Perhaps we should limit posts about the Cordoba House to the still open thread from 4 days ago

August 4, 2010 10:18 AM

Is a second post about the Cordoba House issue (first, latter) within 4 days really necessary?

While the second post takes a different angle on the issue, it's reads like updatefilter, IMO, and possibly made simply an as "atta boy Bloomberg/democracy/rights etc" post in response to the contentious MetaTalk post about the first post.

I am suggesting, not demanding, that the post be deleted for the above reasons and discussion be directed to the still open post. If not (which is of course up to the mods) I ask that Metafilter posts made about the Cordoba House in the next few weeks be considered against the two threads that already exist for it.

posted by nomadicink to Etiquette/Policy at 10:18 AM (76 comments total)

"Really necessary" is a hard one to nail down, but people seemed to want to have a post about it and Matt nixed an earlier poorly-framed one this morning with the notion that someone could try harder and do better. It appears that's what zarq did, so, eh, okay.

It's been a bumpy original thread and it's kind of big developing news (for NYC, for the US politically and ideologically, and globally to the degree that it's very much not a contained domestic issue in how it's being viewed and discussed), so another thread seems not crazy, much as I'd like to be done with headaches related to the subject.

I ask that Metafilter posts made about the Cordoba House in the next few weeks be considered against the two threads that already exist for it.

Yeah, that's a given.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:20 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

If for nothing else, I'm glad to have the new post because the old one is encrusted with shit.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:20 AM on August 4, 2010 [6 favorites]

Is a second Metatalk post about a post about Cordoba House within four days really necessary?
posted by MuffinMan at 10:23 AM on August 4, 2010 [9 favorites]

Thanks for the reply cortex, that's understandale.

Is a second Metatalk post about a post about Cordoba House within four days really necessary?

First MeTa was closed, so yeah.
posted by nomadicink at 10:24 AM on August 4, 2010

I am suggesting, not demanding

thanks for not forcing us.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:25 AM on August 4, 2010

understandale=understandable I dream of you, three minute edit window
posted by nomadicink at 10:25 AM on August 4, 2010

The first post is the story of the contention, the second is about a man with a lot of power -- political and economic both -- putting his foot down and saying "the mosque stays because we are Americans" to a lot of people (New Yorkers or not) who needed to be reminded of what being an American means.
posted by griphus at 10:26 AM on August 4, 2010 [11 favorites]

fwiw, I think the older post stopped being a decent place to discuss anything and this one is now a better place to discuss the issue at hand.
posted by shmegegge at 10:28 AM on August 4, 2010

I think it's offensive to build a new post so near the place where the old post once stood.
posted by mazola at 10:28 AM on August 4, 2010 [89 favorites]

I think the second post is actually about an incredible speech promoting religious tolerance delivered by a powerful public figure who risks defying current popular sentiment for no obvious short-term benefit.
posted by mullacc at 10:28 AM on August 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

It was truly an embodiment of the diversity and strength of the city of New York to see Bloomberg give that speech surrounded by people from all three races.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:29 AM on August 4, 2010 [10 favorites]

brand new post day?
posted by cavalier at 10:31 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

shmegegge: "I think the older post stopped being a decent place to discuss anything [...] "

How can we deal with this as a community? I'm tired of feeling like any thoughtful comments I might make will be drowned out in lulzy idiocy or militant rhetoric.
posted by boo_radley at 10:33 AM on August 4, 2010

It was truly an embodiment of the diversity and strength of the city of New York to see Bloomberg give that speech surrounded by people from all three races.

The protoss and zerg showed up !?
posted by iamabot at 10:33 AM on August 4, 2010 [7 favorites]

The speech is a big story, all by itself. And in addition, zarq did a great job framing it.

Some stories (BP oil spill, e.g.) have significant later developments which warrant new posts, not ginormous threads which have also left the front page due to the passage of time.

