included) and bursting their balloon once in a while. He's good at it and can make more of a point in one all caps sentence than some can in three paragraphs.
You're just an attention-whore provocateur who barely makes sense half of the time. You denigrate those of us who like the idea of a community, but then try your damnedest to be known. You present yourself as someone who's outside of the petty games and personal politics of the site, yet give credence to completely arbitrary things like favorites and contacts.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:30 PM on July 21, 2007
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment, it felt more like an attempt at ingratiation than any sort of jab. Ouch, capitalization! It's like Don Rickles meets Mavis Beacon! I'm not about to trawl your comment history though. No man is that strong.
The point was, quonsar is the spoiler, the guy who tells it like it is and doesn't hold back, who gets glee from baiting people (Myself included) and bursting their balloon once in a while. He's good at it and can make more of a point in one all caps sentence than some can in three paragraphs.
You're just an attention-whore provocateur who barely makes sense half of the time. You denigrate those of us who like the idea of a community, but then try your damnedest to be known. You present yourself as someone who's outside of the petty games and personal politics of the site, yet give credence to completely arbitrary things like favorites and contacts.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:30 PM on July 21, 2007
Oh, OK, I get it. This is the thread where we throw in every recurring argument and grudge match, and then the mods will seal it all in a single vessel and, I guess, cast it into the fires of Mount Dhoom. Right? Because if so, we should try not to miss anything, lest evil maintain a foothold in this world.
posted by spiderwire at 1:01 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 1:01 PM on July 21, 2007
-- on that note:
- y2karl is clearly dhoyt's sockpuppet, though they're both actually mathowie;
- quonsar is an advanced DARPA prototype based loosely on ELIZA, yet designed for snark;
- you should be able to tell people how to impersonate police officers on AskMe, goddamnit;
- and bring back the img tag.
posted by spiderwire at 1:08 PM on July 21, 2007
- y2karl is clearly dhoyt's sockpuppet, though they're both actually mathowie;
- quonsar is an advanced DARPA prototype based loosely on ELIZA, yet designed for snark;
- you should be able to tell people how to impersonate police officers on AskMe, goddamnit;
- and bring back the img tag.
posted by spiderwire at 1:08 PM on July 21, 2007
Man. I got rickrolled twice in this thread. I've got to lie down for a little while.
posted by Kwine at 1:16 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by Kwine at 1:16 PM on July 21, 2007
LarryC writes "along with a customizable user filter"
Like, your brain and your mouse? Dude, you're a smart guy. You're a college professor. And yet, when it comes to whether or not you want to click on a given FPP, you turn into a drooling mongoloid or something? Very strange.
Alvy Amperand, in a lame attempt to defend himself after accusing davy of being a sycophant: "quonsar is the spoiler, the guy who tells it like it is and doesn't hold back, who gets glee from baiting people (Myself included) and bursting their balloon once in a while. He's good at it and can make more of a point in one all caps sentence than some can in three paragraphs."
Oi. You're more annoying than usual as of late.
And can someone explain this "rickrolling" thing to me? Seriously. It's from Family Guy or something?
posted by bardic at 1:22 PM on July 21, 2007
Like, your brain and your mouse? Dude, you're a smart guy. You're a college professor. And yet, when it comes to whether or not you want to click on a given FPP, you turn into a drooling mongoloid or something? Very strange.
Alvy Amperand, in a lame attempt to defend himself after accusing davy of being a sycophant: "quonsar is the spoiler, the guy who tells it like it is and doesn't hold back, who gets glee from baiting people (Myself included) and bursting their balloon once in a while. He's good at it and can make more of a point in one all caps sentence than some can in three paragraphs."
Oi. You're more annoying than usual as of late.
And can someone explain this "rickrolling" thing to me? Seriously. It's from Family Guy or something?
posted by bardic at 1:22 PM on July 21, 2007
Urban Dictionary.
To disguise a link to a video of Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up." Popularized from excessive use on 4chan and certain Internet gaming forums.
Don't worry, bardic, I don't get it either. But here's a video that explains it all.
posted by The Deej at 1:27 PM on July 21, 2007
To disguise a link to a video of Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up." Popularized from excessive use on 4chan and certain Internet gaming forums.
Don't worry, bardic, I don't get it either. But here's a video that explains it all.
posted by The Deej at 1:27 PM on July 21, 2007
Wha? Huh?
DAMN YOU INTERNETS AND RICK ASTLEY! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on July 21, 2007
DAMN YOU INTERNETS AND RICK ASTLEY! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on July 21, 2007
Alvy, you're backwards: I give great scorn to things like Favorites and Contacts, which is why I do neither. I'm neither cute nor desperate enough to fuck anybody who's been in any Meetup Flickrs, so what'd be the point anyhow?
You accused me of sycophancy, in common parlance "sucking up," whichg I pointed out you're one to accuse me of given how bloody good you are it, Mr.Popularity. One does not get all those attaboys by not trying to be popular -- at least I hope you're trying or you're a spineless worm. (Pretty girls can be popular just by sitting still and smiling; I bet that gives you fits.)
You're also too dim to argue with though. So, like, "Yes dear, whatever you say dear!"
posted by davy at 1:52 PM on July 21, 2007
You accused me of sycophancy, in common parlance "sucking up," whichg I pointed out you're one to accuse me of given how bloody good you are it, Mr.Popularity. One does not get all those attaboys by not trying to be popular -- at least I hope you're trying or you're a spineless worm. (Pretty girls can be popular just by sitting still and smiling; I bet that gives you fits.)
You're also too dim to argue with though. So, like, "Yes dear, whatever you say dear!"
posted by davy at 1:52 PM on July 21, 2007
Just out of curiosity, why do you think more moderators is bad for the site, quonsar?
think? who's thinking? it just sounded like something quonsar should say.
