Personal attacks and biased moderating: is this what we want on Metafilter? December 1, 2014 9:17 AM Subscribe
This is in regards to this thread
(Disclaimer: I’ve linked to several comments in the thread to support my statements. These links are examples, not meant to be exhaustive. I don’t necessarily endorse the views of any particular commenter. It is not my intention to attack commenters personally.)
(Additional disclaimer: I wrote this post last Wednesday but the mods wouldn’t post it til today, which is why I don’t cite any comments made after Wedn afternoon.)
In general, I think moderation on Metafilter is outstanding. I know it’s a difficult and often thankless job. However, it seems that moderation of the Ferguson thread is heavily biased such that people who hold certain viewpoints are being excessively reprimanded and/or censored. I’m someone who likes to examine an issue from all sides and listen to what people think, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Some of the posts which go against the majority vibe (e.g. 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are reasonable and well thought out, and yet they elicited a great deal of vitriol and snark (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and were even castigated by the mods (1, 2, 3, 4).
Other members have been allowed to sling personal attacks against those holding the non-majority view (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), seemingly without any consequences from the mods (with the exception of this). In addition, it seems that some comments were deleted (1, 2) when they ran counter to the accepted tone of the thread.
(I of course realize there may have been other comments I didn’t see, and I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes work that the mods conduct, so my apologies if I’m not seeing the whole picture here. But as long as the mods delete comments, there’s no way for me to see the whole picture.)
I like to think of Metafilter as a place where intelligent folks can come together for reasonable, cordial discussions and to share and explore viewpoints on interesting topics. As long as nobody’s making nutcase racist asshole comments (which I hope none of us want, and none of the comments in question were anything close to this), it’s unfair to create a hostile environment for certain Mefites. Of course some topics will bring strong opinions and emotions, but can’t we handle it like the rational adults we’re supposed to be? Is anyone else disturbed by this? Can the mods perhaps clarify what is going on? I’ve noticed this sort of bias in a few other threads (although admirably very few) but the current Ferguson thread seems very extreme.
(Disclaimer: I’ve linked to several comments in the thread to support my statements. These links are examples, not meant to be exhaustive. I don’t necessarily endorse the views of any particular commenter. It is not my intention to attack commenters personally.)
(Additional disclaimer: I wrote this post last Wednesday but the mods wouldn’t post it til today, which is why I don’t cite any comments made after Wedn afternoon.)
In general, I think moderation on Metafilter is outstanding. I know it’s a difficult and often thankless job. However, it seems that moderation of the Ferguson thread is heavily biased such that people who hold certain viewpoints are being excessively reprimanded and/or censored. I’m someone who likes to examine an issue from all sides and listen to what people think, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Some of the posts which go against the majority vibe (e.g. 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are reasonable and well thought out, and yet they elicited a great deal of vitriol and snark (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and were even castigated by the mods (1, 2, 3, 4).
Other members have been allowed to sling personal attacks against those holding the non-majority view (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), seemingly without any consequences from the mods (with the exception of this). In addition, it seems that some comments were deleted (1, 2) when they ran counter to the accepted tone of the thread.
(I of course realize there may have been other comments I didn’t see, and I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes work that the mods conduct, so my apologies if I’m not seeing the whole picture here. But as long as the mods delete comments, there’s no way for me to see the whole picture.)
I like to think of Metafilter as a place where intelligent folks can come together for reasonable, cordial discussions and to share and explore viewpoints on interesting topics. As long as nobody’s making nutcase racist asshole comments (which I hope none of us want, and none of the comments in question were anything close to this), it’s unfair to create a hostile environment for certain Mefites. Of course some topics will bring strong opinions and emotions, but can’t we handle it like the rational adults we’re supposed to be? Is anyone else disturbed by this? Can the mods perhaps clarify what is going on? I’ve noticed this sort of bias in a few other threads (although admirably very few) but the current Ferguson thread seems very extreme.
online discourse is always at least a little dicey. At the very least, it's like going for a bike ride in your immediate neighborhood without a helmet. Something bad might happen. Other more extreme times, it's like taking your bike off road with a load of pure nitroglycerine in your backpack. Something almost certainly will happen unless you're extremely careful. Anything remotely concerned with Ferguson is like the latter and thus, I'm inclined to go with the initial disclaimer here:
In general, I think moderation on Metafilter is outstanding. I know it’s a difficult and often thankless job.
posted by philip-random at 9:28 AM on December 1, 2014
In general, I think moderation on Metafilter is outstanding. I know it’s a difficult and often thankless job.
posted by philip-random at 9:28 AM on December 1, 2014
(Additional disclaimer: I wrote this post last Wednesday but the mods wouldn’t post it til today, which is why I don’t cite any comments made after Wedn afternoon.)
Which, just want to make a quick note here that we do totally appreciate the flexibility. Mods having ruined Thanksgiving weekends is a matter of site lore at this point, and was where the metatalk queue came from in the first place years back, and this year we have both fewer staff and no one who was in a particularly available "I'm doing literally nothing all weekend, bring it on" situation to try and pick up slack; between that and the inordinately fast-moving and emotionally charged Ferguson non-indictment thread itself, taking on a parallel Metatalk about that and moderation going right into the weekend wasn't doable.
Being able to sit with friends and family and eat and drink and talk without having to constantly check my phone or excuse myself to the other room with a laptop for an hour at a time was a pretty big deal for making the whole holiday thing actually feel like a holiday, so thanks for being patient.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:37 AM on December 1, 2014 [176 favorites]
Which, just want to make a quick note here that we do totally appreciate the flexibility. Mods having ruined Thanksgiving weekends is a matter of site lore at this point, and was where the metatalk queue came from in the first place years back, and this year we have both fewer staff and no one who was in a particularly available "I'm doing literally nothing all weekend, bring it on" situation to try and pick up slack; between that and the inordinately fast-moving and emotionally charged Ferguson non-indictment thread itself, taking on a parallel Metatalk about that and moderation going right into the weekend wasn't doable.
Being able to sit with friends and family and eat and drink and talk without having to constantly check my phone or excuse myself to the other room with a laptop for an hour at a time was a pretty big deal for making the whole holiday thing actually feel like a holiday, so thanks for being patient.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:37 AM on December 1, 2014 [176 favorites]
I do not want personal attacks and biased moderation on MetaFilter, no.
I do not see any personal attacks (well, one, if you kind of stretch it) or biased moderation in those examples, or in that thread (though I did skip huge portions of it in the middle). I did see moderators trying very hard to keep certain posters from stirring up shit in ways that those posters are well known to stir up shit.
posted by jaguar at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
I do not see any personal attacks (well, one, if you kind of stretch it) or biased moderation in those examples, or in that thread (though I did skip huge portions of it in the middle). I did see moderators trying very hard to keep certain posters from stirring up shit in ways that those posters are well known to stir up shit.
posted by jaguar at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
First of all, thanks for your patience. Last week was as exciting as we ever want a holiday week to be, and it's really helpful to be able to talk about the moderation issues while we're not actually up to our eyebrows in moderation.
There are a couple of issues here. First, the "other members have been allowed to sling personal attacks" problem. The important thing to know here is that we do not leave a mod comment for every deletion. I personally deleted about a dozen personal-attack-style comments before and after the linked note, and, without reading the whole thread, I suspect that's true of everyone else who had a shift while that thread was super active. Most of the time, that sort of thing doesn't require a mod callout, because the people making the comments know very well that they're on or over the line. We don't get 100% of them, especially in a fast-moving thread, because we simply can't keep up.
For the larger issue of people going against the majority view, there are a couple of issues there. The biggest one is that we have a few people who have a particular position, and come in to any thread that even tangentially touches on the issue and construct a defense of their position whether or not it's relevant to the conversation. You do this once, people engage in good faith. You do this once a week for a couple of years, and people start writing everything you say off as "Oh, it's [x] again, doing the [x] dance." This isn't something that can be managed by moderation, even though it's really frustrating when their position is actually relevant and something that would make sense to talk about. This case is particularly notable because we've had a *lot* of Ferguson threads, and we had a couple of people say basically the same things in all of them, and then when it came to the indictment and they were just repeating the same general arguments, no one wanted to hear them any more. And that's a valid response to that cycle.
We expect people to engage with the thread that exists and the people in it, and when everyone's talking about, say, the moral question of the use of lethal force and someone comes in and says (not a quote) "I don't know why you're talking about this, it's obviously legal in that jurisdiction," it comes off as tone-deaf. When it's part of a years-long pattern, it starts to look (and be received as) actively hostile to the conversation and its participants. And so the flags and snark and snappish responses roll in, and we have to moderate them as best we can. Which is, often, by telling the person with the persistent pattern to give it a rest.
The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site. Like attracts like, and the site tends to be left-leaning, socially liberal, majority urban, etc. If you make an argument that is far off from that, you're going to get a lot more people disagreeing with you than if you make an argument that is middle-of-the-road for this community. Because of the linear nature of the site, that looks like a mob with torches and pitchforks even when it happens so fast none of the respondents could have read any of the others' comments. It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive. This always feels unfair to the minority-view person, because it never, ever looks like they got the last word, but I don't have a better solution.
I've probably missed some points, but I wanted to get this up as a response ASAP. Again, thanks for being patient with us.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:40 AM on December 1, 2014 [51 favorites]
There are a couple of issues here. First, the "other members have been allowed to sling personal attacks" problem. The important thing to know here is that we do not leave a mod comment for every deletion. I personally deleted about a dozen personal-attack-style comments before and after the linked note, and, without reading the whole thread, I suspect that's true of everyone else who had a shift while that thread was super active. Most of the time, that sort of thing doesn't require a mod callout, because the people making the comments know very well that they're on or over the line. We don't get 100% of them, especially in a fast-moving thread, because we simply can't keep up.
For the larger issue of people going against the majority view, there are a couple of issues there. The biggest one is that we have a few people who have a particular position, and come in to any thread that even tangentially touches on the issue and construct a defense of their position whether or not it's relevant to the conversation. You do this once, people engage in good faith. You do this once a week for a couple of years, and people start writing everything you say off as "Oh, it's [x] again, doing the [x] dance." This isn't something that can be managed by moderation, even though it's really frustrating when their position is actually relevant and something that would make sense to talk about. This case is particularly notable because we've had a *lot* of Ferguson threads, and we had a couple of people say basically the same things in all of them, and then when it came to the indictment and they were just repeating the same general arguments, no one wanted to hear them any more. And that's a valid response to that cycle.
We expect people to engage with the thread that exists and the people in it, and when everyone's talking about, say, the moral question of the use of lethal force and someone comes in and says (not a quote) "I don't know why you're talking about this, it's obviously legal in that jurisdiction," it comes off as tone-deaf. When it's part of a years-long pattern, it starts to look (and be received as) actively hostile to the conversation and its participants. And so the flags and snark and snappish responses roll in, and we have to moderate them as best we can. Which is, often, by telling the person with the persistent pattern to give it a rest.
The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site. Like attracts like, and the site tends to be left-leaning, socially liberal, majority urban, etc. If you make an argument that is far off from that, you're going to get a lot more people disagreeing with you than if you make an argument that is middle-of-the-road for this community. Because of the linear nature of the site, that looks like a mob with torches and pitchforks even when it happens so fast none of the respondents could have read any of the others' comments. It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive. This always feels unfair to the minority-view person, because it never, ever looks like they got the last word, but I don't have a better solution.
I've probably missed some points, but I wanted to get this up as a response ASAP. Again, thanks for being patient with us.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:40 AM on December 1, 2014 [51 favorites]
I’m someone who likes to examine an issue from all sides and listen to what people think, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them.
MetaFilter is not the right site for you.
posted by 0 at 9:48 AM on December 1, 2014 [36 favorites]
MetaFilter is not the right site for you.
posted by 0 at 9:48 AM on December 1, 2014 [36 favorites]
It's sort of weird that you cite a mod note saying that several comments were deleted (with no specifics to their posters or opinions other than "let's not head straight into an argument") and conclude that it was a biased deletion.
posted by kagredon at 9:49 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 9:49 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
:/ I get what you are saying. But given that it's a 1300+ comment thread surrounding a very hot issue right now, 4 moderation admonishments, most of which seem directed towards stopping a steamrolling into back and forth indignation slap fight, 10 links to personal attacks wich are, overall fairly mild for online personal attacks, most fall into snark, which is not great but a notch or two below personal attack, even looking at the 8 'vitriol and snark' links ... eh... there's not a lot there, there, I expected more I guess?
Perhaps we just have a different threshold
Which is not me trying to mitigate against your broader point, rather, if that is the worst that can be pulled from 1300+ comments on the Brown shooting, 10 links to counter arguments and 8 snark replies I think we are, in general, ok.
But still, yeah, in general best to avoid useless snark against fellow members if possible (am guilty myself at times)
posted by edgeways at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Perhaps we just have a different threshold
Which is not me trying to mitigate against your broader point, rather, if that is the worst that can be pulled from 1300+ comments on the Brown shooting, 10 links to counter arguments and 8 snark replies I think we are, in general, ok.
But still, yeah, in general best to avoid useless snark against fellow members if possible (am guilty myself at times)
posted by edgeways at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
and yeah, if those were the worst examples of "vitriol and snark" you could find, the Star Wars trailer thread will burn your eyebrows off.
posted by kagredon at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
I did not follow that thread, but I did click through what you linked above. I don't have an opinion on the propriety of all of the comments in the context of the thread, but I do as to Ironmouth's comment you link. Ironmouth apparently spent a lot of time looking at this from a legal perspective and concluded that the conduct of the Officer was legally justified (which has a definite meaning) and therefore there is no grounds to indict him.
I find it untenable that his participation resulted in a shouting down by a mod with the comment: "[Ironmouth, you have presented your evidence for the legal side of it. If you're not interested in engaging with the rest of the conversation, please feel free to walk away now.]
posted by restless_nomad at 12:05 PM on November 25 "
This to me is a very problematic comment coming from a mod. It implies that a point of view that the conduct in question was legal or that the grand jury's decision was justified is not permissible in that thread. It certainly seems like a reasonable, neutral point of view for a person to have as to the whole tragedy that the lawfulness of the conduct is of central importance. But from the mod's comment, the implication to me is that Ironmouth is either to make moral judgments about what happened or to leave the conversation. That strikes me as inappropriate to so limit the conversation, and a very problematic view to be espoused by a moderator.
posted by dios at 10:02 AM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
I find it untenable that his participation resulted in a shouting down by a mod with the comment: "[Ironmouth, you have presented your evidence for the legal side of it. If you're not interested in engaging with the rest of the conversation, please feel free to walk away now.]
posted by restless_nomad at 12:05 PM on November 25 "
This to me is a very problematic comment coming from a mod. It implies that a point of view that the conduct in question was legal or that the grand jury's decision was justified is not permissible in that thread. It certainly seems like a reasonable, neutral point of view for a person to have as to the whole tragedy that the lawfulness of the conduct is of central importance. But from the mod's comment, the implication to me is that Ironmouth is either to make moral judgments about what happened or to leave the conversation. That strikes me as inappropriate to so limit the conversation, and a very problematic view to be espoused by a moderator.
posted by dios at 10:02 AM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the tone of some of the personal comments, but a lot of the people who are getting the biggest backlash have a long history of this type of conflict. Whether it's right or wrong is a fair question of moderation, but it's not coming out of nowhere.
posted by Think_Long at 10:05 AM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 10:05 AM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Ironmouth made nearly a dozen comments between that first one and restless_nomad's comment, it's pretty unfair to characterize her as being silencing without that full context.
(I do find it mildly amusing how many personal attack links are ones where the personal attack appears to be being called a lawyer.)
posted by kagredon at 10:06 AM on December 1, 2014 [31 favorites]
(I do find it mildly amusing how many personal attack links are ones where the personal attack appears to be being called a lawyer.)
posted by kagredon at 10:06 AM on December 1, 2014 [31 favorites]
I don't think that a comment or comments directed at a poster and noting that the poster has a long history of certain kinds of arguments is a personal attack.
posted by rtha at 10:07 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by rtha at 10:07 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
I think Ironmouth's professional opinion was given a decent airing in that thread. But he doesn't operate without history and his history is filled with contention with the more left-wing members of the site. He wasn't told to stop posting, and I think the conversation did continue from there. Personally I learned a lot from that back and forth, which was 100% less noisy than similar exchanges everywhere else on the web.
What I'm saying is: I read that whole thread, and I think the mods did a great job as usual, given that their bias is toward keeping the peace, not purely furthering debate. Every thread isn't for dudes (it's always dudes) to debate nuances. That one in particular was only secondarily for debating of nuances. If you want that, go to debate club.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:09 AM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
What I'm saying is: I read that whole thread, and I think the mods did a great job as usual, given that their bias is toward keeping the peace, not purely furthering debate. Every thread isn't for dudes (it's always dudes) to debate nuances. That one in particular was only secondarily for debating of nuances. If you want that, go to debate club.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:09 AM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
If that's "vitriol and snark" then, seriously, what isn't? That characterization is so far off the mark that it really seems like it's either a symptom of a major misperception of what's going on, or an attempt to re-argue an (actual, substantive) disagreement by appealing to some bullshit standard of rhetorical good manners rather than by paying attention to the substance.
posted by RogerB at 10:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 10:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I like to think of Metafilter as a place where intelligent folks can come together for reasonable, cordial discussions and to share and explore viewpoints on interesting topics.
I say with much love for the site over the 10+ years I've been here: it's probably worth re-calibrating your expectations. It's a pretty homogeneously liberal site, with a strongly US-centric bent, and (I joke, sorta) largely bi-modal between programmers and librarians. It does what it says on the tin. If you're cool with that, it's a great place to be. I'm cool with that, and I like it here. Don't go looking for lively debate with a lot of different viewpoints; look for rousing choruses (and, sometimes, the pleasantly soft chime when the tines of our pitchforks touch).
We have these dust ups every few months, I think. I think the second to last paragraph of r_n's note above ("The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site....") is great, and I think this should be advertised more officially. Though we might theoretically end up with some more trolls, just making a real statement that the site is a lovely lefty site would avoid some amount of confusion.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:12 AM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
I say with much love for the site over the 10+ years I've been here: it's probably worth re-calibrating your expectations. It's a pretty homogeneously liberal site, with a strongly US-centric bent, and (I joke, sorta) largely bi-modal between programmers and librarians. It does what it says on the tin. If you're cool with that, it's a great place to be. I'm cool with that, and I like it here. Don't go looking for lively debate with a lot of different viewpoints; look for rousing choruses (and, sometimes, the pleasantly soft chime when the tines of our pitchforks touch).
We have these dust ups every few months, I think. I think the second to last paragraph of r_n's note above ("The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site....") is great, and I think this should be advertised more officially. Though we might theoretically end up with some more trolls, just making a real statement that the site is a lovely lefty site would avoid some amount of confusion.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:12 AM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
But from the mod's comment, the implication to me is that Ironmouth is either to make moral judgments about what happened or to leave the conversation. That strikes me as inappropriate to so limit the conversation, and a very problematic view to be espoused by a moderator.
Ironmouth kept arguing the legal point with the implication that everyone else was wrong for arguing the moral point. It seemed to be him trying to shut down the larger conversation by insisting that his point was more important than anyone else's.
posted by jaguar at 10:17 AM on December 1, 2014 [40 favorites]
Ironmouth kept arguing the legal point with the implication that everyone else was wrong for arguing the moral point. It seemed to be him trying to shut down the larger conversation by insisting that his point was more important than anyone else's.
posted by jaguar at 10:17 AM on December 1, 2014 [40 favorites]
I got the impression that the mods knew there were a lot of heightened emotions on the issue and wanted to let the thread be almost a place for people to vent their sorrow/anger with what is happening in Ferguson, and the US as a whole. I haven't been here as long as most but it was novel for me, and I wished there was a space for people to discuss/argue the nuances because that thread clearly wasn't it, and we need places where people can discuss these nuances in good faith. And yes, while I may not agree with a lot of what they say, I do think that mefites like Ironmouth or Corb do post in good faith on this site.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:19 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:19 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
To clarify, I consider name-calling ("droog," "racist," "idiot," etc), or calling out specific people to be ignored, and so on are personal attacks. You can use a different label if you like, but that's what I meant. Such things are not constructive.
Full disclosure, since this seems to matter to some people: I'm a liberal, I vote Democrat (less of the 2 evils, y'know) and I think this is a tragic situation that hopefully will lead to much-needed reforms on how police can and cannot engage with people and use force. My post here is strictly about how the thread was handled.
I don't necessarily agree/disagree with corb, IronMouth, or others who were targeted. My beef is with the vitriol and biased moderation that is present in the thread.
posted by phoenix_rising at 10:20 AM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
Full disclosure, since this seems to matter to some people: I'm a liberal, I vote Democrat (less of the 2 evils, y'know) and I think this is a tragic situation that hopefully will lead to much-needed reforms on how police can and cannot engage with people and use force. My post here is strictly about how the thread was handled.
I don't necessarily agree/disagree with corb, IronMouth, or others who were targeted. My beef is with the vitriol and biased moderation that is present in the thread.
posted by phoenix_rising at 10:20 AM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
It implies that a point of view that the conduct in question was legal or that the grand jury's decision was justified is not permissible in that thread.
I read the mod note differently. What was problematic wasn't making the argument about legalities. This argument has continued to be made later in the thread. The problem was the repetitive circularity of the conversation that refused to engage the questions raised by others, offering instead reiterations of positions that do nothing to acknowledge those questions let alone explain disagreement.
As for "reasonable, cordial discussions," I think two points are important to keep in mind. First, these standards are not objective and mean different things to different people. Second, appeals to reasonable discussion that do not acknowledge the context of power differentials will get pushback. (Interestingly enough, supporting my first point, the people doing the pushback can see the pushback as reasonable and those receiving the pushback see it as unreasonable). Cordiality and reasonableness are often defined by privileged groups so that people treated unfairly (such as those targeted by racist laws) can be disparaged as unreasonable simply for demanding they get fair treatment (the classic example here is King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail").
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:21 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
I read the mod note differently. What was problematic wasn't making the argument about legalities. This argument has continued to be made later in the thread. The problem was the repetitive circularity of the conversation that refused to engage the questions raised by others, offering instead reiterations of positions that do nothing to acknowledge those questions let alone explain disagreement.
As for "reasonable, cordial discussions," I think two points are important to keep in mind. First, these standards are not objective and mean different things to different people. Second, appeals to reasonable discussion that do not acknowledge the context of power differentials will get pushback. (Interestingly enough, supporting my first point, the people doing the pushback can see the pushback as reasonable and those receiving the pushback see it as unreasonable). Cordiality and reasonableness are often defined by privileged groups so that people treated unfairly (such as those targeted by racist laws) can be disparaged as unreasonable simply for demanding they get fair treatment (the classic example here is King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail").
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:21 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Sorry restless_nomad, I missed your comment before mine. I think this the point that I find surprising:
It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive.
Extrapolating from that, I guess your point is that Ironmouth made his case and needed to "be cut off" because people were arguing with him.
Looking back, I find this comment from you to be precisely the type of comment that I would applaud:
[Keep in mind that conflating "moral" and "legal", especially while discussing things with lawyers, usually leads to confusion and anger all around. Please be really clear about what you're talking about, on both sides. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 11:46 AM on November 25
If that was the problem going on there, that comment seems like a great way to handle it. If people are not heeding that warning, I think that seems like fair warning for deletion. If people refused it, I find it regrettable that the end result is to tell Ironmouth to walk away because others couldn't handle the distinction you point out.
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive.
Extrapolating from that, I guess your point is that Ironmouth made his case and needed to "be cut off" because people were arguing with him.
Looking back, I find this comment from you to be precisely the type of comment that I would applaud:
[Keep in mind that conflating "moral" and "legal", especially while discussing things with lawyers, usually leads to confusion and anger all around. Please be really clear about what you're talking about, on both sides. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 11:46 AM on November 25
If that was the problem going on there, that comment seems like a great way to handle it. If people are not heeding that warning, I think that seems like fair warning for deletion. If people refused it, I find it regrettable that the end result is to tell Ironmouth to walk away because others couldn't handle the distinction you point out.
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
To clarify, I consider name-calling ("droog," "racist," "idiot," etc),
Are you fucking kidding me? "Droog" is name-calling?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:23 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Are you fucking kidding me? "Droog" is name-calling?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:23 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Ironmouth and Corb have an extensive history of monopolizing threads with extended back-and-forths with other members. It's not like its the first trip to the rodeo for those two, nor is it likely to be the last. I don't think the site is suffering from an Ironmouth and corb deficiency.
posted by empath at 10:24 AM on December 1, 2014 [57 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:24 AM on December 1, 2014 [57 favorites]
I think the second to last paragraph of r_n's note above ("The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site....") is great, and I think this should be advertised more officially.
Nah, r_n's point is one of demography, not mission statement: Metafilter isn't left-leaning or US-centric as a matter of political will, it just sort of ended up having a lot of folks who fall into that demographic bucket and, as she said, like attracts like. We're not going to start putting "Metafilter: A Place For Lefties" out there in any capacity.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:24 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
Nah, r_n's point is one of demography, not mission statement: Metafilter isn't left-leaning or US-centric as a matter of political will, it just sort of ended up having a lot of folks who fall into that demographic bucket and, as she said, like attracts like. We're not going to start putting "Metafilter: A Place For Lefties" out there in any capacity.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:24 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
This is a difficult Meta because on the one hand I do kind of feel like reasonable opinions were being shut down in the thread. (See my comment saying corb's post was fine in the thread.) Here's the thing though, both corb and IM have a history on this site that has been at times a bit problematic so the mods were probably taking that into account a bit.
Ironmouth came in kind of axe grinding about how his comments would be received. There was a big old heap of, "What has happened to this place?" included. He has not been happy about the reception he gets on this topic for a long while now. I think if he hadn't let his frustration come out and maybe slowed down his pace he would have been fine.
The thing is, one of his complaints is that people don't realize he is talking strictly about the legal issues. Sometimes he is right to make that complaint. On the other hand though, there are times where he looks kind of blockheaded when he can't understand the reasons why other people aren't joining him in seeing the topic that way. See the repeated insistence that it was a mistake to rally around Brown when there are less problematic legal cases out there. The protestors did not choose to rally around him because of the quality of his legal case. A lot of people are incredibly skeptical of the police and the legal system and they aren't relying on it to make up their mind. Protests don't spring up out of a good case, they spring out of emotion.
He should work on understanding that not every conversation is strictly a legal one, and as someone who did snark at him in the thread, we should work on more productive engagement. It's a frustrating topic for all sides though, so it's understandable that both commentators and mods will not handle it 100% perfectly.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 AM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
Ironmouth came in kind of axe grinding about how his comments would be received. There was a big old heap of, "What has happened to this place?" included. He has not been happy about the reception he gets on this topic for a long while now. I think if he hadn't let his frustration come out and maybe slowed down his pace he would have been fine.
The thing is, one of his complaints is that people don't realize he is talking strictly about the legal issues. Sometimes he is right to make that complaint. On the other hand though, there are times where he looks kind of blockheaded when he can't understand the reasons why other people aren't joining him in seeing the topic that way. See the repeated insistence that it was a mistake to rally around Brown when there are less problematic legal cases out there. The protestors did not choose to rally around him because of the quality of his legal case. A lot of people are incredibly skeptical of the police and the legal system and they aren't relying on it to make up their mind. Protests don't spring up out of a good case, they spring out of emotion.
He should work on understanding that not every conversation is strictly a legal one, and as someone who did snark at him in the thread, we should work on more productive engagement. It's a frustrating topic for all sides though, so it's understandable that both commentators and mods will not handle it 100% perfectly.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 AM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
Feel free to look back in Metatalk and you can find many similar complaints.
Mods will allow all sorts of derogatory name calling if it supports certain viewpoints. That's just how it is.
posted by Setec Astronomy at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Mods will allow all sorts of derogatory name calling if it supports certain viewpoints. That's just how it is.
posted by Setec Astronomy at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
The thing is, one of his complaints is that people don't realize he is talking strictly about the legal issues.
He likes to pretend that he's taking a strictly legal, unbiased, just-the-facts view on the matter, because he's a lawyer and so knows what he's talking about, but he's not an unbiased participant. He's a paid defense attorney/spokesman for police officers.
posted by empath at 10:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [54 favorites]
He likes to pretend that he's taking a strictly legal, unbiased, just-the-facts view on the matter, because he's a lawyer and so knows what he's talking about, but he's not an unbiased participant. He's a paid defense attorney/spokesman for police officers.
posted by empath at 10:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [54 favorites]
My beef is with the vitriol
Vitriol and snark are going to be categories with a certain amount of grey area in them. For instance, you linked to this comment as an example of vitriol or snark. It's short so I'll quote it in its entirety: As is your focus on that small set of opportunistic looters.
This one is also short: Or Darren Wilson's. Funny that he's credible, but Johnson isn't.
If that's vitriol or snark then I guess we have really different settings for such.
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Vitriol and snark are going to be categories with a certain amount of grey area in them. For instance, you linked to this comment as an example of vitriol or snark. It's short so I'll quote it in its entirety: As is your focus on that small set of opportunistic looters.
This one is also short: Or Darren Wilson's. Funny that he's credible, but Johnson isn't.
If that's vitriol or snark then I guess we have really different settings for such.
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
In other words, his participation here is meant to influence public perceptions of what is legally acceptable behavior for police to engage in. He's not trying to come to a fair conclusion based on the facts at hand.
posted by empath at 10:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
"Droog" is name-calling?
"Racist" is likewise not an insult. It is not a good thing to be, of course, but calling someone's views racist or saying someone with other views would be a racist is not an insult, and treating calling out racism as a matter of etiquette is a good way to enable racism.
posted by jaguar at 10:31 AM on December 1, 2014 [40 favorites]
"Racist" is likewise not an insult. It is not a good thing to be, of course, but calling someone's views racist or saying someone with other views would be a racist is not an insult, and treating calling out racism as a matter of etiquette is a good way to enable racism.
posted by jaguar at 10:31 AM on December 1, 2014 [40 favorites]
I guess your point is that Ironmouth made his case and needed to "be cut off" because people were arguing with him.
I think her point (please correct me if I am wrong) was that after a certain point continuing to grind away on the "But it was legal" argument when people are actively talking about that and other issues is making the thread necessarily be all about your particular arguments and not engaging with other people's arguments. If the only way you can engage in a thread is by continuing to return to your own analysis over and over again without engaging other people except to tell them that they are wrong, you are making the thread more difficult than it needs to be and you are making it about you only. This doesn't scale and it's a wonder this site can even tolerate the small number of people who do continue to do this.
This is a lot less about the factual content of Ironmouth's comments and much more about the way he was presenting them. There are many users who have viewpoints that run against what people would consider "mainstream" for MetaFilter and they engage here with many fewer problems. It should be okay for a mod to say "Hey you're doing that thing again" and have that be a gentle reminder to maybe ease off on that thing without having to step in and delete comments or give people time outs.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 10:32 AM on December 1, 2014 [42 favorites]
I think her point (please correct me if I am wrong) was that after a certain point continuing to grind away on the "But it was legal" argument when people are actively talking about that and other issues is making the thread necessarily be all about your particular arguments and not engaging with other people's arguments. If the only way you can engage in a thread is by continuing to return to your own analysis over and over again without engaging other people except to tell them that they are wrong, you are making the thread more difficult than it needs to be and you are making it about you only. This doesn't scale and it's a wonder this site can even tolerate the small number of people who do continue to do this.
This is a lot less about the factual content of Ironmouth's comments and much more about the way he was presenting them. There are many users who have viewpoints that run against what people would consider "mainstream" for MetaFilter and they engage here with many fewer problems. It should be okay for a mod to say "Hey you're doing that thing again" and have that be a gentle reminder to maybe ease off on that thing without having to step in and delete comments or give people time outs.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 10:32 AM on December 1, 2014 [42 favorites]
I certainly have no intention of carrying water for Ironmouth or whatever point he was making. Though I have litigated excessive force cases (and have a pending 1983 excessive force case right now in which I represent the estate of someone beaten to death in custody), I have not followed the evidence closely enough to know what happened or form any conclusions specific to the case of Wilson/Brown. So don't assume that I am advocating or defending Ironmouth's position on that. But I certainly have had the experience of discussing the legality of a topic and having people unfairly attack me from a purely moral point of view. Thus, like anyone else, I approach this through the optics of my prior experience in threads in which legal topics arise (as that that thread seemed to be, as its primary link is the grand jury's decision).
He should work on understanding that not every conversation is strictly a legal one
This is true, but certainly the ones that are about courts, laws, grand juries, and criminality are legal topics and ones that benefit from a focus on the law, right?
posted by dios at 10:33 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
He should work on understanding that not every conversation is strictly a legal one
This is true, but certainly the ones that are about courts, laws, grand juries, and criminality are legal topics and ones that benefit from a focus on the law, right?
posted by dios at 10:33 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
My beef is with the vitriol
My beef is with the murder.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2014 [23 favorites]
My beef is with the murder.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2014 [23 favorites]
This is a lot less about the factual content of Ironmouth's comments and much more about the way he was presenting them.
I think he could have participate in the thread expressing largely the same positions if he didn't approach it in such a dishonest way. If he was clear about his self-interest in the case and similar cases and didn't present it as an authoritative, unbiased answer from On High, and actually responded to specific criticisms of his arguments instead of restating his case in much the same way repeatedly, it would have been far less objectionable.
posted by empath at 10:37 AM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
I think he could have participate in the thread expressing largely the same positions if he didn't approach it in such a dishonest way. If he was clear about his self-interest in the case and similar cases and didn't present it as an authoritative, unbiased answer from On High, and actually responded to specific criticisms of his arguments instead of restating his case in much the same way repeatedly, it would have been far less objectionable.
posted by empath at 10:37 AM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
If the only way you can engage in a thread is by continuing to return to your own analysis over and over again without engaging other people except to tell them that they are wrong, you are making the thread more difficult than it needs to be and you are making it about you only.
Time to trot out my three-strikes rule again: if I repeat myself three times, I need to bow out of the thread. It's a hard lesson to learn, but it's better for both the site and the individual Mefite, because those arguments where one person repeats themself because someone is Just Not Getting It are hella frustrating for participants as well as viewers.
(Also, FWIW, I have been dipping in and out of that thread and other than the IM back and forth, I thought it was going pretty well for a thread on a topic that contentious.)
posted by immlass at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
Time to trot out my three-strikes rule again: if I repeat myself three times, I need to bow out of the thread. It's a hard lesson to learn, but it's better for both the site and the individual Mefite, because those arguments where one person repeats themself because someone is Just Not Getting It are hella frustrating for participants as well as viewers.
(Also, FWIW, I have been dipping in and out of that thread and other than the IM back and forth, I thought it was going pretty well for a thread on a topic that contentious.)
posted by immlass at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
This is true, but certainly the ones that are about courts, laws, grand juries, and criminality are legal topics and ones that benefit from a focus on the law, right?
Correcting for time and place and mood and a sense of one's own footprint in a discussion. Talking a little bit in that thread about legal specifics is fine and I don't think anybody would have blinked if Ironmouth had done that in a "here's some context from my perspective, about some of the legal rather than moral question of justifiable force in the law as it stands" way and then left it alone. But that's not what he did, and he did not leave it alone after saying his piece and seeing that people weren't feeling overly receptive, and this is not remotely a new thing for him.
So I think it's an unreasonably narrow read of the situation to treat it as a question of whether legal discussions are relevant to a discussion about a grand jury, rather than as a question of whether how and how much he pursued that angle to the exclusion of everything else that makes up the context of this specific grand jury process, what's been going on in and around Ferguson for the last several months, and how that's played out on Metafilter itself.
To fail to recognize that context and just bull on ahead is to create a strong sense of self-involved "Well, actually..." gameplay rather than thoughtful conversation, even if the skeleton of the comments are based in legal experiences. To fail to recognize that even when it's a huge recurring issue that he's been talked to about previously is frustrating as hell to deal with. That we're not super patient when he starts into it yet again should be understandable, and as something other than general mod hostility toward law-centric comments.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
Correcting for time and place and mood and a sense of one's own footprint in a discussion. Talking a little bit in that thread about legal specifics is fine and I don't think anybody would have blinked if Ironmouth had done that in a "here's some context from my perspective, about some of the legal rather than moral question of justifiable force in the law as it stands" way and then left it alone. But that's not what he did, and he did not leave it alone after saying his piece and seeing that people weren't feeling overly receptive, and this is not remotely a new thing for him.
So I think it's an unreasonably narrow read of the situation to treat it as a question of whether legal discussions are relevant to a discussion about a grand jury, rather than as a question of whether how and how much he pursued that angle to the exclusion of everything else that makes up the context of this specific grand jury process, what's been going on in and around Ferguson for the last several months, and how that's played out on Metafilter itself.
To fail to recognize that context and just bull on ahead is to create a strong sense of self-involved "Well, actually..." gameplay rather than thoughtful conversation, even if the skeleton of the comments are based in legal experiences. To fail to recognize that even when it's a huge recurring issue that he's been talked to about previously is frustrating as hell to deal with. That we're not super patient when he starts into it yet again should be understandable, and as something other than general mod hostility toward law-centric comments.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
but certainly the ones that are about courts, laws, grand juries, and criminality are legal topics and ones that benefit from a focus on the law, right?
Sure, and after eleven comments in half an hour, I'd say that part of the topic was focused. Otherwise, what cortex just said. This is a thing he does. He should do less of that thing. He didn't have comments deleted (at that point) he was just asked to ease off.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 10:44 AM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Sure, and after eleven comments in half an hour, I'd say that part of the topic was focused. Otherwise, what cortex just said. This is a thing he does. He should do less of that thing. He didn't have comments deleted (at that point) he was just asked to ease off.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 10:44 AM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Sys Rq: My beef is with the vitriolThen you're in the wrong thread. Luckily, there's a Metafilter FPP on it you can contribute to.
My beef is with the murder.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:48 AM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
Sorry about all the clauses in that last sentence, please do not try to diagram it
it's a pretty dedicated lawyer who continues a defense while dying
posted by kagredon at 10:50 AM on December 1, 2014 [30 favorites]
it's a pretty dedicated lawyer who continues a defense while dying
posted by kagredon at 10:50 AM on December 1, 2014 [30 favorites]
If the only way you can engage in a thread is by continuing to return to your own analysis over and over again without engaging other people except to tell them that they are wrong
I understand this is a difficult moderation conundrum. Perhaps it is unfair for Ironmouth to argue that the legality of the situation is dispositive; surely then it is also unfair for others to argue that the morality of the situation is dispositive? Insisting "But it is legal" is no more or less monopolizing than insisting "But it is morally wrong" as a perspective. It seems Ironmouth has much of a right to focus exclusively on the legality of the situation as other people have to insist that the morality of it is what is important and ignore the legality of it.
It is not surprising that people may approach a difficult topic from a number of angles and assume their angle is the correct one. Short of convincing the person otherwise, each person is going to return to what the perceive to be the correct way of looking at that issue. So, my guess is that the only moderation solution is to insist that others respect other people's right to their opinions and to meet them on their own terms or not at all. restless_nomad's other comment I applauded tries to do that. People should be clear as to what perspective they approach a topic and met on those terms if someone wishes to have a discussion with them. Otherwise it is ships passing each other in the night (though often loudly and disruptingly).