Also, I'm a dedicated MeFi, including looking often at recent activity, but when a thread gets over 400 comments long, a new post is going to get a lot more attention and useful commentary.
posted by bearwife at 10:34 AM on August 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

No [post] is an island, entire of itself; every [post] is a piece of the [community], a part of the main. If a [post superficially like a post from earlier in the week] be [deleted by a mod], [MetaFilter] is the less, as well as if a [lulzy comment] were, as well as if a [sockpuppet] of thy friend's or of thine own were: any [post's deletion] diminishes me, because I am involved in [the community], and therefore never send to know for whom the [Metatalk post calls out]; it [calls out for thee].
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:34 AM on August 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

The mods should allow three Cordoba House posts, one for each of the races.
posted by Drastic at 10:37 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think it's absolutely necessary. This metatalk post, not so much.
posted by blucevalo at 10:37 AM on August 4, 2010

cortex, for whatever it's worth, i sincerely apologize for giving you and the other mods headaches. And thank you for letting it survive, even though the discussion has been pretty heated.

nomadicink, Of course, no post is "necessary" per se. I posted for a lot of reasons, but primarily because I thought the speech was noteworthy enough to merit its own FPP. Plus as cortex notes, mathowie's deletion reason seemed like an open invitation to do so at the time.
posted by zarq at 10:40 AM on August 4, 2010

If we're not careful, we might come to the uncomfortable realization that the internet is not really necessary.
posted by found missing at 10:41 AM on August 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

mathowie's deletion reason seemed like an open invitation to do so at the time.

Ah, I was unaware of the earlier deleted post, which definitely puts things in a different light.
posted by nomadicink at 10:44 AM on August 4, 2010

Kind of related, when the Prop 8 ruling comes down later today, discussion will be funneled into the existing thread, right? (I really thought said thread could've waited until the actual decision came in the afternoon, but whatever.)
posted by Gator at 10:44 AM on August 4, 2010

After St. Alia dropped a steaming load in my thread, I'm glad there's a new thread where discussion can take place. Thanks, zarq.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:53 AM on August 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

All of this is unnecessary. We should just be eating, excreting, breeding, and sleeping. Preferably not all at the same time.
posted by jtron at 10:53 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

bearwife, Thank you. That's quite kind of you.

Blazecock, you're very welcome.

And mazola? This comment was HILARIOUS. :D
posted by zarq at 10:58 AM on August 4, 2010

MetaFilter: Because the old one is encrusted with shit.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:00 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ah, I was unaware of the earlier deleted post, which definitely puts things in a different light.

I run Plutor's deleted posts script in Greasemonkey on FireFox. :)
posted by zarq at 11:01 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hmm. Before this Meta thread was posted I posted this in the thread in question:

"For those asking if this post is, well postworthy: I'm sure that there are other perhaps less prominent politicians making the same case as the erstwhile Democrat Bloomberg is but this defense of principles as opposed to toeing the party line is unfortunately unusual. There is a subtext here in that the Republicans, being lately adrift, have increasingly pandered to the desires of the more base members of their base. Bloomberg is a Republican so this may mark a departure. It also challenges that rural America has some special right to define what is American which has been a topic of late."

So while the object - the Cordoba Initiative - may be the same I think the subject is different.

Disagree at the peril of me not doing anything.
posted by vapidave at 11:04 AM on August 4, 2010

I know it's a city in Spain, but when I see the Cordoba Initiative, a vision springs to mind of Khan Noonien Singh talking about fine Corinthian leather.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:06 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Bloomberg's not a Republican anymore. He quit the GOP in 2007.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:06 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I know it's a city in Spain, but when I see the Cordoba Initiative, a vision springs to mind of Khan Noonien Singh talking about fine Corinthian leather.

FROM HELL'S HEART, I SIT ON THEE....
posted by zarq at 11:07 AM on August 4, 2010 [9 favorites]

Preferably not all at the same time.

At the very least, not without a safe-word.
posted by quin at 11:30 AM on August 4, 2010

I am shocked, shocked I say, to see that through all the threads about this subject, MeFi as a whole has missed the obvious historical precedent.
posted by timsteil at 11:33 AM on August 4, 2010

a vision springs to mind of Khan Noonien Singh talking about fine Corinthian leather.