*shrugs*
posted by quonsar at 1:58 PM on July 21, 2007 [7 favorites]
think? who's thinking? it just sounded like something quonsar should say.
*shrugs*
posted by quonsar at 1:58 PM on July 21, 2007 [7 favorites]
So I'm really the ANTI-quonsar: I put so much thought into my comments that I forget to do things like proofread for typos or wonder if Alvy Ampersand can grasp what I'm getting at.
posted by davy at 2:02 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by davy at 2:02 PM on July 21, 2007
Youtube is painful with my slow weak old video card. Maybe someday I'll get enough money in the paypal account linked to the email address in my profile to buy a decent video card -- but then I might put myself through a long Youtube course in American pop culture instead of wasting so much crying in the Metafilter wilderness. ()
posted by davy at 2:08 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by davy at 2:08 PM on July 21, 2007
"Family Guy" that is. You can read some people's moral compasses by their preference for Tolstoy over or beneath Dostoyevsky, their sense of innate ethical chemistry, so to speak.
Me? I think people who enjoy "Family Guy" should be rounded up and sent to Mars.
posted by bardic at 2:12 PM on July 21, 2007
Me? I think people who enjoy "Family Guy" should be rounded up and sent to Mars.
posted by bardic at 2:12 PM on July 21, 2007
Family Guy is the secret torture method being used at Gitmo.
posted by The Deej at 2:32 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by The Deej at 2:32 PM on July 21, 2007
People who hate Family Guy are worse than the Nazi-loving Republican scumbags who infest the Internet's all-time favorite community blogging sites†.
†: Does not often include Metafilter, iconopun intended.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:39 PM on July 21, 2007
†: Does not often include Metafilter, iconopun intended.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:39 PM on July 21, 2007
But, what if you hate family guy, AND you are a Nazi-loving Republican scumbag?
posted by The Deej at 6:36 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by The Deej at 6:36 PM on July 21, 2007
“Real 'progressives' will not shout down Free Speech”
Hahahahahaha! *gasp* Yeah, good one.
Oh, wait, you're serious, aren't you? Idiocy like this is why it's so patently obvious to everyone but you that you're risible self-styled contrarian and free-thinker who hasn't been any closer to any form of political activism than some guy you overheard at some dive bar one night.
Davy, here's a clue: the American fetish for "free speech" which trumps all other concerns, particularly communitarian values, is considered by the entire rest of the world to be typical right-wing, American individualistic bullshit. Progressives the world over, as well as those of most every other political persuasion, are perfectly happy to shout down or outright criminalize speech they believe is hurtful or socially counterproductive.
Gah. What irritates me most about you, davy, is that you're such a cliche of the supposedly radicalized American. You start from a foundation of libertarianism, then “radicalize” it, from your perspective, to what amounts as slightly leftward towards anarchism, and then you see yourself as some sort of enlightened gadfly. When you can start name-checking prominent leaders from the history of world socialism beyond theorists, then you can start lecturing other Americans about how they're actually right-wing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:08 PM on July 21, 2007 [4 favorites]
Hahahahahaha! *gasp* Yeah, good one.
Oh, wait, you're serious, aren't you? Idiocy like this is why it's so patently obvious to everyone but you that you're risible self-styled contrarian and free-thinker who hasn't been any closer to any form of political activism than some guy you overheard at some dive bar one night.
Davy, here's a clue: the American fetish for "free speech" which trumps all other concerns, particularly communitarian values, is considered by the entire rest of the world to be typical right-wing, American individualistic bullshit. Progressives the world over, as well as those of most every other political persuasion, are perfectly happy to shout down or outright criminalize speech they believe is hurtful or socially counterproductive.
Gah. What irritates me most about you, davy, is that you're such a cliche of the supposedly radicalized American. You start from a foundation of libertarianism, then “radicalize” it, from your perspective, to what amounts as slightly leftward towards anarchism, and then you see yourself as some sort of enlightened gadfly. When you can start name-checking prominent leaders from the history of world socialism beyond theorists, then you can start lecturing other Americans about how they're actually right-wing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:08 PM on July 21, 2007 [4 favorites]
Davy, here's a clue: the American fetish for "free speech" which trumps all other concerns, particularly communitarian values, is considered by the entire rest of the world to be typical right-wing, American individualistic bullshit.
well, the entire rest of the world doesn't have to come to america and listen to it then ... i can understand why the entire rest of the world is upset with some of the things we do outside of our country ... but if they're upset with what we SAY in our country, they can just fuck off
besides ... people who misuse free speech are merely making it easier for us to identify them as idiots and assholes
posted by pyramid termite at 9:22 PM on July 21, 2007
well, the entire rest of the world doesn't have to come to america and listen to it then ... i can understand why the entire rest of the world is upset with some of the things we do outside of our country ... but if they're upset with what we SAY in our country, they can just fuck off
besides ... people who misuse free speech are merely making it easier for us to identify them as idiots and assholes
posted by pyramid termite at 9:22 PM on July 21, 2007
however, i must add that this is matt's personal property here and it's up to him what kind of speech he allows here and we don't have any "right" of free speech on HIS server
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on July 21, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on July 21, 2007
You can read some people's moral compasses by their preference for Tolstoy over or beneath Dostoyevsky, their sense of innate ethical chemistry, so to speak.
Me? I think people who enjoy "Family Guy" should be rounded up and sent to Mars.
And people who name check Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in the
Robert Heinlein wrote science fiction that was literature--L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e!!!--I tells ya! threads ? Ticket to Mars for them, too, or are we talking slow boat to the Andromeda Nebula ? Should the Geneva Conventions apply to those sorry ass sad sacks ? Boy, there's a moral dilemma...
posted by y2karl at 9:32 PM on July 21, 2007
Me? I think people who enjoy "Family Guy" should be rounded up and sent to Mars.