On preview:
This is a thing he does. He should do less of that thing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:44 PM on December 1
when it's a huge recurring issue that he's been talked to about previously is frustrating as hell to deal with
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on December 1
This explanation is more understandable. If this is more about a particular person and a recurring issue as I assume it is based on both of your comments, that's not anything I have an understanding about so I cannot really comment on that. My comments above were addressed outside that context. So perhaps there is no issue.
posted by dios at 10:51 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
I understand this is a difficult moderation conundrum. Perhaps it is unfair for Ironmouth to argue that the legality of the situation is dispositive; surely then it is also unfair for others to argue that the morality of the situation is dispositive? Insisting "But it is legal" is no more or less monopolizing than insisting "But it is morally wrong" as a perspective. It seems Ironmouth has much of a right to focus exclusively on the legality of the situation as other people have to insist that the morality of it is what is important and ignore the legality of it.
It is not surprising that people may approach a difficult topic from a number of angles and assume their angle is the correct one. Short of convincing the person otherwise, each person is going to return to what the perceive to be the correct way of looking at that issue. So, my guess is that the only moderation solution is to insist that others respect other people's right to their opinions and to meet them on their own terms or not at all. restless_nomad's other comment I applauded tries to do that. People should be clear as to what perspective they approach a topic and met on those terms if someone wishes to have a discussion with them. Otherwise it is ships passing each other in the night (though often loudly and disruptingly).
On preview:
This is a thing he does. He should do less of that thing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:44 PM on December 1
when it's a huge recurring issue that he's been talked to about previously is frustrating as hell to deal with
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on December 1
This explanation is more understandable. If this is more about a particular person and a recurring issue as I assume it is based on both of your comments, that's not anything I have an understanding about so I cannot really comment on that. My comments above were addressed outside that context. So perhaps there is no issue.
posted by dios at 10:51 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
jaguar: "Ironmouth kept arguing the legal point with the implication that everyone else was wrong for arguing the moral point. It seemed to be him trying to shut down the larger conversation by insisting that his point was more important than anyone else's."
I don't think that was the case at all. Ironmouth, and a few other lawyer types here, have excellent discipline at separating the legal from the moral. This comes across in a very offputting way, I think, because people who approach the legal system from a perspective of rules and processes focus on that, rather than the moral and ethical points.
I stopped getting vexed at these comments because they're essentially saying "of course he got off. That's what the law says happens. Officer Wilson said the words that the law requires him to say in the court to justify deadly force. Once that force was exercised, the law says it doesn't matter if there's one bullet or a hundred. The legal justification is there regardless. Your complaint is with the system. Your complaint is with the prosecutor and the legislators who put these laws into place, and who chose to enact them in the way they did."
I think it's hard for people who are passionate to see that. I don't think there's a good analogy for this type of interaction because the stakes are so high, and people tend to want to express their dissatisfaction in a way that is personally satisfying first and, perhaps, efficacious in reform (or justice?) a distant second. Maybe people realize the Ferguson deck is so stacked against change that the idea of changing the laws and local actors becomes a blind spot. It's also naturally abhorrent to think of this incident and believe that the best we can do societally and culturally is to prevent that from happening again. People who believe in justice want it applied equally and consistently and, sometimes, without concern for the system that dispenses it. Those who work within that system might sympathize with that idea because it looks like complete anarchy from the inside.
I don't know how to calmly disentangle the moral failure of Ferguson with the legal system that made it happen, but I appreciate the people who do that work when they say, however obliquely, that our intents and our passions don't line up well.
posted by boo_radley at 10:55 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
I don't think that was the case at all. Ironmouth, and a few other lawyer types here, have excellent discipline at separating the legal from the moral. This comes across in a very offputting way, I think, because people who approach the legal system from a perspective of rules and processes focus on that, rather than the moral and ethical points.
I stopped getting vexed at these comments because they're essentially saying "of course he got off. That's what the law says happens. Officer Wilson said the words that the law requires him to say in the court to justify deadly force. Once that force was exercised, the law says it doesn't matter if there's one bullet or a hundred. The legal justification is there regardless. Your complaint is with the system. Your complaint is with the prosecutor and the legislators who put these laws into place, and who chose to enact them in the way they did."
I think it's hard for people who are passionate to see that. I don't think there's a good analogy for this type of interaction because the stakes are so high, and people tend to want to express their dissatisfaction in a way that is personally satisfying first and, perhaps, efficacious in reform (or justice?) a distant second. Maybe people realize the Ferguson deck is so stacked against change that the idea of changing the laws and local actors becomes a blind spot. It's also naturally abhorrent to think of this incident and believe that the best we can do societally and culturally is to prevent that from happening again. People who believe in justice want it applied equally and consistently and, sometimes, without concern for the system that dispenses it. Those who work within that system might sympathize with that idea because it looks like complete anarchy from the inside.
I don't know how to calmly disentangle the moral failure of Ferguson with the legal system that made it happen, but I appreciate the people who do that work when they say, however obliquely, that our intents and our passions don't line up well.
posted by boo_radley at 10:55 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
oh, hello, dios.
posted by boo_radley at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2014
posted by boo_radley at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2014
I think it's hard for people who are passionate to see that.
No, I'm perfectly capable of seeing that. That was not the problem.
posted by jaguar at 11:00 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, I'm perfectly capable of seeing that. That was not the problem.
posted by jaguar at 11:00 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ironmouth's passion definitely blinds him in certain ways.
posted by rtha at 11:04 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by rtha at 11:04 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
The cited personal attacks are pretty mild attacks. If that's going to get someone upset I'd say they shouldn't be on the internet.
I'd delete the comment calling someone an idiot, but the rest are fine. Being critical of someone's views may seem like an attack, but it's not.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:06 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'd delete the comment calling someone an idiot, but the rest are fine. Being critical of someone's views may seem like an attack, but it's not.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:06 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
rtha: "Ironmouth's passion definitely blinds him in certain ways."
zing!
Having caught up on the thread since I started my comment, I see that Jessamyn's shed a little light on some inside baseball. Eleven comments in 30 minutes is a lot and would definitely suck a lot of oxygen out of the room for general chat.
posted by boo_radley at 11:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
zing!
Having caught up on the thread since I started my comment, I see that Jessamyn's shed a little light on some inside baseball. Eleven comments in 30 minutes is a lot and would definitely suck a lot of oxygen out of the room for general chat.
posted by boo_radley at 11:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ironmouth....excellent discipline at separating the legal from the moral.
I don't know if that's really the case. He sometimes says things that suggest to me he honestly does not see how any other perspective but the legal could be relevant:
I really do not see why this case was picked. It was bad. The decedent had (on video) robbed an convenience store moments before the shooting. Witnesses put forward by the family had him engaging the officer physically. The officer had heard a 911 call regarding the convenience store, called for backup and went to affect an arrest. Brown fought him. He was leaving the scene of a felony.
These facts make for a very poor case to start the national conversation because, frankly, the shooting was justified.
Does he really not understand why this case was "picked" for the national conversation? If so, it seems like a major blind spot to me in regards to this topic, not a conscious choice to focus on the legal aspects.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
I don't know if that's really the case. He sometimes says things that suggest to me he honestly does not see how any other perspective but the legal could be relevant:
I really do not see why this case was picked. It was bad. The decedent had (on video) robbed an convenience store moments before the shooting. Witnesses put forward by the family had him engaging the officer physically. The officer had heard a 911 call regarding the convenience store, called for backup and went to affect an arrest. Brown fought him. He was leaving the scene of a felony.
These facts make for a very poor case to start the national conversation because, frankly, the shooting was justified.
Does he really not understand why this case was "picked" for the national conversation? If so, it seems like a major blind spot to me in regards to this topic, not a conscious choice to focus on the legal aspects.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:10 AM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
>>>My beef is with the vitriol
>>My beef is with the murder.
>Then you're in the wrong thread. Luckily, there's a Metafilter FPP on it you can contribute to.
My point: The vitriol is not difficult to understand. People are very angry for very obvious and very justified reasons.
Bonus point: I don't understand how someone can say the mods are biased against these same actors who seem to show up in every thread about anything contentious to pour gas on the fire. The mods have been incredibly patient and hands off with those users for years. That those users haven't been banned by now is nothing short of a miracle.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:12 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
>>My beef is with the murder.
>Then you're in the wrong thread. Luckily, there's a Metafilter FPP on it you can contribute to.
My point: The vitriol is not difficult to understand. People are very angry for very obvious and very justified reasons.
Bonus point: I don't understand how someone can say the mods are biased against these same actors who seem to show up in every thread about anything contentious to pour gas on the fire. The mods have been incredibly patient and hands off with those users for years. That those users haven't been banned by now is nothing short of a miracle.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:12 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
One definitely needed to make the Right Kind of Comment. "Advance Auto Parts is being burned for great justice" was not the Right Kind of Comment, I discovered.
posted by Tanizaki at 11:15 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Tanizaki at 11:15 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Ironmouth....excellent discipline at separating the legal from the moral.
I think you're ceding ground that needn't be ceded here. There are plenty of other lawyers and legal experts who have offered differing opinions on the legal issues at stake.
posted by empath at 11:20 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
I think you're ceding ground that needn't be ceded here. There are plenty of other lawyers and legal experts who have offered differing opinions on the legal issues at stake.
posted by empath at 11:20 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
My main complaint about Ironmouth's contributions to the thread is that his objective legal "facts" were verifiably wrong, as was pointed out later in the thread. Forget the "I look at the legal framework, not the moral framework" stuff; his legal framework was nonsense. But that's probably not germane to this particular discussion about deletions.
posted by naju at 11:25 AM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by naju at 11:25 AM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
This is a bit off topic, but I think I should say it. Ironmouth and I do not see eye to eye about most anything. However, we have communicated offline several times. I deal with lawyers nearly every week (alas!) And I can say that, although his rhetoric might need some attenuation, his forensics are exactly the kind of real world counterbalance this sites often needs. Also, he is far more multidimensional and compassionate, at least in his correspondence with me, than most people think. I say this as a card carrying commie pinko lefty (who happens to work in a very right wing industry). Having an attorney functioning at a very high level (something I am extremely capable of judging) willing to chime in here it not something to be taken so lightly for granted regardless of his sometimes less-than-tactful approach.
posted by digitalprimate at 11:26 AM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
posted by digitalprimate at 11:26 AM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
Being critical of someone's views may seem like an attack, but it's not.
There was a MeTa a while back in which members of this site said that someone's personal views and ideas were exactly as part of them as anything else, and criticizing someone's beliefs was the same as physical violence.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
There was a MeTa a while back in which members of this site said that someone's personal views and ideas were exactly as part of them as anything else, and criticizing someone's beliefs was the same as physical violence.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
I didn't start this Metatalk and I wouldn't have done so, but I do feel like there is a basis for it.
For instance, I was accused of "staking out a single defensible contrarian position in a sea of injustice" which I think is BS. If I post 10 things and 9 of them agree with the majority and 1 doesn't, that doesn't mean I'm staking out a single contrarian position, it means we agree on 90% of things but people don't tend to argue about the things they agree on and you don't notice them as much.
Also I wish people were more careful distinguishing between "this is how I think things are" and "this is how I think things should be".
posted by Justinian at 11:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
For instance, I was accused of "staking out a single defensible contrarian position in a sea of injustice" which I think is BS. If I post 10 things and 9 of them agree with the majority and 1 doesn't, that doesn't mean I'm staking out a single contrarian position, it means we agree on 90% of things but people don't tend to argue about the things they agree on and you don't notice them as much.
Also I wish people were more careful distinguishing between "this is how I think things are" and "this is how I think things should be".
posted by Justinian at 11:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
Drinky Die: See my comment saying corb's post was fine in the thread.
And I disagreed with you, and still do. restless_nomad's characterization of it as an effort to drum up sympathy didn't come out of nowhere.
This comment in particular was overt apologia with a thin veneer of cultural criticism. The message is one of moral relativism -- that somehow Wilson and Brown's different upbringings provide a justification for Wilson's actions. She frames it with ridiculous assertions like "Wilson, living a quieter, more middle class white existence, is not culturally aware of normative dislike of the police.", as if he'd just been thawed out from a cryogenic freeze that morning. Then she says "Wilson clearly believes that all law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the police - an ignorant belief, but not a malicious one", which ignores the simple fact that it's 100% law enforcement's responsibility, as employees of the communities they serve, to understand the culture they're operating within, and not at all the community's responsibility to adjust to being policed in ways that go against their expectations.
There's a whole bunch of other misleading stuff in there that I'm loath to get into for fear of re-litigating the shooting itself rather than the meta-aspect of how corb's comments were received, but really, I don't think it was a reasonable comment to make, and I think the backlash and moderator intervention were appropriate.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
And I disagreed with you, and still do. restless_nomad's characterization of it as an effort to drum up sympathy didn't come out of nowhere.
This comment in particular was overt apologia with a thin veneer of cultural criticism. The message is one of moral relativism -- that somehow Wilson and Brown's different upbringings provide a justification for Wilson's actions. She frames it with ridiculous assertions like "Wilson, living a quieter, more middle class white existence, is not culturally aware of normative dislike of the police.", as if he'd just been thawed out from a cryogenic freeze that morning. Then she says "Wilson clearly believes that all law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the police - an ignorant belief, but not a malicious one", which ignores the simple fact that it's 100% law enforcement's responsibility, as employees of the communities they serve, to understand the culture they're operating within, and not at all the community's responsibility to adjust to being policed in ways that go against their expectations.
There's a whole bunch of other misleading stuff in there that I'm loath to get into for fear of re-litigating the shooting itself rather than the meta-aspect of how corb's comments were received, but really, I don't think it was a reasonable comment to make, and I think the backlash and moderator intervention were appropriate.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, just a reminder, we don't delete stuff in MeTa that isn't pretty egregious, so flagging doesn't do much.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:29 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the mods deleted a whole slew of comments responding to Ironmouth.
Which, if you think about it, kind of disproves the whole "mods are biased when they decide what to delete" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:31 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Which, if you think about it, kind of disproves the whole "mods are biased when they decide what to delete" argument.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:31 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
It seems Ironmouth has much of a right to focus exclusively on the legality of the situation as other people have to insist that the morality of it is what is important and ignore the legality of it.
And what do you, or phoenix_rising who opened this meta, propose happen when that comes to pass and both "sides" are never the less engaging with the other? Let things degenerate into a back-and-forth with people repeatedly aiming at different targets and then yelling at the other for not hitting the target they themselves were aiming at?
I think the mods did well enough here. There was one corb comment I recall seeing get memory-holed that I thought was a mistake to kill but I was in the pit, not trying to police it from the outside. Since she came back with a similar one with some overlapping content I assumed she didn't lose any sleep over it.
The issue I think the mods are wrestling with here is when those "sides" choose to deliberately shoot at a different target and seem to be very willfully pretending they're talking about the same thing. The thread didn't lack for people discussing the legal difficulty that Ironmouth raised, but he was the one making very deliberate word choices which muddied the water about "justice" and "right." He's not a stupid person by a mile, so after a dozen efforts pushing with angle without acknowledging that it's not exactly the same subject being raised by others it certainly reads like a deliberate effort to make the discourse worse, not better.
posted by phearlez at 11:33 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
And what do you, or phoenix_rising who opened this meta, propose happen when that comes to pass and both "sides" are never the less engaging with the other? Let things degenerate into a back-and-forth with people repeatedly aiming at different targets and then yelling at the other for not hitting the target they themselves were aiming at?
I think the mods did well enough here. There was one corb comment I recall seeing get memory-holed that I thought was a mistake to kill but I was in the pit, not trying to police it from the outside. Since she came back with a similar one with some overlapping content I assumed she didn't lose any sleep over it.
The issue I think the mods are wrestling with here is when those "sides" choose to deliberately shoot at a different target and seem to be very willfully pretending they're talking about the same thing. The thread didn't lack for people discussing the legal difficulty that Ironmouth raised, but he was the one making very deliberate word choices which muddied the water about "justice" and "right." He's not a stupid person by a mile, so after a dozen efforts pushing with angle without acknowledging that it's not exactly the same subject being raised by others it certainly reads like a deliberate effort to make the discourse worse, not better.
posted by phearlez at 11:33 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
which ignores the simple fact that it's 100% law enforcement's responsibility, as employees of the communities they serve, to understand the culture they're operating within, and not at all the community's responsibility to adjust to being policed in ways that go against their expectations.
I didn't see why corb's comment should have been read as a defense of Wilson other then an assumption of concern trolling. It was an explanation of how she thought he went wrong. How is it ignoring his responsibilities to point out how he failed in them?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:34 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I didn't see why corb's comment should have been read as a defense of Wilson other then an assumption of concern trolling. It was an explanation of how she thought he went wrong. How is it ignoring his responsibilities to point out how he failed in them?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:34 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
"Advance Auto Parts is being burned for great justice" was not the Right Kind of Comment, I discovered.
whoever could've guessed?
such silenced all life
very mod bias
wow
posted by kagredon at 11:35 AM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
whoever could've guessed?
such silenced all life
very mod bias
wow
posted by kagredon at 11:35 AM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
My main complaint about Ironmouth's contributions to the thread is that his objective legal "facts" were verifiably wrong
Yeah, he has a tendency to present his personal opinions as though they're settled law.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:36 AM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
Yeah, he has a tendency to present his personal opinions as though they're settled law.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:36 AM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
My comment was deleted. I was silenced all my life.
I was critical of concern trolls.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on December 1, 2014
I was critical of concern trolls.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:37 AM on December 1, 2014
Yeah, he has a tendency to present his personal opinions as though they're settled law
There is, alas very little that is actually "settled law." At least not in a country with common law.
posted by digitalprimate at 11:38 AM on December 1, 2014
There is, alas very little that is actually "settled law." At least not in a country with common law.
posted by digitalprimate at 11:38 AM on December 1, 2014
> He's a paid defense attorney/spokesman for police officers... In other words, his participation here is meant to influence public perceptions of what is legally acceptable behavior for police to engage in
That's quite an accusation. I mean, we all want to influence public perception, but you're implying that he's doing it only for the money and not because it's what he honestly believes.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:40 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
That's quite an accusation. I mean, we all want to influence public perception, but you're implying that he's doing it only for the money and not because it's what he honestly believes.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:40 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
he has a tendency to present his personal opinions as though they're settled law.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:36 PM on December 1
Wait, are you telling me someone is wrong on the internet?
If you are making a form or tone argument, that's one thing. But 99.5% of the discussion on this site is people making declarative statements without any concession of the possibility that they might be wrong. Not sure that is a valid criticism to make that a particular person is worthy of derision because he or she states an opinion as if it is absolute truth.
If what he said is legally incorrect and you understand the issue well enough to conclude that and have a desire to discuss it, then meet him on his own terms and do so. Your conclusion that he might be wrong ought not foreclose his right to state his opinion. Nor should you develop or exhibit personal animus for someone because you think their interpretation of the law is incorrect.
posted by dios at 11:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:36 PM on December 1
Wait, are you telling me someone is wrong on the internet?
If you are making a form or tone argument, that's one thing. But 99.5% of the discussion on this site is people making declarative statements without any concession of the possibility that they might be wrong. Not sure that is a valid criticism to make that a particular person is worthy of derision because he or she states an opinion as if it is absolute truth.
If what he said is legally incorrect and you understand the issue well enough to conclude that and have a desire to discuss it, then meet him on his own terms and do so. Your conclusion that he might be wrong ought not foreclose his right to state his opinion. Nor should you develop or exhibit personal animus for someone because you think their interpretation of the law is incorrect.
posted by dios at 11:42 AM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
There is, alas very little that is actually "settled law."
When it comes to whether the laws you're confidently citing as a legal expert have been ruled unconstitutional, though, that's pretty settled. Kinda important bedrock of this nation's legal system. Oops.
posted by naju at 11:43 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
When it comes to whether the laws you're confidently citing as a legal expert have been ruled unconstitutional, though, that's pretty settled. Kinda important bedrock of this nation's legal system. Oops.
posted by naju at 11:43 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
It was an explanation of how she thought he went wrong.
On the contrary, every "Wilson did X" in that comment is supported by something in his "world view" that made it appropriate to do X. His beliefs are "ignorant", but not "malicious", even though those beliefs led to an unnecessary escalation of force. He worked in that community for years, but is supposed to be treated as if he'd never encountered anyone from the community. Hell, she even says "he believes that only criminals run", even though Brown had by Wilson's own account already been shot at by the time he was running! (Again, I don't want to drag this into a derail that will get the "take it to the blue" treatment, but I think these details are important in contextualizing why I feel it wasn't an appropriate comment.)
posted by tonycpsu at 11:44 AM on December 1, 2014
On the contrary, every "Wilson did X" in that comment is supported by something in his "world view" that made it appropriate to do X. His beliefs are "ignorant", but not "malicious", even though those beliefs led to an unnecessary escalation of force. He worked in that community for years, but is supposed to be treated as if he'd never encountered anyone from the community. Hell, she even says "he believes that only criminals run", even though Brown had by Wilson's own account already been shot at by the time he was running! (Again, I don't want to drag this into a derail that will get the "take it to the blue" treatment, but I think these details are important in contextualizing why I feel it wasn't an appropriate comment.)
posted by tonycpsu at 11:44 AM on December 1, 2014
What makes a comment inappropriate rather than simply incorrect?
posted by Justinian at 11:45 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:45 AM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I didn't see why corb's comment should have been read as a defense of Wilson
How was it anything but? It was entirely speculative bullshit in which benefit of the doubt was given to one person: The cop, who is still alive. She did this in the Zimmerman thread(s) as well - came up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to try to show why shooting an unarmed black man is justified. It's tiresome and sickening.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2014 [37 favorites]
How was it anything but? It was entirely speculative bullshit in which benefit of the doubt was given to one person: The cop, who is still alive. She did this in the Zimmerman thread(s) as well - came up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios in order to try to show why shooting an unarmed black man is justified. It's tiresome and sickening.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2014 [37 favorites]
When it comes to whether the law you're confidently citing as a legal expert are constitutional or not, though, that's pretty settled. Kinda important bedrock of this nation's legal system. Oops.
posted by naju at 1:43 PM on December 1
This is the second time I have seen this in this thread, and I haven't a clue what Ironmouth said or what this constitutional issue is. But assuming what you are saying is true, why is this not the appropriate response:
"Ironmouth, isn't that statute unconstitutional according to Kirschner v. State?"
Something like that is a way to engage in a dialogue on the merits without ugliness.
posted by dios at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:43 PM on December 1
This is the second time I have seen this in this thread, and I haven't a clue what Ironmouth said or what this constitutional issue is. But assuming what you are saying is true, why is this not the appropriate response:
"Ironmouth, isn't that statute unconstitutional according to Kirschner v. State?"
Something like that is a way to engage in a dialogue on the merits without ugliness.
posted by dios at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
...are legal topics and ones that benefit from a focus on the law, right?
A productive, focused discussion on the law would require engagement with positions critical of the racism inherent in our legal system.
There doesn't need to be agreement on the point, but part of the problem in these discussions is that people come at them with conflicts in fundamental assumptions (e.g. colorblind law vs. racist law), and these conflicts need to be unpacked and discussed. Instead, those assumptions can remain unspoken and as such contribute to friction especially when assumptions that support a racist system resist open discussion.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:47 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
A productive, focused discussion on the law would require engagement with positions critical of the racism inherent in our legal system.
There doesn't need to be agreement on the point, but part of the problem in these discussions is that people come at them with conflicts in fundamental assumptions (e.g. colorblind law vs. racist law), and these conflicts need to be unpacked and discussed. Instead, those assumptions can remain unspoken and as such contribute to friction especially when assumptions that support a racist system resist open discussion.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:47 AM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
dios,
The way Ironmouth was behaving in that thread would suggest that the answer to this:
"Ironmouth, isn't that statute unconstitutional according to Kirschner v. State?"
would be "No and there are no lawyers who think it is and they all agree with me, a lawyer"
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:48 AM on December 1, 2014 [21 favorites]
The way Ironmouth was behaving in that thread would suggest that the answer to this:
"Ironmouth, isn't that statute unconstitutional according to Kirschner v. State?"
would be "No and there are no lawyers who think it is and they all agree with me, a lawyer"
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:48 AM on December 1, 2014 [21 favorites]
Justinian: What makes a comment inappropriate rather than simply incorrect?
In my view? When it consistently demonstrates sympathy toward one party (the party with the gun) in ways that don't comport with the known facts at the time. The mods' view likely has less to do with the sentiment expressed and more to do with the effect those kind of comments have on the discussion, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:49 AM on December 1, 2014
In my view? When it consistently demonstrates sympathy toward one party (the party with the gun) in ways that don't comport with the known facts at the time. The mods' view likely has less to do with the sentiment expressed and more to do with the effect those kind of comments have on the discussion, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:49 AM on December 1, 2014
(By the way, Kirschner v. State was a made up name. I have no idea is there is such a case. It was placeholder case name for whatever case that is being referred to. Just want to be clear lest someone start googling that case or thinking that I am commenting on the merits of the issue.)
posted by dios at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by dios at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
dios, people were engaging like that. I'm not sure why you keep arguing hypotheticals here, though; I'm finding it confusing.
posted by jaguar at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
empath: "I think you're ceding ground that needn't be ceded here. There are plenty of other lawyers and legal experts who have offered differing opinions on the legal issues at stake."
People sure love editing that sentence.
naju: "My main complaint about Ironmouth's contributions to the thread is that his objective legal "facts" were verifiably wrong, as was pointed out later in the thread."
This one of the precision and discipline things that I referenced. The "facts" weren't his, they were presented by the prosecutor's office, which he reviewed in a professional capacity. As a professional, he extended in his consideration the courtesy to the prosecutor to suppose the presentation of Missouri law given was timely and accurate. This isn't unusual for professionals to do. The fact that good journalism later revealed this error (malfeasance? malpractice?) doesn't give him the ability to go back and undo his comment. It's kind of a gotcha to claim that he (or anybody not in the prosecutor's office) should know that in his armchair analysis.
Suppose somebody came to me as a professional developer and asked me to examine a server spec for a web server. 32GB of RAM, 16 2.1 GHz cores, fc networking. My assessment is that's a good looking web server. If that person later on implements a web server with 4GB and two 1.1 GHz cores and complains that it crashes constantly, that's not my problem -- I was given invalid data. The onus is on the implementer.
posted by boo_radley at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
People sure love editing that sentence.
naju: "My main complaint about Ironmouth's contributions to the thread is that his objective legal "facts" were verifiably wrong, as was pointed out later in the thread."
This one of the precision and discipline things that I referenced. The "facts" weren't his, they were presented by the prosecutor's office, which he reviewed in a professional capacity. As a professional, he extended in his consideration the courtesy to the prosecutor to suppose the presentation of Missouri law given was timely and accurate. This isn't unusual for professionals to do. The fact that good journalism later revealed this error (malfeasance? malpractice?) doesn't give him the ability to go back and undo his comment. It's kind of a gotcha to claim that he (or anybody not in the prosecutor's office) should know that in his armchair analysis.
Suppose somebody came to me as a professional developer and asked me to examine a server spec for a web server. 32GB of RAM, 16 2.1 GHz cores, fc networking. My assessment is that's a good looking web server. If that person later on implements a web server with 4GB and two 1.1 GHz cores and complains that it crashes constantly, that's not my problem -- I was given invalid data. The onus is on the implementer.
posted by boo_radley at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Something like that is a way to engage in a dialogue on the merits without ugliness.
Sure, I think engaging is good. I even think most awful comments should be forced to stand in the cold light of day. Though not being a mod, I absolutely defer to their knowledge and expertise about deletions and pruning conversations so that they're productive and readable.
I'm merely offering pushback to the notion that this guy was offering commendable legal analysis and we're all just too blinded by our morals to see his objective, unquestionable truth.
posted by naju at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sure, I think engaging is good. I even think most awful comments should be forced to stand in the cold light of day. Though not being a mod, I absolutely defer to their knowledge and expertise about deletions and pruning conversations so that they're productive and readable.
I'm merely offering pushback to the notion that this guy was offering commendable legal analysis and we're all just too blinded by our morals to see his objective, unquestionable truth.
posted by naju at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
"No and there are no lawyers who think it is and they all agree with me, a lawyer."
Believe it or not, that argument works just fine, globally, when dealing with international bankruptcies and vessel arrests. In fact, it is a feature, not a bug.
However, audi alter partem has it right: the facts of the law are one thing; whether or not the law is just is entirely another thing, and that was the problem with that thread.
posted by digitalprimate at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014
Believe it or not, that argument works just fine, globally, when dealing with international bankruptcies and vessel arrests. In fact, it is a feature, not a bug.
However, audi alter partem has it right: the facts of the law are one thing; whether or not the law is just is entirely another thing, and that was the problem with that thread.
posted by digitalprimate at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014
On the contrary, every "Wilson did X" in that comment is supported by something in his "world view" that made it appropriate to do X. His beliefs are "ignorant", but not "malicious", even though those beliefs led to an unnecessary escalation of force.
I don't know what to tell you at this point, I agree with her that Wilson (And Zimmerman) reacted out of misunderstanding and fear and background cultural racism and not malicious intent. They thought they were doing the right and necessary thing. That isn't a defense, I think they should both be in jail. It's an attempt to identify the problem that needs solving in the same way I will discuss the potential background causes of any other crime.
People assume the worst from corb and make sport of shouting her down even when she makes perfectly reasonable comments. I think this is just another situation where that occurred.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
I don't know what to tell you at this point, I agree with her that Wilson (And Zimmerman) reacted out of misunderstanding and fear and background cultural racism and not malicious intent. They thought they were doing the right and necessary thing. That isn't a defense, I think they should both be in jail. It's an attempt to identify the problem that needs solving in the same way I will discuss the potential background causes of any other crime.
People assume the worst from corb and make sport of shouting her down even when she makes perfectly reasonable comments. I think this is just another situation where that occurred.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Believe it or not, that argument works just fine, globally, when dealing with international bankruptcies and vessel arrests. In fact, it is a feature, not a bug.
That's great and all, but this is not international bankruptcy.
posted by kagredon at 11:55 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
That's great and all, but this is not international bankruptcy.
posted by kagredon at 11:55 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I honestly don't know if there is another side to this topic, ironically being referred to in this thread as the minority position.
If something is institutionalized, its very probably legally enabled.
Getting on almost 10 years now of watching metafilter, I'd say if the mods are biased, its towards maintaining a semblance of peaceful discourse. Yes, there are times when I've felt censored or silenced all my life, but in today's panopticon, the smaller the target you present to draw fire, the better the chances for your longer term survival on the horizon.
And, uh, firefox, time you added panopticon to your dictionary, its not optician.
posted by infini at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
If something is institutionalized, its very probably legally enabled.
Getting on almost 10 years now of watching metafilter, I'd say if the mods are biased, its towards maintaining a semblance of peaceful discourse. Yes, there are times when I've felt censored or silenced all my life, but in today's panopticon, the smaller the target you present to draw fire, the better the chances for your longer term survival on the horizon.
And, uh, firefox, time you added panopticon to your dictionary, its not optician.
posted by infini at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
As a professional, he extended in his consideration the courtesy to the prosecutor to suppose the presentation of Missouri law given was timely and accurate. This isn't unusual for professionals to do.
That I'm not buying, because Tennessee v. Garner is not some piddly obscure case that an attorney who specializes in police conduct issues would need to have pointed out to him. In the server-spec analogy, somebody has just asked you to examine their plan to run a web server with two abacuses and a S'More as the central processor.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
That I'm not buying, because Tennessee v. Garner is not some piddly obscure case that an attorney who specializes in police conduct issues would need to have pointed out to him. In the server-spec analogy, somebody has just asked you to examine their plan to run a web server with two abacuses and a S'More as the central processor.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
background cultural racism and not malicious intent.
If acting on "background cultural racism" with a firearm isn't "malicious intent", then yeah, we're at an impasse.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
If acting on "background cultural racism" with a firearm isn't "malicious intent", then yeah, we're at an impasse.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:56 AM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
I don't know what to tell you at this point, I agree with her that Wilson (And Zimmerman) reacted out of misunderstanding and fear and background cultural racism and not malicious intent.
[...]People assume the worst from corb and make sport of shouting her down even when she makes perfectly reasonable comments.
Corb was stating things that were, at best, speculation, in order to paint Wilson in the most positive light possible. She's allowed to do that, of course, and people are allowed to disagree with her, and to my eye, that's pretty much what happened.
posted by kagredon at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2014
[...]People assume the worst from corb and make sport of shouting her down even when she makes perfectly reasonable comments.
Corb was stating things that were, at best, speculation, in order to paint Wilson in the most positive light possible. She's allowed to do that, of course, and people are allowed to disagree with her, and to my eye, that's pretty much what happened.
posted by kagredon at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2014
> People assume the worst from corb and make sport of shouting her down even when she makes perfectly reasonable comments. I think this is just another situation where that occurred
Taken on its own, any one of her comments is probably reasonable. Hell, I've even favorited some myself. But her comments are always reasonable for only one side, and they often contain things that aren't true, and they continue even after she's been asked to stop restating her reasonable opinion over and over.
For example this one, where she presumes that Wilson had a quiet, middle class childhood, when (if you'll pardon a Daily Mail link) that doesn't seem to be a case and the only reason to think it is is because he's a white cop.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
Taken on its own, any one of her comments is probably reasonable. Hell, I've even favorited some myself. But her comments are always reasonable for only one side, and they often contain things that aren't true, and they continue even after she's been asked to stop restating her reasonable opinion over and over.
For example this one, where she presumes that Wilson had a quiet, middle class childhood, when (if you'll pardon a Daily Mail link) that doesn't seem to be a case and the only reason to think it is is because he's a white cop.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
That's great and all, but this is not international bankruptcy.
True, I only meant that lawyers gonna lawyer, and sometimes that's morally good and sometimes not. But it is their nature, so best to benefit from the legal aspects per se it when possible.
Also happy almost birthday we share!
posted by digitalprimate at 12:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
True, I only meant that lawyers gonna lawyer, and sometimes that's morally good and sometimes not. But it is their nature, so best to benefit from the legal aspects per se it when possible.
Also happy almost birthday we share!
posted by digitalprimate at 12:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
frankly I'm pretty okay with it if Mefi's commenting culture is less inclined to tolerate the "but looting is the real problem", "Mike Brown was a thug", "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors", "Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager". If you are someone who wishes to hear more about these opinions and feel they are not getting a fair hearing here, might I suggest anywhere else on the internet or perhaps cable news.
happy almost-birthday digitalprimate
posted by kagredon at 12:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
happy almost-birthday digitalprimate
posted by kagredon at 12:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
Believe it or not, that argument works just fine, globally, when dealing with international bankruptcies and vessel arrests. In fact, it is a feature, not a bug.
Does it work when many lawyers disagree or we aren't in a fucking courtroom?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2014
Does it work when many lawyers disagree or we aren't in a fucking courtroom?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2014
People assume the worst from corb
I think this is the natural result of a commenting history so consistently dotted with "Well, the slaveowners weren't bad people," "Well, the Confederates weren't bad people," "Well, the Southerners who set up and enforced Jim Crow weren't bad people," and so on. Not to mention that these points are usually argued at length and very poorly. But this dynamic has been discussed many times before and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [44 favorites]
I think this is the natural result of a commenting history so consistently dotted with "Well, the slaveowners weren't bad people," "Well, the Confederates weren't bad people," "Well, the Southerners who set up and enforced Jim Crow weren't bad people," and so on. Not to mention that these points are usually argued at length and very poorly. But this dynamic has been discussed many times before and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [44 favorites]
If acting on "background cultural racism" with a firearm isn't "malicious intent", then yeah, we're at an impasse.
Background cultural racism makes people believe young black men are scary. It makes cops think the 12 year old they shot was actually a 20 year old. This isn't a conscious thought, it's just there in the back of the head. I believe that Wilson and Zimmerman shot because they were in fear for their lives. I don't believe their fear was reasonable, and I do believe they irresponsibly put themselves in a vulnerable position. I don't believe they shot out of an intent to do evil, they shot because they were in a state of fear and panic. I don't call that malicious intent because they didn't intend that outcome. That doesn't make it remotely okay.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
Background cultural racism makes people believe young black men are scary. It makes cops think the 12 year old they shot was actually a 20 year old. This isn't a conscious thought, it's just there in the back of the head. I believe that Wilson and Zimmerman shot because they were in fear for their lives. I don't believe their fear was reasonable, and I do believe they irresponsibly put themselves in a vulnerable position. I don't believe they shot out of an intent to do evil, they shot because they were in a state of fear and panic. I don't call that malicious intent because they didn't intend that outcome. That doesn't make it remotely okay.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
kagredon: Oh, I'm totally ok with the moderating and mostly ok with the commenting (although there are some sore spots), but in this particular case, I think ironmouth was held up to be an apologist for a blatantly racist system, which I think he did not intend to be. Just saying that the more we understand the underpinnings of the system, the more we're enabled to change it.
And Misantropicpainforest, despite your username which I've always loved, I'm trying to point out that there's a benefit of understanding the actual legal framework that allows these abominations of justice, so yes, it needs to eventually happen in a, "fucking courtroom."
posted by digitalprimate at 12:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
And Misantropicpainforest, despite your username which I've always loved, I'm trying to point out that there's a benefit of understanding the actual legal framework that allows these abominations of justice, so yes, it needs to eventually happen in a, "fucking courtroom."
posted by digitalprimate at 12:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think this is the natural result of a commenting history so consistently dotted with "Well, the slaveowners weren't bad people," "Well, the Confederates weren't bad people," "Well, the Southerners who set up and enforced Jim Crow weren't bad people," and so on.
Based on what I have seen of how people frame her comments, I would not be surprised if some of the subtlety involved in those comments is not coming through in the paraphrase.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
Based on what I have seen of how people frame her comments, I would not be surprised if some of the subtlety involved in those comments is not coming through in the paraphrase.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
My favorite was probably "Oh look, lawful evil has made its regular appearance"
Which is funny, because he's clearly Lawful Neutral. There is no god but The System, and Ironmouth is its prophet. I can't even remember if my now deleted comment made reference to this long held opinion of mine...maybe you're remembering it.
For what it's worth (my opinion: Not Much), I am as surprised as anyone that my comment re: corb was permitted to stay. I'm honestly not sure if, given the chance, I would post it again. It is rather in the nature of a "personal attack," in that it doesn't totally ignore a poster's history in favor of "engaging with just the ideas presented," or whatever, but at this point there are certain poster's whose shtick I am completely tired of, and I'm also pretty sick and tired of the way the site's moderation mostly forces us to ignore that sort of history and treat every thread as a Brand New microcosm, divorced from the past.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Which is funny, because he's clearly Lawful Neutral. There is no god but The System, and Ironmouth is its prophet. I can't even remember if my now deleted comment made reference to this long held opinion of mine...maybe you're remembering it.
For what it's worth (my opinion: Not Much), I am as surprised as anyone that my comment re: corb was permitted to stay. I'm honestly not sure if, given the chance, I would post it again. It is rather in the nature of a "personal attack," in that it doesn't totally ignore a poster's history in favor of "engaging with just the ideas presented," or whatever, but at this point there are certain poster's whose shtick I am completely tired of, and I'm also pretty sick and tired of the way the site's moderation mostly forces us to ignore that sort of history and treat every thread as a Brand New microcosm, divorced from the past.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
I don't call that malicious intent because they didn't intend that outcome. That doesn't make it remotely okay.