Corrrrrdobah!
posted by adamdschneider at 11:36 AM on August 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

I see repeated posts all the time here- especially Lady Gaga posts and posts with someone named "Lovecraft" in them.
posted by L'OM at 11:50 AM on August 4, 2010

especially Lady Gaga posts

Shhhh. You'll spoil tomorrow's surprise for the Mods.


I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
posted by zarq at 12:06 PM on August 4, 2010

Although you must admit, "Only Gaga Could Go to Gaza" is a hell of a post title.
posted by zarq at 12:10 PM on August 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

Seems like a good worthwhile post on a worthwhile subject suffitiently different from the subject of the first post.
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on August 4, 2010

"Bloomberg's not a Republican anymore. He quit the GOP in 2007."

Thanks for the correction shakespeherian.
posted by vapidave at 12:32 PM on August 4, 2010

"Puh-Puh-Puh-Palestine Puh-Puh-Palestine", stuttered Lady Gaza, territorially.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:33 PM on August 4, 2010 [5 favorites]

Stop callin'
Stop callin'
I don't want another thinktank
I left my head and my heart on the West Bank
posted by shakespeherian at 12:47 PM on August 4, 2010 [5 favorites]

"We'll post more Gaga when Cortex next goes camping," Tom said intently.
posted by norm at 12:55 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

That's "Tim." :)
posted by zarq at 12:58 PM on August 4, 2010

'I've been outed!' Tim said gaily.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:00 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I want your imams, I want your mosques.
I want your everything, I want your Islam.
I want your mosques. Mosques, mosques, mosques, I want your mosques.

I want your drama, your Cordoba House.
I want your burqas and hijabs in the sand.
I want your mosques. Mosques, mosques, mosques, I want your mosques.

You know that I want mosques.
You know that I need mosques.
I want it bad. Bad Muslims.

I want your mosques and I want your disputes,
You and me could make bad Muslims.
I want your imams and I want your hijabs,
You and me could make bad Muslims.

I want your burqas I want your Koran.
'Cause you and I will go on a Hajj.
I want your mosques. Mosques, mosques, mosques, I want your mosques.

I want your muezzins, your calls to prayer.
Want you in my rear window,
Facing Mecca.
I want your mosques. Mosques, mosques, mosques, I want your mosques.

Apologies. To everybody.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:03 PM on August 4, 2010 [8 favorites]

You forgot the chorus.

Muh muh muh mosque
Muh muh muh mosque
Muh muh muh mosque
posted by zarq at 1:06 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think you're mixing metaphors, or songs. The chorus is obviously "Muh muh, muh muh mosque. Muh muh, muh muh mosque. Ga ga ooh la la. Want your bad Muslims."
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:11 PM on August 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

I would like to buy a MUH.
posted by zarq at 1:21 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

That comment makes you look fatwa.
posted by mullacc at 1:24 PM on August 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Muh muh, muh muh mosque. Muh muh, muh muh mosque. Gaza ooh la la. Want your bad Muslims."
posted by shakespeherian at 1:26 PM on August 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

I can't figure out whether this thread is caca or dada.
posted by languagehat at 1:46 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's Gaga, clearly.
posted by ocherdraco at 1:50 PM on August 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Seems like a good worthwhile post on a worthwhile subject suffitiently different from the subject of the first post."

There is something here in suffitiently Artw. The "t" instead of the "c". Perhaps a battle for preeminence taking place in your left hand between the middle and index finger. The index finger is jealous of the middle finger - the middle finger being taller and more capable of communicating disapproval, standing up for itself as it were. A raised middle finger is certain, a raised index finger begs your pardon if you don't mind please. The index finger is relegated to polite direction and removing debris from nostrils and ears, it has to share credit with the thumb signaling the "A-OK" and adding a pinch. The left index finger is granted less responsibility than the left middle finger in typing as well in that "t" places while "e" wins in English language letter frequency. All good reasons for a finger to suffer simmering jealousy and seek to put its neighbor and primary competitor out of a job I might guess.
posted by vapidave at 2:04 PM on August 4, 2010

bad Muslims

Those are the ones who're unclear on the concept and face MechaGodzilla when praying.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 2:37 PM on August 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

A second thread is a little normal but this is pretty much it. Between the thread, the second thread and the three [at last count] MeTa threads this is basically as much of this topic as I can personally stand and I'm sure other people are having a similar reaction. It makes me feel a little weird because I sort of feel that this was a non-story to begin with, mostly drummed up by the ADL and people intent on sowing dissent for political gain and when someone says something sensible, that's suddenly news. So, um, yeah. Hopefully this is it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:41 PM on August 4, 2010

I sort of feel that this was a non-story to begin with, mostly drummed up by the ADL and people intent on sowing dissent for political gain and when someone says something sensible, that's suddenly news.