And people who name check Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in the
Robert Heinlein wrote science fiction that was literature--L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e!!!--I tells ya! threads ? Ticket to Mars for them, too, or are we talking slow boat to the Andromeda Nebula ? Should the Geneva Conventions apply to those sorry ass sad sacks ? Boy, there's a moral dilemma...
posted by y2karl at 9:32 PM on July 21, 2007
Oh, silly me -- I forgot that old standard, "Metafilter is oppressin' my right to free speech!" This thread wouldn't have been complete without that.
Are we missing any other old tropes that need to be added? Let's make sure we don't leave anything out.
posted by spiderwire at 9:48 PM on July 21, 2007
Are we missing any other old tropes that need to be added? Let's make sure we don't leave anything out.
posted by spiderwire at 9:48 PM on July 21, 2007
Ethereal Bligh: Davy, here's a clue: the American fetish for "free speech" which trumps all other concerns, particularly communitarian values, is considered by the entire rest of the world to be typical right-wing, American individualistic bullshit. Progressives the world over, as well as those of most every other political persuasion, are perfectly happy to shout down or outright criminalize speech they believe is hurtful or socially counterproductive.
As someone from the "rest of the world" I can tell you that thinking free speech is the cat's pyjamas isn't an American-only thing. Here are some quotes I found by non-Americans by googling "free speech" quotes:
Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.
- Nadine Gordimer
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
- Salman Rushdie
Woe to that nation whose literature is cut short by the intrusion of force. This is not merely interference with freedom of the press but the sealing up of a nation's heart, the excision of its memory.
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Liberty of thought means liberty to communicate one's thought.
- Salvador de Madariaga
The most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech –Diogenes of Sinope
and finally, a 19th Century critique of America for not being supporting free speech enough:
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Have I made my point?
posted by Kattullus at 10:06 PM on July 21, 2007
As someone from the "rest of the world" I can tell you that thinking free speech is the cat's pyjamas isn't an American-only thing. Here are some quotes I found by non-Americans by googling "free speech" quotes:
Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.
- Nadine Gordimer
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
- Salman Rushdie
Woe to that nation whose literature is cut short by the intrusion of force. This is not merely interference with freedom of the press but the sealing up of a nation's heart, the excision of its memory.
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Liberty of thought means liberty to communicate one's thought.
- Salvador de Madariaga
The most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech –Diogenes of Sinope
and finally, a 19th Century critique of America for not being supporting free speech enough:
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Have I made my point?
posted by Kattullus at 10:06 PM on July 21, 2007
Have I made my point?
If your point was to foolishly quote Solzhenitsyn and tacitly compare MeFi to a gulag, yes.
If your point was to make an argument, no.
You do realize that Tocqueville was writing about an America where "freedom of speech" meant no more "don't toss them in jail until after they've bad-mouthed the powerful," yes? That's not exactly what EB was referring to, methinks.
posted by spiderwire at 10:14 PM on July 21, 2007
If your point was to foolishly quote Solzhenitsyn and tacitly compare MeFi to a gulag, yes.
If your point was to make an argument, no.
You do realize that Tocqueville was writing about an America where "freedom of speech" meant no more "don't toss them in jail until after they've bad-mouthed the powerful," yes? That's not exactly what EB was referring to, methinks.
posted by spiderwire at 10:14 PM on July 21, 2007
Well, spiderwire, I guess I'll have to make my point again:
Freedom of speech is not something only Americans get hot under the collar about.
posted by Kattullus at 10:22 PM on July 21, 2007
Freedom of speech is not something only Americans get hot under the collar about.
posted by Kattullus at 10:22 PM on July 21, 2007
Kattullus, if that's what you understood EB to be saying, I think you should read his post again. His point was that there is a marked contrast between the rugged-individualist version of "free speech," i.e. "I should be able to say whatever I want, even if it's damaging to others," and the more common notion of "free speech," meaning "freedom to express one's opinions without censorship."
Your conflation of the concepts seems to indicate that you don't understand the distinction. Your quotation of Tocqueville is actually a striking example -- he was referring to a "free speech" defined by the doctrine of "no prior restraint," which meant, essentially, that you couldn't imprison someone for political speech beforehand, but no more; the government or the rich were perfectly free to throw you in jail after you'd published your little pamphlet. It didn't get you very far, and we'd consider it almost totalitarian today. Yet, that doctrine largely defined the standard of "free speech" in America well into the 20th century, when a "clear and present danger" standard was slowly substituted in as people became increasingly uncomfortable with government censorship of socialists, anarchists, etc. (And even that standard was a far cry from where the doctrine is today, and further still from the naïve conceptualization davy seems to subscribe to.)
Of course, the text of the First Amendment has never changed -- but the practical operation of the doctrine has ranged all the way from "no prior restraint" to "I should be able to say whatever I want on MeFi, stop oppressin' me!" Your quotations are all very nice things to put on one's wall and intone in grand voices, but they mean nothing without political context.
EB is making a legitimate -- though arguable -- point that the American version of "free speech" is quite the weird beast, and quoting one-line aphorisms from non-Americans back at him isn't a meaningful way of contesting what he said. The term itself is merely a rhetorical device, like the word "democracy" -- it doesn't refer to anything without context, which you haven't provided. Your response lacks substance.
posted by spiderwire at 10:44 PM on July 21, 2007
Your conflation of the concepts seems to indicate that you don't understand the distinction. Your quotation of Tocqueville is actually a striking example -- he was referring to a "free speech" defined by the doctrine of "no prior restraint," which meant, essentially, that you couldn't imprison someone for political speech beforehand, but no more; the government or the rich were perfectly free to throw you in jail after you'd published your little pamphlet. It didn't get you very far, and we'd consider it almost totalitarian today. Yet, that doctrine largely defined the standard of "free speech" in America well into the 20th century, when a "clear and present danger" standard was slowly substituted in as people became increasingly uncomfortable with government censorship of socialists, anarchists, etc. (And even that standard was a far cry from where the doctrine is today, and further still from the naïve conceptualization davy seems to subscribe to.)