In almost every one of her comments in these threads, she's trying to characterize those attitudes as just differing world views that we dare not cast aspersions on. In her view, we, the majority of society who don't accept racism as being on equal footing as acceptance of others without regard to race, need to work understand the racists, not expect better of them. Citizens of Ferguson need to meet the cops halfway instead of, you know, acting as the municipal employees they are, who ultimately answer to the people. The onus is always on the majority of society that condemns these views to adapt. Sorry, but fuck that. Some views don't deserve to be accepted as equally valid.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
In almost every one of her comments in these threads, she's trying to characterize those attitudes as just differing world views that we dare not cast aspersions on. In her view, we, the majority of society who don't accept racism as being on equal footing as acceptance of others without regard to race, need to work understand the racists, not expect better of them. Citizens of Ferguson need to meet the cops halfway instead of, you know, acting as the municipal employees they are, who ultimately answer to the people. The onus is always on the majority of society that condemns these views to adapt. Sorry, but fuck that. Some views don't deserve to be accepted as equally valid.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
There was a MeTa a while back in which members of this site said that someone's personal views and ideas were exactly as part of them as anything else, and criticizing someone's beliefs was the same as physical violence.
That sounds like a paraphrase, and, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but a paraphrase that is deliberately stripped of context to act as a gotcha. If I'm misreading, could you link to the actual quote and make it clear how it relates to this thread?
If I'm reading it right, could I ask that you not do that?
posted by maxsparber at 12:20 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
That sounds like a paraphrase, and, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but a paraphrase that is deliberately stripped of context to act as a gotcha. If I'm misreading, could you link to the actual quote and make it clear how it relates to this thread?
If I'm reading it right, could I ask that you not do that?
posted by maxsparber at 12:20 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
We're not a happy bunch tonight. There are probably good reasons. In general.
*offers tray of warmed glogi*
posted by infini at 12:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
*offers tray of warmed glogi*
posted by infini at 12:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
she's trying to characterize those attitudes as just differing world views that we dare not cast aspersions on.
Sorry I'm late to the discussion - I took some time off the internet.
For me, good faith involves trying to understand with empathy why people did the things they did. I think very few people get up in the morning and decide to deliberately do what they know is wrong. They do things, generally, because in their view, it makes sense to do them. And I think understanding those things helps us realize how many other people would do the exact same thing in the exact same circumstance, because they have the same beliefs.
If we want things to be different - and I think we all agree that most of us do want things to be different - then I think it's important to understand those societal, structural problems with isolating worldviews.
Focusing on individuals as though the individuals are just simply bad may feel good, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems in this country. We need to look macro, not micro.
posted by corb at 12:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Sorry I'm late to the discussion - I took some time off the internet.
For me, good faith involves trying to understand with empathy why people did the things they did. I think very few people get up in the morning and decide to deliberately do what they know is wrong. They do things, generally, because in their view, it makes sense to do them. And I think understanding those things helps us realize how many other people would do the exact same thing in the exact same circumstance, because they have the same beliefs.
If we want things to be different - and I think we all agree that most of us do want things to be different - then I think it's important to understand those societal, structural problems with isolating worldviews.
Focusing on individuals as though the individuals are just simply bad may feel good, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems in this country. We need to look macro, not micro.
posted by corb at 12:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Oh, yeah, digitalprimate, my comment was more just a general response to the thread, not your comment. I do actually agree with you and, up to a point, dios, is that part of the issue is that lawyers are trained to communicate in a certain way about the law that can come off as off-puttingly dispassionate or arrogant, when really all they're trying to do is put on their lawyer-hat (IIRC, the Hobby Lobby thread also had some issues with this, reaching further back.) It's sort of a cousin to "engineer syndrome", in a way. It's tricky, because I do think that it's not great when people misconstrue what's meant to be a legal-type argument as a moral-type one and I think it's kind of a recurring problem, but at the same time, "read the room" is a mantra for a good reason.
posted by kagredon at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
You can make that case without defining racism, excessive use of force, etc. down, and you can do it without making up facts about Wilson's supposed naivete about a community he'd policed for six years.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Focusing on individuals as though the individuals are just simply bad may feel good, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems in this country.
Where were people doing this?
posted by kagredon at 12:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Where were people doing this?
posted by kagredon at 12:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
For me, good faith involves trying to understand with empathy why people did the things they did.
There are a lot of ways empathy can break. In this instance, my epathy broke with the boy who died, and, if I am to puzzle about anything, I try to understand his behavior in this when it seems confounding to me.
The policeman? He has a vast and well-organized structure of support and reaps the benefit of the fact that it is institutionalized and represents the majority. Understanding him is superfluous from me. He has an entire world dedicated to understanding and defending him, and it is academic to me, as he made it out of the encounter both alive and a killer.
posted by maxsparber at 12:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
There are a lot of ways empathy can break. In this instance, my epathy broke with the boy who died, and, if I am to puzzle about anything, I try to understand his behavior in this when it seems confounding to me.
The policeman? He has a vast and well-organized structure of support and reaps the benefit of the fact that it is institutionalized and represents the majority. Understanding him is superfluous from me. He has an entire world dedicated to understanding and defending him, and it is academic to me, as he made it out of the encounter both alive and a killer.
posted by maxsparber at 12:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
In almost every one of her comments in these threads, she's trying to characterize those attitudes as just differing world views that we dare not cast aspersions on.
She said that it would be totally understandable that Ferguson would be hostile towards police and that the fear Wilson felt has to be totally eliminated. That doesn't sound to me like she believes the fear police feel is just a differing world view. It's a characterization of a flawed and dangerous world view.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
She said that it would be totally understandable that Ferguson would be hostile towards police and that the fear Wilson felt has to be totally eliminated. That doesn't sound to me like she believes the fear police feel is just a differing world view. It's a characterization of a flawed and dangerous world view.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I see corb is here now, so if she wants to defend herself any further I'll let her do it in her own words.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I did notice some weird deletions in that thread, though - as I recall, one comment that compiled contradictory witness statements before we had the PBS chart was deleted, and I found it really weird. It seemed like even really quiet stuff that could be interpreted as supporting Wilson was getting deleted - I agree that it felt like this thread was being interpreted as a vent space rather than a discussion in a lot of ways.
posted by corb at 12:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
It seemed like even really quiet stuff that could be interpreted as supporting Wilson was getting deleted
-_-
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
-_-
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Full disclosure, since this seems to matter to some people: I'm a liberal, I vote Democrat (less of the 2 evils, y'know) and I think this is a tragic situation that hopefully will lead to much-needed reforms on how police can and cannot engage with people and use force.
One of the nuances polluting the reformation you hope for is that both the Governor and Jeff Roorda, the State Rep and mouthpiece of the STL POA, are Democrats. You have to account for this.
posted by rhizome at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
One of the nuances polluting the reformation you hope for is that both the Governor and Jeff Roorda, the State Rep and mouthpiece of the STL POA, are Democrats. You have to account for this.
posted by rhizome at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
I see corb is here now, so if she wants to defend herself any further I'll let her do it in her own words.
And now that she's here, let's see how long it takes from lots of people discussing corb while she's not here to somebody complaining about corb making this thread the corb show.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:33 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
And now that she's here, let's see how long it takes from lots of people discussing corb while she's not here to somebody complaining about corb making this thread the corb show.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:33 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
I do actually agree with you and, up to a point, dios, is that part of the issue is that lawyers are trained to communicate in a certain way about the law that can come off as off-puttingly dispassionate or arrogant, when really all they're trying to do is put on their lawyer-hat (IIRC, the Hobby Lobby thread also had some issues with this, reaching further back.) It's sort of a cousin to "engineer syndrome", in a way.
A lot of lawyers do this in bad faith, is the thing - purposely throw a bunch of legalese in to surround a central point that is not watertight or certain, because it makes it harder for a layperson to pick the lawyer's argument apart. Other lawyers can see right through this little charade and call it out. What made Ironmouth's behavior so infuriating in that thread was that his refusal to respond to comments from other lawyers who were disputing the assertions he made -- about the law, not just about morality or "rightness" -- made it seem like he was engaging in bad faith and trying to hide behind legal terminology.
posted by sallybrown at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
A lot of lawyers do this in bad faith, is the thing - purposely throw a bunch of legalese in to surround a central point that is not watertight or certain, because it makes it harder for a layperson to pick the lawyer's argument apart. Other lawyers can see right through this little charade and call it out. What made Ironmouth's behavior so infuriating in that thread was that his refusal to respond to comments from other lawyers who were disputing the assertions he made -- about the law, not just about morality or "rightness" -- made it seem like he was engaging in bad faith and trying to hide behind legal terminology.
posted by sallybrown at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
And now that she's here, let's see how long it takes from lots of people discussing corb while she's not here to somebody complaining about corb making this thread the corb show.
Well as far as I can tell this MeTa was framed to be the "why are the mods and other members being so mean to Ironmouth and corb" show, so the people being accused of being mean get to answer for their alleged transgressions.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Well as far as I can tell this MeTa was framed to be the "why are the mods and other members being so mean to Ironmouth and corb" show, so the people being accused of being mean get to answer for their alleged transgressions.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
kagredon: (corb:) Focusing on individuals as though the individuals are just simply bad may feel good, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems in this country.I think I can safely say it's done in many threads about race relations, the GOP, the wealthy, etc.
Where were people doing this?
It's self-congratulatory useless, and brainless, but fun, I agree.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:37 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
And about the Ironmouth, et al thing, one of the blind spots is that the law has a moral dimension. Just because you can see that the prosecution executed a path through legal steps A, B, and C that that is a self-valiading process, where few of us are Missouri residents and fewer still legislators, so 99% of the discussion has to do with going beyond "seems legit." Couple that with ongoing developments and analysis of the details of the GJ process revealing flaws, and that these people never seem to return to the thread to account for statements made in ignorance (as I'm sure we all have made). The faultlessness and unaccountability is maddening, and I think that's something that causes ongoing pushback to them.
posted by rhizome at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
It's self-congratulatory useless, and brainless, but fun, I agree.
So is responding to a request for citations with a witless "mefi mean liberals" comment, I see.
posted by kagredon at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
So is responding to a request for citations with a witless "mefi mean liberals" comment, I see.
posted by kagredon at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
After all, this is a community that can debunk a can of beans and peel off the private label to identify the Heinz beneath. Especially on the gray.
What are we defending here again? Free speech? The right to rights? Or the emotions running high among a community?
posted by infini at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
What are we defending here again? Free speech? The right to rights? Or the emotions running high among a community?
posted by infini at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I guess the real question is though, for MeTa - Ferguson is an extremely contentious issue. There are a lot of people who have a lot of different opinions about it. Some people want to focus their empathy only on Brown, others such as myself want that empathy to be more broadly spread. Some people want to talk about the moral rightness or wrongness of Wilson walking free, others such as Ironmouth wanted to talk about the legal reasoning. What creates a need to restrict one of those positions and thus shape the discussion?
And why is it appropriate to leave comments with mild personal attacks, when personal attacks overall, regardless of their degree, are supposed to be verboten? There were a lot of attacks on Ironmouth for having been on TV, for example, where some were deleted but others stayed. Why not eliminate them all? Why is it considered appropriate to insult people because of their employment?
posted by corb at 12:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
And why is it appropriate to leave comments with mild personal attacks, when personal attacks overall, regardless of their degree, are supposed to be verboten? There were a lot of attacks on Ironmouth for having been on TV, for example, where some were deleted but others stayed. Why not eliminate them all? Why is it considered appropriate to insult people because of their employment?
posted by corb at 12:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
>>There was a MeTa a while back in which members of this site said that someone's personal views and ideas were exactly as part of them as anything else, and criticizing someone's beliefs was the same as physical violence.
>That sounds like a paraphrase, and, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but a paraphrase that is deliberately stripped of context to act as a gotcha. If I'm misreading, could you link to the actual quote and make it clear how it relates to this thread?
I think this is a reference to the thrashing about that happened in this epic MeTa. (The thread was epic, so here's a possible point of reentry for anyone else who can't stomach rereading the whole thing: this comment, which claims that "Calling someone out for saying something racist means that you are calling someone a racist" and the comments responding to it.) A number of people in the discussion explicitly stated the idea that saying "what you said was Xist" is exactly equivalent and synonymous to saying "you are an Xist". Elsewhere in the thread there's an argument that having people argue against one's position and criticize one's stated opinions is equivalent to maiming.
posted by Lexica at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
>That sounds like a paraphrase, and, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but a paraphrase that is deliberately stripped of context to act as a gotcha. If I'm misreading, could you link to the actual quote and make it clear how it relates to this thread?
I think this is a reference to the thrashing about that happened in this epic MeTa. (The thread was epic, so here's a possible point of reentry for anyone else who can't stomach rereading the whole thing: this comment, which claims that "Calling someone out for saying something racist means that you are calling someone a racist" and the comments responding to it.) A number of people in the discussion explicitly stated the idea that saying "what you said was Xist" is exactly equivalent and synonymous to saying "you are an Xist". Elsewhere in the thread there's an argument that having people argue against one's position and criticize one's stated opinions is equivalent to maiming.
posted by Lexica at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
*displays extreme concern*
posted by infini at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by infini at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure those comments were mocking the implication that having been on tv made his opinion somehow more correct or credible. Still maybe not the best comments as far as heat:light ratio, but pretty different from "insulting someone for their employment"
posted by kagredon at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
If we want things to be different - and I think we all agree that most of us do want things to be different - then I think it's important to understand those societal, structural problems with isolating worldviews.
Many comments and links in the thread have dealt explicitly, at length, thoughtfully, about these societal and structural problems. This is valuable. Empathy and looking deeper into situations is valuable.
However, empathy doesn't look like this: "If Wilson is telling the truth, he must've been really frightened by this monstrous attack on him. We should understand and empathize with that. We should empathize with him defending himself." This is not what real empathy looks like. This is not looking deeper into structural problems. A comment discussing what irrational, engrained white fear of the black man looks like, and talking about your own experiences and feelings of fright in your life - that would've been insightful. Unquestioningly believing that fear is rational, justified, and deserves our sympathy? That's what's called supporting Darren Wilson (and supporting the larger structures that led him to his actions).
posted by naju at 12:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [51 favorites]
Many comments and links in the thread have dealt explicitly, at length, thoughtfully, about these societal and structural problems. This is valuable. Empathy and looking deeper into situations is valuable.
However, empathy doesn't look like this: "If Wilson is telling the truth, he must've been really frightened by this monstrous attack on him. We should understand and empathize with that. We should empathize with him defending himself." This is not what real empathy looks like. This is not looking deeper into structural problems. A comment discussing what irrational, engrained white fear of the black man looks like, and talking about your own experiences and feelings of fright in your life - that would've been insightful. Unquestioningly believing that fear is rational, justified, and deserves our sympathy? That's what's called supporting Darren Wilson (and supporting the larger structures that led him to his actions).
posted by naju at 12:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [51 favorites]
Thank you, Lexica.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:48 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:48 PM on December 1, 2014
I'm pretty sure those comments were mocking the implication that having been on tv made his opinion somehow more correct or credible
I'm thinking of comments like this one and this one and this one. All of those seem to be specifically insulting Ironmouth and painting him as camera-hungry. I was surprised those were allowed to stand despite being flagged.
posted by corb at 12:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm thinking of comments like this one and this one and this one. All of those seem to be specifically insulting Ironmouth and painting him as camera-hungry. I was surprised those were allowed to stand despite being flagged.
posted by corb at 12:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Those were directly in responses to Ironmouth talking about his or her media appearance, which, in the context of the discussion, did sound self-congratulatory and as though the fact of it made the opinion more credible.
posted by maxsparber at 12:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
Some people want to focus their empathy only on Brown, others such as myself want that empathy to be more broadly spread.
You tend to be a bit selective about who you want to spread your empathy to.
posted by empath at 12:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
You tend to be a bit selective about who you want to spread your empathy to.
posted by empath at 12:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
What creates a need to restrict one of those positions and thus shape the discussion?
The moral dimension of the law and the relative powerlessness of any of us besides limeonaire to do anything about it. What you don't seem to grasp is that the fact that this was all apparently legal, from the shooting to the actions of the DA and his deputies, is a source of anger. This "view from nowhere"-ism where the situation can be seen to be logical is anti-intellectual, "that's just the way it is, baby," because it actually fucking happened. We were all there. That's what we're talking about. I'm not sure what use devil's-advocacy is suppose to be put to. Ironmouth doing nothing more than paraphrasing the DA's press conference isn't really honest participation, certainly not talking "about it," much less not even addressing any aspect of the previous however many comments before his.
Why is it considered appropriate to insult people because of their employment?
I'm not sure I'd phrase things that way, but it may be useful to consider that some users have canned positions, expressed in a vacuum, and not very empathetic.
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
The moral dimension of the law and the relative powerlessness of any of us besides limeonaire to do anything about it. What you don't seem to grasp is that the fact that this was all apparently legal, from the shooting to the actions of the DA and his deputies, is a source of anger. This "view from nowhere"-ism where the situation can be seen to be logical is anti-intellectual, "that's just the way it is, baby," because it actually fucking happened. We were all there. That's what we're talking about. I'm not sure what use devil's-advocacy is suppose to be put to. Ironmouth doing nothing more than paraphrasing the DA's press conference isn't really honest participation, certainly not talking "about it," much less not even addressing any aspect of the previous however many comments before his.
Why is it considered appropriate to insult people because of their employment?
I'm not sure I'd phrase things that way, but it may be useful to consider that some users have canned positions, expressed in a vacuum, and not very empathetic.
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
kagredon: So is responding to a request for citations with a witless "mefi mean liberals" comment, I see.I guess you could see it that way, but I'm fairly hardcore liberal; just anti-easy-thinking.
This post doesn't seem to add much information or nuance.
Here's a pretty blatant attack on Pomplamoose for nothing more than claiming they aren't wealthy.
And, after going back through the Ferguson thread, I have to admit that the only example I pulled was still not exactly strong.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:55 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Or, think of it this way: people are talking about how and whether a building is ugly and someone comes along and says, "yes, but the roof is on top."
posted by rhizome at 12:55 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:55 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Focusing on individuals as though the individuals are just simply bad may feel good, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems in this country. We need to look macro, not micro.
How do we look at one without the other? They inform and feed off each other. When people don't even believe that a systemic racism exists, then how do we begin discussing something they don't believe exists?
I mean, aside from the fact that you have yourself used personal history examples as a way to talk about larger systemic forces, what is served by acting like only one aspect should be focused on?
posted by rtha at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
How do we look at one without the other? They inform and feed off each other. When people don't even believe that a systemic racism exists, then how do we begin discussing something they don't believe exists?
I mean, aside from the fact that you have yourself used personal history examples as a way to talk about larger systemic forces, what is served by acting like only one aspect should be focused on?
posted by rtha at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
just anti-easy-thinking.
Just an unrequested word of advice: Nobody who says things like this ever actually sounds like a deep thinker.
posted by maxsparber at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Just an unrequested word of advice: Nobody who says things like this ever actually sounds like a deep thinker.
posted by maxsparber at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
And that just sounded pointlessly rude
posted by phearlez at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
And that just sounded pointlessly rude
As compared to claiming people you disagree with just haven't thought hard enough? Your meter for rude and mine are calibrated differently.
posted by maxsparber at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
As compared to claiming people you disagree with just haven't thought hard enough? Your meter for rude and mine are calibrated differently.
posted by maxsparber at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
If what he said is legally incorrect and you understand the issue well enough to conclude that and have a desire to discuss it, then meet him on his own terms and do so.
Frequently, it's getting the facts wrong, or asserting that there's no question that the law he's citing even applies to the facts in question, and then just repeating something to the effect of "but it's the law, you see."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2014
Frequently, it's getting the facts wrong, or asserting that there's no question that the law he's citing even applies to the facts in question, and then just repeating something to the effect of "but it's the law, you see."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2014
tonycpsu: I took droog to mean thug, as in A Clockwork Orange. Is that what the cool kids are calling each other these days? ;)
posted by phoenix_rising at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by phoenix_rising at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2014
maxsparber: As compared to claiming people you disagree with just haven't thought hard enough?A complete misrepresentation of what I said. Well done.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I do actually agree with you and, up to a point, dios, is that part of the issue is that lawyers are trained to communicate in a certain way about the law that can come off as off-puttingly dispassionate or arrogant...
...A lot of lawyers do this in bad faith, is the thing - purposely throw a bunch of legalese in to surround a central point that is not watertight or certain, because it makes it harder for a layperson to pick the lawyer's argument apart...
Yeah, a lot of the lawyers on this site are really badly behaved. (Which might be why some are reading calling someone a lawyer as a personal attack.) It is really frustrating, and it has not all that much to do with the difference between a moral/legal debate. And honestly, it is infuriating to me when people insist on ceding That Which Is Legally Correct to people like Ironmouth who have narrow perspectives and understandings of the law that are clearly filtered through privileged experience.
posted by likeatoaster at 1:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
...A lot of lawyers do this in bad faith, is the thing - purposely throw a bunch of legalese in to surround a central point that is not watertight or certain, because it makes it harder for a layperson to pick the lawyer's argument apart...
Yeah, a lot of the lawyers on this site are really badly behaved. (Which might be why some are reading calling someone a lawyer as a personal attack.) It is really frustrating, and it has not all that much to do with the difference between a moral/legal debate. And honestly, it is infuriating to me when people insist on ceding That Which Is Legally Correct to people like Ironmouth who have narrow perspectives and understandings of the law that are clearly filtered through privileged experience.
posted by likeatoaster at 1:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
The comparison is irrelevant; you can both be rude and there's no ranking system that I'm aware of.
If you'd actually said that specific critique rather than trying to find a clever way to say "you sound dumb" then it wouldn't have been pointless rudeness - it would have been some actual substance, whether or not IAmBroom disputes it as a reading.
posted by phearlez at 1:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you'd actually said that specific critique rather than trying to find a clever way to say "you sound dumb" then it wouldn't have been pointless rudeness - it would have been some actual substance, whether or not IAmBroom disputes it as a reading.
posted by phearlez at 1:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
just anti-easy-thinking.
Just an unrequested word of advice: Nobody who says things like this ever actually sounds like a deep thinker.
so, you're anti-easy-thinking, too, just wordier about it?
by the way, there's a rumor going around that there really are stupid people in the world - hard to believe, i know, but it's starting to look like it just might be true
posted by pyramid termite at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just an unrequested word of advice: Nobody who says things like this ever actually sounds like a deep thinker.
so, you're anti-easy-thinking, too, just wordier about it?
by the way, there's a rumor going around that there really are stupid people in the world - hard to believe, i know, but it's starting to look like it just might be true
posted by pyramid termite at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
tonycpsu: I took droog to mean thug, as in A Clockwork Orange. Is that what the cool kids are calling each other these days? ;)
I'm certainly no authority on what the cool kid are calling each other now since I'm in my late 30s, but remember that it was the thugs' name *for each other*. I use it IRL (usually "droogie") with friends in place of "friend", "bro", "dawg", and whatever else. It was certainly not meant as an insult to Drinky Die, a MeFi-ite who I hold in very high esteem to the point that I use a Greasmonkey script to highlight his (and some others') contributions. That doesn't mean we don't disagree a lot, of course, and this is obviously one of those instances.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:09 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm certainly no authority on what the cool kid are calling each other now since I'm in my late 30s, but remember that it was the thugs' name *for each other*. I use it IRL (usually "droogie") with friends in place of "friend", "bro", "dawg", and whatever else. It was certainly not meant as an insult to Drinky Die, a MeFi-ite who I hold in very high esteem to the point that I use a Greasmonkey script to highlight his (and some others') contributions. That doesn't mean we don't disagree a lot, of course, and this is obviously one of those instances.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:09 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, a lot of the lawyers on this site are really badly behaved.
Legal sophistry might win jury trials, but doesn't exactly make for compelling conversation.
posted by empath at 1:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Legal sophistry might win jury trials, but doesn't exactly make for compelling conversation.
posted by empath at 1:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
*Droog (Russian: друг [drug]) - Russian word which means friend.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:19 PM on December 1, 2014
*Droog, a Nadsat slang term for "friend" in Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange.
I really think it's important for lawyers conversing about issues on this site - or anywhere outside of a courtroom - to speak with appropriate humility and a sense of proportionality. Like: "This is my read of the situation based on some cursory analysis. Here are some citations to legal experts who agree. Here are some court cases and relevant quotes. The standard was probable cause, which requires showing X. And here's why I believe that standard was not met." Leave the grandiosity and ego out. Trust that there are smart people on this site. Trust that you always, always have blind spots. Understand that legal frameworks are informed by systemic biases, and that nothing exists in a vacuum. Stop giving lawyers a bad name.
posted by naju at 1:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
I'll be up all night reading and driveby snarking and that's not really the best way to deal with this. I'm a part of this community. I don't have the right words or education to speak with confidence on human rights, gender and race so tend to stay quiet. On the other the hand, I might have some exposure to the context and the subject matter so will be speaking from the subjective PoV. Will be speaking out loud, that is.
You ask us for our understanding and empathy for those who swagger around with their weapons and their privileged power pushing people around, knowingly, instilling fear of reprisal? The uniformed know you are helpless and disempowered. Fear? Paugh! I've seen the glee glint in the eyes when you tremble with fear on the side of the road, or on the ground in front of your gate at the airport, or just because. Soft words and rational arguments will not change this wellspring of strong emotion felt by each and everyone who has been barked at or intimidated by an institution.
This is not local or regional or national. This isn't even restricted to this website or community. Poke your head into twitter timelines out of Africa and Asia and the rest of the "minority" world to hear much much stronger words than you will ever see here. FWIW the mods do their job and they keep us in line. For a reason.
What you write down on the interwebs can be read and seen around the world. Its not just a letter to the editor to your hometown newspaper anymore. And yes, over time, patterns of behaviour are indeed observed, noted and recalled.
In the case of one - I debate whether to name names or not, but there's only two under discussion and one is a lawyer so we can leave it at that - in the case of the lawyer, one thing that has always kept me from reading the worst in the textual words in the blue has been the empathy and sheer kindness/niceness I've seen in their responses to questions of human relations on the green. And I've said this before about them too, on the grey.
But in the case of the other, and this is the first time I'm speaking up about it, since it is a callout thread, I've not seen any attempt at generousity of spirit on the green, only a tendency towards the opposite. That additional information also informs me when I read comments on teh blue or the grey.
Is that within the guidelines of this multi-locational web platform? I don't know tbh and I don't know how we can be expected to forget the entire body of our knowledge of a user's history across the entire site.
And it is that streak of mean in the green that adds fuel to questioning of any articulated "good intentions" behind all these reasonable sounding words in teh blue or the grey. I question "good faith" here. And I question why I am being asked to even see someone as a misguided individual who fears the Other. I am the Other. I'm tired of being feared. Where's the equivalent balanced empathy for the grandmothers who must teach their grandsons to put their hands up instantly so that they don't sit in fear wondering if they'll come home that night.
This is not the thread for this discussion. It is a Meta Talk thread pointing out the bias in the system on this website. I've been online since the internets started and if there's anything I've been seeing on the English language interwebs, it is that this is one of the places that counterbalances the biases in the system we hear, see and read daily.
Shall we sit here and discuss that objectively so that you can feel better about what happened and is happening, online and off, instead of being willing to take a closer look at the system which is truly biased? Its easier taking potshots at this site being biased.
I'll be honest. I'm glad this Meta Talk thread didn't ruin my holiday weekend by being published. I don't think it even has the right to exist as a well intentioned rationally posed neutral question. It isn't.
This is my opinion. I'm tired of keeping quiet.
posted by infini at 1:22 PM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
You ask us for our understanding and empathy for those who swagger around with their weapons and their privileged power pushing people around, knowingly, instilling fear of reprisal? The uniformed know you are helpless and disempowered. Fear? Paugh! I've seen the glee glint in the eyes when you tremble with fear on the side of the road, or on the ground in front of your gate at the airport, or just because. Soft words and rational arguments will not change this wellspring of strong emotion felt by each and everyone who has been barked at or intimidated by an institution.
This is not local or regional or national. This isn't even restricted to this website or community. Poke your head into twitter timelines out of Africa and Asia and the rest of the "minority" world to hear much much stronger words than you will ever see here. FWIW the mods do their job and they keep us in line. For a reason.
What you write down on the interwebs can be read and seen around the world. Its not just a letter to the editor to your hometown newspaper anymore. And yes, over time, patterns of behaviour are indeed observed, noted and recalled.
In the case of one - I debate whether to name names or not, but there's only two under discussion and one is a lawyer so we can leave it at that - in the case of the lawyer, one thing that has always kept me from reading the worst in the textual words in the blue has been the empathy and sheer kindness/niceness I've seen in their responses to questions of human relations on the green. And I've said this before about them too, on the grey.
But in the case of the other, and this is the first time I'm speaking up about it, since it is a callout thread, I've not seen any attempt at generousity of spirit on the green, only a tendency towards the opposite. That additional information also informs me when I read comments on teh blue or the grey.
Is that within the guidelines of this multi-locational web platform? I don't know tbh and I don't know how we can be expected to forget the entire body of our knowledge of a user's history across the entire site.
And it is that streak of mean in the green that adds fuel to questioning of any articulated "good intentions" behind all these reasonable sounding words in teh blue or the grey. I question "good faith" here. And I question why I am being asked to even see someone as a misguided individual who fears the Other. I am the Other. I'm tired of being feared. Where's the equivalent balanced empathy for the grandmothers who must teach their grandsons to put their hands up instantly so that they don't sit in fear wondering if they'll come home that night.
This is not the thread for this discussion. It is a Meta Talk thread pointing out the bias in the system on this website. I've been online since the internets started and if there's anything I've been seeing on the English language interwebs, it is that this is one of the places that counterbalances the biases in the system we hear, see and read daily.
Shall we sit here and discuss that objectively so that you can feel better about what happened and is happening, online and off, instead of being willing to take a closer look at the system which is truly biased? Its easier taking potshots at this site being biased.
I'll be honest. I'm glad this Meta Talk thread didn't ruin my holiday weekend by being published. I don't think it even has the right to exist as a well intentioned rationally posed neutral question. It isn't.
This is my opinion. I'm tired of keeping quiet.
posted by infini at 1:22 PM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
tonycpsu: Ah, I see. I misunderstood your post. My apologies.
posted by phoenix_rising at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by phoenix_rising at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
empathy and sheer kindness/niceness I've seen in their responses to questions of human relations on the green
Very true.
posted by sallybrown at 1:29 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Very true.
posted by sallybrown at 1:29 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
So, this thread has become all about Ironmouth and corb (has anybody dropped a line to let Ironmouth know he's being discussed?), but actually the one that gave me pause was jsonic being told to "read the room". jsonic, at least as far as I'm aware of, doesn't have the same history Ironmouth and corb do (and for all I know posted something terrible which was deleted and I didn't see) and in general, being expected to read the room before commenting - i.e., take into account whether or not a comment will be well-received before you make it, with the strong implication that if people won't like it, don't post it - is pretty much the 1-step recipe for Guaranteed Echo Chamber, seems to me.
That being said, I'm not going to take a one-off mod comment made on Thanksgiving weekend in a heated thread as being The New Official Metafilter Site Policy, so I'm not really that concerned. Overall I thought that thread went pretty well, tbh, and I'm glad the mods got to have something resembling a real Thanksgiving holiday. In general I don't think a mod expectation that people should read the room first is healthy for the site but I'm not ready to call it out as a pattern of behavior yet.
As for Ironmouth, eh, he's Ironmouth, the tv appearances thing was kinda ridiculous but if I'd been on tv talking about the [subject of an FPP] I probably wouldn't be able to keep my yap shut about it either. I feel like it oughta be on Youtube somewhere, though, so at least he could link to it - "Hey guys I was on TV, here look see, I said all this stuff" and then we could actually maybe-kinda engage with it, but just saying "Hey I know this stuff, I was on TV" with nothing else there is the definition of Argument from Authority and goes nowhere. But you know, there are worse things to do than make pointless posts on Metafilter that go nowhere. I've certainly gone some rounds in the ring with Ironmouth but I also have no trouble ignoring him when I don't have the time or interest.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:33 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
That being said, I'm not going to take a one-off mod comment made on Thanksgiving weekend in a heated thread as being The New Official Metafilter Site Policy, so I'm not really that concerned. Overall I thought that thread went pretty well, tbh, and I'm glad the mods got to have something resembling a real Thanksgiving holiday. In general I don't think a mod expectation that people should read the room first is healthy for the site but I'm not ready to call it out as a pattern of behavior yet.
As for Ironmouth, eh, he's Ironmouth, the tv appearances thing was kinda ridiculous but if I'd been on tv talking about the [subject of an FPP] I probably wouldn't be able to keep my yap shut about it either. I feel like it oughta be on Youtube somewhere, though, so at least he could link to it - "Hey guys I was on TV, here look see, I said all this stuff" and then we could actually maybe-kinda engage with it, but just saying "Hey I know this stuff, I was on TV" with nothing else there is the definition of Argument from Authority and goes nowhere. But you know, there are worse things to do than make pointless posts on Metafilter that go nowhere. I've certainly gone some rounds in the ring with Ironmouth but I also have no trouble ignoring him when I don't have the time or interest.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:33 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
take into account whether or not a comment will be well-received before you make it, with the strong implication that if people won't like it, don't post it - is pretty much the 1-step recipe for Guaranteed Echo Chamber, seems to me
jsonic wasn't saying anything important. what jsonic was saying was 'maybe we should know all the facts before we jump to conclusions'. Which would be appropriate in the period after an event happened, but what people were angry about is that they were denied the right to know all the facts and jump to a conclusion! It was at best tone-deaf and at worst thinly disguised attempts to piss people off.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
jsonic wasn't saying anything important. what jsonic was saying was 'maybe we should know all the facts before we jump to conclusions'. Which would be appropriate in the period after an event happened, but what people were angry about is that they were denied the right to know all the facts and jump to a conclusion! It was at best tone-deaf and at worst thinly disguised attempts to piss people off.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
But in the case of the other, and this is the first time I'm speaking up about it, since it is a callout thread, I've not seen any attempt at generousity of spirit on the green
As one the harsher critics of corb's arguments on the blue and gray, I have no problem saying that, from what I've read of her Qs and As on the green, she comes off as uncommonly compassionate, knowledgeable, and helpful. (I can only barely keep up with the volume there, so maybe I missed some badness at some point.)
posted by tonycpsu at 1:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
As one the harsher critics of corb's arguments on the blue and gray, I have no problem saying that, from what I've read of her Qs and As on the green, she comes off as uncommonly compassionate, knowledgeable, and helpful. (I can only barely keep up with the volume there, so maybe I missed some badness at some point.)
posted by tonycpsu at 1:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the original thread, which has well over 1000 comments. I don’t think reading a select few when I didn’t participate will actually give me the kind of info to judge what mods did or did not do in that particular case.
Of course, the mods have some bias. They are human. They will never stop having personal bias of some sort. My experience here on Metafilter is that even mods I have felt I had personal friction with have tried hard to remain professional. I know I am a lot to deal with at times. I very sincerely appreciate the high professional standard that the entire staff maintains, even in cases where I felt personally wronged and felt like it was at least partly influenced by mod bias. It is a thing that will never completely stop existing. But I don't think it's a big issue per se on MetaFilter. So I don't have big concerns about that.
I also cannot manage to read fast enough to get caught up on this thread. So I apologize in advance. Having said that, I would like to quote just a couple of things (the second of which is merely one example of multiple comments that said the same kind of thing) and then give my 2 cents:
I think one of the things that would be a step in the right direction would be if the mods made an effort to retire from their own use as moderators phrases like “The (mefite’s name) Show,” “Taking on all comers” and “You against everyone.” All of these phrases implicitly blame the individual at the center and holds them solely responsible for the problem when, in most cases, they are feeling victimized and often wish like hell that they could find some way to stop it (without just walking away while other people continue to take potshots at them). In place of those three phrases, I will suggest that some better alternatives would be phrases like “It has become a shit show,” “You have become the focus of the group discussion” and “It has become everyone against you.”
Sometimes, the mods make a real effort to explicitly say “You (specific person) need to walk away – and everyone else also needs to drop it and let them walk away.” Other times, the mods just stop at “You (specific person) need to walk away.” And then they do little or nothing when comments after that continue to basically harangue the person who has walked away and, essentially, been deprived of the right to defend themselves (themselves, not their point -- that is usually what the real issue is here).
I do not agree with the idea that the person in the minority feels unfairly treated because they did not get the last word. I get accused of that at times and that has nothing at all to do with my reasons for continuing to respond when people take potshots at me or reply to me in specific. I think it feels unfair to the person with the minority view because of this larger group dynamic where the individual who has become the center of attention gets blamed for it, whether explicitly or implicitly.
I have a long history, well before I joined MetaFilter, of being someone who attracts that sort of attention. I almost always attract it when I am absolutely not looking for it and not trying to start shit. I have, in fact, worked extremely hard to try to find ways to reduce the amount of shit-shows that blossom just because I happened to participate in a discussion, without doing anything actually wrong. I not only have worked hard at it and made forward progress (and I don't mean just here on MetaFilter), I happen to be someone who has a natural gift for figuring out solutions to that kind of issue. And I still cannot solve it all by myself – because it is a group dynamic thing and not solely dependent upon the actions of one specific individual.
So I think if the mods would make more of an effort to be consistent in framing such situations as an outgrowth of a group dynamic rather than the fault of someone in particular, that would help reduce the tendency on the site that once someone has a reputation for x, the only real hope of getting people off their back is apparently a Brand New Day. Because, currently, the mods and the group as a whole are all too happy to say it is that person’s fault and not acknowledge that the person is trapped in a social dynamic they did not create all by themselves and don’t know how to solve as an individual and probably cannot solve as an individual without seriously saintly attributes.
/2 cents
posted by Michele in California at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Of course, the mods have some bias. They are human. They will never stop having personal bias of some sort. My experience here on Metafilter is that even mods I have felt I had personal friction with have tried hard to remain professional. I know I am a lot to deal with at times. I very sincerely appreciate the high professional standard that the entire staff maintains, even in cases where I felt personally wronged and felt like it was at least partly influenced by mod bias. It is a thing that will never completely stop existing. But I don't think it's a big issue per se on MetaFilter. So I don't have big concerns about that.
I also cannot manage to read fast enough to get caught up on this thread. So I apologize in advance. Having said that, I would like to quote just a couple of things (the second of which is merely one example of multiple comments that said the same kind of thing) and then give my 2 cents:
It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive. This always feels unfair to the minority-view person, because it never, ever looks like they got the last word, but I don't have a better solution.And
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the tone of some of the personal comments, but a lot of the people who are getting the biggest backlash have a long history of this type of conflict. Whether it's right or wrong is a fair question of moderation, but it's not coming out of nowhere.It is a hard problem to solve and one of the things that makes it a hard problem to solve is that, because of the history, even if the person in question makes a concerted effort to really stop it and be better and so on, other people will continue to take pot shots and the group as a whole will continue to say, in essence, “Yeah, well, it’s corb’s/Ironmouth’s/whomever's fault. Look at the history.”
I think one of the things that would be a step in the right direction would be if the mods made an effort to retire from their own use as moderators phrases like “The (mefite’s name) Show,” “Taking on all comers” and “You against everyone.” All of these phrases implicitly blame the individual at the center and holds them solely responsible for the problem when, in most cases, they are feeling victimized and often wish like hell that they could find some way to stop it (without just walking away while other people continue to take potshots at them). In place of those three phrases, I will suggest that some better alternatives would be phrases like “It has become a shit show,” “You have become the focus of the group discussion” and “It has become everyone against you.”
Sometimes, the mods make a real effort to explicitly say “You (specific person) need to walk away – and everyone else also needs to drop it and let them walk away.” Other times, the mods just stop at “You (specific person) need to walk away.” And then they do little or nothing when comments after that continue to basically harangue the person who has walked away and, essentially, been deprived of the right to defend themselves (themselves, not their point -- that is usually what the real issue is here).