Respectfully, I disagree. Search google news and you'll see that the Cordoba Center has been in the headlines for months.

The ADL are not the only ones who have weighed in against the mosque. I noted a couple of people in the post who did so. Many of those speaking out against the mosque are heavy hitters in the GOP or its more extremist stepchild: the Tea Party. Some are currently running for state or national office. Off the top of my head: Newt Gingrich, former VP candidate Sarah Palin, NY gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (which ostensibly speaks for the 16 million American Southern Baptists who overwhelmingly vote Republican,) NY gubernatorial candidate and Tea Partier Carl Paladino, Former Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. There are probably others.

This is likely to become a nationwide campaign issue, and since we're really talking about an overt display of anti-Islamic sentiment by representatives of one of this nation's two major political parties, I think the story is pretty big news. But more importantly, there's a larger story here, and it's one I didn't touch on in my post. We're watching a fundamental shift in the GOP's priorities and stated goals, which has been on the rise for a while.

So when a former member (and still highly respected, popular and successful Mayor) speaks out to repudiates their rhetoric by using their own buzzwords (freedom, etc.,) against them I think that's noteworthy.

Regardless of all of this, I really do appreciate your leaving the post up. I realize that a second post on what has been a very touchy and difficult subject could easily and justifiably have been axed. So, thank you.
posted by zarq at 3:16 PM on August 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

repudiate. not repudiates. *sigh*

I'm just channeling my inner Palin. Don't mind me, you betcha.
posted by zarq at 3:17 PM on August 4, 2010

You know, I am all for posts pointing out when there is something stupid going on and a sea of vile stupidheads coming in to maximize the stupidity, so we can all do the approved head shaking, but it’s really much nicer to have a post about something good happening and someone staying something that is smart and uplifting rather than stupid and vile.

If that means two posts that touch on the same subject fairly close to each other then I’m down with that.
posted by Artw at 3:23 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Eh, there's a ton of issues on Google news, we don't need update filter on all of them.
posted by nomadicink at 3:24 PM on August 4, 2010

Also.... to be clear, I'm in no way looking to be some sort of poster child or an example of any kind really for people making second posts on closely related subjects. I totally get why they're generally a bad idea.
posted by zarq at 3:26 PM on August 4, 2010

If that means two posts that touch on the same subject fairly close to each other then I’m down with that.

That was also my feeling.

Again, however, we're an international site. I am aware that this issue is relevant to people from many cultures and may be a touchstone of a sort, but people seriously have to get out of their own "I care about this so others SHOULD care about it" mindset because that's usually not something that makes good MeFi posts. In fact, it very often makes bad ones.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:29 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

What we need now is an injection of humour, something heartwarming from a distant land and maybe cute kittens
posted by infini at 3:31 PM on August 4, 2010

I am aware that this issue is relevant to people from many cultures and may be a touchstone of a sort, but people seriously have to get out of their own "I care about this so others SHOULD care about it" mindset because that's usually not something that makes good MeFi posts. In fact, it very often makes bad ones.

I understand. That's why I try very hard to frame posts I make on subjects I feel passionately about in objective terms.

While I understand why recognizing that we have are an international site is important, I usually don't post stories that would necessarily appeal to the majority of MeFi's userbase. And when I do make posts like this one, that I think are going to spark huge discussions, they often don't. I'm not a good judge of that stuff.

So I simply post stuff that I find interesting. And that I think others might, too. Some of it does, some doesn't. That's okay. But I don't want to give you the impression that I make posts to somehow demand that the site should pay attention to things.