Of course, the text of the First Amendment has never changed -- but the practical operation of the doctrine has ranged all the way from "no prior restraint" to "I should be able to say whatever I want on MeFi, stop oppressin' me!" Your quotations are all very nice things to put on one's wall and intone in grand voices, but they mean nothing without political context.
EB is making a legitimate -- though arguable -- point that the American version of "free speech" is quite the weird beast, and quoting one-line aphorisms from non-Americans back at him isn't a meaningful way of contesting what he said. The term itself is merely a rhetorical device, like the word "democracy" -- it doesn't refer to anything without context, which you haven't provided. Your response lacks substance.
posted by spiderwire at 10:44 PM on July 21, 2007
Your comment is right on the money, spiderwire, excepting that this is not only a cultural extreme of Americans, the extreme is reflected in cross-national comparison of speech law. You can be arrested for neo-Nazi speech in Germany, and most Germans are completely comfortable with this. For that matter, most Canadians are comfortable with their hate-speech laws. And while many Canadians will grumble about the law involved in the Homolka trial and related, most will still generally agree with the principle underlying it.
Most other left-leaning people of the world see free speech as something that should prevail unless there's a good specific argument against a specific type of speech. When there is, they have little ideological difficulties in restricting these examples of speech they believe are too harmful to allow. In contrast, Americans hold the idea of free speech as something near-absolute and as a fundamental individual right.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:58 PM on July 21, 2007
Most other left-leaning people of the world see free speech as something that should prevail unless there's a good specific argument against a specific type of speech. When there is, they have little ideological difficulties in restricting these examples of speech they believe are too harmful to allow. In contrast, Americans hold the idea of free speech as something near-absolute and as a fundamental individual right.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:58 PM on July 21, 2007
Most other left-leaning people of the world see free speech as something that should prevail unless there's a good specific argument against a specific type of speech. When there is, they have little ideological difficulties in restricting these examples of speech they believe are too harmful to allow.
free clue, eb - that's why some of us don't entirely trust the left in this country ... and for all the counter examples of "well, what about nazi speech?", "what about hate speech?", can anyone point out where these ideas are actually remotely close to becoming mainstream views in this country?
if it's too dangerous to allow, why isn't the usa being overrun with nazis and hate speakers? ... if anti-hate speech laws are so effective, why are germans and canadians still being threatened with prosecution?
and isn't the whole argument that some speech should not be allowed an admission that some ideas are so seductive that they cannot be refuted in an open marketplace of ideas? ... and isn't it also saying that there are legitimate reasons for the state to create political prisoners?
or is this just a way for certain governments to pat themselves on the back for locking up extreme racists, so they don't have to confront the less brazen racists in their society?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:13 PM on July 21, 2007
free clue, eb - that's why some of us don't entirely trust the left in this country ... and for all the counter examples of "well, what about nazi speech?", "what about hate speech?", can anyone point out where these ideas are actually remotely close to becoming mainstream views in this country?
if it's too dangerous to allow, why isn't the usa being overrun with nazis and hate speakers? ... if anti-hate speech laws are so effective, why are germans and canadians still being threatened with prosecution?
and isn't the whole argument that some speech should not be allowed an admission that some ideas are so seductive that they cannot be refuted in an open marketplace of ideas? ... and isn't it also saying that there are legitimate reasons for the state to create political prisoners?
or is this just a way for certain governments to pat themselves on the back for locking up extreme racists, so they don't have to confront the less brazen racists in their society?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:13 PM on July 21, 2007
For more reading on the topic, these Wikipedia articles may prove interesting (I apologize if this appears to be a document dump, but it's late -- I will try to summarize): Freedom of speech in the United States gives a decent rundown, though the explanation of the clear and present danger test outlined in Schenck is more relevant to the point I just made.
Note that there really weren't any free speech cases litigated at the federal level prior to Schenck in 1919, despite, e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts -- that's partially because the 1st Amendment wasn't "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment until Reconstruction, but also because there really was no prevailing prior standard. Schenck cites the 1868 "bad tendency" test, but it's generally agreed that this is nonsense. Thanks to Zechariah Chafee, Justice Holmes retroactively adopted the "clear and present danger" test in Abrams a few months later:
[snipped the history lesson from my personal digression that follows]
posted by spiderwire at 11:26 PM on July 21, 2007
Note that there really weren't any free speech cases litigated at the federal level prior to Schenck in 1919, despite, e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts -- that's partially because the 1st Amendment wasn't "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment until Reconstruction, but also because there really was no prevailing prior standard. Schenck cites the 1868 "bad tendency" test, but it's generally agreed that this is nonsense. Thanks to Zechariah Chafee, Justice Holmes retroactively adopted the "clear and present danger" test in Abrams a few months later:
Having read Chafee's article, Holmes decided to retroactively reinterpret what he had meant by "clear and present danger" and accepted Chafee's characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck, perhaps the only time in history where a single legal scholar changed the course of jurisprudence. ... Justice Brandeis soon began citing the "clear and present danger" test in his concurrences, but the new standard was not accepted by the full court until its official adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio 50 years later.Regardless, it's a well-accepted fact that prior to 1919, "free speech" in America wasn't really that "free" at all -- at least, not in the way that we currently conceive of it.
[snipped the history lesson from my personal digression that follows]
posted by spiderwire at 11:26 PM on July 21, 2007
If you can't discuss the specific operation of the concept of freedom of expression, you shouldn't be muddying the waters with vague incantations of vacuous political bywords. To cite Tocqueville on this subject is damning enough, but the other "responses" above are equally facile; EB's argument is hardly answered by the fact that some non-Americans around the world -- even if we stipulated that they represented the commonly-held view -- have broadly condoned the notion of "free speech."