I do not agree with the idea that the person in the minority feels unfairly treated because they did not get the last word. I get accused of that at times and that has nothing at all to do with my reasons for continuing to respond when people take potshots at me or reply to me in specific. I think it feels unfair to the person with the minority view because of this larger group dynamic where the individual who has become the center of attention gets blamed for it, whether explicitly or implicitly.
I have a long history, well before I joined MetaFilter, of being someone who attracts that sort of attention. I almost always attract it when I am absolutely not looking for it and not trying to start shit. I have, in fact, worked extremely hard to try to find ways to reduce the amount of shit-shows that blossom just because I happened to participate in a discussion, without doing anything actually wrong. I not only have worked hard at it and made forward progress (and I don't mean just here on MetaFilter), I happen to be someone who has a natural gift for figuring out solutions to that kind of issue. And I still cannot solve it all by myself – because it is a group dynamic thing and not solely dependent upon the actions of one specific individual.
So I think if the mods would make more of an effort to be consistent in framing such situations as an outgrowth of a group dynamic rather than the fault of someone in particular, that would help reduce the tendency on the site that once someone has a reputation for x, the only real hope of getting people off their back is apparently a Brand New Day. Because, currently, the mods and the group as a whole are all too happy to say it is that person’s fault and not acknowledge that the person is trapped in a social dynamic they did not create all by themselves and don’t know how to solve as an individual and probably cannot solve as an individual without seriously saintly attributes.
/2 cents
posted by Michele in California at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Look, IronMouth does this in police shooting threads. This one comes to mind, about the young marine / father / husband who was shot to death in his home by SWAT officers who busted down his door.
Here's an excerpt from IronMouth's 42nd comment in that thread:
IronMouth: For the billionth time, the evidence of crime sought for in the warrant is immaterial to the case.
Notice his use of the word 'billionth'. Even he was aware that he had been extremely active in the discussion, already.
Here's part of my reply to that comment:
syzygy: You're arguing a very narrow case that doesn't really interest me all that much ... Legal culpability is not the only form of culpability.
IronMouth made 24 more comments in that thread, for a grand total of 66 comments, continuing to ignore those who tried to make clear to him that they were interested in issues wider than just the legal technicalities and covering more than just the 30 seconds between the cops knocking on Mr. Gurena's door and Mr. Gurena lying dead, riddled with bullets in his own home, those 30 seconds seemingly being all that mattered to IronMouth.
So it's important to understand people's history here, and IronMouth definitely has a history of being tone deaf and threadsitting in police shooting discussions.
posted by syzygy at 1:44 PM on December 1, 2014 [23 favorites]
Here's an excerpt from IronMouth's 42nd comment in that thread:
IronMouth: For the billionth time, the evidence of crime sought for in the warrant is immaterial to the case.
Notice his use of the word 'billionth'. Even he was aware that he had been extremely active in the discussion, already.
Here's part of my reply to that comment:
syzygy: You're arguing a very narrow case that doesn't really interest me all that much ... Legal culpability is not the only form of culpability.
IronMouth made 24 more comments in that thread, for a grand total of 66 comments, continuing to ignore those who tried to make clear to him that they were interested in issues wider than just the legal technicalities and covering more than just the 30 seconds between the cops knocking on Mr. Gurena's door and Mr. Gurena lying dead, riddled with bullets in his own home, those 30 seconds seemingly being all that mattered to IronMouth.
So it's important to understand people's history here, and IronMouth definitely has a history of being tone deaf and threadsitting in police shooting discussions.
posted by syzygy at 1:44 PM on December 1, 2014 [23 favorites]
Nah, r_n's point is one of demography, not mission statement: Metafilter isn't left-leaning or US-centric as a matter of political will, it just sort of ended up having a lot of folks who fall into that demographic bucket
This doesn't seem accurate. Metafilter is left-leaning because the mods are quicker to delete comments that are insufficiently left-leaning, and more tolerant of attacks on people who are insufficiently left-leaning (for the particular values of "left" that the mods prefer). The entirely predictable result is that commenters with disapproved values get tired and leave, and commenters with approved values feel validated and stay.
The Metafilter we have– social justice left rather than socialist, tending towards the cranky, tightly limited in which views are permitted– is isn't something that just happened spontaneously. It's the creation of the mods. Which is fine---when people have a lot of power over a discourse, they're gonna shape it, and we all paid $5 to play in their sandbox. But it's condescending to pretend that this just whoopsie-daisy happened.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:46 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
This doesn't seem accurate. Metafilter is left-leaning because the mods are quicker to delete comments that are insufficiently left-leaning, and more tolerant of attacks on people who are insufficiently left-leaning (for the particular values of "left" that the mods prefer). The entirely predictable result is that commenters with disapproved values get tired and leave, and commenters with approved values feel validated and stay.
The Metafilter we have– social justice left rather than socialist, tending towards the cranky, tightly limited in which views are permitted– is isn't something that just happened spontaneously. It's the creation of the mods. Which is fine---when people have a lot of power over a discourse, they're gonna shape it, and we all paid $5 to play in their sandbox. But it's condescending to pretend that this just whoopsie-daisy happened.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:46 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
ThatFuzzyBastard:
I disagree vehemently that the mods are responsible, and not all commenters who come here initially with 'disapproved' values get tired and leave.
Some of us stick around for the (often) intelligent argumentation, rethink our values, and end up becoming 'sufficiently' left-leaning over time. Some of us are even thankful for that...
posted by syzygy at 1:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I disagree vehemently that the mods are responsible, and not all commenters who come here initially with 'disapproved' values get tired and leave.
Some of us stick around for the (often) intelligent argumentation, rethink our values, and end up becoming 'sufficiently' left-leaning over time. Some of us are even thankful for that...
posted by syzygy at 1:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh great. We are shooting for the trifecta, aren't we ?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
One thing about reputation and history is the existence of a Brand New Day.
posted by infini at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by infini at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Btw my anti-jsonic and anti-ironmouth comments got deleted.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:54 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:54 PM on December 1, 2014
I'm about to run out the door so I can't read/respond to this whole thread right now, but I wanted to pop in and say that I tried to post a MeTa about this last week as well. (The mods contacted me and asked me to hold off until after the holiday weekend, and by the time Monday rolled around I knew phoenix_rising had composed a much better post so I deferred to her.)
Although I personally side with the majority on this topic (I think Wilson should have been indicted), I object to how unreasonably hard the mods seemed to come down on the minority viewpoint. Those commenters were participating in good faith and some very innocuous comments -- e.g., corb merely quoting witness statements from the grand jury documents -- were getting deleted, seemingly due to who wrote them instead of what they said.
One of the guiding principles of MetaFilter -- so fundamental that it is at the bottom of all the comment boxes on the Blue -- is "Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site." So why are the moderators going against this principle and deleting comments based on authorship instead of content?
Then, later in the day, restless_nomad left the mod comment "Another comment deleted. Seriously, folks, this is not the right place to wander in all wide-eyed and say "but what about [x] testimony?" We've had a large number of threads to hash that out, and it's most likely been covered in this very thread already. Please engage with the discussion at hand. Thanks."
Given that the transcripts of the grand jury testimony had JUST BEEN RELEASED, no, there had not already been a "large number of threads to hash that out" -- what witnesses say to the media does not always match their testimony under oath in a courtroom. IMO, it was perfectly reasonable for people to re-discuss "old" news like witness statements/testimony in that context. Also, given the huge volume of information released from the grand jury, the time it takes to go through it all, and the new analysis popping up about it every day, I don't think that something being discussed earlier in the thread is reason to prohibit discussing it later in the thread. Our understanding of what happened is evolving day-by-day as more people sift through the testimony and there should be room to discuss these new insights as they occur.
Those were my issues with the moderation in that thread. I also think the pile-on against opposing viewpoints was over-the-top -- while I personally disagree with corb, Iron Mouth, etc., the issue of whether Darren Wilson should have been indicted is obviously a subject on which reasonable people can disagree or the grand jury would not have voted to not indict him. Just because someone is wrong on this particular issue does not mean that they're necessarily a fascist-police-loving racist troglodyte, and they don't deserve to be shouted down.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
Although I personally side with the majority on this topic (I think Wilson should have been indicted), I object to how unreasonably hard the mods seemed to come down on the minority viewpoint. Those commenters were participating in good faith and some very innocuous comments -- e.g., corb merely quoting witness statements from the grand jury documents -- were getting deleted, seemingly due to who wrote them instead of what they said.
One of the guiding principles of MetaFilter -- so fundamental that it is at the bottom of all the comment boxes on the Blue -- is "Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site." So why are the moderators going against this principle and deleting comments based on authorship instead of content?
Then, later in the day, restless_nomad left the mod comment "Another comment deleted. Seriously, folks, this is not the right place to wander in all wide-eyed and say "but what about [x] testimony?" We've had a large number of threads to hash that out, and it's most likely been covered in this very thread already. Please engage with the discussion at hand. Thanks."
Given that the transcripts of the grand jury testimony had JUST BEEN RELEASED, no, there had not already been a "large number of threads to hash that out" -- what witnesses say to the media does not always match their testimony under oath in a courtroom. IMO, it was perfectly reasonable for people to re-discuss "old" news like witness statements/testimony in that context. Also, given the huge volume of information released from the grand jury, the time it takes to go through it all, and the new analysis popping up about it every day, I don't think that something being discussed earlier in the thread is reason to prohibit discussing it later in the thread. Our understanding of what happened is evolving day-by-day as more people sift through the testimony and there should be room to discuss these new insights as they occur.
Those were my issues with the moderation in that thread. I also think the pile-on against opposing viewpoints was over-the-top -- while I personally disagree with corb, Iron Mouth, etc., the issue of whether Darren Wilson should have been indicted is obviously a subject on which reasonable people can disagree or the grand jury would not have voted to not indict him. Just because someone is wrong on this particular issue does not mean that they're necessarily a fascist-police-loving racist troglodyte, and they don't deserve to be shouted down.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
Just because someone is wrong on this particular issue does not mean that they're necessarily a fascist-police-loving racist troglodyte, and they don't deserve to be shouted down.
We can't be sure about this and as long we don't know this for certain, isn't it better to keep an open mind on the issue?
posted by infini at 2:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
We can't be sure about this and as long we don't know this for certain, isn't it better to keep an open mind on the issue?
posted by infini at 2:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Those commenters were participating in good faith
Good faith cannot be observed. It's the law around here that we must assume it, but you can't make a positive assertion of it because it's not falsifiable.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Good faith cannot be observed. It's the law around here that we must assume it, but you can't make a positive assertion of it because it's not falsifiable.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Some of us stick around for the (often) intelligent argumentation, rethink our values, and end up becoming 'sufficiently' left-leaning over time....
And some of us, baby-jesus-in-a-brothal find ourselves wondering how we can honestly abide a public Left that seems so proscriptionary, exclusionary, and irascible. If I'm a lost cause to the Left, then god help me 'cause no one else will have me.
posted by digitalprimate at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
And some of us, baby-jesus-in-a-brothal find ourselves wondering how we can honestly abide a public Left that seems so proscriptionary, exclusionary, and irascible. If I'm a lost cause to the Left, then god help me 'cause no one else will have me.
posted by digitalprimate at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Jacqueline: Those commenters were participating in good faith
Sorry, but IronMouth's history of threadsitting police-shooting threads, as well as the fact that he posted 13 comments in a span of 48 minutes needs to be taken into consideration here. Whether you call that kind of behavior "good faith" or not, it certainly doesn't strike me as "help(ing to) maintain a healthy, respectful discussion".
Some people just have a hard time not making discussions about certain topics all about them. Welcome to the IronMouth show, you are wrong, sir...
And I don't see anything at all wrong with the mods stepping in to nip that sort of behavior in the bud, especially when it's coming from someone with a well-known history of behaving that way.
posted by syzygy at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sorry, but IronMouth's history of threadsitting police-shooting threads, as well as the fact that he posted 13 comments in a span of 48 minutes needs to be taken into consideration here. Whether you call that kind of behavior "good faith" or not, it certainly doesn't strike me as "help(ing to) maintain a healthy, respectful discussion".
Some people just have a hard time not making discussions about certain topics all about them. Welcome to the IronMouth show, you are wrong, sir...
And I don't see anything at all wrong with the mods stepping in to nip that sort of behavior in the bud, especially when it's coming from someone with a well-known history of behaving that way.
posted by syzygy at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
They act in selective good faith, ignoring cogent refutations or corrections.
To some extent, people holding a minority viewpoint should get a pass for not responding to every counterargument, since they're often outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1, but when everyone in a thread is pointing out some basic flaw and they skip right over those comments to re-assert the same debunked point or to make a different one in an effort to move the goalposts, I think that qualifies as evidence of bad faith. Though, again, because it's not demonstrable that they read each comment and willfully chose to ignore it, the evidence is only as good as, say, the evidence religious folks cite for their belief in their chosen deity.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
To some extent, people holding a minority viewpoint should get a pass for not responding to every counterargument, since they're often outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1, but when everyone in a thread is pointing out some basic flaw and they skip right over those comments to re-assert the same debunked point or to make a different one in an effort to move the goalposts, I think that qualifies as evidence of bad faith. Though, again, because it's not demonstrable that they read each comment and willfully chose to ignore it, the evidence is only as good as, say, the evidence religious folks cite for their belief in their chosen deity.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
FFS, Ironmouth wandered into a thread where ANOTHER white murderer of an unarmed black kid went unpunished, and his smug ass comes in and flat out says that the shooting of Michael Brown was "justified"
Oh, of course he was using a private definition of justified that he chose not to share with us. But that is what happened here folks.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
Oh, of course he was using a private definition of justified that he chose not to share with us. But that is what happened here folks.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
I think it's different to say:
"If I were arguing this case, I would argue {$This}. And I believe it would win."
Than to just say
"{$This}"
posted by Trochanter at 2:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
"If I were arguing this case, I would argue {$This}. And I believe it would win."
Than to just say
"{$This}"
posted by Trochanter at 2:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
I think having a professional police apologist in threads is very useful. Without that, we'd be making up words that we imagined that a professional police apologist would be making. Sure it can get frustrating, but it certainly can be illustrative.
posted by el io at 2:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
posted by el io at 2:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [24 favorites]
I vote for a four-comment-per-hour maximum.
posted by waraw at 2:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by waraw at 2:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
I do not agree with the idea that the person in the minority feels unfairly treated because they did not get the last word. I get accused of that at times and that has nothing at all to do with my reasons for continuing to respond when people take potshots at me or reply to me in specific. I think it feels unfair to the person with the minority view because of this larger group dynamic where the individual who has become the center of attention gets blamed for it, whether explicitly or implicitly.
(a) See "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck." You can say "that has nothing at all to do with my reasons for continuing to respond" but that's an argument of definition, not fact.
(b) Here's the thing: when the one lone constant in a recurrent situation is Person X then the reasonable thing to think is that Person X has something to do with it. You can dispute the why and I am completely sympathetic to that - I dislike attributing motive to other people's unknowable internal lives, and prefer to simply address the reality and how it impacts other people's self-stated perceptions.
But that's the thing when it comes to someone being told something is turning into "the X show." It's not because the mods are trying to crap on one particular person. It's because that person is pursuing an unproductive strategy and creating a worse situation for no point. It doesn't happen when people are having a spirited discussion that might range across political ideologies, it happens when people are just bloviating past each other.
Clearly there's people of a more conservative bent who think they're more likely to get deleted and that it's unfair. I'm not sure I entirely agree they are more likely to be deleted, but I think it might be possible. When someone plays along with the echo chamber their snipes or empty jibes aren't as likely to turn into a big derailing mess. If they're sloppy with their phrasing in supporting the majority view it's less likely to turn into a giant mess.
In the scope of Horribly Unfair Things I'm not ranking that in my top 100, I have to say. Anyone who can't recognize that they should consider their statements more carefully in certain environments is new to life and quite frankly they're being done a favor if this helps them learn this lesson. I have opinions on racial justice and feminism that are largely in step with the majority of MF and I still have to watch my words carefully because I am a white dude. Being a thoughtful citizen of the universe sometimes takes a little effort and some sacrifices. If that means watching your terms or not always getting to be the last person to clarify, even if you weren't actually trying to get the last word, it's not going to keep you from eating tomorrow.
If you need a concrete example, you can go back and look at corb using this rhetorical "I don't understand why" strategy about road blocking. When someone said hey, isn't this kind of your area? You should know it happens for Y reason, she comes back with well yeah, but we don't do it because of Z. Which makes it look like she's being deliberately disingenuous in order to set up some sort of response or rant rather than discussion in good faith. And she's more likely to be perceived that way precisely because of the positions she tends to stake out in general and in that thread in particular.
In that case she got called out on it and it resolved and everyone moved forward in just a few comments. But that sort of thing doesn't always get resolved and it doesn't always avoid taking the conversation down a side road. When Ironmouth decides he's going to plant his flag on the mountain of legal rightness and use terms that sound like he's insisting the legal and the moral must necessarily be identical things ('justified' in the legal not moral sense with no acknowledgement of the difference) then he seems not just to be using a rhetorical strategy but deliberately creating a conversation that's just mutual shouting.
Jsonic wasn't told to "read the room" because s/he was taking an unpopular position but because hir statements were one-line contrary statements that seemed more like they should have been in the initial shooting thread three months prior. They weren't discussion or refutation so much as just incendiary-seeming foot stomping.
So if the point the mods are pursuing is a productive discussion then everyone is going to have to accept some pain along the way - even if they're not necessarily at fault, or because of things beyond their immediate actions in that second. Maybe ThatFuzzyBastard is right and that's Just Too Much for some people to stomach and they leave. Personally I think that if the end result is better discussions and we only get the truly valiant who are willing to deal with the chafe of that yoke, that's okay. But I only speak for myself.
posted by phearlez at 2:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
(a) See "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck." You can say "that has nothing at all to do with my reasons for continuing to respond" but that's an argument of definition, not fact.
(b) Here's the thing: when the one lone constant in a recurrent situation is Person X then the reasonable thing to think is that Person X has something to do with it. You can dispute the why and I am completely sympathetic to that - I dislike attributing motive to other people's unknowable internal lives, and prefer to simply address the reality and how it impacts other people's self-stated perceptions.
But that's the thing when it comes to someone being told something is turning into "the X show." It's not because the mods are trying to crap on one particular person. It's because that person is pursuing an unproductive strategy and creating a worse situation for no point. It doesn't happen when people are having a spirited discussion that might range across political ideologies, it happens when people are just bloviating past each other.
Clearly there's people of a more conservative bent who think they're more likely to get deleted and that it's unfair. I'm not sure I entirely agree they are more likely to be deleted, but I think it might be possible. When someone plays along with the echo chamber their snipes or empty jibes aren't as likely to turn into a big derailing mess. If they're sloppy with their phrasing in supporting the majority view it's less likely to turn into a giant mess.
In the scope of Horribly Unfair Things I'm not ranking that in my top 100, I have to say. Anyone who can't recognize that they should consider their statements more carefully in certain environments is new to life and quite frankly they're being done a favor if this helps them learn this lesson. I have opinions on racial justice and feminism that are largely in step with the majority of MF and I still have to watch my words carefully because I am a white dude. Being a thoughtful citizen of the universe sometimes takes a little effort and some sacrifices. If that means watching your terms or not always getting to be the last person to clarify, even if you weren't actually trying to get the last word, it's not going to keep you from eating tomorrow.
If you need a concrete example, you can go back and look at corb using this rhetorical "I don't understand why" strategy about road blocking. When someone said hey, isn't this kind of your area? You should know it happens for Y reason, she comes back with well yeah, but we don't do it because of Z. Which makes it look like she's being deliberately disingenuous in order to set up some sort of response or rant rather than discussion in good faith. And she's more likely to be perceived that way precisely because of the positions she tends to stake out in general and in that thread in particular.
In that case she got called out on it and it resolved and everyone moved forward in just a few comments. But that sort of thing doesn't always get resolved and it doesn't always avoid taking the conversation down a side road. When Ironmouth decides he's going to plant his flag on the mountain of legal rightness and use terms that sound like he's insisting the legal and the moral must necessarily be identical things ('justified' in the legal not moral sense with no acknowledgement of the difference) then he seems not just to be using a rhetorical strategy but deliberately creating a conversation that's just mutual shouting.
Jsonic wasn't told to "read the room" because s/he was taking an unpopular position but because hir statements were one-line contrary statements that seemed more like they should have been in the initial shooting thread three months prior. They weren't discussion or refutation so much as just incendiary-seeming foot stomping.
So if the point the mods are pursuing is a productive discussion then everyone is going to have to accept some pain along the way - even if they're not necessarily at fault, or because of things beyond their immediate actions in that second. Maybe ThatFuzzyBastard is right and that's Just Too Much for some people to stomach and they leave. Personally I think that if the end result is better discussions and we only get the truly valiant who are willing to deal with the chafe of that yoke, that's okay. But I only speak for myself.
posted by phearlez at 2:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
If you need a concrete example, you can go back and look at corb using this rhetorical "I don't understand why" strategy about road blocking. When someone said hey, isn't this kind of your area? You should know it happens for Y reason, she comes back with well yeah, but we don't do it because of Z. Which makes it look like she's being deliberately disingenuous in order to set up some sort of response or rant rather than discussion in good faith. And she's more likely to be perceived that way precisely because of the positions she tends to stake out in general and in that thread in particular.
Yeah, that was some bullshit. Offering tactical advice to people you clearly don't sympathize with is already fraught with "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" peril, but when the tactical advice you're offering is "surround the police station", it's particularly hard to take seriously. The purpose of the protest isn't to inconvenience the cops, it's to get your message out to the rest of the world that might not be paying attention, or might not understand how important the cause is to you. I don't know what the best outcome of surrounding a police station is, but I sure know what some of the worse outcomes would be, and they would come with none of the benefits of something like blocking an interstate, which forces people to at least think about why a bunch of people are in their way willing to risk being arrested. Best case scenario with the police station approach you see a quick story on the news about how a bunch of idiots decided to get themselves arrested while everyone else went about their day as usual.
Of course, contra the assertion in the FPP, I did have my response to that point deleted, and for good reason -- I added a bit at the end calling corb a concern troll. That's something that should obviously cause a deletion, and it did, and I shouldn't have included it.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Yeah, that was some bullshit. Offering tactical advice to people you clearly don't sympathize with is already fraught with "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" peril, but when the tactical advice you're offering is "surround the police station", it's particularly hard to take seriously. The purpose of the protest isn't to inconvenience the cops, it's to get your message out to the rest of the world that might not be paying attention, or might not understand how important the cause is to you. I don't know what the best outcome of surrounding a police station is, but I sure know what some of the worse outcomes would be, and they would come with none of the benefits of something like blocking an interstate, which forces people to at least think about why a bunch of people are in their way willing to risk being arrested. Best case scenario with the police station approach you see a quick story on the news about how a bunch of idiots decided to get themselves arrested while everyone else went about their day as usual.
Of course, contra the assertion in the FPP, I did have my response to that point deleted, and for good reason -- I added a bit at the end calling corb a concern troll. That's something that should obviously cause a deletion, and it did, and I shouldn't have included it.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
(b) Here's the thing: when the one lone constant in a recurrent situation is Person X then the reasonable thing to think is that Person X has something to do with it. You can dispute the why and I am completely sympathetic to that - I dislike attributing motive to other people's unknowable internal lives, and prefer to simply address the reality and how it impacts other people's self-stated perceptions.
If you go with that theory, you can justify racism, sexism and all kinds of ugly crap. And I hope others can see what I mean there without me elaborating. Because I am not a fan of arguing about things and I think me trying to clarify that is likely to be deemed by others as argumentative.
I made a suggestion. I think it's a good suggestion. I hope some folks will think about it seriously and not just jump to yet more statements about how, obviously, corb or Ironmouth or whomever totally deserves to be ganged up on, has history, is at fault, etc. That point of view is not at all new on this site and the fact that it exists contributes to situations like this one. I am just saying "If you keep doing the same thing, you will probably get the same result. Here is a new thing to try and see if it gets better results. I think it will."
posted by Michele in California at 2:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
If you go with that theory, you can justify racism, sexism and all kinds of ugly crap. And I hope others can see what I mean there without me elaborating. Because I am not a fan of arguing about things and I think me trying to clarify that is likely to be deemed by others as argumentative.
I made a suggestion. I think it's a good suggestion. I hope some folks will think about it seriously and not just jump to yet more statements about how, obviously, corb or Ironmouth or whomever totally deserves to be ganged up on, has history, is at fault, etc. That point of view is not at all new on this site and the fact that it exists contributes to situations like this one. I am just saying "If you keep doing the same thing, you will probably get the same result. Here is a new thing to try and see if it gets better results. I think it will."
posted by Michele in California at 2:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Michele, do you in your own life give everyone a clean slate each time you interact with them, or do you factor your previous interactions into how you approach each new interaction?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:44 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 2:44 PM on December 1, 2014
I have not read the Ferguson thread. But I'm glad corb is a member here, precisely because a) I rarely agree with her, and b) she does her best to practice the principle of charity in interpretation.
I share the righteous anger and disappointment at the non-indictment of a lot of the people who attacked corb. But despite my disagreements with her, when I think about Mefites with whom it would be nice to have coffee, corb is high on the list. So please don't attack her personally, people who agree with me; attack her arguments.
(I've actually had coffee with a bunch of Mefites, already, including Ironmouth! He is also very nice.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
I share the righteous anger and disappointment at the non-indictment of a lot of the people who attacked corb. But despite my disagreements with her, when I think about Mefites with whom it would be nice to have coffee, corb is high on the list. So please don't attack her personally, people who agree with me; attack her arguments.
(I've actually had coffee with a bunch of Mefites, already, including Ironmouth! He is also very nice.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [20 favorites]
Michele in California: If you go with that theory, you can justify racism, sexism and all kinds of ugly crap
Disagree. If Antarctic American Jane Doe lies to me once, lies to me twice, lies to me three times, it's neither sexist nor racist (nor anything but 'Jane Doe'-ist) of me to be untrusting of her the fourth time she tells me something.
We're talking about specific individuals here with specific histories, not whole classes of people who anyone says should be judged a certain way just because a single member of their class has acted poorly.
posted by syzygy at 2:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Disagree. If Antarctic American Jane Doe lies to me once, lies to me twice, lies to me three times, it's neither sexist nor racist (nor anything but 'Jane Doe'-ist) of me to be untrusting of her the fourth time she tells me something.
We're talking about specific individuals here with specific histories, not whole classes of people who anyone says should be judged a certain way just because a single member of their class has acted poorly.
posted by syzygy at 2:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
I'd have coffee with everyone in this thread! (Might have to bring a flask along for some, but that's no knock against anyone but me.)
posted by naju at 2:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by naju at 2:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Holding too unpopular a viewpoint is often conflated with (but rarely mistaken for) not providing a meaningful contribution to the conversation.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 2:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 2:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Michele, do you in your own life give everyone a clean slate each time you interact with them, or do you factor your previous interactions into how you approach each new interaction?
tonycpsu,
I am not talking about giving people a clean slate here. I am talking about holding everyone responsible for their piece of it and not blaming the entire thing solely on one individual. Yes, that is a thing I personally do in my life. I do it regularly. I try to be consistent about it.
And I generally have a pretty charitable, compassionate read of what other people do, even when I have been hurt by them. There are times when I conclude someone really is just "being bad" or is somehow guilty. But it tends to take a lot for me to conclude that. I am generally quick to assume it was an unfortunate misunderstanding, one of us was having a bad day and so on. I find that goes a very long way towards preventing the kind of entrenched negative patterns so commonly seen here on MetaFilter, some of which are clearly part of the problem in the thread that inspired this specific MeTa.
posted by Michele in California at 3:00 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
tonycpsu,
I am not talking about giving people a clean slate here. I am talking about holding everyone responsible for their piece of it and not blaming the entire thing solely on one individual. Yes, that is a thing I personally do in my life. I do it regularly. I try to be consistent about it.
And I generally have a pretty charitable, compassionate read of what other people do, even when I have been hurt by them. There are times when I conclude someone really is just "being bad" or is somehow guilty. But it tends to take a lot for me to conclude that. I am generally quick to assume it was an unfortunate misunderstanding, one of us was having a bad day and so on. I find that goes a very long way towards preventing the kind of entrenched negative patterns so commonly seen here on MetaFilter, some of which are clearly part of the problem in the thread that inspired this specific MeTa.
posted by Michele in California at 3:00 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
So please don't attack her personally, people who agree with me; attack her arguments.
For the record, I've found corb to be 100% civil and nice in Chat and in MeMail. That said, I think her politics are awful.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
For the record, I've found corb to be 100% civil and nice in Chat and in MeMail. That said, I think her politics are awful.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
And I hope others can see what I mean there without me elaborating. Because I am not a fan of arguing about things and I think me trying to clarify that is likely to be deemed by others as argumentative.
No one is requiring you to be in this thread. If you feel not up to clarifying a statement that, on its own, seems pretty nonsensical and inflammatory, then you don't have to post it.
posted by kagredon at 3:06 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
No one is requiring you to be in this thread. If you feel not up to clarifying a statement that, on its own, seems pretty nonsensical and inflammatory, then you don't have to post it.
posted by kagredon at 3:06 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
What a great example of a metalk post: a seriously detailed topic comes up, the mod answers it openly and lo, it sort of peters out into agreeablility.
Anything else would have resulted in 1000 comments and a couple of flameouts.
I know there are many new mechanisms to reduce mod workload, such as a queue for this part of the site - but has any consideration been given in mefi's higher echelons of replicating this groundbreaking new method of dealing with user queries on a wider scale ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:14 PM on December 1, 2014
Anything else would have resulted in 1000 comments and a couple of flameouts.
I know there are many new mechanisms to reduce mod workload, such as a queue for this part of the site - but has any consideration been given in mefi's higher echelons of replicating this groundbreaking new method of dealing with user queries on a wider scale ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:14 PM on December 1, 2014
Anything else would have resulted in 1000 comments and a couple of flameouts.
shh, give it time.
posted by kagredon at 3:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
shh, give it time.
posted by kagredon at 3:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
FOUR COMMENTS PER HOUR OR I WALK, GODDAMMIT
posted by waraw at 3:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by waraw at 3:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
kagredon, that is not the point.
The point is that I am one of the people on metafilter who has this kind of history and when multiple people reply to me in specific in what is essentially an attacking or dismissive manner, as you are doing, then I get blamed and told I am behaving badly. But I am not.
This is a site-wide problem. So solutions like specific people doing a Brand New Day doesn't fix it. Even if every single individual who has this kind of history did a Brand New Day (or left the site) and managed to, every last one of them, figure out how to participate in a manner that did not get them targeted, in spite of their minority view (or whatever the focus is in their specific case), someone would just take their place. Either that or there would be zero interesting discussion, just a bunch of folks politely agreeing with each other. And that would likely be the death of the site.
If things are to remain interesting and lively, there has to be a mechanism in place that protects minority view members without silencing them. Having everyone agree that it is all their fault and they deserve to have the crap kicked out of them is not a good way to foster meaty discussion. It just is not.
posted by Michele in California at 3:20 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
The point is that I am one of the people on metafilter who has this kind of history and when multiple people reply to me in specific in what is essentially an attacking or dismissive manner, as you are doing, then I get blamed and told I am behaving badly. But I am not.
This is a site-wide problem. So solutions like specific people doing a Brand New Day doesn't fix it. Even if every single individual who has this kind of history did a Brand New Day (or left the site) and managed to, every last one of them, figure out how to participate in a manner that did not get them targeted, in spite of their minority view (or whatever the focus is in their specific case), someone would just take their place. Either that or there would be zero interesting discussion, just a bunch of folks politely agreeing with each other. And that would likely be the death of the site.
If things are to remain interesting and lively, there has to be a mechanism in place that protects minority view members without silencing them. Having everyone agree that it is all their fault and they deserve to have the crap kicked out of them is not a good way to foster meaty discussion. It just is not.
posted by Michele in California at 3:20 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
then I get blamed and told I am behaving badly. But I am not.
I would say that you are behaving badly by making the inflammatory and illogical statement about justifying 'racism, sexism and all kinds of ugly crap', then refusing to clarify it.
I'm not attributing any motives to your actions there, either - just judging your behavior, and you and I don't have any sort of history on the site.
posted by syzygy at 3:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
I would say that you are behaving badly by making the inflammatory and illogical statement about justifying 'racism, sexism and all kinds of ugly crap', then refusing to clarify it.
I'm not attributing any motives to your actions there, either - just judging your behavior, and you and I don't have any sort of history on the site.
posted by syzygy at 3:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Michele in California, you're absolutely right. That's not the point. You're not the point. Coming into a thread that wasn't about you, that wasn't about a thread that you posted in, a thread that you admit you haven't even read, and then making it about you when people express disagreement with your opinions, is not the point. Why are you doing that?
posted by kagredon at 3:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [26 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 3:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [26 favorites]
Michele in California, you're absolutely right. That's not the point. You're not the point. Coming into a thread that wasn't about you, that wasn't about a thread that you posted in, a thread that you admit you haven't even read, and then making it about you when people express disagreement with your opinions, is not the point. Why are you doing that?
posted by kagredon at 3:27 PM on December 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
I am not making it about me. You and other people are making it about me -- which is consistent with this sitewide pattern.
Anyway, I really don't feel like arguing it. So people can do here what they always do and claim that the person at the middle -- in this case me -- is somehow behaving badly and the group ganging up on them is in the right and continue taking potshots and then acting like that person should not have any desire to defend themselves when that happens.
Later.
posted by Michele in California at 3:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 3:27 PM on December 1 [1 favorite +] [!]
I am not making it about me. You and other people are making it about me -- which is consistent with this sitewide pattern.
Anyway, I really don't feel like arguing it. So people can do here what they always do and claim that the person at the middle -- in this case me -- is somehow behaving badly and the group ganging up on them is in the right and continue taking potshots and then acting like that person should not have any desire to defend themselves when that happens.
Later.
posted by Michele in California at 3:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
It just looks like she wants to declare herself on Team Silenced All My Life without regard to the particulars of this situation. That being said, her desired remedy:
posted by tonycpsu at 3:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
In place of those three phrases, I will suggest that some better alternatives would be phrases like "It has become a shit show," "You have become the focus of the group discussion" and "It has become everyone against you."sounds pretty reasonable to me. I second, call the question, and vote in the affirmative.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
and look, Michele in California, I generally like you and like your posts and think you bring a perspective to Mefi that isn't common, and I think you have a gift for expressing that point of view in an eloquent way. You seem like a person that feels things really deeply, and is unashamed of that, and I admire that. But I do sometimes feel like in a lot of Metas, including this one, you seem to be reading a pattern of persecution that you've decided applies to your life, regardless of whether what's actually going on in front of you supports that. It can be very frustrating to try to engage with what you've written and have it become fodder for some larger narrative of your life, rather than a disagreement between two people.
posted by kagredon at 3:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 3:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [22 favorites]
I would give up a body part to never hear the phrase "shit show" again. It's a disgusting gross horrible image and it needs to jump off a cliff.
posted by jaguar at 3:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 3:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
jaguar: hey now, the shit show has feelings too, you know.
posted by el io at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by el io at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
It isn't the opinions per se that are the problem; it is the mode of presenting them, the constant shifting of goalposts, the disingenuousness, the refusal to engage, and the refusal to accept any refutations.
Years ago when I was active on Wikipedia there was this guy (or at least referred to himself with male pronouns; I'm not assuming gender) who was possibly the most frustrating person I have ever encountered. He had this quixotic little quest he was on that was, on its face, not just stupid but actually fundamentally impossible to implement. Here's how conversations with him would go:
Quixotic: I want to have a discussion about X
Everyone Else: We've had this discussion before, the idea is stupid because of ABC, it's not happening.
Q: Great! Now that we're talking about X, what do you think about X?
Everyone Else Plus Some People Who Weren't Around Last Time: We think it's stupid and it isn't going to happen.
Q: That's a very interesting opinion! I'm glad we're talking about it. Since we're on the subject, we should do X.
EE: No, see, we've already discussed it at great length and the answer is no.
Q: I can see how you might say that, but what do you think about implementing X?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Discussions with corb tend to follow a pretty similar pattern. It is not that she disagrees--there are plenty of people around here with often-minority opinions who manage to present them in a reasonable manner; dios comes to mind--it is the manner in which she disagrees.
So, yeah, that's behaving badly. (And in no way at all do I put myself on the 'never behaves badly' side of the fence.) It's not the opinions, it's the behaviour. Ditto Ironmouth; of course he's entitled to his opinion. But his is not the sole legal opinion in the world, he has really specific biases given the exact kind of law he practices, and he's kind of tone-deaf when it comes to understanding either of those things. Again: behaviour, not the opinion itself.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
Years ago when I was active on Wikipedia there was this guy (or at least referred to himself with male pronouns; I'm not assuming gender) who was possibly the most frustrating person I have ever encountered. He had this quixotic little quest he was on that was, on its face, not just stupid but actually fundamentally impossible to implement. Here's how conversations with him would go:
Quixotic: I want to have a discussion about X
Everyone Else: We've had this discussion before, the idea is stupid because of ABC, it's not happening.
Q: Great! Now that we're talking about X, what do you think about X?
Everyone Else Plus Some People Who Weren't Around Last Time: We think it's stupid and it isn't going to happen.
Q: That's a very interesting opinion! I'm glad we're talking about it. Since we're on the subject, we should do X.
EE: No, see, we've already discussed it at great length and the answer is no.
Q: I can see how you might say that, but what do you think about implementing X?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Discussions with corb tend to follow a pretty similar pattern. It is not that she disagrees--there are plenty of people around here with often-minority opinions who manage to present them in a reasonable manner; dios comes to mind--it is the manner in which she disagrees.
So, yeah, that's behaving badly. (And in no way at all do I put myself on the 'never behaves badly' side of the fence.) It's not the opinions, it's the behaviour. Ditto Ironmouth; of course he's entitled to his opinion. But his is not the sole legal opinion in the world, he has really specific biases given the exact kind of law he practices, and he's kind of tone-deaf when it comes to understanding either of those things. Again: behaviour, not the opinion itself.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
phoenix_rising: I like to think of Metafilter as a place where intelligent folks can come together for reasonable, cordial discussions and to share and explore viewpoints on interesting topics.
I've been a member of Metafilter for over 12 years, and for political threads I was disabused of this notion years ago. Taking a contrary position on any of the numerous topics that Metafilter "doesn't do well" will inevitably lead to the ole mefi pile-on, regardless of how polite you strive to be. Your comments will be read disingenuously, your "real" motivations will be questioned and analyzed, you will be called out for making the thread "about you" if you respond to the numerous direct questions, and if you miss a response that will be proof that you're selectively avoiding responses that you can't handle. Search through the metatalk archives to see this complained about time and again. Commenters with contrary positions either flame-out in spectacular metatalk threads or learn to just avoid commenting in political posts at all.
MisantropicPainforest: jsonic wasn't saying anything important. what jsonic was saying was 'maybe we should know all the facts before we jump to conclusions'.
I still think my point was directly pertinent to a thread decrying the injustice of the non-indictment since nobody had time to review the just-then-released evidence at that point. Jumping to conclusions before reviewing the evidence is not a reliable method of determining the truth of the situation.
Outside of Metafilter, that is not a controversial statement, and the fact that it was quickly deleted due to not "reading the room" correctly and that it might start a fight is disturbing. But cortex asked me to stop commenting, and I respected that. Which leads to cortex's following comment in this thread...
cortex: Metafilter isn't left-leaning or US-centric as a matter of political will, it just sort of ended up having a lot of folks who fall into that demographic bucket.