Heh. I'd be flayed alive in MeTa if I tried! :)
posted by zarq at 4:00 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Kitten bruschetta.
posted by maudlin at 8:12 PM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have two problems with this sort of repeated post. The first is that it wastes real-estate on the front page. I guess that's fairly trivial, but that's because it doesn't happen very often. My main objection is that it disrupts the discussion. We've got two live threads plus one that got deleted because of "framing", plus a MetaTalk flameout. Realistically, anything said in the deleted thread is gone. I hope nobody poured their heart out in it. Then there are the live threads. Some people will be reading only one thread; some people reading the other; some people reading both. What I've seen in similar situations is that the quality of the conversation drops dramatically because the audience is fractured. There's less interaction, because there are fewer people participating in each thread, and there's more repetition - it comes both from people reading only one thread and from people who feel the need to say the same thing in both threads.

Zarq - I know you feel passionately about this, but come on. Two threads on the same subject in one week? Suppose it turns out that there is something suspicious about the funding for it. Would that justify a third thread? It's just ridiculous.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:20 AM on August 5, 2010

Fractured conversations is a legitimate not-great thing, but this is a poor use case to hang that argument on—the original thread was a mess that a lot of people had bailed on and new folks interested in the recent developments were highly unlikely to wade through, the original metatalk related to it was messier still and was closed before this went up.

There's no sense in either treating this specific situation like it's every single situation going forward or in criticizing it based on the counterfactual that some third thread came along as well. Giving zarq a hard time for doing a good job of something that basically had tacit admin approval when he did it is a little weird.

If you have been e.g. loyally following the original thread and are bummed that conversation has fizzled out over there as a result of the new thread, I can sympathize with your frustration there, but it's kind of a move-on-with-your-day situation. We don't like a ton of serial posts on a given subject, but two on a big developing story every now and then is fairly unexceptional.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:07 AM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

Joe, generally speaking, I agree that those are all really good reasons not to post something related to a topic in an active thread. I'm not going to make a habit of it, I promise!

I'm glad it turned out okay. The discussion in the latter thread has been mostly civil. It could have gone the way of the first after Faze's "dirty looks" comment, but that didn't happen. I don't know if there have been any comments deleted, but 200+ comments in, the thread doesn't seem to be suffering from lack of quality, content or participants. Perhaps this is because it has covered different ground than the first and has mostly stayed on topic? It had less depth and a tighter focus (on Bloomberg and his speech) than Blazecock's excellent post. That might have helped, too. Plus, the other thread had been really contentious.

Should the post not have been made? I'm the wrong person to ask. ;) Personally, I found the discussion interesting, and I learned some things from the comments. Plus I hate having posts deleted. So I'm happy it survived.

Zarq - I know you feel passionately about this, but come on. Two threads on the same subject in one week? Suppose it turns out that there is something suspicious about the funding for it. Would that justify a third thread? It's just ridiculous.

I won't be posting a third thread, I promise.


On preview, thank you cortex.
posted by zarq at 8:07 AM on August 5, 2010

Given the ad homimem attacks taking place in the first discussion, I’d say no, we didn’t need a second one.
posted by joeclark at 12:19 PM on August 5, 2010

Because of the ad homimem attacks taking place in the first discussion, I’d say yes, we did need a second one.
posted by languagehat at 12:32 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ad homimem ? WTF ? Why can't you assholes spell rite ?
posted by y2karl at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2010

So when a former member (and still highly respected, popular and successful Mayor) speaks out

Wait, so Bloomberg used to be a MeFite?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:23 PM on August 5, 2010

Former member of the Republican party.
posted by zarq at 2:49 PM on August 5, 2010

y2karl: "Ad homimem ? WTF ? "

An attack on one's maternal line: the Ad Mominem.
posted by boo_radley at 3:06 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

Inspector Clouseau was frequently Ad Lominem.

Holy shit, Herbert Lom's real name was Herbert Charles Angelo Kuchacevich von Schluderbacheru? I did not know that!
posted by languagehat at 3:52 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]

People who call one another "gay" are resorting to ad homoname.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:14 AM on August 6, 2010 [1 favorite]

MuffinMan do NOT make me actually laugh out loud in the office so that everyone turns to stare
posted by infini at 3:02 AM on August 6, 2010