Look, everyone pays lip service to the magic words "free speech." Ironically, that kabuki dance is a large part of the problem EB rightfully isolates -- invocation of the terms without reference to actual meaning.
In fact, it's this sort of pandering that enables the intellectual dishonesty of the screw-you-I've-got-a-megaphone folks, that allows them to characterize their propaganda as "free speech," that puts them in a position to demonize their opponents for challenging their shout-down, play-the-victim tactics.
And it's repulsive to facilitate that vileness by trading on the credibility of good and honorable people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Maybe you don't know better, but you should.
posted by spiderwire at 11:27 PM on July 21, 2007
Look, everyone pays lip service to the magic words "free speech." Ironically, that kabuki dance is a large part of the problem EB rightfully isolates -- invocation of the terms without reference to actual meaning.
In fact, it's this sort of pandering that enables the intellectual dishonesty of the screw-you-I've-got-a-megaphone folks, that allows them to characterize their propaganda as "free speech," that puts them in a position to demonize their opponents for challenging their shout-down, play-the-victim tactics.
And it's repulsive to facilitate that vileness by trading on the credibility of good and honorable people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Maybe you don't know better, but you should.
posted by spiderwire at 11:27 PM on July 21, 2007
if it's too dangerous to allow, why isn't the usa being overrun with nazis and hate speakers?
You're apparently not familiar with this wonderful lady named Ann Coulter.
Also, I'm fairly certain that EB isn't talking about hate-crime laws, though I could be wrong -- I took him to be referring to the sort of "equal time to all views, regardless of legitimacy" position that lets people like Coulter, Malkin, and their ilk sit at the same table as reasonable commentators simply because they have "alternate viewpoints."
Or, as a better example, the tactic that Intelligent Design advocates use to argue that they should get equal representation in textbooks next to "evolutionists."
I think that distinction is exceptionally important, but I'll go and reread EB again, just to make sure.
posted by spiderwire at 11:33 PM on July 21, 2007
You're apparently not familiar with this wonderful lady named Ann Coulter.
Also, I'm fairly certain that EB isn't talking about hate-crime laws, though I could be wrong -- I took him to be referring to the sort of "equal time to all views, regardless of legitimacy" position that lets people like Coulter, Malkin, and their ilk sit at the same table as reasonable commentators simply because they have "alternate viewpoints."
Or, as a better example, the tactic that Intelligent Design advocates use to argue that they should get equal representation in textbooks next to "evolutionists."
I think that distinction is exceptionally important, but I'll go and reread EB again, just to make sure.
posted by spiderwire at 11:33 PM on July 21, 2007
Hmmm. Nope, EB was saying what I thought. PT, the crux of your misunderstanding is the notion that "the whole argument that some speech should not be allowed [is] an admission that some ideas are so seductive that they cannot be refuted in an open marketplace of ideas" -- that's not the argument at all. The argument is that some ideas are simply not as objectively legitimate as others, regardless of the fact that the thin veneer of political legitimacy can be used to coat any policy, no matter how vile it might be.
What EB is highlighting is that most countries don't have a problem distinguishing between people like Coulter -- who, frankly, is a neo-nazi -- and reasonable conservatives. (I might disagree with Jonathan Rauch, but I'll listen to him.) Likewise, the fact that Intelligent Design can be called a "theory" does not entitle it to equal face time with evolution. These are simply not difficult distinctions to make, nor do they act as a bars to discussions and alternative ideas.
Yet, in America, that sort of exclusion is often met with a bogeyman like "isn't it also saying that there are legitimate reasons for the state to create political prisoners?" Of course not, and the terms of your own examples -- Germany, Canada, et. al. -- prove that's not the case. (And really, do we want to compare the U.S. to Canada on the "political prisoners" front?)
In fact, your argument is precisely the misconception of "free speech" that EB is talking about. Many Americans seem to have the notion burned into their heads that rational moderation of debates is tantamount to totalitarianism -- or at least that the former is a slippery slope to the latter. This childish preoccupation with objectivity ironically leads us into the worst sort of subjectivity and base discourse -- a naïve political-correctness that leaves us unwilling to step in and say, "No. We are going to draw the line against pundits who call candidates 'faggots' and refer to Muslims as 'ragheads,' against radical fundamentalists whose 'theories' have no basis in fact. Those people do not deserve to be taken seriously." Worse, if reasonable people point out that this is an option, and that it's very obviously distinct from political censorship, they're instantly tarred as Stalinists -- as you've just done. It would be farcical if it wasn't ruining our political discourse.
posted by spiderwire at 11:55 PM on July 21, 2007
What EB is highlighting is that most countries don't have a problem distinguishing between people like Coulter -- who, frankly, is a neo-nazi -- and reasonable conservatives. (I might disagree with Jonathan Rauch, but I'll listen to him.) Likewise, the fact that Intelligent Design can be called a "theory" does not entitle it to equal face time with evolution. These are simply not difficult distinctions to make, nor do they act as a bars to discussions and alternative ideas.
Yet, in America, that sort of exclusion is often met with a bogeyman like "isn't it also saying that there are legitimate reasons for the state to create political prisoners?" Of course not, and the terms of your own examples -- Germany, Canada, et. al. -- prove that's not the case. (And really, do we want to compare the U.S. to Canada on the "political prisoners" front?)