It didn't "just sort of end up" that way. Moderation such as the above guarantees it. Which is actually fine if that is the intention, Metafilter can be whatever the mods and its vocal users want it to be. If Metafilter isn't specifically intended to be left leaning, however, then explicit moderation of mefi pile-on's would bring more diverse opinions. Deleting comments out of fear of the inevitable power-user backlash just serves to add mod-power to the existing leftist stance.
posted by jsonic at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
I've been a member of Metafilter for over 12 years, and for political threads I was disabused of this notion years ago. Taking a contrary position on any of the numerous topics that Metafilter "doesn't do well" will inevitably lead to the ole mefi pile-on, regardless of how polite you strive to be. Your comments will be read disingenuously, your "real" motivations will be questioned and analyzed, you will be called out for making the thread "about you" if you respond to the numerous direct questions, and if you miss a response that will be proof that you're selectively avoiding responses that you can't handle. Search through the metatalk archives to see this complained about time and again. Commenters with contrary positions either flame-out in spectacular metatalk threads or learn to just avoid commenting in political posts at all.
MisantropicPainforest: jsonic wasn't saying anything important. what jsonic was saying was 'maybe we should know all the facts before we jump to conclusions'.
I still think my point was directly pertinent to a thread decrying the injustice of the non-indictment since nobody had time to review the just-then-released evidence at that point. Jumping to conclusions before reviewing the evidence is not a reliable method of determining the truth of the situation.
Outside of Metafilter, that is not a controversial statement, and the fact that it was quickly deleted due to not "reading the room" correctly and that it might start a fight is disturbing. But cortex asked me to stop commenting, and I respected that. Which leads to cortex's following comment in this thread...
cortex: Metafilter isn't left-leaning or US-centric as a matter of political will, it just sort of ended up having a lot of folks who fall into that demographic bucket.
It didn't "just sort of end up" that way. Moderation such as the above guarantees it. Which is actually fine if that is the intention, Metafilter can be whatever the mods and its vocal users want it to be. If Metafilter isn't specifically intended to be left leaning, however, then explicit moderation of mefi pile-on's would bring more diverse opinions. Deleting comments out of fear of the inevitable power-user backlash just serves to add mod-power to the existing leftist stance.
posted by jsonic at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
We're not going to start putting "Metafilter: A Place For Lefties" out there in any capacity.
Metafilter: A place for lefties?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:46 PM on December 1, 2014
Metafilter: A place for lefties?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:46 PM on December 1, 2014
I am not making it about me. You and other people are making it about me -- which is consistent with this sitewide pattern.
what can i say? - some people simply have to have someone to blame their bad behavior on, so they find unpopular person who they disagree with and say, "why are you making me argue with you like this?"
a little restraint would be good for this site - if you see five people making good points against poster or dubious statement x, being number 6 isn't going to advance the discussion any
if you see five people saying x, why bother saying x a sixth time?
i can't remember the last time i went for more than 2 reply cycles with someone - sometimes, when people try to start a disagreement, it tends to be just nit-picky trolling - and then if enough people do it and there's enough replies to it, it's suddenly, "all about this person we're trolling into an argument" not "all about us trolling for an argument"
at some level, i wonder if people are insecure about what they're arguing - why else would they go to such lengths to be "right"?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
what can i say? - some people simply have to have someone to blame their bad behavior on, so they find unpopular person who they disagree with and say, "why are you making me argue with you like this?"
a little restraint would be good for this site - if you see five people making good points against poster or dubious statement x, being number 6 isn't going to advance the discussion any
if you see five people saying x, why bother saying x a sixth time?
i can't remember the last time i went for more than 2 reply cycles with someone - sometimes, when people try to start a disagreement, it tends to be just nit-picky trolling - and then if enough people do it and there's enough replies to it, it's suddenly, "all about this person we're trolling into an argument" not "all about us trolling for an argument"
at some level, i wonder if people are insecure about what they're arguing - why else would they go to such lengths to be "right"?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
And that coming from fffm, who strikes me as being one of the most rabid, hysterical and intolerant people on the site, is quite something.
posted by ambient2 at 3:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by ambient2 at 3:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Just skimming through to catch up, as I lost the discussion when it became about a carousel of personalities, but one thing jumped out to me because of the use of all caps:
into a thread where ANOTHER white murderer
So this is interesting. I suppose this is a reference to Wilson, who wasn't even indicted, but for whom a demonstrably legal label is assigned. Murder and murderer are legal concepts. "Killer" would be appropriate if you want to discuss factual/ethical/moral angle. But when you call someone a murderer, you are explicitly using legal language for the sole purpose of implying a violation of law.
So if one responded by saying "No, he isn't a murderer because he was not indicted or convicted of murder; he wasn't even indicted for manslaughter, so it would be wrong to call him a manslaughterer" would that be an improper response? Would that be not reading the room correctly? Would that be too legalistic and not sufficiently considerate of other people's perspectives? Or is that perfectly acceptable?
Of course, it would be great to not invite that argument, but in some ways, it seems to me to be the other side of the Ironmouth coin.
posted by dios at 3:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
into a thread where ANOTHER white murderer
So this is interesting. I suppose this is a reference to Wilson, who wasn't even indicted, but for whom a demonstrably legal label is assigned. Murder and murderer are legal concepts. "Killer" would be appropriate if you want to discuss factual/ethical/moral angle. But when you call someone a murderer, you are explicitly using legal language for the sole purpose of implying a violation of law.
So if one responded by saying "No, he isn't a murderer because he was not indicted or convicted of murder; he wasn't even indicted for manslaughter, so it would be wrong to call him a manslaughterer" would that be an improper response? Would that be not reading the room correctly? Would that be too legalistic and not sufficiently considerate of other people's perspectives? Or is that perfectly acceptable?
Of course, it would be great to not invite that argument, but in some ways, it seems to me to be the other side of the Ironmouth coin.
posted by dios at 3:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
I would give up a body part to never hear the phrase "shit show" again. It's a disgusting gross horrible image and it needs to jump off a cliff.
Ditto for "shit-stirring" which not only has a gross image (I LIKE TO TOSS IN A LITTLE CORIANDER) but denies good faith.
posted by waraw at 3:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Ditto for "shit-stirring" which not only has a gross image (I LIKE TO TOSS IN A LITTLE CORIANDER) but denies good faith.
posted by waraw at 3:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
But when you call someone a murderer, you are explicitly using legal language for the sole purpose of implying a violation of law.
Maybe you are. Lots of other people aren't.
posted by asterix at 3:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
Maybe you are. Lots of other people aren't.
posted by asterix at 3:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
Yeah I mean if you want proof that its not ideological content of the comments, but the tone, well there you have it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:59 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:59 PM on December 1, 2014
would that be an improper response?
Yes, of course. Are you being serious?
Murder and murderer are not just legal concepts.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, of course. Are you being serious?
Murder and murderer are not just legal concepts.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
'Murder' is also used colloquially to mean 'the deliberate killing of another human being.' Just because a word is also a narrowly-defined legal term doesn't mean that the legal term is the only meaning. So while I take your point, I disagree with its conclusion.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
But when you call someone a murderer, you are explicitly using legal language for the sole purpose of implying a violation of law.
Terms with legal meanings also have colloquial usages, and not recognizing that non-lawyers who are not in court use legal terms this way all the time is kind of silly. You are certainly not required to like it, but unless you're getting paid to object to something in court, there's no point in telling people they're doing law rong when they're not actually doing law.
posted by rtha at 4:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
Terms with legal meanings also have colloquial usages, and not recognizing that non-lawyers who are not in court use legal terms this way all the time is kind of silly. You are certainly not required to like it, but unless you're getting paid to object to something in court, there's no point in telling people they're doing law rong when they're not actually doing law.
posted by rtha at 4:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [32 favorites]
And that coming from fffm, who strikes me as being one of the most rabid, hysterical and intolerant people on the site, is quite something.
now see, this is a handy comment, because this is what an actual personal attack looks like, not "your argument is bad and you are a lawyer"
posted by kagredon at 4:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [44 favorites]
now see, this is a handy comment, because this is what an actual personal attack looks like, not "your argument is bad and you are a lawyer"
posted by kagredon at 4:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [44 favorites]
(I love that fffm favorited it, that's why I like him. :P )
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Murder and murderer are primarily legal concepts. Killer is the non-legal term.
But you all are demonstrating my point: would it be improper to respond on legal terms when someone misapplies legal concepts? Why would it be improper?
posted by dios at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
But you all are demonstrating my point: would it be improper to respond on legal terms when someone misapplies legal concepts? Why would it be improper?
posted by dios at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
then I get blamed and told I am behaving badly. But I am not.
You keep coming back to this as a moral judgment and it is not one. You can do something for an entirely unique reason and morally neutral reason all to yourself and have it be visually indistinguishable from doing it because you want the last word. Something can be "not a controversial statement" in and of itself and still do nothing to contribute to the dialog.
Jsonic throws out a "hey let's wait till see the facts" as if we haven't had a tremendous amount of eyeballs on the issue for months. To contribute something concrete from those documents that disputes the common metafilter narrative does something for dialog. To simply oppose the conventional outrage over a perceived injustice does nothing to contribute to any dialog. There's nothing contributed to the discussion by doing that rather than looking at the docs yourself and then commenting if you find something that does seem to go against the outrage in the group. Very productive conversation was indeed had about various witness testimony from the GJ proceedings later in the thread and jsonic could have been the one to kick that off if s/he did the legwork and then commented.
I'm sure that feels frustrating sometime to feel like one side gets to just be upset and you, on an opposing "side," have to hew to some standard of fact. But if you're here long enough you'll find yourself on that side of the equation, in a death announcement thread if nowhere else. It's not the worst suppression your voice will ever suffer in life. If you wanted to get the reflexive benefit of the doubt in the favor of Wilson it's not like there's not a million other places on the internet you can go to do it.
To answer dios's "murderer" question I guess it comes down to whether a discussion of that sort of libel would seem remotely in place there. I think there's probably brief and productive ways to throw that out there. If it seems like a hey, you're going to hurt Darren Wilson's feelings - yeah, that's going to probably just create more anger than anything else. I'd also wonder whether someone who really knows anything about libel is just being a disingenuous concern troll since it's not clear that Wilson has a reputation to salvage or that this would be read as anything but an obvious statement of opinion.
And that's coming from me as someone interested in legal issues. So I certainly think it's not a bad thing if someone about to start that line of questioning stopped to ask themselves "does this really seem like the conversation this group is interested in having or will I just make people super angry?" That's not squelching their political viewpoint, that's being a participant in a community rather than just an agitator.
posted by phearlez at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
You keep coming back to this as a moral judgment and it is not one. You can do something for an entirely unique reason and morally neutral reason all to yourself and have it be visually indistinguishable from doing it because you want the last word. Something can be "not a controversial statement" in and of itself and still do nothing to contribute to the dialog.
Jsonic throws out a "hey let's wait till see the facts" as if we haven't had a tremendous amount of eyeballs on the issue for months. To contribute something concrete from those documents that disputes the common metafilter narrative does something for dialog. To simply oppose the conventional outrage over a perceived injustice does nothing to contribute to any dialog. There's nothing contributed to the discussion by doing that rather than looking at the docs yourself and then commenting if you find something that does seem to go against the outrage in the group. Very productive conversation was indeed had about various witness testimony from the GJ proceedings later in the thread and jsonic could have been the one to kick that off if s/he did the legwork and then commented.
I'm sure that feels frustrating sometime to feel like one side gets to just be upset and you, on an opposing "side," have to hew to some standard of fact. But if you're here long enough you'll find yourself on that side of the equation, in a death announcement thread if nowhere else. It's not the worst suppression your voice will ever suffer in life. If you wanted to get the reflexive benefit of the doubt in the favor of Wilson it's not like there's not a million other places on the internet you can go to do it.
To answer dios's "murderer" question I guess it comes down to whether a discussion of that sort of libel would seem remotely in place there. I think there's probably brief and productive ways to throw that out there. If it seems like a hey, you're going to hurt Darren Wilson's feelings - yeah, that's going to probably just create more anger than anything else. I'd also wonder whether someone who really knows anything about libel is just being a disingenuous concern troll since it's not clear that Wilson has a reputation to salvage or that this would be read as anything but an obvious statement of opinion.
And that's coming from me as someone interested in legal issues. So I certainly think it's not a bad thing if someone about to start that line of questioning stopped to ask themselves "does this really seem like the conversation this group is interested in having or will I just make people super angry?" That's not squelching their political viewpoint, that's being a participant in a community rather than just an agitator.
posted by phearlez at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think calling Wilson a murderer is an improper comment. On the other hand I also don't think saying Wilson isn't a murderer is in any way an inappropriate comment either but it would certainly provoke a lot of people as though it were inappropriate.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Holy hell. When someone says "he's a murderer" it's implied they're saying "[I believe] he's a murderer", why are we even arguing about this
posted by naju at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by naju at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
Murder and murderer are primarily legal concepts. Killer is the non-legal term.
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
posted by asterix at 4:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
posted by asterix at 4:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [27 favorites]
Murder and murderer are primarily legal concepts. Killer is the non-legal term.
No, they aren't. Trust us non-lawyers. They aren't.
Apply your reasoning to other things, like stealing. You'll see how stupid the logic is.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, they aren't. Trust us non-lawyers. They aren't.
Apply your reasoning to other things, like stealing. You'll see how stupid the logic is.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
> When someone says "he's a murderer" it's implied they're saying "[I believe] he's a murderer", why are we even arguing about this
I accuse you of practicing law without a license.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:09 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I accuse you of practicing law without a license.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:09 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well, I suppose one could consult a dictionary or something, where the primary definition is legal. My point isn't to argue it. I am certainly aware that people misapply legal concepts all the time. But a problem arises when vaguely legal concepts are addressed in which people misapply legal stuff. When someone comes in and responds on legal terms, the objection seems to be that people are behaving legalistically and not reading the room when the response seems to be justified.
posted by dios at 4:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by dios at 4:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are a lot of different ways to use murder. Someone might have used the word because they do think Wilson broke the law. They may mean someone violated God's law with a killing. They may just be using it as a synonym for killing or deliberate killing, which is very common. They may just be using it without anybody having been killed at all, like, "Boy, the Eagles sure murdered the Cowboys on Thanksgiving. What a slaughter."
So it's fine to point out it has a specific legal meaning, just be careful to make sure you have a clear reading on how the other party is using it and try and meet them halfway.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:11 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
So it's fine to point out it has a specific legal meaning, just be careful to make sure you have a clear reading on how the other party is using it and try and meet them halfway.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:11 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Wow! "Oh look, lawful evil has made its regular appearance" is pure perfection! And reading it made coming here worthwhile. Bravo whoever wrote that. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 4:11 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:11 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Would you like me to say, "No, she's probably not 'depressed' because depression is a clinical term," "No, you're probably not 'OCD' because Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is a clinical condition," "No, he's probably not a sociopath because Antisocial Personality Disorder is a clinical term," ad fucking nauseum, every time such comments come up? Or can we all just agree that some terms are used colloquially in ways that are sloppy compared to their professional or clinical uses and just agree to work toward communication rather than pointless nitpicking?
posted by jaguar at 4:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 4:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [16 favorites]
WE ARE NOT MISAPPLYING LEGAL CONCEPTS BECAUSE WE AREN'T USING LEGAL CONCEPTS.
Jesus christ we are talking about murder not fucking estoppel
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
Jesus christ we are talking about murder not fucking estoppel
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
We could probably get some doctors to come in and object (oh, sorry, is that a legal term too?) every time someone uses "sign" when they mean "symptom" or vice versa.
posted by jaguar at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Would you like me to say, "No, she's probably not 'depressed' because depression is a clinical term," "No, you're probably not 'OCD' because Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is a clinical condition," "No, he's probably not a sociopath because Antisocial Personality Disorder is a clinical term," ad fucking nauseum, every time such comments come up?
Yeah there's people who object to terms for actual mental illnesses being slung around casually, and they have defensible reasons for that
Not to open up a whole new front to argue about or anything
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah there's people who object to terms for actual mental illnesses being slung around casually, and they have defensible reasons for that
Not to open up a whole new front to argue about or anything
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
And "Won't someone think of the concern trolls?" pretty well sums it up here too.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by jeffburdges at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014
just be careful to make sure you have a clear reading on how the other party is using it.
Bingo. Was it clear to you in the phrase I quoted from how the writer was using it? (This was the clarity that restless_nomad stressed above in the quote I referenced). True, responding to calling Wilson a murderer on legal grounds may or may not be appropriate depending on what the user of the term meant. Are we prepared to say that the onus is on the person responding to guess correctly or the person using the term to be clear in the first instance? I am interested in seeing where we place the burden.
posted by dios at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Bingo. Was it clear to you in the phrase I quoted from how the writer was using it? (This was the clarity that restless_nomad stressed above in the quote I referenced). True, responding to calling Wilson a murderer on legal grounds may or may not be appropriate depending on what the user of the term meant. Are we prepared to say that the onus is on the person responding to guess correctly or the person using the term to be clear in the first instance? I am interested in seeing where we place the burden.
posted by dios at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
beans ...
posted by infini at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Bingo
We are having a conversation here. If you want to play games, MetaTalk isn't the place, please go to MeFightClub.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:20 PM on December 1, 2014
We are having a conversation here. If you want to play games, MetaTalk isn't the place, please go to MeFightClub.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:20 PM on December 1, 2014
Next time someone asks me to stop judging them, I'll just tell them I can't be judging them because I'm not actually a judge! Woo hoo.
posted by sallybrown at 4:22 PM on December 1, 2014 [30 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:22 PM on December 1, 2014 [30 favorites]
there's people who object to terms for actual mental illnesses being slung around casually, and they have defensible reasons for that
Yes, definitely. But if there's a long discussion about someone being depressed and how horrible it is, I'm not going to step in and demand of them what DSM criteria they meet in order to discover if they are using the term in a clinically appropriate way.
posted by jaguar at 4:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, definitely. But if there's a long discussion about someone being depressed and how horrible it is, I'm not going to step in and demand of them what DSM criteria they meet in order to discover if they are using the term in a clinically appropriate way.
posted by jaguar at 4:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Catchin' up after coming on shift. So:
I still think my point was directly pertinent to a thread decrying the injustice of the non-indictment since nobody had time to review the just-then-released evidence at that point. Jumping to conclusions before reviewing the evidence is not a reliable method of determining the truth of the situation.
jsonic, your point wasn't a problem; presenting it in a sort of snide and dismissive way as one of the first comments in a thread about a really upsetting situation was the problem, which is why the rephrased version of it that skipped that framing stayed. You continuing to press the point after that was why I left a note asking you to cool it, and then we talked about it over mefimail some.
Outside of Metafilter, that is not a controversial statement, and the fact that it was quickly deleted due to not "reading the room" correctly and that it might start a fight is disturbing.
Again, timing and phrasing. Outside of Metafilter, that could be either an uncontroversial observation in casual conversation or the start of a fistfight, depending an awful lot on how it was said and when and by whom to whom. Inside of Metafilter, it was poorly phrased and poorly timed.
Deleting comments out of fear of the inevitable power-user backlash just serves to add mod-power to the existing leftist stance.
I can assure you that I've never refrained from deleting a comment that needed deleting on account of an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain. That sort of thing would probably make my life easier in a lot of ways, but here we are.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
I still think my point was directly pertinent to a thread decrying the injustice of the non-indictment since nobody had time to review the just-then-released evidence at that point. Jumping to conclusions before reviewing the evidence is not a reliable method of determining the truth of the situation.
jsonic, your point wasn't a problem; presenting it in a sort of snide and dismissive way as one of the first comments in a thread about a really upsetting situation was the problem, which is why the rephrased version of it that skipped that framing stayed. You continuing to press the point after that was why I left a note asking you to cool it, and then we talked about it over mefimail some.
Outside of Metafilter, that is not a controversial statement, and the fact that it was quickly deleted due to not "reading the room" correctly and that it might start a fight is disturbing.
Again, timing and phrasing. Outside of Metafilter, that could be either an uncontroversial observation in casual conversation or the start of a fistfight, depending an awful lot on how it was said and when and by whom to whom. Inside of Metafilter, it was poorly phrased and poorly timed.
Deleting comments out of fear of the inevitable power-user backlash just serves to add mod-power to the existing leftist stance.
I can assure you that I've never refrained from deleting a comment that needed deleting on account of an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain. That sort of thing would probably make my life easier in a lot of ways, but here we are.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Huh, I was going to call dios out earlier as a prominent MeFi-ite of the lawyerly persuasion who acquitted himself pretty well in that thread, but having seen him try to argue that colloquial usage of a term is somehow hitting below the belt, I guess I'm glad I held that one back.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 4:25 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are we prepared to say that the onus is on the person responding to guess correctly or the person using the term to be clear in the first instance?
Everybody should try and use clear language, but everybody will always be misunderstood at some point when addressing a large, diverse audience.
If I wasn't clear on what somebody meant, I would try to note that in my response. "Not sure you meant to imply X, but if so..."
posted by Drinky Die at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Everybody should try and use clear language, but everybody will always be misunderstood at some point when addressing a large, diverse audience.
If I wasn't clear on what somebody meant, I would try to note that in my response. "Not sure you meant to imply X, but if so..."
posted by Drinky Die at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you need a concrete example, you can go back and look at corb using this rhetorical "I don't understand why" strategy about road blocking. When someone said hey, isn't this kind of your area? You should know it happens for Y reason, she comes back with well yeah, but we don't do it because of Z. Which makes it look like she's being deliberately disingenuous in order to set up some sort of response or rant rather than discussion in good faith
I think sometimes these misunderstandings come about in part because people think they know where other people are coming from, and respond to what they think they're going to say, rather than what they actually are trying to say or mean.
People forget, for example, that a lot of my feelings about protests/organizing come from being a part of it, from the left, for many years. That may seem incomprehensible now, here, but there was a time when I was regularly receiving death and rape threats for my "commie traitor views." And there was a time when I thought that if the people just knew about the problem, if we just marched in the police-approved protest line, if we just nonviolently carried signs, the world would change. It didn't. We changed tactics to more effective ones. And yet every new incident, people came up trying to recreate the 60s without any understanding of why that was effective at the time.
So me saying "What's the point?" is a frustration that came from my heart. I genuinely don't understand why these ineffective tactics come up again and again, I don't understand why we can't just get it straight that the American population isn't going to care about anything without a damn good reason better than stopping traffic. I don't understand and it hurts me.
And that gets met with "I bet you're being deliberately disingenuous." Why would I do that? What could I possibly gain? How would that in any way benefit me? Talking from the heart has value, because I think of Metafilter as a community that I belong to, and we're all talking about stuff as at least distant friends. But what would be my motivation for what you think I'm doing?
posted by corb at 4:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
I think sometimes these misunderstandings come about in part because people think they know where other people are coming from, and respond to what they think they're going to say, rather than what they actually are trying to say or mean.
People forget, for example, that a lot of my feelings about protests/organizing come from being a part of it, from the left, for many years. That may seem incomprehensible now, here, but there was a time when I was regularly receiving death and rape threats for my "commie traitor views." And there was a time when I thought that if the people just knew about the problem, if we just marched in the police-approved protest line, if we just nonviolently carried signs, the world would change. It didn't. We changed tactics to more effective ones. And yet every new incident, people came up trying to recreate the 60s without any understanding of why that was effective at the time.
So me saying "What's the point?" is a frustration that came from my heart. I genuinely don't understand why these ineffective tactics come up again and again, I don't understand why we can't just get it straight that the American population isn't going to care about anything without a damn good reason better than stopping traffic. I don't understand and it hurts me.
And that gets met with "I bet you're being deliberately disingenuous." Why would I do that? What could I possibly gain? How would that in any way benefit me? Talking from the heart has value, because I think of Metafilter as a community that I belong to, and we're all talking about stuff as at least distant friends. But what would be my motivation for what you think I'm doing?
posted by corb at 4:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [15 favorites]
Huh, I was going to call dios out earlier as a prominent lawyer who acquitted himself pretty well in that thread, but having seen him try to argue that colloquial usage of a term is somehow hitting below the belt, I guess I'm glad I held that one back.
Well, for one, I didn't participate in that thread, so not sure to what you are referring.
Second, I didn't say it was hitting below the belt. I was raising an issue about who we place the burden on in such situations because I think the answer would be interesting. But given the disgust of me even inviting a discussing on that point that it has generated, I'll drop it and let y'all get back to what really important discussion that was going on before I raised it.
posted by dios at 4:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well, for one, I didn't participate in that thread, so not sure to what you are referring.
Second, I didn't say it was hitting below the belt. I was raising an issue about who we place the burden on in such situations because I think the answer would be interesting. But given the disgust of me even inviting a discussing on that point that it has generated, I'll drop it and let y'all get back to what really important discussion that was going on before I raised it.
posted by dios at 4:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Communication tip that I have found very useful myself: Don't ask questions when you are actually making a statement. It helps cut down on being misinterpreted as sarcastic or disingenuous.
posted by jaguar at 4:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 4:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Well, for one, I didn't participate in that thread, so not sure to what you are referring.
Yowza, mistaken identity I guess. My sincere apologies.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:31 PM on December 1, 2014
Yowza, mistaken identity I guess. My sincere apologies.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:31 PM on December 1, 2014
So me saying "What's the point?" is a frustration that came from my heart.
But when you already know the answer — as you expressed later, you know why people do this, you just don't think it's effective or worthwhile — then asking it as a question seems disingenuous. If you'd said something like "We stopped doing road-blocking actions because it was counterproductive; it's frustrating to see these people repeating the same useless actions" that probably would have gotten a different response.
On preview, jaguar has it.
posted by Lexica at 4:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
But when you already know the answer — as you expressed later, you know why people do this, you just don't think it's effective or worthwhile — then asking it as a question seems disingenuous. If you'd said something like "We stopped doing road-blocking actions because it was counterproductive; it's frustrating to see these people repeating the same useless actions" that probably would have gotten a different response.
On preview, jaguar has it.
posted by Lexica at 4:32 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
My opinion is that when the term being used is common both inside and outside a courtroom (murder, judge, steal as opposed to manslaughter, estoppel, tenancy), the burden falls on the person who seeks to restrict the term to its strict legal meaning only.
posted by sallybrown at 4:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
People forget, for example, that a lot of my feelings about protests/organizing come from being a part of it, from the left, for many years.
I don't see how people could forget, as you mention it fairly often. I'm aware of your history, but "surround the police station" is bad fucking advice, and you're clearly not stupid, and you clearly don't sympathize with the protestors, so it's not illogical to conclude that "what about doing it this way" is being offered as a means of casting aspersions on how they actually are protesting rather than a sincere effort to help them accomplish their goals. It may be plain to you that you're not offering it in bad faith, but it's reasonable to conclude that you are.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't see how people could forget, as you mention it fairly often. I'm aware of your history, but "surround the police station" is bad fucking advice, and you're clearly not stupid, and you clearly don't sympathize with the protestors, so it's not illogical to conclude that "what about doing it this way" is being offered as a means of casting aspersions on how they actually are protesting rather than a sincere effort to help them accomplish their goals. It may be plain to you that you're not offering it in bad faith, but it's reasonable to conclude that you are.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
If I wasn't clear on what somebody meant, I would try to note that in my response. "Not sure you meant to imply X, but if so..."
(This is also a good way to shift the focus to the idea instead of the person if the implication is potentially offensive. They won't feel as much need to defend themselves from a feeling they are being attacked if they can reply, "Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I see how you could have seen it that way," and expect the matter to be over.)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:35 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
(This is also a good way to shift the focus to the idea instead of the person if the implication is potentially offensive. They won't feel as much need to defend themselves from a feeling they are being attacked if they can reply, "Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I see how you could have seen it that way," and expect the matter to be over.)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:35 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
it's not illogical to conclude that "what about doing it this way" is being offered as a means of casting aspersions on how they actually are protesting rather than a sincere effort to help them accomplish their goals.
I had a followup where I explained how that could work and gave examples of how I had personally seen and been involved in similar tactics working, but it got deleted as a derail, sadly.
posted by corb at 4:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
I had a followup where I explained how that could work and gave examples of how I had personally seen and been involved in similar tactics working, but it got deleted as a derail, sadly.
posted by corb at 4:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Other times, the mods just stop at “You (specific person) need to walk away.” And then they do little or nothing when comments after that continue to basically harangue the person who has walked away and, essentially, been deprived of the right to defend themselves (themselves, not their point -- that is usually what the real issue is here).
We usually pretty actively try to curtail comments after that sort of note that are continuing to respond to the user we've told to cut it out or walk away. I am not gonna claim that we always get it perfectly, and the nature of intertwined conversational threads can make it sometimes impossible to really thoroughly do that without chopping the resulting thread to pieces or deleting good, substantial comments that also have a passing reference to something deleted or someone asked to cool it, but telling x to hush up and then letting people go crazy about x is not or policy or practice with this stuff and to the degree it does happen it's a matter of stuff slipping by, not stuff actively condoned.
Pile-on dynamics are a problem and not one we've ever pretended come down solely to the person at the center of the pile-on, and it is hard for me to know how to respond to a suggestion to the contrary. Saying that someone wrapped up in a pile-on may often have some agency or culpability in how that dynamic plays out—especially if it's one that's played out a bunch of times previously and that we've talked with them about—is not the same thing as exculpating or dismissing the other folks involved.
I object to how unreasonably hard the mods seemed to come down on the minority viewpoint.
Jacqueline, I don't think this is separable in this case from corb-as-the-user-in-question in the way that talking about "the minority viewpoint" in abstract suggests it should be, is the thing. There's whatever "the minority viewpoint" is and then there's corb as a specific person with a long history on this site of patterns of engagement and argumentation, both in general and on the subject of Ferguson in particular.
There's no reasonable way to proceed if we're forced to conflate the two; corb isn't everyone who believes or argues any of the things that she personally believes or argues, and moderation action that affects her is not some universal statement about arguments or beliefs. It is clear that some folks, you included, feel that she's unfairly hemmed in by the moderation attention she sometimes gets, but to the extent that we can argue about that notional unfairness, it's not "the minority viewpoint". It's one user with a long history here that transcends whatever specific argument they're making in a given comment in a given thread and who does not.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
We usually pretty actively try to curtail comments after that sort of note that are continuing to respond to the user we've told to cut it out or walk away. I am not gonna claim that we always get it perfectly, and the nature of intertwined conversational threads can make it sometimes impossible to really thoroughly do that without chopping the resulting thread to pieces or deleting good, substantial comments that also have a passing reference to something deleted or someone asked to cool it, but telling x to hush up and then letting people go crazy about x is not or policy or practice with this stuff and to the degree it does happen it's a matter of stuff slipping by, not stuff actively condoned.
Pile-on dynamics are a problem and not one we've ever pretended come down solely to the person at the center of the pile-on, and it is hard for me to know how to respond to a suggestion to the contrary. Saying that someone wrapped up in a pile-on may often have some agency or culpability in how that dynamic plays out—especially if it's one that's played out a bunch of times previously and that we've talked with them about—is not the same thing as exculpating or dismissing the other folks involved.
I object to how unreasonably hard the mods seemed to come down on the minority viewpoint.
Jacqueline, I don't think this is separable in this case from corb-as-the-user-in-question in the way that talking about "the minority viewpoint" in abstract suggests it should be, is the thing. There's whatever "the minority viewpoint" is and then there's corb as a specific person with a long history on this site of patterns of engagement and argumentation, both in general and on the subject of Ferguson in particular.
There's no reasonable way to proceed if we're forced to conflate the two; corb isn't everyone who believes or argues any of the things that she personally believes or argues, and moderation action that affects her is not some universal statement about arguments or beliefs. It is clear that some folks, you included, feel that she's unfairly hemmed in by the moderation attention she sometimes gets, but to the extent that we can argue about that notional unfairness, it's not "the minority viewpoint". It's one user with a long history here that transcends whatever specific argument they're making in a given comment in a given thread and who does not.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:39 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
Actually, "seeing" is actually a medical term for taking in light with your eyes; you probably mean "perceiving".
Perception is a philosophical concept; please everyone get a degree in philosophy before talking about the possibility of events separate from your subjective experience.
posted by winna at 4:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
Perception is a philosophical concept; please everyone get a degree in philosophy before talking about the possibility of events separate from your subjective experience.
posted by winna at 4:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [18 favorites]
Possibility? What are you, some sort of mathematician?
posted by el io at 4:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [36 favorites]
posted by el io at 4:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [36 favorites]
And don't even get me started on people saying "significant" when they don't even present a p-value.
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
phearlez: Jsonic throws out a "hey let's wait till see the facts" as if we haven't had a tremendous amount of eyeballs on the issue for months.
The vast majority of evidence for this case was not released until after the grand jury announcement. All of those "eyeballs on the issue for months" were not basing their analysis on the actual facts of the case. Each side was simply regurgitating the scant rumors and tidbits which matched their biases ("he was on drugs", "he robbed the store", "he was shot in the back while running away", etc). This isn't a defense of Wilson, just asking rational people to not jump to conclusions before the facts were available.
posted by jsonic at 4:48 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
The vast majority of evidence for this case was not released until after the grand jury announcement. All of those "eyeballs on the issue for months" were not basing their analysis on the actual facts of the case. Each side was simply regurgitating the scant rumors and tidbits which matched their biases ("he was on drugs", "he robbed the store", "he was shot in the back while running away", etc). This isn't a defense of Wilson, just asking rational people to not jump to conclusions before the facts were available.
posted by jsonic at 4:48 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Jump to conclusions? Brown was killed in August.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:51 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:51 PM on December 1, 2014
The problem is how often "we must wait for the facts" is used as cover by privileged classes of people to downplay harms visited upon the less-privileged. We see it when women accuse rich/powerful men of sexual assault, we see it when (yet another) white cop shoots (yet another) young male of colour, etc. You got hit by the overflow from that, I think; I am not even suggesting that your motivation was to downplay anything. Reasonable requests have been co-opted by the extremists.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [25 favorites]
Cortex, please see this summation.
I am not accusing the mods of doing anything. I am merely hoping to help them up their game. I gave specific, concrete suggestions that I think will help move the bar on this issue over time. So I don't see any need for you to respond to something I don't think I did and don't know how you are concluding that.
posted by Michele in California at 4:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am not accusing the mods of doing anything. I am merely hoping to help them up their game. I gave specific, concrete suggestions that I think will help move the bar on this issue over time. So I don't see any need for you to respond to something I don't think I did and don't know how you are concluding that.
posted by Michele in California at 4:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
All of those "eyeballs on the issue for months" were not basing their analysis on the actual facts of the case.
I am not confident that the prosecuter presented all the facts or that much of his presentation was factual. In fact, the glaring lack of facts is what many of us were discussing.
posted by futz at 4:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am not confident that the prosecuter presented all the facts or that much of his presentation was factual. In fact, the glaring lack of facts is what many of us were discussing.
posted by futz at 4:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
MisantropicPainforest: Jump to conclusions? Brown was killed in August.
And almost all of the evidence in the case wasn't released until late November. Deciding before that evidence was available is jumping to a conclusion.
feckless fecal fear mongering: The problem is how often "we must wait for the facts" is used as cover by privileged classes of people to downplay harms visited upon the less-privileged...Reasonable requests have been co-opted by the extremists.
That's something for me to chew on. I'm not sure of a logical alternative to waiting though.
posted by jsonic at 4:59 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
And almost all of the evidence in the case wasn't released until late November. Deciding before that evidence was available is jumping to a conclusion.
feckless fecal fear mongering: The problem is how often "we must wait for the facts" is used as cover by privileged classes of people to downplay harms visited upon the less-privileged...Reasonable requests have been co-opted by the extremists.
That's something for me to chew on. I'm not sure of a logical alternative to waiting though.
posted by jsonic at 4:59 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
MiC, the last paragraph of your initial comment in here is this:
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
Because, currently, the mods and the group as a whole are all too happy to say it is that person’s fault and not acknowledge that the person is trapped in a social dynamic they did not create all by themselves and don’t know how to solve as an individual and probably cannot solve as an individual without seriously saintly attributes.I don't know how to square "the mods...are all too happy to say it is that person’s fault and not acknowledge that the person is trapped in a social dynamic they did not create all by themselves" with "I am not accusing the mods of doing" the stuff I just objected to you suggesting that we do. If that's not what you meant to say, fine, but it is what you actually said.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
This isn't a defense of Wilson, just asking rational people to not jump to conclusions before the facts were available.
Many facts were available. They may not be the facts that were presented to the grand jury, but many things were capable of being sussed out. Put aside even the sizable consternation that the matter was presented to a GJ at all, which it did not have to be. Put aside the matter of all the surrounding mess from the protest response. You're left with only a small question of "was the material presented to the GJ such that it might make someone think this was the right GJ decision?"
Your choice was to actually go look and later contribute something concrete to a discussion or to say "hey no way any of you had time to look at this and maybe there's something in there but I dunno."
I don't think any of us are posting from somewhere that we don't have a clock, so what does that speculation contribute to any real conversation? You piss off a sizable number of people who are feeling upset for... what? That's why you got asked to read the room. You want to play what-if games absent anything resembling a basis, there's threads where people won't be bugged by it. Instead you want to play "hey maybe" when there's just as much on the "hey maybe not" side.
posted by phearlez at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Many facts were available. They may not be the facts that were presented to the grand jury, but many things were capable of being sussed out. Put aside even the sizable consternation that the matter was presented to a GJ at all, which it did not have to be. Put aside the matter of all the surrounding mess from the protest response. You're left with only a small question of "was the material presented to the GJ such that it might make someone think this was the right GJ decision?"
Your choice was to actually go look and later contribute something concrete to a discussion or to say "hey no way any of you had time to look at this and maybe there's something in there but I dunno."
I don't think any of us are posting from somewhere that we don't have a clock, so what does that speculation contribute to any real conversation? You piss off a sizable number of people who are feeling upset for... what? That's why you got asked to read the room. You want to play what-if games absent anything resembling a basis, there's threads where people won't be bugged by it. Instead you want to play "hey maybe" when there's just as much on the "hey maybe not" side.
posted by phearlez at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure of a logical alternative to waiting though.
Accepting accounts of people who were there and paying attention to patterns of oppression to make educated hypotheses about what might have happened. Realizing that privileging "official" accounts in a racist system can very easily prop up the racist system.
posted by jaguar at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
Accepting accounts of people who were there and paying attention to patterns of oppression to make educated hypotheses about what might have happened. Realizing that privileging "official" accounts in a racist system can very easily prop up the racist system.
posted by jaguar at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
moderation action that affects her is not some universal statement about arguments or beliefs.
Cortex, leaving aside my own feels about that, this is not as obvious as I think you and other mods may believe. When a mod leaves a note in the thread saying that it's not the time for X to drum up sympathy for Wilson, the impression is not that anyone else wanting to express sympathy for Wilson would be just fine. The impression is that expressing sympathy for Wilson is a not-good thing to do, that even if it was ever okay to do, this is not the time for it, and that it is something that should have been blindingly obvious to users.
I think any of the users that are prolific enough to rate special mod attention probably also check their memail, if the point is just to talk to that specific user.
posted by corb at 5:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Cortex, leaving aside my own feels about that, this is not as obvious as I think you and other mods may believe. When a mod leaves a note in the thread saying that it's not the time for X to drum up sympathy for Wilson, the impression is not that anyone else wanting to express sympathy for Wilson would be just fine. The impression is that expressing sympathy for Wilson is a not-good thing to do, that even if it was ever okay to do, this is not the time for it, and that it is something that should have been blindingly obvious to users.