In fact, your argument is precisely the misconception of "free speech" that EB is talking about. Many Americans seem to have the notion burned into their heads that rational moderation of debates is tantamount to totalitarianism -- or at least that the former is a slippery slope to the latter. This childish preoccupation with objectivity ironically leads us into the worst sort of subjectivity and base discourse -- a naïve political-correctness that leaves us unwilling to step in and say, "No. We are going to draw the line against pundits who call candidates 'faggots' and refer to Muslims as 'ragheads,' against radical fundamentalists whose 'theories' have no basis in fact. Those people do not deserve to be taken seriously." Worse, if reasonable people point out that this is an option, and that it's very obviously distinct from political censorship, they're instantly tarred as Stalinists -- as you've just done. It would be farcical if it wasn't ruining our political discourse.
posted by spiderwire at 11:55 PM on July 21, 2007
You're apparently not familiar with this wonderful lady named Ann Coulter.
the only thing she's overran is her 15 minutes of fame and her charge account at botox r us
I took him to be referring to the sort of "equal time to all views, regardless of legitimacy" position
he doesn't use that phrase or anything like it
The argument is that some ideas are simply not as objectively legitimate as others
he wasn't referring to legitimacy, he was referring to laws ... and in fact, the whole argument only makes sense in reference to laws
In fact, your argument is precisely the misconception of "free speech" that EB is talking about.
you haven't cited either of our arguments honestly ... and deliberately confusing the issue of law with the issue of how private parties and the media should edit public debate
Worse, if reasonable people point out that this is an option, and that it's very obviously distinct from political censorship, they're instantly tarred as Stalinists -- as you've just done.
if you're going to flat out lie about what i said, you can consider this discussion over
posted by pyramid termite at 5:26 AM on July 22, 2007
the only thing she's overran is her 15 minutes of fame and her charge account at botox r us
I took him to be referring to the sort of "equal time to all views, regardless of legitimacy" position
he doesn't use that phrase or anything like it
The argument is that some ideas are simply not as objectively legitimate as others
he wasn't referring to legitimacy, he was referring to laws ... and in fact, the whole argument only makes sense in reference to laws
In fact, your argument is precisely the misconception of "free speech" that EB is talking about.
you haven't cited either of our arguments honestly ... and deliberately confusing the issue of law with the issue of how private parties and the media should edit public debate
Worse, if reasonable people point out that this is an option, and that it's very obviously distinct from political censorship, they're instantly tarred as Stalinists -- as you've just done.
if you're going to flat out lie about what i said, you can consider this discussion over
posted by pyramid termite at 5:26 AM on July 22, 2007
“ree clue, eb - that's why some of us don't entirely trust the left in this country”
Well, sure.
Look, I'm not invested in either affirming the American extreme of free speech, not refuting it. For most of my life, I pretty much accepted it without question, even when I first began to be confronted by non-Americans with more moderate views who asserted the importance of communitarian values over freedom of speech in some cases. I was usually aghast. Really, I'm still sort of instinctively aghast. But I long ago started asking myself, gee, what is so inviolate about free speech?
But that's mostly beside the point. The things spiderwire is saying are good things and he's not really far off the mark when he attributes to me some opinions about free speech and how Americans invoke it. But, again, that's mostly beside the point of my participation in this discussion. My point was simply in response to davy's risible assertion that real progressives never shout down other people's speech. That's not only descriptively false about real progressives, it implies something about progressivism that simply isn't true. Near-absolute unfettered speech, as we have in the US, is not on the radar of most progressives around the world. Rather, usually the opposite is true: with things like hate-crime laws and such the movement is toward restricting speech that is believed to be socially harmful. Regardless of my thoughts on free speech, I was mostly annoyed that davy could be so completely wrong in multiple respects.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2007
Well, sure.
Look, I'm not invested in either affirming the American extreme of free speech, not refuting it. For most of my life, I pretty much accepted it without question, even when I first began to be confronted by non-Americans with more moderate views who asserted the importance of communitarian values over freedom of speech in some cases. I was usually aghast. Really, I'm still sort of instinctively aghast. But I long ago started asking myself, gee, what is so inviolate about free speech?
But that's mostly beside the point. The things spiderwire is saying are good things and he's not really far off the mark when he attributes to me some opinions about free speech and how Americans invoke it. But, again, that's mostly beside the point of my participation in this discussion. My point was simply in response to davy's risible assertion that real progressives never shout down other people's speech. That's not only descriptively false about real progressives, it implies something about progressivism that simply isn't true. Near-absolute unfettered speech, as we have in the US, is not on the radar of most progressives around the world. Rather, usually the opposite is true: with things like hate-crime laws and such the movement is toward restricting speech that is believed to be socially harmful. Regardless of my thoughts on free speech, I was mostly annoyed that davy could be so completely wrong in multiple respects.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2007
My point was simply in response to davy's risible assertion that real progressives never shout down other people's speech.
what's truly risible about his statement is the idea that one can shout something down on a website ...
Near-absolute unfettered speech, as we have in the US, is not on the radar of most progressives around the world.
i consider that to be a flaw ... but i'm not going to touch the idea of what "real progressives" think as i suspect one couldn't get them to agree on that anyway
but i still think the burden of proof is on those who claim that our form of free speech is harming our society in a way that the government should interfere in
I was mostly annoyed that davy could be so completely wrong in multiple respects.
the old "i don't have free speech on your website" argument is tired and lame and he shouldn't make it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 AM on July 22, 2007
what's truly risible about his statement is the idea that one can shout something down on a website ...
Near-absolute unfettered speech, as we have in the US, is not on the radar of most progressives around the world.
i consider that to be a flaw ... but i'm not going to touch the idea of what "real progressives" think as i suspect one couldn't get them to agree on that anyway
but i still think the burden of proof is on those who claim that our form of free speech is harming our society in a way that the government should interfere in
I was mostly annoyed that davy could be so completely wrong in multiple respects.
the old "i don't have free speech on your website" argument is tired and lame and he shouldn't make it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 AM on July 22, 2007
Since the post itself got deleted, can I just say he had me until the interpretive dance. I would have clocked the guy at that point.
posted by Deathalicious at 12:51 PM on July 22, 2007
posted by Deathalicious at 12:51 PM on July 22, 2007
Since the post itself got deleted, can I just say he had me until the interpretive dance. I would have clocked the guy at that point.
Are we still in that thread? [looks up] Oh, wow.
posted by spiderwire at 3:14 PM on July 22, 2007
Are we still in that thread? [looks up] Oh, wow.
posted by spiderwire at 3:14 PM on July 22, 2007
"Progressives the world over, as well as those of most every other political persuasion, are perfectly happy to shout down or outright criminalize speech they believe is hurtful or socially counterproductive."
Then they're not really Progressive by my definition. I gather this will put me out of step with a few of the world's Maoists, Trotskyists and Hoxhaites, as well as several of their "Social Democratic" or "Democratic Socialist" fellow travellers, but that's too bad for them. If others must continue choosing Marx over Bakunin almost a century after that was shown in practice to be a shitty idea then they are the ones who don't understand. (No I do not engage in political discourse to be popular either.)
As for your impugnment of my "radical creds," WHATEVER. Who died and made you Madam Rosa Luxemburg?
posted by davy at 8:54 PM on July 22, 2007
Then they're not really Progressive by my definition. I gather this will put me out of step with a few of the world's Maoists, Trotskyists and Hoxhaites, as well as several of their "Social Democratic" or "Democratic Socialist" fellow travellers, but that's too bad for them. If others must continue choosing Marx over Bakunin almost a century after that was shown in practice to be a shitty idea then they are the ones who don't understand. (No I do not engage in political discourse to be popular either.)
As for your impugnment of my "radical creds," WHATEVER. Who died and made you Madam Rosa Luxemburg?
posted by davy at 8:54 PM on July 22, 2007
And consider this: Ethereal Bligh basically is telling me that for the past 30 years, instead of seeking to further my views by persuasion and argument, I should have been striving for State power to put him against a wall. It must feel wonderful to be a Party member when your Party is in charge, too bad for me I'm against that too.
As for this website, of course the Mod Squad has the power to delete and ban. That the way Metafilter works, and I don't favor taking that power away from them. (Metafilter is, after all, only a website.) I do however reserve the right to disagree with any damn thing they say or do, as I do with anybody else. I'm not objecting to Metafilter, I'm objecting to the mentality of the majority that runs and uses it, not by trying to take it down but through verbal means. I must acknowledge that as far as Freedom of Speech goes this "links blog" is not exactly hell; like I said I'm surprised they didn't ban me long ago. The problem as I see it is not that Metafilter truly sucks but that it could be better.
Now I'm gonna go look at some nudie pics of Brezhnev.
posted by davy at 10:12 PM on July 22, 2007
As for this website, of course the Mod Squad has the power to delete and ban. That the way Metafilter works, and I don't favor taking that power away from them. (Metafilter is, after all, only a website.) I do however reserve the right to disagree with any damn thing they say or do, as I do with anybody else. I'm not objecting to Metafilter, I'm objecting to the mentality of the majority that runs and uses it, not by trying to take it down but through verbal means. I must acknowledge that as far as Freedom of Speech goes this "links blog" is not exactly hell; like I said I'm surprised they didn't ban me long ago. The problem as I see it is not that Metafilter truly sucks but that it could be better.
Now I'm gonna go look at some nudie pics of Brezhnev.
posted by davy at 10:12 PM on July 22, 2007
Hey pyramid termite, to shout something down on Metafilter you flag it, denounce it and email the admins complaining about it. You can tell it's been shouted down when a post or comment is deleted and/or the poster/commentator is banned. It's so easy that it happens every day.
It helps if the site's largely comprised of people desperate for virtual approval. Americans are funny like that. It's how we wound up with King George Bush.
posted by davy at 11:08 PM on July 22, 2007
It helps if the site's largely comprised of people desperate for virtual approval. Americans are funny like that. It's how we wound up with King George Bush.
posted by davy at 11:08 PM on July 22, 2007
davy, the reason no is banning you or or favoriting you is that you are nowhere near as controversial as you think you are, no matter how much you protest that we do.
posted by Snyder at 12:32 AM on July 23, 2007
posted by Snyder at 12:32 AM on July 23, 2007
Hey pyramid termite, to shout something down on Metafilter you flag it, denounce it and email the admins complaining about it.
it's still up to 3 different people who are under no obligation to follow the shouts of the crowd
they are also under no obligation to wait until there's shouting
of course, that's not dramatic enough for a whiner like you
posted by pyramid termite at 7:33 AM on July 23, 2007
it's still up to 3 different people who are under no obligation to follow the shouts of the crowd
they are also under no obligation to wait until there's shouting
of course, that's not dramatic enough for a whiner like you
posted by pyramid termite at 7:33 AM on July 23, 2007
Oh Snyder, wow, I've become a Mainstream Mefite! And I don't even have a tattoo on my face or a fish in my pants! Neato!
posted by davy at 8:44 AM on July 23, 2007
posted by davy at 8:44 AM on July 23, 2007
By the way, that U.G. Krishnamurti guy sounds interesting.
posted by davy at 8:45 AM on July 23, 2007
posted by davy at 8:45 AM on July 23, 2007
Hey pyramid termite, if you focus intensely enough on your personal distate for me when I say "grass is often green" you'll not only call me Mean Names you'll find yourself coming up with proof that the normal color for grass is orange. I hereby appoint myself your guru: your new mantra is "I HATE DAVY!" Maybe it'd help if you get yourself a string of beads to keep track of the repetitions.
posted by davy at 8:50 AM on July 23, 2007
posted by davy at 8:50 AM on July 23, 2007
"But I long ago started asking myself, gee, what is so inviolate about free speech?"
Because without it people can be stood against a wall and shot for saying the Wrong thing (whatever Wrong might be at any time and place). And without constant defense of the principle it will be impossible to defend it, i.e. to keep people from being penalized for speech. This is really basic.