I think any of the users that are prolific enough to rate special mod attention probably also check their memail, if the point is just to talk to that specific user.
posted by corb at 5:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Express sympathy for Wilson? Wait, did something happen to Wilson that I don't know about?
posted by el io at 5:12 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by el io at 5:12 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Well, he's going to have to hire an accountant to manage that $500k windfall. That's gonna be a hassle.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 5:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
Cortex, let me put that another way:
The pattern of behavior here for both mods and the group as a whole has a particular effect. That effect skews strongly towards framing the person at the center as both at fault and in control. They usually are not in control of anything. The crap rages on even if they leave. Therefore, in most cases, talking as if they are at fault for the whole thing and the only solution is for them to shut up really does them a disservice and only deepens a problematic dynamic.
I understand that is the most effective tool the mods have so far come up with for this particular situation. I am trying to offer additional tools.
Trying to describe the outcome is not in any way to suggest the mods are guilty of intentionally scapegoating that party. So, in that sense, I am not accusing you of being guilty of anything. Nonetheless, the pattern of how these things get framed by both mods and members just entrenches the problem. It is not a way out.
I am sorry if you feel accused of something. I find it unfortunate and personally frustrating that so many of things I said have been argued against in a way that I feel is largely irrelevant while my main point seems to have gone largely unheard. That main point is: I think if the mods tried harder to consistently discuss such incidents in terms of an ongoing group dynamic rather than an ongoing issue with a particular member, things would gradually improve over time.
I don't know how to be more clear than that. I am not accusing you of something -- other than having room for improvement on an issue the mods themselves have repeatedly expressed a desire to improve upon.
posted by Michele in California at 5:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
The pattern of behavior here for both mods and the group as a whole has a particular effect. That effect skews strongly towards framing the person at the center as both at fault and in control. They usually are not in control of anything. The crap rages on even if they leave. Therefore, in most cases, talking as if they are at fault for the whole thing and the only solution is for them to shut up really does them a disservice and only deepens a problematic dynamic.
I understand that is the most effective tool the mods have so far come up with for this particular situation. I am trying to offer additional tools.
Trying to describe the outcome is not in any way to suggest the mods are guilty of intentionally scapegoating that party. So, in that sense, I am not accusing you of being guilty of anything. Nonetheless, the pattern of how these things get framed by both mods and members just entrenches the problem. It is not a way out.
I am sorry if you feel accused of something. I find it unfortunate and personally frustrating that so many of things I said have been argued against in a way that I feel is largely irrelevant while my main point seems to have gone largely unheard. That main point is: I think if the mods tried harder to consistently discuss such incidents in terms of an ongoing group dynamic rather than an ongoing issue with a particular member, things would gradually improve over time.
I don't know how to be more clear than that. I am not accusing you of something -- other than having room for improvement on an issue the mods themselves have repeatedly expressed a desire to improve upon.
posted by Michele in California at 5:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
When a mod leaves a note in the thread saying that it's not the time for X to drum up sympathy for Wilson, the impression is not that anyone else wanting to express sympathy for Wilson would be just fine.
When what we're dealing with is an extremely fast-moving, heated thread and some recurring sort of tonedeafness from an established user creating extra friction in there, the possibility that someone will get the wrong impression from a shallow read of a note about the situation is not our top priority. Members of the site who want to talk about the specifics can bring it here; people who are non-member readers unfamiliar with the details of site moderation can take their impressions and do with them what they like; nothing will be perfect or completely fair, but hopefully the thread won't melt down and that is the primary thing likely to be occupying our attention.
That may not be how you would prioritize how we react to stuff, whether your comments or others'. That's okay, we are doing different things, with different goals, and are pretty likely to disagree about this stuff at times. But I find "what if people get the wrong idea" as an argument against moderation directly affecting you to be not very compelling. I would like for you to get the correct idea and it's not like we haven't had a ton of conversations with you about related stuff as regards your participation on the site; I would like for you to worry less about how notional People might react to this stuff and more about how you choose to participate in the first place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
When what we're dealing with is an extremely fast-moving, heated thread and some recurring sort of tonedeafness from an established user creating extra friction in there, the possibility that someone will get the wrong impression from a shallow read of a note about the situation is not our top priority. Members of the site who want to talk about the specifics can bring it here; people who are non-member readers unfamiliar with the details of site moderation can take their impressions and do with them what they like; nothing will be perfect or completely fair, but hopefully the thread won't melt down and that is the primary thing likely to be occupying our attention.
That may not be how you would prioritize how we react to stuff, whether your comments or others'. That's okay, we are doing different things, with different goals, and are pretty likely to disagree about this stuff at times. But I find "what if people get the wrong idea" as an argument against moderation directly affecting you to be not very compelling. I would like for you to get the correct idea and it's not like we haven't had a ton of conversations with you about related stuff as regards your participation on the site; I would like for you to worry less about how notional People might react to this stuff and more about how you choose to participate in the first place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:16 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Feels like there's ever more OutrageFilter on the site, that aggressive people set a line that will be toed and moderation generally supports it. It's interesting in that it ends up creating an environment of intolerance and woe to those who would displease those who are in power.
posted by ambient2 at 5:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by ambient2 at 5:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
*yawn*
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
jsonic: I'm not sure of a logical alternative to waiting though.
jaguar: Accepting accounts of people who were there and paying attention to patterns of oppression to make educated hypotheses about what might have happened.
There were conflicting accounts from the witnesses on the scene, though. Waiting for further evidence seems more prudent than picking whatever account happens to confirm my worldview.
posted by jsonic at 5:38 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
jaguar: Accepting accounts of people who were there and paying attention to patterns of oppression to make educated hypotheses about what might have happened.
There were conflicting accounts from the witnesses on the scene, though. Waiting for further evidence seems more prudent than picking whatever account happens to confirm my worldview.
posted by jsonic at 5:38 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
what evidence do you want us to wait for?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:40 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:40 PM on December 1, 2014
That's something for me to chew on. I'm not sure of a logical alternative to waiting though.
I think maybe the best way to demonstrate good faith would have been to go ahead and point to actual evidence in the grand jury documents that you felt contradicted statements people were making with insufficient support. In other words, don't make it about telling people to "wait and see", but actually wait and see and use the evidence you find.
posted by kagredon at 5:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think maybe the best way to demonstrate good faith would have been to go ahead and point to actual evidence in the grand jury documents that you felt contradicted statements people were making with insufficient support. In other words, don't make it about telling people to "wait and see", but actually wait and see and use the evidence you find.
posted by kagredon at 5:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
> For the larger issue of people going against the majority view, there are a couple of issues
> there. The biggest one is that we have a few people who have a particular position, and come
> in to any thread that even tangentially touches on the issue and construct a defense of their
> position whether or not it's relevant to the conversation.
The exact words vary but this gets said over and over again, by mods and by others. Every time that happens I think "OK, how about a list of names?" I understand perfectly well that no such list will ever be posted, certainly not by any mods, probably not by anyone else. Nevertheless, the pairing of the general assertion with the absence of the specific details one would normally expect to follow it is becoming such a regular site feature that it's starting to deserve a name of its own. I suggest "pix or it didn't happen."
posted by jfuller at 5:48 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
> there. The biggest one is that we have a few people who have a particular position, and come
> in to any thread that even tangentially touches on the issue and construct a defense of their
> position whether or not it's relevant to the conversation.
The exact words vary but this gets said over and over again, by mods and by others. Every time that happens I think "OK, how about a list of names?" I understand perfectly well that no such list will ever be posted, certainly not by any mods, probably not by anyone else. Nevertheless, the pairing of the general assertion with the absence of the specific details one would normally expect to follow it is becoming such a regular site feature that it's starting to deserve a name of its own. I suggest "pix or it didn't happen."
posted by jfuller at 5:48 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
are you for real saying the problem with moderation is that mods haven't published a shit list
that's...well, it's a new one, I'll give you that.
posted by kagredon at 5:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
that's...well, it's a new one, I'll give you that.
posted by kagredon at 5:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [13 favorites]
I can assure you that I've never refrained from deleting a comment that needed deleting on account of an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain. That sort of thing would probably make my life easier in a lot of ways, but here we are.
posted by cortex
It's early where I am and I could do with more coffee, less head cold so forgive me if I'm missing something, but I am confused.
I read the first sentence as saying you have deleted comments that needed deleting "on account of an expectation..." But the second sentence, that doing so would probably make your life easier, seems to contradict the first.
posted by ambient2 at 5:50 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by cortex
It's early where I am and I could do with more coffee, less head cold so forgive me if I'm missing something, but I am confused.
I read the first sentence as saying you have deleted comments that needed deleting "on account of an expectation..." But the second sentence, that doing so would probably make your life easier, seems to contradict the first.
posted by ambient2 at 5:50 PM on December 1, 2014
I think it's:
"The expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain has never made me refrain from deleting a comment that needed deleting."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on December 1, 2014
"The expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain has never made me refrain from deleting a comment that needed deleting."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on December 1, 2014
I have here in my hand a list of 400 known agitators...
*waves piece of paper with tiny writing on it*
Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty,Paphnuty
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
*waves piece of paper with tiny writing on it*
Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Papanuhty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty, Paphnuty,Paphnuty
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [14 favorites]
Sorry, I'll reframe it a little to get rid of the ambiguity: I can assure you that I've never allowed an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain to cause me to refrain from deleting a comment that needed deleting.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:56 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
And that coming from fffm, who strikes me as being one of the most rabid, hysterical and intolerant people on the site, is quite something.
Since this is a thread about personal attacks, I figure this is on-topic:
fffm, do you mind giving your reason for favoriting that comment? FWIW, I thought the comment was harsh, and felt bad seeing it because I figured it would be pretty hurtful to you (and would be to anyone on the receiving end of it), since it honestly comes off to me as a pretty personal attack. So I looked to see who'd favorited it, trying to get a bead on what kind of reception it might be getting from other people, and was surprised to see your name on the favorites list! Are you being a good sport to deescalate any brewing fight, or is it an inside joke between you guys, or is it a "forgive but don't forget" kind of thing, or did you want to bookmark it so you can respond later, or...? Honestly asking, though of course you don't have to answer. I have to admit, I'd have a hard time favoriting a comment like that about me, but it maybe *is* a good response in terms of conflict resolution to respond as you did, I mean, I did notice that no fight came of it or anything.
This isn't to *start* a fight about the comment! At all! I'm wondering about fffm's thought process because I feel like maybe I have something to learn from it personally.
posted by rue72 at 5:57 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Since this is a thread about personal attacks, I figure this is on-topic:
fffm, do you mind giving your reason for favoriting that comment? FWIW, I thought the comment was harsh, and felt bad seeing it because I figured it would be pretty hurtful to you (and would be to anyone on the receiving end of it), since it honestly comes off to me as a pretty personal attack. So I looked to see who'd favorited it, trying to get a bead on what kind of reception it might be getting from other people, and was surprised to see your name on the favorites list! Are you being a good sport to deescalate any brewing fight, or is it an inside joke between you guys, or is it a "forgive but don't forget" kind of thing, or did you want to bookmark it so you can respond later, or...? Honestly asking, though of course you don't have to answer. I have to admit, I'd have a hard time favoriting a comment like that about me, but it maybe *is* a good response in terms of conflict resolution to respond as you did, I mean, I did notice that no fight came of it or anything.
This isn't to *start* a fight about the comment! At all! I'm wondering about fffm's thought process because I feel like maybe I have something to learn from it personally.
posted by rue72 at 5:57 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Favorites are not upvotes.
*Strides around the council chamber brandishing an ax*
AX ANYBODY
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
*Strides around the council chamber brandishing an ax*
AX ANYBODY
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:03 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest: what evidence do you want us to wait for?
We're discussing the comments I made in the original Grand Jury thread and their context at the time. I'm not asking you to wait for further evidence now.
kagredon: I think maybe the best way to demonstrate good faith would have been to go ahead and point to actual evidence in the grand jury documents that you felt contradicted statements people were making with insufficient support.
That was my sole point in that thread. People had already commented that the Grand Jury decision was an injustice before looking at the evidence. That was the insufficient support.
cortex: I can assure you that I've never allowed an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain to cause me to refrain from deleting a comment that needed deleting.
Well, now I'm confused. Your original post was replying to my comment that part of the motivation in deleting my posts was to avoid a fight in the thread. So deleting would lead to less complaints, and lead to less stress for you.
posted by jsonic at 6:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
We're discussing the comments I made in the original Grand Jury thread and their context at the time. I'm not asking you to wait for further evidence now.
kagredon: I think maybe the best way to demonstrate good faith would have been to go ahead and point to actual evidence in the grand jury documents that you felt contradicted statements people were making with insufficient support.
That was my sole point in that thread. People had already commented that the Grand Jury decision was an injustice before looking at the evidence. That was the insufficient support.
cortex: I can assure you that I've never allowed an expectation that people who spend a lot of time here might complain to cause me to refrain from deleting a comment that needed deleting.
Well, now I'm confused. Your original post was replying to my comment that part of the motivation in deleting my posts was to avoid a fight in the thread. So deleting would lead to less complaints, and lead to less stress for you.
posted by jsonic at 6:04 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Favorites are not upvotes.
Yeah, that's another reason why I'm asking outright, because I figure there are a ton of possibilities for what his thought process was and I don't want to just take some random stab in the dark about it. Not that he has to answer, I'm just wondering.
posted by rue72 at 6:06 PM on December 1, 2014
Yeah, that's another reason why I'm asking outright, because I figure there are a ton of possibilities for what his thought process was and I don't want to just take some random stab in the dark about it. Not that he has to answer, I'm just wondering.
posted by rue72 at 6:06 PM on December 1, 2014
rue72... Urgh, this is going to make me sound even more unbearable, but largely as a reminder of how much change I still have ahead of me.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:06 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:06 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
jsonic, sorry to harp on this but the chance of a grand jury not returning an indictment was like 0.016. Its perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion, before the decision is reached, that the grand jury failing to indict was a gross act of injustice.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Your original post was replying to my comment that part of the motivation in deleting my posts was to avoid a fight in the thread. So deleting would lead to less complaints, and lead to less stress for you.
My reason for deleting it wasn't a concern about people complaining if I didn't; I deleted it because I thought it would make the thread go south right out of the gate as an argument about your comment in lieu of anything else. Fights in threads, and complaints in my inbox or metatalk, are two different kinds of things, and part of the way we moderate the site is that we generally prefer to minimize the former in favor of the latter, even though the latter means it's shit we have to deal with more personally than if we just let something fester in a thread and ignored the whole thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:08 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
My reason for deleting it wasn't a concern about people complaining if I didn't; I deleted it because I thought it would make the thread go south right out of the gate as an argument about your comment in lieu of anything else. Fights in threads, and complaints in my inbox or metatalk, are two different kinds of things, and part of the way we moderate the site is that we generally prefer to minimize the former in favor of the latter, even though the latter means it's shit we have to deal with more personally than if we just let something fester in a thread and ignored the whole thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:08 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I just favorited FFFM's comment out of sheer whimsy and I'll do it /British voice/ again.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
Perception is a philosophical concept; please everyone get a degree in philosophy before talking about the possibility of events separate from your subjective experience.
But according to Bishop Berkeley, esse est percipi, so...
Wait, did we just kill God?
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:12 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
But according to Bishop Berkeley, esse est percipi, so...
Wait, did we just kill God?
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:12 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Whoops dang sorries god. :(
posted by winna at 6:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by winna at 6:14 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
It has come to my attention that certain members of this web site may not even exist
*shows the camera a sketch of a giant mollusk*
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
*shows the camera a sketch of a giant mollusk*
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
But according to Bishop Berkeley, esse est percipi, so...
Wait, did we just kill God?
Deicide is thirsty work, someone pass the tar water.
posted by homunculus at 6:24 PM on December 1, 2014
Wait, did we just kill God?
Deicide is thirsty work, someone pass the tar water.
posted by homunculus at 6:24 PM on December 1, 2014
Man, clearly the mistake the mods made in asking you to read the room first was in believing you'd ever take a moment to read the room. It's days later and you still can't get it. The post's framing was larger than just the grand jury decision - it referenced a misuse of the judicial system going back fifty+ years, mentioned other unarmed black teens who had been shot to death by people who would not do jail time, a presidential address, and some poetry. Comments preceding yours discussed the protest situation in Ferguson and the choice of timing, lies told by the police about the protest response, difficulty in getting convictions in police shootings, and what sort of conflict of interest ties the prosecutor had.
After which you want to drop in and say hey maybe read the grand jury documents before you come to a conclusion. Never mind all that other stuff or independent research or the last couple hundred years of race relations, and I don't actually know what's in them but maybe it'll totally offset every other thing here.
And you're still defending that decision to talk first and research never. YOU could have read the grand jury documents and then maybe had something worth contributing, rather than just poking the bear. You didn't. Other people did later, and there was interesting talk about various witness conflicts and outright whackyness. All you had was FUD, and it's still all you have. But you're going to repeatedly defend your right to be incendiary without any real knowledge.
Seriously, what don't you get?
posted by phearlez at 6:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
After which you want to drop in and say hey maybe read the grand jury documents before you come to a conclusion. Never mind all that other stuff or independent research or the last couple hundred years of race relations, and I don't actually know what's in them but maybe it'll totally offset every other thing here.
And you're still defending that decision to talk first and research never. YOU could have read the grand jury documents and then maybe had something worth contributing, rather than just poking the bear. You didn't. Other people did later, and there was interesting talk about various witness conflicts and outright whackyness. All you had was FUD, and it's still all you have. But you're going to repeatedly defend your right to be incendiary without any real knowledge.
Seriously, what don't you get?
posted by phearlez at 6:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
That was my sole point in that thread. People had already commented that the Grand Jury decision was an injustice before looking at the evidence. That was the insufficient support.
This is the part you received a great deal of pushback about, for good reason. There are many, many reasons to believe the grand jury decision was an injustice that have nothing to do with the evidence that came out of those proceedings, and dismissing them all with "insufficient support" as if the only possible case to be made here is about a narrow procedural question re: whether Brown was facing Wilson or not is kind of missing the point when people have a much broader set of reasons for considering this an injustice.
One might believe that a special prosecutor should have been named due to the conflicts of interest, or that this was a massive abuse of the grand jury process, or that "I was scared of an unarmed person who was many feet away from me" isn't a good enough reason to shoot an unarmed person seven times regardless of the other circumstances, or that the glaring inconsistencies in the police story call their narrative into question (for 100 days they maintained that Brown was 35 feet from the car but he was actually 153 feet away; Wilson claimed to have been punched 10 times in his initial statements but the changed his story to being punched twice), or that grossly improper procedures were followed in the wake of the shooting that could have compromised the evidence (no medical examiner pictures, no measurements, Wilson allowed to talk with superiors before giving statements).
While the particulars of the grand jury proceedings weren't made available until recently, there was still more than enough evidence for someone to argue that Wilson not being tried for his actions is absolutely an injustice, with or without examining those proceedings. It was insulting to people who have been following this case very closely for months now to sweep in and tell them they had "insufficient support" for their opinions.
As a side note, the very nature of the grand jury process is that the prosecutor gets to cherrypick what evidence to present and what witnesses to question (although I understand that calling witness accounts into question isn't a standard feature of grand jury proceedings), so it's odd that everyone continues to speak as if the evidence presented to the grand jury constitutes an objectively curated set of all the available facts in this case. We would get a lot closer to knowing we have "all the facts" if this had been allowed to go to trial, so in a way, the people who thought the non-indictment was an injustice are actually the people who want to see more of the evidence here.
posted by dialetheia at 6:31 PM on December 1, 2014 [26 favorites]
This is the part you received a great deal of pushback about, for good reason. There are many, many reasons to believe the grand jury decision was an injustice that have nothing to do with the evidence that came out of those proceedings, and dismissing them all with "insufficient support" as if the only possible case to be made here is about a narrow procedural question re: whether Brown was facing Wilson or not is kind of missing the point when people have a much broader set of reasons for considering this an injustice.
One might believe that a special prosecutor should have been named due to the conflicts of interest, or that this was a massive abuse of the grand jury process, or that "I was scared of an unarmed person who was many feet away from me" isn't a good enough reason to shoot an unarmed person seven times regardless of the other circumstances, or that the glaring inconsistencies in the police story call their narrative into question (for 100 days they maintained that Brown was 35 feet from the car but he was actually 153 feet away; Wilson claimed to have been punched 10 times in his initial statements but the changed his story to being punched twice), or that grossly improper procedures were followed in the wake of the shooting that could have compromised the evidence (no medical examiner pictures, no measurements, Wilson allowed to talk with superiors before giving statements).
While the particulars of the grand jury proceedings weren't made available until recently, there was still more than enough evidence for someone to argue that Wilson not being tried for his actions is absolutely an injustice, with or without examining those proceedings. It was insulting to people who have been following this case very closely for months now to sweep in and tell them they had "insufficient support" for their opinions.
As a side note, the very nature of the grand jury process is that the prosecutor gets to cherrypick what evidence to present and what witnesses to question (although I understand that calling witness accounts into question isn't a standard feature of grand jury proceedings), so it's odd that everyone continues to speak as if the evidence presented to the grand jury constitutes an objectively curated set of all the available facts in this case. We would get a lot closer to knowing we have "all the facts" if this had been allowed to go to trial, so in a way, the people who thought the non-indictment was an injustice are actually the people who want to see more of the evidence here.
posted by dialetheia at 6:31 PM on December 1, 2014 [26 favorites]
Ironmouth is one of the most skilled and noxious trolls I have ever seen on the Internet. He lies over and over in every thread he participates in and I don't think I've ever seen him give a good-faith response to any interlocutor. Ignoring that is easier said than done, and I think at a certain point the mods should really consider banning individuals who extensively post in hot-button threads while refusing to engage in an actual exchange with anyone.
posted by threeants at 6:46 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by threeants at 6:46 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
phearlez: Seriously, what don't you get?
You seem to be getting heated and are asking me to back up arguments I have not made.
The mods asked me to stop commenting in the original thread, and I respected their request. I'm discussing it in this metatalk thread since other people brought up questions concerning the reason for the deletion of my comments. Cortex provided further reasons for his decision and I'm not going to pursue an argument with him.
posted by jsonic at 6:46 PM on December 1, 2014
You seem to be getting heated and are asking me to back up arguments I have not made.
The mods asked me to stop commenting in the original thread, and I respected their request. I'm discussing it in this metatalk thread since other people brought up questions concerning the reason for the deletion of my comments. Cortex provided further reasons for his decision and I'm not going to pursue an argument with him.
posted by jsonic at 6:46 PM on December 1, 2014
Cmon. Your argument is quoted! Now all of the sudden you don't have an opinion you're willing to express. Good riddance
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:57 PM on December 1, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:57 PM on December 1, 2014
"What a great example of a metalk post ... Anything else would have resulted in 1000 comments and a couple of flameouts."
Yes, big congrats to phoenix_rising on her first MetaTalk post!
I'm pretty sure that my version of this thread would not have gone as well.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, big congrats to phoenix_rising on her first MetaTalk post!
I'm pretty sure that my version of this thread would not have gone as well.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:13 PM on December 1, 2014 [2 favorites]
But when you call someone a murderer, you are explicitly using legal language for the sole purpose of implying a violation of law.
It's possible to have actually committed murder, as defined by statute, without being found guilty of it.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's possible to have actually committed murder, as defined by statute, without being found guilty of it.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I am not making it about me. You and other people are making it about me -- which is consistent with this sitewide pattern.
Anyway, I really don't feel like arguing it. So people can do here what they always do and claim that the person at the middle -- in this case me -- is somehow behaving badly and the group ganging up on them is in the right and continue taking potshots and then acting like that person should not have any desire to defend themselves when that happens.
Later.
Michele in California, I would like to show you why people sometimes get the impression that you are “trying to make it about you.” This is sort of a recurring theme, and I think you feel accused of it often. There is a reason people take your comments/participation that way, but I don't think you can see it.
A comment you addressed to Cortex: I am not accusing the mods of doing anything. I am merely hoping to help them up their game. I gave specific, concrete suggestions that I think will help move the bar on this issue over time.
The pronoun that begins each of those sentences is the first tip-off, but that can be excused as a matter of personal style, so let’s skip it for now.
“I am merely hoping to help [you] up [your] game” is a really condescending thing to say to Cortex. You may disagree with his game, and that’s fine, but believing that *you* can share with him the tools he needs to better do his job (up his game!), and that he should be grateful, is really presumptuous and, again, condescending. The subtext, which you may or may not really mean, is that *you alone* know how to solve this site-wide problem that *you* have identified. So: We have you stating what you think is Cortex’s and the other mods’ problem, and then helpfully providing them with what you believe to be the solution to their collective problem. That is not making this about them. It is making this about *you*.
In a subsequent comment:
I understand that is the most effective tool the mods have so far come up with for this particular situation. I am trying to offer additional tools.
Pronoun troubles again, again excused for the possibility that it’s a style choice. (It's a style choice that might be pinging the reader's all-about-her radar by now, though.) Anyway, you’re doubling down on your condescension here. I don’t doubt that you’re sincerely trying to present Cortex et al with some tools they can use. But they don’t need your tools! The very fact that you are again 'offering' them your Tools® comes off like a grandmother forcing a kid to eat her liver because it's good for her, despite the fact that the kid really just does not like liver. This isn't about the mods, and it isn't about the methods they employ, it is about your ideas of how they use (or don't use) those methods.
Trying to describe the outcome is not in any way to suggest the mods are guilty of intentionally scapegoating that party. So, in that sense, I am not accusing you of being guilty of anything.
Good! Because that’s not your place! (But your insistence that it IS your place kinda makes it sound a little bit like you think this is about you.)
I am sorry if you feel accused of something. I find it unfortunate and personally frustrating that so many of things I said have been argued against in a way that I feel is largely irrelevant while my main point seems to have gone largely unheard. That main point is: I think if the mods tried harder to consistently discuss such incidents in terms of an ongoing group dynamic rather than an ongoing issue with a particular member, things would gradually improve over time.
Chipping away at the pronoun problem one sentence at a time. Great!
But here's something: In my life, every time someone says to me “I am sorry [if you were hurt/offended]” followed by “I find it unfortunate [that you don’t understand why I was justified in saying the thing that hurt you]” it feels to me like I’m not really getting an apology. Instead, the conversation has shifted from the thing that hurt me, and why it hurt me, to why the person who hurt me was justified in hurting me, and now they’re upset because I can't understand how I am now wronging them by not understanding where they were coming from. When people in my life do that to me, it helps for me to recognize that it’s because they’re making it about themselves, and that helps me put *my* frustration with the whole thing in the proper context, because if that person is always going to make this conversation about them, there’s no point in engaging with them anymore (from my POV), because I am going to get nothing good out of it.
I don't know how to be more clear than that. I am not accusing you of something -- other than having room for improvement on an issue the mods themselves have repeatedly expressed a desire to improve upon.
Your pronouns still aren’t helping you here, but anyway. I would point out that this is again pretty condescending: ‘I’m not accusing you of anything except that which I am accusing you of.’ And the next bit sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher would write on a report card: 'You have room for improvement, but first you must want to improve. Attitude adjustment in order.' In any case, it is again telling the mods that *you* have clearly identified their problem and that *you* are again handing them a solution, and *you* are getting frustrated by the fact that they’re not accepting it.
And that’s why it comes off – in this thread and in past threads -- as it sounding like you make these things about *you*. And that's how the cycle gets started. Because really, you do make it sound like it's about you, and the people who disagree with you are being mean or unfair, so you restate your point, and people respond like they did before, and it spirals downward from there.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh, because I do think you have good intentions. And I hate that this is going to look like a public call out, but this is an issue that comes up repeatedly on the site (and has come up in this thread), and that makes it public. I’m hoping this might help you hear how you sometimes sound to others. Consider it a tool I'm giving you.
Peace out.
posted by mudpuppie at 7:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [49 favorites]
Anyway, I really don't feel like arguing it. So people can do here what they always do and claim that the person at the middle -- in this case me -- is somehow behaving badly and the group ganging up on them is in the right and continue taking potshots and then acting like that person should not have any desire to defend themselves when that happens.
Later.
Michele in California, I would like to show you why people sometimes get the impression that you are “trying to make it about you.” This is sort of a recurring theme, and I think you feel accused of it often. There is a reason people take your comments/participation that way, but I don't think you can see it.
A comment you addressed to Cortex: I am not accusing the mods of doing anything. I am merely hoping to help them up their game. I gave specific, concrete suggestions that I think will help move the bar on this issue over time.
The pronoun that begins each of those sentences is the first tip-off, but that can be excused as a matter of personal style, so let’s skip it for now.
“I am merely hoping to help [you] up [your] game” is a really condescending thing to say to Cortex. You may disagree with his game, and that’s fine, but believing that *you* can share with him the tools he needs to better do his job (up his game!), and that he should be grateful, is really presumptuous and, again, condescending. The subtext, which you may or may not really mean, is that *you alone* know how to solve this site-wide problem that *you* have identified. So: We have you stating what you think is Cortex’s and the other mods’ problem, and then helpfully providing them with what you believe to be the solution to their collective problem. That is not making this about them. It is making this about *you*.
In a subsequent comment:
I understand that is the most effective tool the mods have so far come up with for this particular situation. I am trying to offer additional tools.
Pronoun troubles again, again excused for the possibility that it’s a style choice. (It's a style choice that might be pinging the reader's all-about-her radar by now, though.) Anyway, you’re doubling down on your condescension here. I don’t doubt that you’re sincerely trying to present Cortex et al with some tools they can use. But they don’t need your tools! The very fact that you are again 'offering' them your Tools® comes off like a grandmother forcing a kid to eat her liver because it's good for her, despite the fact that the kid really just does not like liver. This isn't about the mods, and it isn't about the methods they employ, it is about your ideas of how they use (or don't use) those methods.
Trying to describe the outcome is not in any way to suggest the mods are guilty of intentionally scapegoating that party. So, in that sense, I am not accusing you of being guilty of anything.
Good! Because that’s not your place! (But your insistence that it IS your place kinda makes it sound a little bit like you think this is about you.)
I am sorry if you feel accused of something. I find it unfortunate and personally frustrating that so many of things I said have been argued against in a way that I feel is largely irrelevant while my main point seems to have gone largely unheard. That main point is: I think if the mods tried harder to consistently discuss such incidents in terms of an ongoing group dynamic rather than an ongoing issue with a particular member, things would gradually improve over time.
Chipping away at the pronoun problem one sentence at a time. Great!
But here's something: In my life, every time someone says to me “I am sorry [if you were hurt/offended]” followed by “I find it unfortunate [that you don’t understand why I was justified in saying the thing that hurt you]” it feels to me like I’m not really getting an apology. Instead, the conversation has shifted from the thing that hurt me, and why it hurt me, to why the person who hurt me was justified in hurting me, and now they’re upset because I can't understand how I am now wronging them by not understanding where they were coming from. When people in my life do that to me, it helps for me to recognize that it’s because they’re making it about themselves, and that helps me put *my* frustration with the whole thing in the proper context, because if that person is always going to make this conversation about them, there’s no point in engaging with them anymore (from my POV), because I am going to get nothing good out of it.
I don't know how to be more clear than that. I am not accusing you of something -- other than having room for improvement on an issue the mods themselves have repeatedly expressed a desire to improve upon.
Your pronouns still aren’t helping you here, but anyway. I would point out that this is again pretty condescending: ‘I’m not accusing you of anything except that which I am accusing you of.’ And the next bit sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher would write on a report card: 'You have room for improvement, but first you must want to improve. Attitude adjustment in order.' In any case, it is again telling the mods that *you* have clearly identified their problem and that *you* are again handing them a solution, and *you* are getting frustrated by the fact that they’re not accepting it.
And that’s why it comes off – in this thread and in past threads -- as it sounding like you make these things about *you*. And that's how the cycle gets started. Because really, you do make it sound like it's about you, and the people who disagree with you are being mean or unfair, so you restate your point, and people respond like they did before, and it spirals downward from there.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh, because I do think you have good intentions. And I hate that this is going to look like a public call out, but this is an issue that comes up repeatedly on the site (and has come up in this thread), and that makes it public. I’m hoping this might help you hear how you sometimes sound to others. Consider it a tool I'm giving you.
Peace out.
posted by mudpuppie at 7:27 PM on December 1, 2014 [49 favorites]
(I didn't intend this to be a venue for people to re-hash arguments from the Ferguson thread, but I guess it was bound to happen. Sorry.)
It sounds like part of the issue is the prior posting history of a couple members. Would the outcome have been different if those posts had been made by different people? Is there a way to handle these situations without creating a hostile environment that might discourage others from posting?
Additionally, while the whole "repeat offenders" thing may account for some of the perceived bias in that thread, it doesn't account for everything. From my read of it, it looks like anyone who didn't 100% agree with Mike-Brown-was-completely-blameless-and-Wilson-is-an-evil-dickwad-racist got dog-piled. And apparently I'm not alone in that assessment.
That said, I think it's interesting how different people's perceptions can be, looking at the same thing. For example, someone made this comment upthread:
frankly I'm pretty okay with it if Mefi's commenting culture is less inclined to tolerate the "but looting is the real problem", "Mike Brown was a thug", "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors", "Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager".
But I ... well, I didn't see anything like this in the Ferguson thread (thankfully!). At the same time, a lot of people are commenting that they don't see the "vitriol" and "snark" that I tried to point out. Fair enough. It just goes to show that, especially with these hot-button issues, emotions run high and it's easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood. Maybe we can be a bit more mindful about the way we're coming across to people, and ask ourselves whether we're really taking a comment at face value, or if we're maybe letting our frustration/outrage at the situation lead us into misinterpretations.
posted by phoenix_rising at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
It sounds like part of the issue is the prior posting history of a couple members. Would the outcome have been different if those posts had been made by different people? Is there a way to handle these situations without creating a hostile environment that might discourage others from posting?
Additionally, while the whole "repeat offenders" thing may account for some of the perceived bias in that thread, it doesn't account for everything. From my read of it, it looks like anyone who didn't 100% agree with Mike-Brown-was-completely-blameless-and-Wilson-is-an-evil-dickwad-racist got dog-piled. And apparently I'm not alone in that assessment.
That said, I think it's interesting how different people's perceptions can be, looking at the same thing. For example, someone made this comment upthread:
frankly I'm pretty okay with it if Mefi's commenting culture is less inclined to tolerate the "but looting is the real problem", "Mike Brown was a thug", "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors", "Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager".
But I ... well, I didn't see anything like this in the Ferguson thread (thankfully!). At the same time, a lot of people are commenting that they don't see the "vitriol" and "snark" that I tried to point out. Fair enough. It just goes to show that, especially with these hot-button issues, emotions run high and it's easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood. Maybe we can be a bit more mindful about the way we're coming across to people, and ask ourselves whether we're really taking a comment at face value, or if we're maybe letting our frustration/outrage at the situation lead us into misinterpretations.
posted by phoenix_rising at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Obviously the fact of the matter is that blee blee blee, and there is no one with any knowledge about this that disagrees with me.
But I just mentioned three people with professional credentials in this very topic who have explicitly said not blee blee blee, and other people in this thread have linked to a whole lot more such people.
Why do you think that blonk blonk blonk? That doesn't make any sense at all.
What? I never said anything about blonk blonk blonk. Nobody in the thread has said anything about blonk blonk blonk, until you just now.
The fact of the matter is blee blee blee. Your blonk blonk blonk claim is ridiculous.
I... I don't even agree with blonk blonk blonk! What are you talking about? I'm just saying not blee blee blee. Do you have any refutation for these arguments in favor of not blee blee blee that have been described here and elsewhere by many people? Blonk blonk blonk or not blonk blonk blonk has got nothing to do with it!
Your continued assertions that blonk blonk blonk make it hard to take any of your opinions seriously.
posted by Flunkie at 8:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
But I just mentioned three people with professional credentials in this very topic who have explicitly said not blee blee blee, and other people in this thread have linked to a whole lot more such people.
Why do you think that blonk blonk blonk? That doesn't make any sense at all.
What? I never said anything about blonk blonk blonk. Nobody in the thread has said anything about blonk blonk blonk, until you just now.
The fact of the matter is blee blee blee. Your blonk blonk blonk claim is ridiculous.
I... I don't even agree with blonk blonk blonk! What are you talking about? I'm just saying not blee blee blee. Do you have any refutation for these arguments in favor of not blee blee blee that have been described here and elsewhere by many people? Blonk blonk blonk or not blonk blonk blonk has got nothing to do with it!
Your continued assertions that blonk blonk blonk make it hard to take any of your opinions seriously.
posted by Flunkie at 8:01 PM on December 1, 2014 [10 favorites]
Would the outcome have been different if those posts had been made by different people?
Possibly (probably?), because history and context and memory matter. We have persistent identities here; that counts for quite a lot. If someone like Miko - whom I choose not at all randomly, but because she has rightfully earned a reputation as a thoughtful contributor who is rarely (never?) perceived as engaging in personal attacks, snarky snarkfests, etc. - had commented about how maybe Darren Wilson acted the way he did because of his background, she wouldn't have gotten the pushback that corb got. But that's in large part because she wouldn't have made the kind of comment (in content or tone) that corb made; and it's in part because she does not have a history of making "won't someone have sympathy for the white guy who shot the black guy" comments, which corb absolutely does.
posted by rtha at 8:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
Possibly (probably?), because history and context and memory matter. We have persistent identities here; that counts for quite a lot. If someone like Miko - whom I choose not at all randomly, but because she has rightfully earned a reputation as a thoughtful contributor who is rarely (never?) perceived as engaging in personal attacks, snarky snarkfests, etc. - had commented about how maybe Darren Wilson acted the way he did because of his background, she wouldn't have gotten the pushback that corb got. But that's in large part because she wouldn't have made the kind of comment (in content or tone) that corb made; and it's in part because she does not have a history of making "won't someone have sympathy for the white guy who shot the black guy" comments, which corb absolutely does.
posted by rtha at 8:17 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
You seem to be getting heated and are asking me to back up arguments I have not made.
I assure you, I am not heated nor am I saying you made any arguments at all.
posted by phearlez at 8:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I assure you, I am not heated nor am I saying you made any arguments at all.
posted by phearlez at 8:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
And that coming from fffm, who strikes me as being one of the most rabid, hysterical and intolerant people on the site, is quite something.
fffm does not need me to defend him, but I just wanted to say that this pissed me off a bit, and it's hard to get me rattled. If this is how you view him, I'm going to politely suggest that you haven't been paying attention of late. I'm certain we'd disagree about some fundamental things, but I've found him increasingly more enjoyable to listen to, intentionally controlled in his tone, and passionate about honest communication. Especially in this thread, so why would you even say this?
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
fffm does not need me to defend him, but I just wanted to say that this pissed me off a bit, and it's hard to get me rattled. If this is how you view him, I'm going to politely suggest that you haven't been paying attention of late. I'm certain we'd disagree about some fundamental things, but I've found him increasingly more enjoyable to listen to, intentionally controlled in his tone, and passionate about honest communication. Especially in this thread, so why would you even say this?
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:19 PM on December 1, 2014 [33 favorites]
Would the outcome have been different if those posts had been made by different people?
You cited my response to a comment by corb in your intro in the MeTa post.
In that case, no, my response would have not been different if someone else had made the comment. Because I was responding to the comment, not the person. And that was not part of an ongoing conversation between me and corb, which would have been different - it was just a one off.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
You cited my response to a comment by corb in your intro in the MeTa post.
In that case, no, my response would have not been different if someone else had made the comment. Because I was responding to the comment, not the person. And that was not part of an ongoing conversation between me and corb, which would have been different - it was just a one off.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:21 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Eh, thanks SpacemanStix, but probably best to just leave it alone. If my behaviour is still worthy of that commentary, then that commentary probably needs to happen.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:23 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
The fact of the matter is blee blee blee. Your blonk blonk blonk claim is ridiculous.