People who'd limit speech want to shoot people who say things they don't want to hear.
posted by davy at 8:58 AM on July 23, 2007
Because without it people can be stood against a wall and shot for saying the Wrong thing (whatever Wrong might be at any time and place). And without constant defense of the principle it will be impossible to defend it, i.e. to keep people from being penalized for speech. This is really basic.
People who'd limit speech want to shoot people who say things they don't want to hear.
posted by davy at 8:58 AM on July 23, 2007
Hey pyramid termite, if you focus intensely enough on your personal distate for me
don't flatter yourself
Maybe it'd help if you get yourself a string of beads to keep track of the repetitions.
this page keeps track of the repetitions for me ... it also works wonders when i can't sleep at night
posted by pyramid termite at 9:28 AM on July 23, 2007
don't flatter yourself
Maybe it'd help if you get yourself a string of beads to keep track of the repetitions.
this page keeps track of the repetitions for me ... it also works wonders when i can't sleep at night
posted by pyramid termite at 9:28 AM on July 23, 2007
Damn, I wish I bored myself to sleep better. Insomnia plagues me. But I'm glad somebody can get some use out of my output, even if it's not the kind I'd prefer.
posted by davy at 10:39 AM on July 23, 2007
posted by davy at 10:39 AM on July 23, 2007
I can't believe this thread has more comments than the limericks thread.
posted by misha at 2:44 PM on July 24, 2007
posted by misha at 2:44 PM on July 24, 2007
There once was a young mod name of cortex
Who would only wear unwashed Goretex
They said with a sniff
If you'd just caught one whiff
You'd see why he don't get no more sex
posted by y2karl at 3:28 PM on July 24, 2007
Who would only wear unwashed Goretex
They said with a sniff
If you'd just caught one whiff
You'd see why he don't get no more sex
posted by y2karl at 3:28 PM on July 24, 2007
There once was a mefite named karl
Who got BANNED SO HARD
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:33 PM on July 24, 2007
Who got BANNED SO HARD
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:33 PM on July 24, 2007
Fewer limericks, though.
For the moment.
posted by cortex
Paging It's Raining Florence Henderson.
posted by The Deej at 3:38 PM on July 24, 2007
For the moment.
posted by cortex
Paging It's Raining Florence Henderson.
posted by The Deej at 3:38 PM on July 24, 2007
A cortical mod and y2Karl
Got into it tooth, claw, and snarl
The Deej called IRFH
To help quell their dark rage
But I never really understood what the hell this thread was even about. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:44 PM on July 24, 2007
Got into it tooth, claw, and snarl
The Deej called IRFH
To help quell their dark rage
But I never really understood what the hell this thread was even about. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:44 PM on July 24, 2007
Ahh, excellent! Leave it to Flo to invent a whole new genre of poetry: the freeform limerick.
posted by The Deej at 9:22 PM on July 24, 2007
posted by The Deej at 9:22 PM on July 24, 2007
There once was a mefite named karl
Who got BANNED SO HARD (not so far real!)
So, just to make things yet worse
He finished the verse
Smelly cortex could not ungnarl
posted by y2karl at 11:32 PM on July 24, 2007
Who got BANNED SO HARD (not so far real!)
So, just to make things yet worse
He finished the verse
Smelly cortex could not ungnarl
posted by y2karl at 11:32 PM on July 24, 2007
"karl" "hard" and "real" do not really even come close to rhyming...
posted by spiderwire at 11:38 PM on July 24, 2007
posted by spiderwire at 11:38 PM on July 24, 2007
elpapa's poor thread was erased!
he asked why he'd been so debased?
we settled that score
then fifty-odd more
and now leave this trainwreck in disgrace.
posted by spiderwire at 11:43 PM on July 24, 2007
he asked why he'd been so debased?
we settled that score
then fifty-odd more
and now leave this trainwreck in disgrace.
posted by spiderwire at 11:43 PM on July 24, 2007
"karl" "hard" and "real" do not really even come close to rhyming...
Well, no they don't but I took the 2nd line of his implied limerick as unfinished and added a parenthetical play-on-words phrase.
Karl and "far real" come closer to rhyming. So there, Mr. Nitpicker.
posted by y2karl at 6:13 AM on July 25, 2007
Well, no they don't but I took the 2nd line of his implied limerick as unfinished and added a parenthetical play-on-words phrase.
Karl and "far real" come closer to rhyming. So there, Mr. Nitpicker.
posted by y2karl at 6:13 AM on July 25, 2007
When I scan, peoples heads asplode.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:28 AM on July 25, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:28 AM on July 25, 2007
If you ever arrange for a meetup
Don't put your guard down your feet up
Your guests will all snark
From daylight till dark
But if you complain you'll get beat up.
posted by The Deej at 11:52 AM on July 25, 2007
Don't put your guard down your feet up
Your guests will all snark
From daylight till dark
But if you complain you'll get beat up.
posted by The Deej at 11:52 AM on July 25, 2007
This seems as good a place as any to state for the record that I fucking limericks.
I totally love the < blink> tag, though.
also, marquee. Can we have marquee back, please?
posted by dersins at 4:46 PM on July 25, 2007
I totally love the < blink> tag, though.
also, marquee. Can we have marquee back, please?
posted by dersins at 4:46 PM on July 25, 2007
also, marquee. Can we have marquee back, please?
posted by dersins
Yeah!!! That would be great! It would be so cool to write a limerick with a marquee tag!
posted by The Deej at 6:44 PM on July 25, 2007
posted by dersins
Yeah!!! That would be great! It would be so cool to write a limerick with a marquee tag!
posted by The Deej at 6:44 PM on July 25, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by dersins at 9:42 AM on July 20, 2007 [6 favorites]