I don't know why, but I find this hilarious. It's like watching a pair of married circus clowns have the fight that eventually leads to their divorce.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
I don't know why, but I find this hilarious. It's like watching a pair of married circus clowns have the fight that eventually leads to their divorce.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:40 PM on December 1, 2014 [28 favorites]
Metatalk: like watching a pair of married circus clowns have the fight
posted by kagredon at 8:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 8:52 PM on December 1, 2014 [11 favorites]
But I ... well, I didn't see anything like this in the Ferguson thread (thankfully!).
Well, the sentiment about the looters appears several times in the open Ferguson thread, and the notion that Wilson had reason to fear an unarmed Brown is in the subtext (if not the text) of any defense of Wilson using deadly force, since the legality of the self defense / use of force is dependent on the idea that Brown could cause serious harm (or whatever the legal language is) to him or others.
So that's two of the four sentiments kagredon mentioned that I can assure you are represented in just the open Ferguson thread without looking. I also know for certain that I saw sentiments along the lines of "Mike Brown was a thug" expressed in one of the earlier threads, if not in those words. My guess is the "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors" line was a hypothetical on kagredon's part, and I'm sure anything like that would get killed pretty quickly by the mods.
So yeah, it's demonstrably true that people are saying some of those things. It's also demonstrably true that some of your citations of snark/personal attacks were either mistaken or embellished. kagredon's off-hand comment, it seems to me, is at least as true as the basis for this MeTa.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well, the sentiment about the looters appears several times in the open Ferguson thread, and the notion that Wilson had reason to fear an unarmed Brown is in the subtext (if not the text) of any defense of Wilson using deadly force, since the legality of the self defense / use of force is dependent on the idea that Brown could cause serious harm (or whatever the legal language is) to him or others.
So that's two of the four sentiments kagredon mentioned that I can assure you are represented in just the open Ferguson thread without looking. I also know for certain that I saw sentiments along the lines of "Mike Brown was a thug" expressed in one of the earlier threads, if not in those words. My guess is the "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors" line was a hypothetical on kagredon's part, and I'm sure anything like that would get killed pretty quickly by the mods.
So yeah, it's demonstrably true that people are saying some of those things. It's also demonstrably true that some of your citations of snark/personal attacks were either mistaken or embellished. kagredon's off-hand comment, it seems to me, is at least as true as the basis for this MeTa.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 PM on December 1, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't know why, but I find this hilarious. It's like watching a pair of married circus clowns have the fight that eventually leads to their divorce.
It didn't use to be this bad. They used to just have little tiffs about "foo" and "baz".
posted by Tanizaki at 9:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
It didn't use to be this bad. They used to just have little tiffs about "foo" and "baz".
posted by Tanizaki at 9:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
tonycpsu, Looting was mentioned, but never with the assertion that it was the "real problem" overshadowing all the other obvious problems with the situation. And in fact most of these posts express sympathy for the Brown family, the protestors, etc. I found the following: 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7. Other mentions of looting are in response to these threads, or in quoted articles from other sources. Please provide citations if I've missed anything.
Re Wilson being scared, there's the comment from corb but I don't recall anyone saying that Wilson should be let off the hook bcs he was scared (although again, correct me if I'm wrong, with citations to specific comments please). Anyway I don't understand why the mere possibility of Wilson being scared is problematic. None of us are mind-readers and none of us know what was going through his head at the time of the shooting.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug," please provide the link bcs I don't recall this. (I didn't read all the comments in every Ferguson thread; maybe it came from another thread, but my OP is specifically about the thread that was posted after the GJ decision.)
I tried to cite examples of what I perceived to be snark and personal attacks. I was wrong about the "droog" thing, for which I apologized. If you think any of my other examples are mistaken, please point out which ones. I don't understand why you say they were "embellished," since I simply provided links and didn't paraphrase or make any up.
And a good night to you now, I'm off to bed ...
posted by phoenix_rising at 9:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Re Wilson being scared, there's the comment from corb but I don't recall anyone saying that Wilson should be let off the hook bcs he was scared (although again, correct me if I'm wrong, with citations to specific comments please). Anyway I don't understand why the mere possibility of Wilson being scared is problematic. None of us are mind-readers and none of us know what was going through his head at the time of the shooting.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug," please provide the link bcs I don't recall this. (I didn't read all the comments in every Ferguson thread; maybe it came from another thread, but my OP is specifically about the thread that was posted after the GJ decision.)
I tried to cite examples of what I perceived to be snark and personal attacks. I was wrong about the "droog" thing, for which I apologized. If you think any of my other examples are mistaken, please point out which ones. I don't understand why you say they were "embellished," since I simply provided links and didn't paraphrase or make any up.
And a good night to you now, I'm off to bed ...
posted by phoenix_rising at 9:26 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
My guess is the "it's totally okay to drive a car through a crowd of protestors" line was a hypothetical on kagredon's part,
It wasn't.
and I'm sure anything like that would get killed pretty quickly by the mods.
It did.
posted by kagredon at 9:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
It wasn't.
and I'm sure anything like that would get killed pretty quickly by the mods.
It did.
posted by kagredon at 9:28 PM on December 1, 2014 [7 favorites]
Anyway I don't understand why the mere possibility of Wilson being scared is problematic.
It does seem like one is assuming one's conclusion if you reject out of hand the idea that it's even possible Wilson was in fear for his (or someone else's) life. If he wasn't, he was obviously guilty of murder. So if saying Wilson may have been in fear for his life is beyond the pale then it follows logically that anything but insisting Wilson is guilty is verboten.
posted by Justinian at 9:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
It does seem like one is assuming one's conclusion if you reject out of hand the idea that it's even possible Wilson was in fear for his (or someone else's) life. If he wasn't, he was obviously guilty of murder. So if saying Wilson may have been in fear for his life is beyond the pale then it follows logically that anything but insisting Wilson is guilty is verboten.
posted by Justinian at 9:30 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
"won't someone have sympathy for the white guy who shot the black guy"
That comes across as paraphrasing with a fiercely arrogant, assume-bad-faith approach.
posted by ambient2 at 9:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
That comes across as paraphrasing with a fiercely arrogant, assume-bad-faith approach.
posted by ambient2 at 9:45 PM on December 1, 2014 [5 favorites]
So if saying Wilson may have been in fear for his life is beyond the pale...
Beyond the pale? No, not at all. Personally, I didn't (and wouldn't) attack corb for suggesting that. But in my view the suggestion is not very plausible. Which was the point I was trying to make, admittedly via a heavy amount of sarcasm.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:59 PM on December 1, 2014
Beyond the pale? No, not at all. Personally, I didn't (and wouldn't) attack corb for suggesting that. But in my view the suggestion is not very plausible. Which was the point I was trying to make, admittedly via a heavy amount of sarcasm.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:59 PM on December 1, 2014
That comes across as paraphrasing with a fiercely arrogant, assume-bad-faith approach.
Oh well.
posted by rtha at 10:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
Oh well.
posted by rtha at 10:07 PM on December 1, 2014 [6 favorites]
tonycpsu, Looting was mentioned, but never with the assertion that it was the "real problem" overshadowing all the other obvious problems with the situation.
Someone who comes in with their first comment being about the looting, and then comes back later to complain about the looting again is certainly showing through their selective focus that they think looting is the primary problem. If you want an argument about whether that subtext is enough to justify kagredon's paraphrase, we can have that argument, but don't pretend these impressions are coming to observers out of thin air.
Re Wilson being scared, there's the comment from corb but I don't recall anyone saying that Wilson should be let off the hook bcs he was scared
Well, the comment you quoted didn't contend that anyone said anything like that, so I don't see how that's relevant. The bit you quoted was "Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager", which people have absolutely asserted.
Anyway, I do think any suggestion that Wilson was in fear from an unarmed teenager was absolutely part of the defense of the no true bill finding. It was an explicit part of Wilson's own defense! ("Like a demon", "Hulk Hogan", etc.) I don't think these statements can be controversial if they were part of his own defense.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug,"
I'd have to go dig through the threads and look, but I reckon something like that would get deleted pretty quick anyway. There were absolutely victim-blamey comments in those original threads, even if nobody used that exact word, I'm sure of that.
I tried to cite examples of what I perceived to be snark and personal attacks. I was wrong about the "droog" thing, for which I apologized. If you think any of my other examples are mistaken, please point out which ones.
As was pointed out above, mentioning someone's posting history isn't a personal attack. It can sometimes be an ad hominem, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. In your list, I see some actual attacks, some pointing out of inconsistencies, some accusations of logical fallacies, etc. It's a mixed bag.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
Someone who comes in with their first comment being about the looting, and then comes back later to complain about the looting again is certainly showing through their selective focus that they think looting is the primary problem. If you want an argument about whether that subtext is enough to justify kagredon's paraphrase, we can have that argument, but don't pretend these impressions are coming to observers out of thin air.
Re Wilson being scared, there's the comment from corb but I don't recall anyone saying that Wilson should be let off the hook bcs he was scared
Well, the comment you quoted didn't contend that anyone said anything like that, so I don't see how that's relevant. The bit you quoted was "Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager", which people have absolutely asserted.
Anyway, I do think any suggestion that Wilson was in fear from an unarmed teenager was absolutely part of the defense of the no true bill finding. It was an explicit part of Wilson's own defense! ("Like a demon", "Hulk Hogan", etc.) I don't think these statements can be controversial if they were part of his own defense.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug,"
I'd have to go dig through the threads and look, but I reckon something like that would get deleted pretty quick anyway. There were absolutely victim-blamey comments in those original threads, even if nobody used that exact word, I'm sure of that.
I tried to cite examples of what I perceived to be snark and personal attacks. I was wrong about the "droog" thing, for which I apologized. If you think any of my other examples are mistaken, please point out which ones.
As was pointed out above, mentioning someone's posting history isn't a personal attack. It can sometimes be an ad hominem, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. In your list, I see some actual attacks, some pointing out of inconsistencies, some accusations of logical fallacies, etc. It's a mixed bag.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:10 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
one of the most rabid, hysterical and intolerant people
Or as I'd put it, one of the most passionate, forceful and intelligent thinkers...
If I wanted to see what is considered MeFi's "minority opinion", I can go almost anywhere on the Internet for that. I come here for the compassion, the truthfulness and the righteousness that is sadly rare in our current public discourse. The ability of MeFi's Resident Contrarians to screw with our collective heads is a frequent reminder of how we live in an era where "Free Speech" is being routinely used as a tool of Fascism and "fair and balanced" is a synonym for propaganda. I briefly considered making an FPP of this, but I'll just leave it here instead.
And don't ever let corb hear you say that "John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln" because he was never charged.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:38 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
Or as I'd put it, one of the most passionate, forceful and intelligent thinkers...
If I wanted to see what is considered MeFi's "minority opinion", I can go almost anywhere on the Internet for that. I come here for the compassion, the truthfulness and the righteousness that is sadly rare in our current public discourse. The ability of MeFi's Resident Contrarians to screw with our collective heads is a frequent reminder of how we live in an era where "Free Speech" is being routinely used as a tool of Fascism and "fair and balanced" is a synonym for propaganda. I briefly considered making an FPP of this, but I'll just leave it here instead.
And don't ever let corb hear you say that "John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln" because he was never charged.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:38 PM on December 1, 2014 [17 favorites]
I considered making an FPP out of this.
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:53 PM on December 1, 2014 [12 favorites]
"won't someone have sympathy for the white guy who shot the black guy"
I'm pretty sure that corb's bias isn't racist or pro-cop or anything like that. Instead, she seems to be biased to sympathize with anyone who has shot someone else in what they claimed was self-defense.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that corb's bias isn't racist or pro-cop or anything like that. Instead, she seems to be biased to sympathize with anyone who has shot someone else in what they claimed was self-defense.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:58 PM on December 1, 2014 [4 favorites]
. I briefly considered making an FPP of this, but I'll just leave it here instead.
I am having a very hard time with opinions like this at the moment. They articulate nicely some very valid criticisms of some leftist thought that I basically agree with, but seem to be far too often deployed, ironically, by people with right wing opinions that fall prey to the very same problems with dogmatism and anti-intellectualism.
Infuriating!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I am having a very hard time with opinions like this at the moment. They articulate nicely some very valid criticisms of some leftist thought that I basically agree with, but seem to be far too often deployed, ironically, by people with right wing opinions that fall prey to the very same problems with dogmatism and anti-intellectualism.
Infuriating!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:18 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
I considered making an FPP out of this.
"Area Woman's Political Opinions More Nuanced Than They Were In College"
posted by kagredon at 11:29 PM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
"Area Woman's Political Opinions More Nuanced Than They Were In College"
posted by kagredon at 11:29 PM on December 1, 2014 [19 favorites]
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.
Thing is to make an idea take root, you need to jackhammer up the concrete of the ideas people already have. This can be an ugly and borderline immoral process, no matter how good are the ideas that will eventually grow in the soil you unearth. The key inflection point is when you switch from the jackhammer to the seed packet, because no matter how good the jackhammer, it's not really a tool for gardening.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Thing is to make an idea take root, you need to jackhammer up the concrete of the ideas people already have. This can be an ugly and borderline immoral process, no matter how good are the ideas that will eventually grow in the soil you unearth. The key inflection point is when you switch from the jackhammer to the seed packet, because no matter how good the jackhammer, it's not really a tool for gardening.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:34 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Jackhammering is not only immoral, it ruins the rutabaga.
posted by clavdivs at 11:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 11:41 PM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]
Drinky Die: I considered making an FPP out of this.
FWIW I appreciated reading that, and I think you should go for it.
posted by naju at 11:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
FWIW I appreciated reading that, and I think you should go for it.
posted by naju at 11:42 PM on December 1, 2014 [3 favorites]
Don't always agree w. the prevailing opinion = Resident Contrarian? Nice dismissive label there.
There can be a woeful lack of tolerance for differing views, opinions, reactions.
Here for the compassion?
Feels like there ain't much of that for views and people who differ, the old thing that there are one person's opinions and those that are wrong.
posted by ambient2 at 11:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
There can be a woeful lack of tolerance for differing views, opinions, reactions.
Here for the compassion?
Feels like there ain't much of that for views and people who differ, the old thing that there are one person's opinions and those that are wrong.
posted by ambient2 at 11:49 PM on December 1, 2014 [9 favorites]
Don't always agree w. the prevailing opinion = Resident Contrarian? Nice dismissive label there.
Awfully simplistic interpretation. The thing about arguing the outcome based on the evidence released after the process completed is that it ignores (or, as I assume, declines to address) the evidence that was revealed to be part of the process.
The grand jury was a joke, notably for certain facts we all learned along the way that simply do not happen: no draft indictment was supplied by the prosecutor and the defendant was allowed to testify. That the legal minds here (the usual suspects, artly termed) don't even countenance a glossing of these aspects betrays either topical ignorance or bad faith participation. This is what I see as an easy part of "reading the room" and "engaging the conversation," and those that are said to have, "apparently spent a lot of time looking at this from a legal perspective," have not done so enough to account for these glaring elements of a three-month process.
I mean seriously, at least give us an empathetic, "I can see how that might look weird."
posted by rhizome at 12:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Awfully simplistic interpretation. The thing about arguing the outcome based on the evidence released after the process completed is that it ignores (or, as I assume, declines to address) the evidence that was revealed to be part of the process.
The grand jury was a joke, notably for certain facts we all learned along the way that simply do not happen: no draft indictment was supplied by the prosecutor and the defendant was allowed to testify. That the legal minds here (the usual suspects, artly termed) don't even countenance a glossing of these aspects betrays either topical ignorance or bad faith participation. This is what I see as an easy part of "reading the room" and "engaging the conversation," and those that are said to have, "apparently spent a lot of time looking at this from a legal perspective," have not done so enough to account for these glaring elements of a three-month process.
I mean seriously, at least give us an empathetic, "I can see how that might look weird."
posted by rhizome at 12:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
jaguar: I would give up a body part to never hear the phrase "shit show" again. It's a disgusting gross horrible image and it needs to jump off a cliff.
I would give up a body part to never hear the word "fuck" again. It's a perfectly good word, and a perfectly good expletive, but only for serious use; overusing it destroys its effectiveness and makes the user appear to be stuck in adolescence - or sputtering.
But so what?
This thread started off with a bang and a blast - lots of good stuff to kick the old blood pressure up - but it's now tired and has deteriorated into the usual muttering and grumbling of long threads on the gray.
The mods do a fine job. This is MetaFilter - just as it is. If I get riled about the way a thread is going, I don't have to keep reading it. If so-and-so is getting preferential treatment and so-and-so is getting by with too much and the whole website is going downhill and hardly worth bothering with anymore and I'm really getting "fed up" with it (as used in a couple of comments upthread) - I can just walk away.
The issue is police brutality and racism, and those are big issues. That's where I think the attention belongs - but that's just my humble opinion. Have at it, kids - goodnight.
posted by aryma at 12:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I would give up a body part to never hear the word "fuck" again. It's a perfectly good word, and a perfectly good expletive, but only for serious use; overusing it destroys its effectiveness and makes the user appear to be stuck in adolescence - or sputtering.
But so what?
This thread started off with a bang and a blast - lots of good stuff to kick the old blood pressure up - but it's now tired and has deteriorated into the usual muttering and grumbling of long threads on the gray.
The mods do a fine job. This is MetaFilter - just as it is. If I get riled about the way a thread is going, I don't have to keep reading it. If so-and-so is getting preferential treatment and so-and-so is getting by with too much and the whole website is going downhill and hardly worth bothering with anymore and I'm really getting "fed up" with it (as used in a couple of comments upthread) - I can just walk away.
The issue is police brutality and racism, and those are big issues. That's where I think the attention belongs - but that's just my humble opinion. Have at it, kids - goodnight.
posted by aryma at 12:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I read this whole thread, and I hate us so much.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
I have seen the enemy, Joseph Gurl, and he is you guys.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by Justinian at 1:17 AM on December 2, 2014
The enemy of my photons is my enemy.
-Jayne
posted by clavdivs at 1:29 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
-Jayne
posted by clavdivs at 1:29 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
threeants : "Ironmouth is one of the most skilled and noxious trolls I have ever seen on the Internet. "
What is a troll? Ironmouth consistently spouts statist aka fascist positions while claiming an overall left-wing viewpoint. Is that a troll?
In fact, Ironmouth is always pro-thug-cop because his day job is literally helping cops who violently assault civilians get off without any consequences. He's just coming from an incredibly an biased position. He's arguing what he's paid to believe at work. He's not doing it to get your goat.
Layers are paid to be biased. Ironmouth's legal opinion has no value in a case of police missconduct, no more than a PR flack with the police union, well unless you're an officer trying to get off.
The only legal positions that are actually interesting to we casual observers interested in justice, decreasing the violence in society, etc. are lawyers for the NAACP, etc. who shoot the state's anti-prosecution position full of holes, and maybe cause some minor consequences for the corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc. that inevitably let the bad cop off the hook.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
What is a troll? Ironmouth consistently spouts statist aka fascist positions while claiming an overall left-wing viewpoint. Is that a troll?
In fact, Ironmouth is always pro-thug-cop because his day job is literally helping cops who violently assault civilians get off without any consequences. He's just coming from an incredibly an biased position. He's arguing what he's paid to believe at work. He's not doing it to get your goat.
Layers are paid to be biased. Ironmouth's legal opinion has no value in a case of police missconduct, no more than a PR flack with the police union, well unless you're an officer trying to get off.
The only legal positions that are actually interesting to we casual observers interested in justice, decreasing the violence in society, etc. are lawyers for the NAACP, etc. who shoot the state's anti-prosecution position full of holes, and maybe cause some minor consequences for the corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc. that inevitably let the bad cop off the hook.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Phew, that was quite the epic read.
From my read of it, it looks like anyone who didn't 100% agree with Mike-Brown-was-completely-blameless-and-Wilson-is-an-evil-dickwad-racist got dog-piled. And apparently I'm not alone in that assessment.
You're not, clearly. But let's be honest: some of the assessments around this site characteristic are - however much they might personally hurt those making them - wildly, flagrantly overstated.
I do think that there are a small minority of users that react in a very combustible, aggressive way to another small minority of users, on certain topics. Especially when the latter group voice their opinions in ways that are tone deaf at best, and infuriatingly rude, patronising at worst. These users are not always the same, and nor are the topics, though there are, undeniably, some familiar names that pop up.
However, when you view it in the context of two small handfuls of users on a tiny number of threads, it's not really a site, or even a community problem, in my view. It's a discourse problem on a few topics, for a few people.
From a mod perspective, yes, I think that would look like a number of "problem users" - not that they are problems in and of themselves, but that they contribute to modding problems (though some are, of course, actually problematic in and of themselves...).
Your call to action - mods let those comments stand and push back on people giving snarky responses to them etc - I think makes sense from one perspective, a free speechy kind of perspective. But from a modding perspective, I don't think it really does make sense. Why? Because doing so would not reduce the discussion problems in those threads, because what those users are saying and the way they are saying it is what's provoking strong reactions from a far greater number of users - whether that's morally right or no.
Faced with the choice of putting out one small fire (in this context comments from Ironmouth, or Corb, say), versus letting that fire burn and then having to put out dozens of blazes that it sparks (responses from heaps of users that are totally pissed off with Corb or Ironmouth's comments), it's no wonder they choose the former. The mods probably don't even have the resources to do the latter.
I think this is particularly the case when - for the vast majority of responses - if Ironmouth et al did simply take the time to voice their opinions in a different way, ignored the small number of users that are spoiling for a fight with them no matter what, and then backed the fuck off and let the thread move past it - there wouldn't be any problem at all. But more usually they can't resist. Especialy Ironmouth who is a serial commenter with a real take-all-comers approach when the mood strikes.
Lest I'm sounding purer than the driven snow here, let me be clear: I do get it. I get when you have a strong opinion, and you really want to share it, and you think you might actually know a lot more about the topic than most people posting here, and you think that they are misjudging you and the situation, and it's all pretty unfair and you wish they would just calm down. I am not the driven snow; I am yellow snow.
But, for the good of the community - and my own peace of mind - I stay out of those threads where I know the topic pushes too many buttons for me. I avoid engaging users that I know infuriate me in an extra special way and that I do not really like. And if I feel I'm getting more heated up in a thread, despite trying my best to moderate my language and tone, and think happy thoughts about those arrogant pig-shit ignorant dickweeds that are firing me up. I back off. I don't always do it in time, but I give it a shot.
And it works pretty well, for me, for the site (I think), for other people here. It doesn't really matter if I don't get to share my opinion with someone on a discussion thread. There's other posts to contribute to, etc. I might not think it's always fair or whatever, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. I deal. I memail. I rant to my wife whilst she pretends to listen and care about my weirdo website.
tl;dr Whilst I think you have a point (overstated, but still extant) from a... rights-based perspective I suppose, from a more utilitarian perspective about what works best for the site, for the mods, and for other people, it would be far far easier if some mefites like Ironmouth etc recognised that they have - whether through their fault or no - become hot buttons in some threads on some topics, and either stayed right the hell out of them, or used the most mild, conciliatory and equivocal language possible in the smallest amount of comments.
Others pushing back could benefit from that approach too, no doubt. But there are far, far more of them to manage for the mods.
posted by smoke at 2:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
From my read of it, it looks like anyone who didn't 100% agree with Mike-Brown-was-completely-blameless-and-Wilson-is-an-evil-dickwad-racist got dog-piled. And apparently I'm not alone in that assessment.
You're not, clearly. But let's be honest: some of the assessments around this site characteristic are - however much they might personally hurt those making them - wildly, flagrantly overstated.
I do think that there are a small minority of users that react in a very combustible, aggressive way to another small minority of users, on certain topics. Especially when the latter group voice their opinions in ways that are tone deaf at best, and infuriatingly rude, patronising at worst. These users are not always the same, and nor are the topics, though there are, undeniably, some familiar names that pop up.
However, when you view it in the context of two small handfuls of users on a tiny number of threads, it's not really a site, or even a community problem, in my view. It's a discourse problem on a few topics, for a few people.
From a mod perspective, yes, I think that would look like a number of "problem users" - not that they are problems in and of themselves, but that they contribute to modding problems (though some are, of course, actually problematic in and of themselves...).
Your call to action - mods let those comments stand and push back on people giving snarky responses to them etc - I think makes sense from one perspective, a free speechy kind of perspective. But from a modding perspective, I don't think it really does make sense. Why? Because doing so would not reduce the discussion problems in those threads, because what those users are saying and the way they are saying it is what's provoking strong reactions from a far greater number of users - whether that's morally right or no.
Faced with the choice of putting out one small fire (in this context comments from Ironmouth, or Corb, say), versus letting that fire burn and then having to put out dozens of blazes that it sparks (responses from heaps of users that are totally pissed off with Corb or Ironmouth's comments), it's no wonder they choose the former. The mods probably don't even have the resources to do the latter.
I think this is particularly the case when - for the vast majority of responses - if Ironmouth et al did simply take the time to voice their opinions in a different way, ignored the small number of users that are spoiling for a fight with them no matter what, and then backed the fuck off and let the thread move past it - there wouldn't be any problem at all. But more usually they can't resist. Especialy Ironmouth who is a serial commenter with a real take-all-comers approach when the mood strikes.
Lest I'm sounding purer than the driven snow here, let me be clear: I do get it. I get when you have a strong opinion, and you really want to share it, and you think you might actually know a lot more about the topic than most people posting here, and you think that they are misjudging you and the situation, and it's all pretty unfair and you wish they would just calm down. I am not the driven snow; I am yellow snow.
But, for the good of the community - and my own peace of mind - I stay out of those threads where I know the topic pushes too many buttons for me. I avoid engaging users that I know infuriate me in an extra special way and that I do not really like. And if I feel I'm getting more heated up in a thread, despite trying my best to moderate my language and tone, and think happy thoughts about those arrogant pig-shit ignorant dickweeds that are firing me up. I back off. I don't always do it in time, but I give it a shot.
And it works pretty well, for me, for the site (I think), for other people here. It doesn't really matter if I don't get to share my opinion with someone on a discussion thread. There's other posts to contribute to, etc. I might not think it's always fair or whatever, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. I deal. I memail. I rant to my wife whilst she pretends to listen and care about my weirdo website.
tl;dr Whilst I think you have a point (overstated, but still extant) from a... rights-based perspective I suppose, from a more utilitarian perspective about what works best for the site, for the mods, and for other people, it would be far far easier if some mefites like Ironmouth etc recognised that they have - whether through their fault or no - become hot buttons in some threads on some topics, and either stayed right the hell out of them, or used the most mild, conciliatory and equivocal language possible in the smallest amount of comments.
Others pushing back could benefit from that approach too, no doubt. But there are far, far more of them to manage for the mods.
posted by smoke at 2:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
To reiterate: ironmouth does not want our goats.
posted by clavdivs at 2:49 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 2:49 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Lexica: I think this is a reference to the thrashing about that happened in this epic MeTa. (The thread was epic, so here's a possible point of reentry for anyone else who can't stomach rereading the whole thing: this comment, which claims that "Calling someone out for saying something racist means that you are calling someone a racist" and the comments responding to it.)
So i've read most of this thread, and i very clearly remember that thread and uh...
I'm just failing to see how this isn't just the same points made there restated by different people.
There pretty much seems to be a sizeable contingent of people on here who see an outsized of "ganging up" reaction to someone continuing a pattern of behavior, and both do and want others to take posts out of the context of that posters history in some kind of idealized form of good faith. Then there's camp B, of people who just see it as the aforementioned continuing pattern.
As far as i can tell, we're never going to reconcile this between these two groups. The mods seem to be slowly sliding towards group B at least with certain prolific posters, but there still seems to be a fair sized silenced all my life group who thinks that it's unfair and unreasonable to tell these people to quit farting and texting during the movie as soon as they start.
I also think it's worth noting that the aforementioned people brought up in this thread, and a few others, not only consistently act this way but consistently take a contrarian viewpoint. It doesn't even have to be internally consistent. If the general tide is "wow this is terrible i feel so bad for person A in this situation, person B sucks!" they'll show up with a softball but impassioned defense of person B. And usually what-if or just outright spin yarn to back up that narrative. This is definitely not just a "not agreeing with the prevailing opinion" thing, it's being so brave and somewhere between seemingly and blatantly starting shit.
I went way in to it in the previous thread, but really, the people who don't give these guys the benefit of the doubt anymore don't have some vendetta against them. it's more of a "fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 30 times" sort of thing.
posted by emptythought at 4:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
So i've read most of this thread, and i very clearly remember that thread and uh...
I'm just failing to see how this isn't just the same points made there restated by different people.
There pretty much seems to be a sizeable contingent of people on here who see an outsized of "ganging up" reaction to someone continuing a pattern of behavior, and both do and want others to take posts out of the context of that posters history in some kind of idealized form of good faith. Then there's camp B, of people who just see it as the aforementioned continuing pattern.
As far as i can tell, we're never going to reconcile this between these two groups. The mods seem to be slowly sliding towards group B at least with certain prolific posters, but there still seems to be a fair sized silenced all my life group who thinks that it's unfair and unreasonable to tell these people to quit farting and texting during the movie as soon as they start.
I also think it's worth noting that the aforementioned people brought up in this thread, and a few others, not only consistently act this way but consistently take a contrarian viewpoint. It doesn't even have to be internally consistent. If the general tide is "wow this is terrible i feel so bad for person A in this situation, person B sucks!" they'll show up with a softball but impassioned defense of person B. And usually what-if or just outright spin yarn to back up that narrative. This is definitely not just a "not agreeing with the prevailing opinion" thing, it's being so brave and somewhere between seemingly and blatantly starting shit.
I went way in to it in the previous thread, but really, the people who don't give these guys the benefit of the doubt anymore don't have some vendetta against them. it's more of a "fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 30 times" sort of thing.
posted by emptythought at 4:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I stopped giving Ironmouth the benefit of the doubt on this stuff when he mentioned in a thread a while back that he used to do paid astroturf work.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 4:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 4:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
jeffburdges:
What is a troll? Ironmouth consistently spouts statist aka fascist positions while claiming an overall left-wing viewpoint. Is that a troll?
I don't think I'd call IronMouth a troll. I'm not sure what the right word to describe his behavior is. I think I'd classify it as a mix of tone deafness, arrogant dismissiveness (aka "I'm a subject expert, therefore you are wrong"), a laser focus on legal minutiae, and volume (16.25 posts per hour during his involvement in the latest Michael Brown discussion).
I'd like to see IronMouth stick around and engage with us, because I think it's valuable to have the participation of subject matter experts in various discussions, but when those "experts" are unable to contribute to the conversation constructively, without trying to dominate it, without acting arrogantly as if their status as subject matter experts makes them infallible*, and without being able to consider (or at least ignore) talk about details that fall outside of the laser focus on technical minutiae that they may be prone to, I think they end up doing themselves and the whole community a net disservice. Sad but true.
* IronMouth is not infallible:
- The four police agencies involved agreed to pay (Jose) Guerena's family $3.4 million as a settlement, without admitting wrongdoing. (re: this previously-linked mefi discussion)
- IronMouth failed to recognize the unconstitutionality of the very part of the Missouri statute that he quoted as his grounds for stating that Mike Brown's shooting "was a justified shooting" in his first comment in that discussion.
- And the list doesn't end there - someone with an established track record of getting at least some of the (crucially important) facts wrong should refrain from acting as though everyone else in a discussion about his area of expertise just needs to shut up and take his every word and opinion as the absolute and final truth.
posted by syzygy at 4:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
What is a troll? Ironmouth consistently spouts statist aka fascist positions while claiming an overall left-wing viewpoint. Is that a troll?
I don't think I'd call IronMouth a troll. I'm not sure what the right word to describe his behavior is. I think I'd classify it as a mix of tone deafness, arrogant dismissiveness (aka "I'm a subject expert, therefore you are wrong"), a laser focus on legal minutiae, and volume (16.25 posts per hour during his involvement in the latest Michael Brown discussion).
I'd like to see IronMouth stick around and engage with us, because I think it's valuable to have the participation of subject matter experts in various discussions, but when those "experts" are unable to contribute to the conversation constructively, without trying to dominate it, without acting arrogantly as if their status as subject matter experts makes them infallible*, and without being able to consider (or at least ignore) talk about details that fall outside of the laser focus on technical minutiae that they may be prone to, I think they end up doing themselves and the whole community a net disservice. Sad but true.
* IronMouth is not infallible:
- The four police agencies involved agreed to pay (Jose) Guerena's family $3.4 million as a settlement, without admitting wrongdoing. (re: this previously-linked mefi discussion)
- IronMouth failed to recognize the unconstitutionality of the very part of the Missouri statute that he quoted as his grounds for stating that Mike Brown's shooting "was a justified shooting" in his first comment in that discussion.
- And the list doesn't end there - someone with an established track record of getting at least some of the (crucially important) facts wrong should refrain from acting as though everyone else in a discussion about his area of expertise just needs to shut up and take his every word and opinion as the absolute and final truth.
posted by syzygy at 4:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
The thing to ask, here, is whether the contrarians are the only ones exhibiting this behavior, or if we only notice the behavior because we disagree with the viewpoint being expressed.
Obviously lots of people of all political persuasions are dismissive, snide, unnecessarily personal, and occasionally or habitually wrong. But we notice those things more when they disagree with us.
The only thing a contrarian can fail to do that a majority-view commenter cannot is "fail to read the room." By definition, even if you're wrong, rude, and resentful, even if you have a hobby horse and don't respond to counter-arguments or new evidence, if you're in agreement with the general mood, you're reading the room right. That's why the mods use that phrase.
Effectively that means that contrarians have a higher bar to clear. And that's how it should be! This isn't a jury room, it's a website. And we should all hold ourselves to the higher standard, any way.
So it's important to read the room and make your own comments unimpeachable if you're going to be a contrarian, just because that's what everyone should do, but also because folks will notice if you don't.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:14 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Obviously lots of people of all political persuasions are dismissive, snide, unnecessarily personal, and occasionally or habitually wrong. But we notice those things more when they disagree with us.
The only thing a contrarian can fail to do that a majority-view commenter cannot is "fail to read the room." By definition, even if you're wrong, rude, and resentful, even if you have a hobby horse and don't respond to counter-arguments or new evidence, if you're in agreement with the general mood, you're reading the room right. That's why the mods use that phrase.
Effectively that means that contrarians have a higher bar to clear. And that's how it should be! This isn't a jury room, it's a website. And we should all hold ourselves to the higher standard, any way.
So it's important to read the room and make your own comments unimpeachable if you're going to be a contrarian, just because that's what everyone should do, but also because folks will notice if you don't.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:14 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's not always easy to do, but it's usually happier and easier to let people be wrong. There are quite a few super tone-deaf people here (some because of personality, some because of obvious medication or mental issues, and a few deliberately trolling, but the overall effect is similar), but responding (and if responding, how) is absolutely a choice. I'd personally prefer that the moderation get slightly adjusted towards increased recognition of patterns of behavior, but it's not my site and I don't make those decisions.
The Ferguson thread in question has been interesting to read, but it's an issue where some people have a need to express very intense feelings which more self-therapeutic and less about serious, reasoned thinking, and that's ok. Combined with the usual tone-deafness, though, the heat and light are probably inevitable.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
The Ferguson thread in question has been interesting to read, but it's an issue where some people have a need to express very intense feelings which more self-therapeutic and less about serious, reasoned thinking, and that's ok. Combined with the usual tone-deafness, though, the heat and light are probably inevitable.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think mods also are quicker to delete a comment when it echoes long-standing boilerplate enforcement of the status quo. Sure, someone who doesn't know any better may think they're making a profound point when they wade into a contentious thread by saying things like:
"Why didn't she report it?"
"Lets wait for the facts"
"maybe it wasn't this particular manifestation of bigotry, it was just this innocuous thing"
Why should they delete these? because this is what people hear every day every place but here, its boring as fuck, its likely to start a fight, and the author clearly didn't put too much thought into it so what's the harm?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
"Why didn't she report it?"
"Lets wait for the facts"
"maybe it wasn't this particular manifestation of bigotry, it was just this innocuous thing"
Why should they delete these? because this is what people hear every day every place but here, its boring as fuck, its likely to start a fight, and the author clearly didn't put too much thought into it so what's the harm?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
I stopped giving Ironmouth the benefit of the doubt on this stuff when he mentioned in a thread a while back that he used to do paid astroturf work.
How is that any different from what a TV "expert" does?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:52 AM on December 2, 2014
How is that any different from what a TV "expert" does?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:52 AM on December 2, 2014
The Ferguson thread in question has been interesting to read, but it's an issue where some people have a need to express very intense feelings which more self-therapeutic and less about serious, reasoned thinking, and that's ok. Combined with the usual tone-deafness, though, the heat and light are probably inevitable.
This raises an interesting issue. Communication here is in large part about exchanging propositions in an effort to reason to good conclusions. In this respect, I think things like tone and presentation matter. I'm not talking tone argument or tone fallacy (where people are discredited based on tone), just that being nice to each other is way more effective than factual propositional content alone. I'm not sure why it is that way, but it's one of the psychological realities of our shared human condition, and as much as we don't always like that to be true, it's seems to be a properly basic fact that we can embrace or ignore to our detriment.
However, communication is sometimes in part cathartic and it serves to purge our emotions a bit. It's an important thing, and healthy communication sometimes allows us to be a bit messy with that. From some of my friends who are more psychologically savvy, they refer to healthy communication as being able to "hold the emotions" of others without being overly triggered by them such that you get this crazy cycle of back and forth. Sometimes this is propositional communication, but not always. And sometimes the propositions being asserted are below the surface. While we assert a fact, it may betray an underlying feeling instead. If we are lucky, those two things might perfectly align.
I'm constantly working on how to hold these two things in tension; namely, expecting a high standard of communication because it's effective, yet figuring out how to 1) be properly emotional myself while adhering to high communication standards; 2) developing wisdom to figure out when people are being cathartic versus needing to engage an argument with them; and 3) learning how to hold the emotions of others while they work out their stuff and not always needing to respond to the way they are expressing themselves.
I think number three has been most helpful for me to consider. The whole "work on yourself before making demands on others" has been pretty helpful. As much as I'd like to see people being nice to each other while being uncompromising on justice issues, it's been much more effective to work on my own ability to not get rattled. Two sides of the coin I suspect, but sometimes I can't change the whole world, but I can change myself.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:29 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
This raises an interesting issue. Communication here is in large part about exchanging propositions in an effort to reason to good conclusions. In this respect, I think things like tone and presentation matter. I'm not talking tone argument or tone fallacy (where people are discredited based on tone), just that being nice to each other is way more effective than factual propositional content alone. I'm not sure why it is that way, but it's one of the psychological realities of our shared human condition, and as much as we don't always like that to be true, it's seems to be a properly basic fact that we can embrace or ignore to our detriment.
However, communication is sometimes in part cathartic and it serves to purge our emotions a bit. It's an important thing, and healthy communication sometimes allows us to be a bit messy with that. From some of my friends who are more psychologically savvy, they refer to healthy communication as being able to "hold the emotions" of others without being overly triggered by them such that you get this crazy cycle of back and forth. Sometimes this is propositional communication, but not always. And sometimes the propositions being asserted are below the surface. While we assert a fact, it may betray an underlying feeling instead. If we are lucky, those two things might perfectly align.
I'm constantly working on how to hold these two things in tension; namely, expecting a high standard of communication because it's effective, yet figuring out how to 1) be properly emotional myself while adhering to high communication standards; 2) developing wisdom to figure out when people are being cathartic versus needing to engage an argument with them; and 3) learning how to hold the emotions of others while they work out their stuff and not always needing to respond to the way they are expressing themselves.
I think number three has been most helpful for me to consider. The whole "work on yourself before making demands on others" has been pretty helpful. As much as I'd like to see people being nice to each other while being uncompromising on justice issues, it's been much more effective to work on my own ability to not get rattled. Two sides of the coin I suspect, but sometimes I can't change the whole world, but I can change myself.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:29 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
dios: Well, for one, I didn't participate in that thread, so not sure to what you are referring.
Brief housekeeping note: I flipped through the blue thread again, and it turns out MattD, not dios, was the other lawyer in that thread that I thought was doing a great job of sticking to the facts of the case and not being pushy / smarmy / condescending in the way Ironmouth was. Just wanted to clear that up since I feel really bad about confusing two members based solely on their profession.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Brief housekeeping note: I flipped through the blue thread again, and it turns out MattD, not dios, was the other lawyer in that thread that I thought was doing a great job of sticking to the facts of the case and not being pushy / smarmy / condescending in the way Ironmouth was. Just wanted to clear that up since I feel really bad about confusing two members based solely on their profession.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Law itself is a game, syzygy, not a factual exercise like science, math, programming, etc. It's more serious than debate or religion or cards against humanity, but it's still just a human word game. The powerful do what they want. And they hire lawyers to try to catch each other in outright absurdities. It's lovely that they now let us little people play along more seriously than hundreds of years ago, but enough money and power still buys you plenty of absurdity. In fact we cannot make law into a factual exercise, but we can make the facts weigh progressively heavier until law experts have relatively little say and the facts have a lot of say.
I'd two points above :
(1) In law, an opinion that can that can take other arguments into account, but that does not discount the fact that : the value of an opinion is fundamentally relative to what you're trying to achieve. If you're a cop who rapes a woman he stops at a checkpoint then the opinion of a statist lawyer, as does your union rep, because he'll try to get you off. If you're a commenter on the internet who wants to see that cop go to jail then those opinions have no value, except as something you'd want deflected easily.
There is no reason to engage directly with Ironmouth because (a) you'll never even slightly influence his opinion, and (b) engaging with him is not the most effective way to convince bystanders. In practice, you can just find additional weight of factual evidence that makes the opinion arguers, be they legal or not, look silly, like :
- New Reenactment Animates BOTH Stories In The Mike Brown Shooting
- Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides
That Utah stat helps discredit sovereign immunity itself, which is ultimately the legal basis for many of Ironmouth's arguments.
(2) A troll is by the traditional definition trying to provoke an emotional response, not someone who provokes you without meaning to. Now our language has become somewhat overloaded by the term concern troll, who usually try to distract people from the essence of a situation and make them calm down to help the status que triumph. Concern trolling is a debating technique, basically its a type of astroturfing, not actual trolling. And a concern troll who gets viewed wrongly as a troll has probably failed. Ironmouth is frequently a concern troll but he's not a troll in the classical sense. Mods do not treat concern trolls the same way as actual trolls because the concern trolls are simply arguing, not actually trying to mess with people enjoyment of the site.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:36 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'd two points above :
(1) In law, an opinion that can that can take other arguments into account, but that does not discount the fact that : the value of an opinion is fundamentally relative to what you're trying to achieve. If you're a cop who rapes a woman he stops at a checkpoint then the opinion of a statist lawyer, as does your union rep, because he'll try to get you off. If you're a commenter on the internet who wants to see that cop go to jail then those opinions have no value, except as something you'd want deflected easily.
There is no reason to engage directly with Ironmouth because (a) you'll never even slightly influence his opinion, and (b) engaging with him is not the most effective way to convince bystanders. In practice, you can just find additional weight of factual evidence that makes the opinion arguers, be they legal or not, look silly, like :
- New Reenactment Animates BOTH Stories In The Mike Brown Shooting
- Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides
That Utah stat helps discredit sovereign immunity itself, which is ultimately the legal basis for many of Ironmouth's arguments.
(2) A troll is by the traditional definition trying to provoke an emotional response, not someone who provokes you without meaning to. Now our language has become somewhat overloaded by the term concern troll, who usually try to distract people from the essence of a situation and make them calm down to help the status que triumph. Concern trolling is a debating technique, basically its a type of astroturfing, not actual trolling. And a concern troll who gets viewed wrongly as a troll has probably failed. Ironmouth is frequently a concern troll but he's not a troll in the classical sense. Mods do not treat concern trolls the same way as actual trolls because the concern trolls are simply arguing, not actually trying to mess with people enjoyment of the site.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:36 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
The four police agencies involved agreed to pay (Jose) Guerena's family $3.4 million as a settlement, without admitting wrongdoing.
Good lord, he posted 100 times in that thread.
posted by empath at 7:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Good lord, he posted 100 times in that thread.
posted by empath at 7:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Wow. And only 465 comments in total. One would think paid apologists/astroturfers would be more subtle about their vested interests.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
"he used to do paid astroturf work."
How is that any different from what a TV "expert" does?
A tv expert is not pretending to be a lay opinion, or more likely hundreds of lay opinions. You turn on the talking heads and they identify themselves and their affiliation is at least theoretically discoverable. Astroturf is the process of pretending to be Joe Schmoe citizen but actually doing PR work.
posted by phearlez at 7:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
How is that any different from what a TV "expert" does?
A tv expert is not pretending to be a lay opinion, or more likely hundreds of lay opinions. You turn on the talking heads and they identify themselves and their affiliation is at least theoretically discoverable. Astroturf is the process of pretending to be Joe Schmoe citizen but actually doing PR work.
posted by phearlez at 7:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Is there any MeFi policy on people bringing their day job advocacy to MeFi in the way that there are policies against self-linking or Pepsi Blue type things?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:52 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:52 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
In fact, Ironmouth is always pro-thug-cop because his day job is literally helping cops who violently assault civilians get off without any consequences. He's just coming from an incredibly an biased position. He's arguing what he's paid to believe at work. He's not doing it to get your goat.
You seem to not understand what lawyers do, or what law is.
Layers are paid to be biased. Ironmouth's legal opinion has no value in a case of police missconduct, no more than a PR flack with the police union, well unless you're an officer trying to get off.
I prefer to read the opinions, however frequently or impoliticly stated, of people who know what they're talking about. You have a right to your cathartic, uninformed shouting, but it's irritating when you want to silence anyone better informed.
The mods seem to be slowly sliding towards group B at least with certain prolific posters, but there still seems to be a fair sized silenced all my life group who thinks that it's unfair and unreasonable to tell these people to quit farting and texting during the movie as soon as they start.
When you dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with as, literally, filth, then you have drifted into a very ugly habit.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:10 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
You seem to not understand what lawyers do, or what law is.
Layers are paid to be biased. Ironmouth's legal opinion has no value in a case of police missconduct, no more than a PR flack with the police union, well unless you're an officer trying to get off.
I prefer to read the opinions, however frequently or impoliticly stated, of people who know what they're talking about. You have a right to your cathartic, uninformed shouting, but it's irritating when you want to silence anyone better informed.
The mods seem to be slowly sliding towards group B at least with certain prolific posters, but there still seems to be a fair sized silenced all my life group who thinks that it's unfair and unreasonable to tell these people to quit farting and texting during the movie as soon as they start.
When you dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with as, literally, filth, then you have drifted into a very ugly habit.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:10 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
I was happy to see the mods ask jsonic to cool it in that thread, largely because jsonic's original comments were so brief as to see like they were being deliberately provocative. They read as vague and smug, and never attempted to lay out a larger and persuasive contrary reading. As far as I can see, jsonic has put more effort into explaining his reasoning in this thread than in the FPP. Also, there was the problem of multiple postings of the same, one sentence sentiment in a very small time period.
I really do wish that heated threads came with a posting limit, because it gets exhausting watching the same 5 usernames dominate a discussion.
posted by TwoStride at 8:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
I really do wish that heated threads came with a posting limit, because it gets exhausting watching the same 5 usernames dominate a discussion.
posted by TwoStride at 8:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
>There are many, many reasons to believe the grand jury decision was an injustice that have nothing to do with the evidence that came out of those proceedings
...the glaring inconsistencies in the police story call their narrative into question (for 100 days they maintained that Brown was 35 feet from the car but he was actually 153 feet away; Wilson claimed to have been punched 10 times in his initial statements but the changed his story to being punched twice), or that grossly improper procedures were followed in the wake of the shooting that could have compromised the evidence (no medical examiner pictures, no measurements,
This is actually a pretty terrible argument for what we already knew before the grand jury documents came out, because all those claims are either false or irrelevant to the grand jury decision, as can be discovered if you read the documents. I agree with jsonic's comment asking people to read the evidence before reaching conclusions.
Because Metafilter can be such a valuable compilation of links and commentary on these issues, I would LOVE to see commenters show more judgment about the "facts" that are repeated here--i.e. first go to the source, look up quotes in context, etc.
I do not say this in the interest of defending Wilson, but because I agree with the fundamental criticisms of him (and of the crappy law, police racism and abuse, disingenuous prosecution, and more) and would like to see discussion here that is more scrupulous about not just repeating stuff said elsewhere on the internet.
I made a couple comments in that thread linking to specifics in the grand jury documents that clarified a couple points. I stopped because I didn't want to be annoying and more important, because the injustice of Michael Brown's killing is of far greater significance than correcting inaccurate talking points.
But as a narrow MeTa issue, just with regard to jsonic's comment--it really would be great if people could be more careful about double-checking facts before throwing them into heated discussions.
posted by torticat at 8:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
...the glaring inconsistencies in the police story call their narrative into question (for 100 days they maintained that Brown was 35 feet from the car but he was actually 153 feet away; Wilson claimed to have been punched 10 times in his initial statements but the changed his story to being punched twice), or that grossly improper procedures were followed in the wake of the shooting that could have compromised the evidence (no medical examiner pictures, no measurements,
This is actually a pretty terrible argument for what we already knew before the grand jury documents came out, because all those claims are either false or irrelevant to the grand jury decision, as can be discovered if you read the documents. I agree with jsonic's comment asking people to read the evidence before reaching conclusions.
Because Metafilter can be such a valuable compilation of links and commentary on these issues, I would LOVE to see commenters show more judgment about the "facts" that are repeated here--i.e. first go to the source, look up quotes in context, etc.
I do not say this in the interest of defending Wilson, but because I agree with the fundamental criticisms of him (and of the crappy law, police racism and abuse, disingenuous prosecution, and more) and would like to see discussion here that is more scrupulous about not just repeating stuff said elsewhere on the internet.
I made a couple comments in that thread linking to specifics in the grand jury documents that clarified a couple points. I stopped because I didn't want to be annoying and more important, because the injustice of Michael Brown's killing is of far greater significance than correcting inaccurate talking points.
But as a narrow MeTa issue, just with regard to jsonic's comment--it really would be great if people could be more careful about double-checking facts before throwing them into heated discussions.
posted by torticat at 8:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I really do wish that heated threads came with a posting limit, because it gets exhausting watching the same 5 usernames dominate the discussion.
That is kind of a genius idea.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:14 AM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
That is kind of a genius idea.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:14 AM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
I dont' know about personal attacks, and I absolutely fall on the side of critiquing the State on this issue, but I was left with the impression that moderators were vocally asking those who supported the decision to be quiet, and I found that somewhat off-putting. I don't feel that I need to be protected from views that differ from mine, as long as they are presented in a way that is respectful.
I wasn't so bothered by it as to need to call out the moderators for this - what a crappy thread to moderate - but I did notice it.
posted by latkes at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
I wasn't so bothered by it as to need to call out the moderators for this - what a crappy thread to moderate - but I did notice it.
posted by latkes at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Deleted a comment. Let's not devolve to insults here, folks. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:25 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:25 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm not pitching this as a serious idea, but I wish that, in heated threads, the mods could flip a switch, and this would cause posters to only be able to post once every two hours. It's not an onerous restriction on any particular poster, but it would bottleneck the internet fuckwaddery. Say something cogent, make it count, now you're stuck with enough time to do something else.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:31 AM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:31 AM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
In fact, Ironmouth is always pro-thug-cop because his day job is literally helping cops who violently assault civilians get off without any consequences.
I want to be clear that I think it's important for lawyers to defend people accused of crimes. There's nothing wrong with his choice of career, but I think an important part of metafilter culture is that we're 'off the clock' here. When there's a topic that you have a vested interest in, its important that you take an extremely light touch in your participation.
posted by empath at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
I want to be clear that I think it's important for lawyers to defend people accused of crimes. There's nothing wrong with his choice of career, but I think an important part of metafilter culture is that we're 'off the clock' here. When there's a topic that you have a vested interest in, its important that you take an extremely light touch in your participation.
posted by empath at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
tonycpsu:
Someone who comes in with their first comment being about the looting, and then comes back later to complain about the looting again is certainly showing through their selective focus that they think looting is the primary problem
That only happened with this comment followed by this comment. The 2nd looting comment was in direct response to another Mefite who taunted him for his first comment. Furthermore, he explicitly states in his 2nd comment that the looting is "obscuring and hurting the larger issue at stake," which indicates that he in fact did *not* believe that looting was the primary problem.
I do think any suggestion that Wilson was in fear from an unarmed teenager was absolutely part of the defense of the no true bill finding.
It sounded like kagredon was taking exception to someone simply stating that Wilson might have been afraid and I find that to be a bit odd. It's a given that there is some possibility of fear on Wilson's part -- we may feel it was unjustified, we may speculate that his fear (if he did indeed feel fear) was fueled by ignorant racist notions, we may well decry a legal system in which something as subjective and unverifiable as fear can be used as the basis for deadly force. Simply allowing for the logical possibility that someone in Wilson's situation may have been afraid is not, in my estimate, reasonable grounds for calling that person out.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug,"
I'd have to go dig through the threads and look, but I reckon something like that would get deleted pretty quick anyway.
Making up posts that might not have existed is just silly. If things like that (or about cars driving through protestors being ok) were actually posted and then deleted, the mods can chime in and provide the deleted posts. Show me the data.
As was pointed out above, mentioning someone's posting history isn't a personal attack. It can sometimes be an ad hominem, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. In your list, I see some actual attacks, some pointing out of inconsistencies, some accusations of logical fallacies, etc. It's a mixed bag.
If the posts had just been "hey, we hashed this out in a previous thread, let's please take a break from this," then it wouldn't be an issue. But many of the posts went much further than that. Again, this is probably an issue of different perceptions; you may think the pushback was mild and fine, but to this liberal, pacifist, granola-crunching, yoga-doing hippie, they looked like personal attacks. And judging from some of the other responses in this thread, they looked like personal attacks to other people as well. If you don't agree, we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I said.
Peace, dude. ;)
posted by phoenix_rising at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
Someone who comes in with their first comment being about the looting, and then comes back later to complain about the looting again is certainly showing through their selective focus that they think looting is the primary problem
That only happened with this comment followed by this comment. The 2nd looting comment was in direct response to another Mefite who taunted him for his first comment. Furthermore, he explicitly states in his 2nd comment that the looting is "obscuring and hurting the larger issue at stake," which indicates that he in fact did *not* believe that looting was the primary problem.
I do think any suggestion that Wilson was in fear from an unarmed teenager was absolutely part of the defense of the no true bill finding.
It sounded like kagredon was taking exception to someone simply stating that Wilson might have been afraid and I find that to be a bit odd. It's a given that there is some possibility of fear on Wilson's part -- we may feel it was unjustified, we may speculate that his fear (if he did indeed feel fear) was fueled by ignorant racist notions, we may well decry a legal system in which something as subjective and unverifiable as fear can be used as the basis for deadly force. Simply allowing for the logical possibility that someone in Wilson's situation may have been afraid is not, in my estimate, reasonable grounds for calling that person out.
If anyone said Mike Brown is a "thug,"
I'd have to go dig through the threads and look, but I reckon something like that would get deleted pretty quick anyway.
Making up posts that might not have existed is just silly. If things like that (or about cars driving through protestors being ok) were actually posted and then deleted, the mods can chime in and provide the deleted posts. Show me the data.
As was pointed out above, mentioning someone's posting history isn't a personal attack. It can sometimes be an ad hominem, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. In your list, I see some actual attacks, some pointing out of inconsistencies, some accusations of logical fallacies, etc. It's a mixed bag.
If the posts had just been "hey, we hashed this out in a previous thread, let's please take a break from this," then it wouldn't be an issue. But many of the posts went much further than that. Again, this is probably an issue of different perceptions; you may think the pushback was mild and fine, but to this liberal, pacifist, granola-crunching, yoga-doing hippie, they looked like personal attacks. And judging from some of the other responses in this thread, they looked like personal attacks to other people as well. If you don't agree, we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I said.
Peace, dude. ;)
posted by phoenix_rising at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
> Is there any MeFi policy on people bringing their day job advocacy to MeFi in the way that there are policies against self-linking or Pepsi Blue type things
That would be a bad policy. Yeah, there are times when people might be astroturfing, but there are also times -- more times, I bet -- when people are sharing expert knowledge. For example, we have social workers, librarians, at least one drug-policy reform expert here, all of which jobs have an element of advocacy in them, and it would be Bad For Metafilter if we said they couldn't post about these issues because they have day jobs in the field.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [23 favorites]
That would be a bad policy. Yeah, there are times when people might be astroturfing, but there are also times -- more times, I bet -- when people are sharing expert knowledge. For example, we have social workers, librarians, at least one drug-policy reform expert here, all of which jobs have an element of advocacy in them, and it would be Bad For Metafilter if we said they couldn't post about these issues because they have day jobs in the field.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:42 AM on December 2, 2014 [23 favorites]
I think an important part of metafilter culture is that we're 'off the clock' here. When there's a topic that you have a vested interest in, its important that you take an extremely light touch in your participation.
I don't think you really think that. A social worker can't dispense advice or oppose bad advice? A gay rights activist can't participate (even passionately) in threads about LGBTQ? A union organizer can't vociferously defend the labor movement? A Google programmer can't heatedly talk about Android products? A black person can't complain about police brutality aimed at blacks? etc.
No one wants spammers or turfgrassers, but the rest of us have vested interests, too, and we ought to be allowed to advocate for them so long as we're not getting paid per comment.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I don't think you really think that. A social worker can't dispense advice or oppose bad advice? A gay rights activist can't participate (even passionately) in threads about LGBTQ? A union organizer can't vociferously defend the labor movement? A Google programmer can't heatedly talk about Android products? A black person can't complain about police brutality aimed at blacks? etc.
No one wants spammers or turfgrassers, but the rest of us have vested interests, too, and we ought to be allowed to advocate for them so long as we're not getting paid per comment.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
Askmetafilter is clearly a different animal, so giving professional advice there is fine.
But yes, I think a union organizer should limit their participation in labor-related threads, try as be as objective as possible about the situation, and disclose that they do that for a living when participating.
I've participated in threads about my employer, and where it was relevant disclosed it, and tried to post purely informational comments about it or my own experiences.
posted by empath at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
But yes, I think a union organizer should limit their participation in labor-related threads, try as be as objective as possible about the situation, and disclose that they do that for a living when participating.
I've participated in threads about my employer, and where it was relevant disclosed it, and tried to post purely informational comments about it or my own experiences.
posted by empath at 8:55 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Furthermore, he explicitly states in his 2nd comment that the looting is "obscuring and hurting the larger issue at stake," which indicates that he in fact did *not* believe that looting was the primary problem.
If you really believe problem X is the primary one, saying that the smaller problem Y is completely unacceptable is a curious way to show it. The only thing you need to do not to be distracted by problem Y is not to be distracted by problem Y.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:57 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
If you really believe problem X is the primary one, saying that the smaller problem Y is completely unacceptable is a curious way to show it. The only thing you need to do not to be distracted by problem Y is not to be distracted by problem Y.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:57 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
This is actually a pretty terrible argument for what we already knew before the grand jury documents came out, because all those claims are either false or irrelevant to the grand jury decision, as can be discovered if you read the documents.
I don't want to continue this derail since it's much better suited to the actual Ferguson thread, especially since you don't say what you consider to be false (although I'd be happy to memail supporting links if you like - to my knowledge, everything I said is true and actually is supported by grand jury documents), but I think you might have missed the point of that argument. The point was that this could easily be considered an injustice for "meta" reasons wholly outside of the grand jury's cherrypicked set of evidence because the process itself was mishandled and abused, including the evidence-gathering process. You're continuing to narrowly focus on the grand jury proceedings as if those proceedings and the evidence presented in them are an objective, full set of the facts, which I consider a naive response to a procedure marked by great prosecutorial discretion being run by a prosecutor with a fairly massive conflict of interest, with well-documented problems with the evidence-gathering process.
Back on topic, I'm not sure what anyone expects mods to do about the fact that some opinions are outnumbered here - "dog-piling" just means a lot of people disagree, which is kind of baked into the cake with a "minority" opinion. Should people be prevented from responding to things someone else said just because that person is outnumbered? I mean, I agree that a bit of discretion would be nice, and if forty people just said the same thing maybe the next person could give it a pass, but usually people are taking issue with different aspects of a comment. I know it isn't fun to post an opinion and have that opinion be dismantled from fourteen different directions, but it feels like people are asking for special treatment, to be allowed to post their controversial opinions without fear of criticism. I think that most of the "personal attacks" linked in this thread are pretty weak sauce, and that most of those comments were focused on the argument and not the person (with a scant couple of exceptions). I continue to think it's perfectly appropriate to point out when somebody has a professional interest that is not being fully disclosed - Ironmouth is happy to say he goes on TV as an expert but less happy to disclose that he is an expert at defending cops from brutality claims because that is his job. He was presenting himself as an objective expert in that thread before people pointed out where his expertise comes from.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that these "minority" opinions are almost all majority opinions outside of metafilter. There were PLENTY of places people could go to find rules-lawyering about the grand jury evidence, or criticizing the protesters' strategies, or sympathizing with Darren Wilson - you could go almost any other place on the web for that. I appreciate that Metafilter remains a relatively safe place to express opinions that are in the minority in greater US society, and that remains more valuable to me than making sure that the US-white person-majority opinion can be presented without harsh criticism. We're kind of through the looking glass already if "supports Darren Wilson" is being presented as a minority opinion - maybe it is in this thread, but certainly not in US society.
posted by dialetheia at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
I don't want to continue this derail since it's much better suited to the actual Ferguson thread, especially since you don't say what you consider to be false (although I'd be happy to memail supporting links if you like - to my knowledge, everything I said is true and actually is supported by grand jury documents), but I think you might have missed the point of that argument. The point was that this could easily be considered an injustice for "meta" reasons wholly outside of the grand jury's cherrypicked set of evidence because the process itself was mishandled and abused, including the evidence-gathering process. You're continuing to narrowly focus on the grand jury proceedings as if those proceedings and the evidence presented in them are an objective, full set of the facts, which I consider a naive response to a procedure marked by great prosecutorial discretion being run by a prosecutor with a fairly massive conflict of interest, with well-documented problems with the evidence-gathering process.
Back on topic, I'm not sure what anyone expects mods to do about the fact that some opinions are outnumbered here - "dog-piling" just means a lot of people disagree, which is kind of baked into the cake with a "minority" opinion. Should people be prevented from responding to things someone else said just because that person is outnumbered? I mean, I agree that a bit of discretion would be nice, and if forty people just said the same thing maybe the next person could give it a pass, but usually people are taking issue with different aspects of a comment. I know it isn't fun to post an opinion and have that opinion be dismantled from fourteen different directions, but it feels like people are asking for special treatment, to be allowed to post their controversial opinions without fear of criticism. I think that most of the "personal attacks" linked in this thread are pretty weak sauce, and that most of those comments were focused on the argument and not the person (with a scant couple of exceptions). I continue to think it's perfectly appropriate to point out when somebody has a professional interest that is not being fully disclosed - Ironmouth is happy to say he goes on TV as an expert but less happy to disclose that he is an expert at defending cops from brutality claims because that is his job. He was presenting himself as an objective expert in that thread before people pointed out where his expertise comes from.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that these "minority" opinions are almost all majority opinions outside of metafilter. There were PLENTY of places people could go to find rules-lawyering about the grand jury evidence, or criticizing the protesters' strategies, or sympathizing with Darren Wilson - you could go almost any other place on the web for that. I appreciate that Metafilter remains a relatively safe place to express opinions that are in the minority in greater US society, and that remains more valuable to me than making sure that the US-white person-majority opinion can be presented without harsh criticism. We're kind of through the looking glass already if "supports Darren Wilson" is being presented as a minority opinion - maybe it is in this thread, but certainly not in US society.
posted by dialetheia at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
Furthermore, he explicitly states in his 2nd comment that the looting is "obscuring and hurting the larger issue at stake," which indicates that he in fact did *not* believe that looting was the primary problem.
That's an exceedingly charitable read considering that he himself was one of the people who focused on the looting instead of the larger issues he then purported to care about, but only after being challenged on it. You're more than welcome to read it that way, but such a reading assumes facts not in evidence.
It sounded like kagredon was taking exception to someone simply stating that Wilson might have been afraid and I find that to be a bit odd.
The relevant bit from kagredon's comment, again, is:
"Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager"
Emphasis mine. This is different from how you and Justinian seem to want to characterize the original sentiment for rhetorical advantage. Darren Wilson had a gun, a taser, and a baton. Mike Brown didn't have any of these things. Wilson of course had a legitimate reason to fear injury, but ultimately at the time he pulled the trigger from a safe remove, he had no reason at all to fear for his life.
Making up posts that might not have existed is just silly.
Sigh. Again, What I actually said:
I also know for certain that I saw sentiments along the lines of "Mike Brown was a thug" expressed in one of the earlier threads, if not in those words.
There I am conceding that it may not have been the word thug, but here you are browbeating me about not having a cite for the word thug.
I give up. I'm trying to engage in good faith here, but the constant moving of goalposts and selective memory about what's been said is infuriating. I totally understand why someone who moves the goalposts so much would argue that others ought to be charitable in their interpretation.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's an exceedingly charitable read considering that he himself was one of the people who focused on the looting instead of the larger issues he then purported to care about, but only after being challenged on it. You're more than welcome to read it that way, but such a reading assumes facts not in evidence.
It sounded like kagredon was taking exception to someone simply stating that Wilson might have been afraid and I find that to be a bit odd.
The relevant bit from kagredon's comment, again, is:
"Wilson was fearing for his life from an unarmed teenager"
Emphasis mine. This is different from how you and Justinian seem to want to characterize the original sentiment for rhetorical advantage. Darren Wilson had a gun, a taser, and a baton. Mike Brown didn't have any of these things. Wilson of course had a legitimate reason to fear injury, but ultimately at the time he pulled the trigger from a safe remove, he had no reason at all to fear for his life.
Making up posts that might not have existed is just silly.
Sigh. Again, What I actually said:
I also know for certain that I saw sentiments along the lines of "Mike Brown was a thug" expressed in one of the earlier threads, if not in those words.
There I am conceding that it may not have been the word thug, but here you are browbeating me about not having a cite for the word thug.
I give up. I'm trying to engage in good faith here, but the constant moving of goalposts and selective memory about what's been said is infuriating. I totally understand why someone who moves the goalposts so much would argue that others ought to be charitable in their interpretation.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:02 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
No one wants spammers or turfgrassers, but the rest of us have vested interests, too, and we ought to be allowed to advocate for them so long as we're not getting paid per comment.
I kinda feel like regardless of how the money's being distributed, their employment represents an obvious conflict of interest that ought to be disclosed. I've seen people voluntarily include notes like "full disclosure, I work [in industry x] [for employer x] [etc.]" and while that's great for people to do voluntarily, I think it's worth discussing whether it should be a site-wide norm (or perhaps written policy) that people include a blurb like that when they're commenting on something that relates to how they put food on their families.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2014
I kinda feel like regardless of how the money's being distributed, their employment represents an obvious conflict of interest that ought to be disclosed. I've seen people voluntarily include notes like "full disclosure, I work [in industry x] [for employer x] [etc.]" and while that's great for people to do voluntarily, I think it's worth discussing whether it should be a site-wide norm (or perhaps written policy) that people include a blurb like that when they're commenting on something that relates to how they put food on their families.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on December 2, 2014
But as a narrow MeTa issue, just with regard to jsonic's comment--it really would be great if people could be more careful about double-checking facts before throwing them into heated discussions.
As stated repeatedly, the post was framed in a larger way than just the GJ, there are issues beyond those presented to the GJ, there were issues with what was presented to the GJ as well as just the fact that the GJ was used at all. To demand that people back off their anger in favor of only examining those facts and then for him to contribute nothing else to the dialog is just rude noise.
Jsonic was free to go look at the documents and find salient items in them, as you did, and that would have not been just noise. Instead it was just an incendiary demand of silence. It was a garbage post that did nothing to improve discussion and a lot to irk people.
He and you might well believe that no discussion without awareness of those documents was worthwhile in which case you can go somewhere that is constraining the dialog that way. The metafilter post was not that place, and his demand that is should be was not keeping with helping to make "a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand" - it was a rude demand to only look at the topic & facts he declared important.
tl;dr - if jsonic was interested in facts he could have tried actually producing them instead of telling people to be quiet.
posted by phearlez at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
As stated repeatedly, the post was framed in a larger way than just the GJ, there are issues beyond those presented to the GJ, there were issues with what was presented to the GJ as well as just the fact that the GJ was used at all. To demand that people back off their anger in favor of only examining those facts and then for him to contribute nothing else to the dialog is just rude noise.
Jsonic was free to go look at the documents and find salient items in them, as you did, and that would have not been just noise. Instead it was just an incendiary demand of silence. It was a garbage post that did nothing to improve discussion and a lot to irk people.
He and you might well believe that no discussion without awareness of those documents was worthwhile in which case you can go somewhere that is constraining the dialog that way. The metafilter post was not that place, and his demand that is should be was not keeping with helping to make "a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand" - it was a rude demand to only look at the topic & facts he declared important.
tl;dr - if jsonic was interested in facts he could have tried actually producing them instead of telling people to be quiet.
posted by phearlez at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Making up posts that might not have existed is just silly. If things like that [...] were actually posted and then deleted, the mods can chime in and provide the deleted posts.
Somehow, I really doubt that they're going to do that. But if you came to this thread as late as it appears, you really might want to bear in mind that people who were there at the time aren't "making up posts," you just aren't reading all of what they were responding to. And you might also want to at least allow for the possibility that the deletions have the net effect of making certain, er, serial contrarians seem more reasonable despite themselves, since you're no longer reading some of their most inflammatory and ill-justified comments. Granted, it'd probably also look more like an ugly pile-on to you at times with the more insulting one-liners left in — but you really have to remember that there's a selection effect here. It's just like the standard selection-bias anecdote about the returning bombers: the place where the thread needed the most protection is often the place where you don't see bullet holes anymore.
The derail about the car driven into the Minneapolis protest, for instance, is a clear example of this, as kagredon has already mentioned — it could've been much, much uglier, but a bunch of the ugliest contrarian bullshit was removed quickly and the derail was, if not nipped in the bud, at least much more curtailed than it might've been. But as a result, reading the remaining comments now is no longer going to give you an entirely accurate sense of the discussion's tone or its substance as it happened.
posted by RogerB at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
Somehow, I really doubt that they're going to do that. But if you came to this thread as late as it appears, you really might want to bear in mind that people who were there at the time aren't "making up posts," you just aren't reading all of what they were responding to. And you might also want to at least allow for the possibility that the deletions have the net effect of making certain, er, serial contrarians seem more reasonable despite themselves, since you're no longer reading some of their most inflammatory and ill-justified comments. Granted, it'd probably also look more like an ugly pile-on to you at times with the more insulting one-liners left in — but you really have to remember that there's a selection effect here. It's just like the standard selection-bias anecdote about the returning bombers: the place where the thread needed the most protection is often the place where you don't see bullet holes anymore.
The derail about the car driven into the Minneapolis protest, for instance, is a clear example of this, as kagredon has already mentioned — it could've been much, much uglier, but a bunch of the ugliest contrarian bullshit was removed quickly and the derail was, if not nipped in the bud, at least much more curtailed than it might've been. But as a result, reading the remaining comments now is no longer going to give you an entirely accurate sense of the discussion's tone or its substance as it happened.
posted by RogerB at 9:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
something that relates to how they put food on their families
(dumps goulash on the wife)
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
(dumps goulash on the wife)
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
Serving sushi on people worked out better than the offshoot soup restaurant.
posted by phearlez at 9:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 9:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
(Reference for anyone who missed it.)
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Furthermore, he explicitly states in his 2nd comment that the looting is "obscuring and hurting the larger issue at stake," which indicates that he in fact did *not* believe that looting was the primary problem.
Adding to my first thought: There's a strong implication in that comment that if police kill more unarmed black kids, then it's the fault of the looters, because, I suppose, those potential killer policemen will become more fearful of black people when they see widespread footage of the looting. But that reasoning is absurd. Even if the only disturbance in Ferguson after the non-indictment had been a silent march to the police station of people in their Sunday best, police would still kill plenty of unarmed black people, because we live in a white supremacist society that lets them do this with impunity. That impunity, that white supremacist society, is the larger issue at stake which the third sentence nods to. So it's difficult for me to read this comment as charitably as you have.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Adding to my first thought: There's a strong implication in that comment that if police kill more unarmed black kids, then it's the fault of the looters, because, I suppose, those potential killer policemen will become more fearful of black people when they see widespread footage of the looting. But that reasoning is absurd. Even if the only disturbance in Ferguson after the non-indictment had been a silent march to the police station of people in their Sunday best, police would still kill plenty of unarmed black people, because we live in a white supremacist society that lets them do this with impunity. That impunity, that white supremacist society, is the larger issue at stake which the third sentence nods to. So it's difficult for me to read this comment as charitably as you have.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Rustic Estruscan, tonycpsu, If we're going to claim that a post means something other than what it states, there's no hope for understanding each other. And I think that's one of the biggest problems on that thread.
Tonycpsu, I'm not moving goalposts. I asked you to provide links to back up your claims. I think at this point we're talking in circles around each other and it's not productive, so I'm going to bow out at this point. If you feel that you need to get the final word, go for it. I need to get some work done.
See ya later, droogie. ;)
posted by phoenix_rising at 9:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Tonycpsu, I'm not moving goalposts. I asked you to provide links to back up your claims. I think at this point we're talking in circles around each other and it's not productive, so I'm going to bow out at this point. If you feel that you need to get the final word, go for it. I need to get some work done.
See ya later, droogie. ;)
posted by phoenix_rising at 9:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
But yes, I think a union organizer should limit their participation in labor-related threads, try as be as objective as possible about the situation, and disclose that they do that for a living when participating
Really? Why should anyone be "as objective as possible" in a metafilter thread? Disclosing your professional or personal stake might be a good idea but having an opinion, informed or uninformed, is part of the deal here. This is basically an entertainment site, not a court of law or a newspaper. We're here to shoot the shit with each other. Rules are in place to keep the discussion civil. But civil and objective are not synonyms!
posted by latkes at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Really? Why should anyone be "as objective as possible" in a metafilter thread? Disclosing your professional or personal stake might be a good idea but having an opinion, informed or uninformed, is part of the deal here. This is basically an entertainment site, not a court of law or a newspaper. We're here to shoot the shit with each other. Rules are in place to keep the discussion civil. But civil and objective are not synonyms!
posted by latkes at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Rustic Estruscan, tonycpsu, If we're going to claim that a post means something other than what it states, there's no hope for understanding each other. And I think that's one of the biggest problems on that thread.
The highest, politest form of communication is the one where no one draws inferences from rhetorical behavior, or even from clear implication, and everyone takes every statement exactly on its face. This is how grown adults read.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
The highest, politest form of communication is the one where no one draws inferences from rhetorical behavior, or even from clear implication, and everyone takes every statement exactly on its face. This is how grown adults read.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I think what happens in Ferguson-style threads nowadays is that they tend quickly to be overwhelmed by a small cadre of high-volume, ultra-left-wing posters who want to use the space to bond and commiserate and favorite-each-other over how the issue confirms a particular, narrowly circumscribed, impeccably politically correct view of the world. By doing so early and energetically in the thread, the impression is created that they are the consensus of the site, when they are likely only a vocal minority.
There are other posters, myself included at times, who believe that truth lies in a discussion space which can take and dispassionately examine even quite controversial or unpalatable facts or opinions and acknowledge whatever truths lie in them while leaving the rest, who do not want the site to become a Free Republic style echo chamber, and who try to intervene and inject alternative perspectives into the conversation.
Some of the former group see that as interrupting communion. That creates friction, things get heated, and this prompts mod actions, which, for the record, I mostly understand. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple solution, though various posting limits or time gaps are intriguing.
posted by shivohum at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
There are other posters, myself included at times, who believe that truth lies in a discussion space which can take and dispassionately examine even quite controversial or unpalatable facts or opinions and acknowledge whatever truths lie in them while leaving the rest, who do not want the site to become a Free Republic style echo chamber, and who try to intervene and inject alternative perspectives into the conversation.
Some of the former group see that as interrupting communion. That creates friction, things get heated, and this prompts mod actions, which, for the record, I mostly understand. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple solution, though various posting limits or time gaps are intriguing.
posted by shivohum at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
"I, on the other hand, the paragon of reasonableness and fact-based analysis to which others should aspire to be..."
posted by tonycpsu at 9:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:38 AM on December 2, 2014 [33 favorites]
people include a blurb like that when they're commenting on something that relates to how they put food on their families.
You're asking everyone to provide an account of their employment and professional commitments, which seems to me to be way too much to ask for participation in community weblog. Lots of us don't want to be "outed" or to have a connection drawn between work and social lives. Disclosure is a pretty high standard, and it's great that some folks are willing to do it (and this includes Ironmouth, by the way) but it shouldn't be a requirement or site norm.
But if you're committed to it, why don't you start: where do you work? What companies do you own stock in? What is your race, gender, class, and level of educational attainment? About how much money do you make, each year (for discussion of taxation and income): Less than $30k, between 30k and 50k, between 50k and 80k, between 80k and 120k, or more than 120k? Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Have you ever been to prison? Have you ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness? Are you currently taking any medications?
This is of course an ad absurdum move on my part. I feel bad for using it, but I think it's an unavoidable entailment of your position. Put it another way: how would we enforce this kind of requirement without getting answers to these questions?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
You're asking everyone to provide an account of their employment and professional commitments, which seems to me to be way too much to ask for participation in community weblog. Lots of us don't want to be "outed" or to have a connection drawn between work and social lives. Disclosure is a pretty high standard, and it's great that some folks are willing to do it (and this includes Ironmouth, by the way) but it shouldn't be a requirement or site norm.
But if you're committed to it, why don't you start: where do you work? What companies do you own stock in? What is your race, gender, class, and level of educational attainment? About how much money do you make, each year (for discussion of taxation and income): Less than $30k, between 30k and 50k, between 50k and 80k, between 80k and 120k, or more than 120k? Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Have you ever been to prison? Have you ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness? Are you currently taking any medications?
This is of course an ad absurdum move on my part. I feel bad for using it, but I think it's an unavoidable entailment of your position. Put it another way: how would we enforce this kind of requirement without getting answers to these questions?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I gotta bow out for a while because I just sprained my eyes from rolling them too hard. Someone save me a chocolate communion cookie.
posted by phearlez at 9:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 9:43 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
ultra-left-wing posters
This is how far the pendulum has swung, that anyone can cast as "ultra-left-wing" anyone who....says police are too militarized? Shouldn't shoot unarmed civilians and get away without a trial or review? What? What was so "ultra-left-wing" about comments in that thread?
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [68 favorites]
This is how far the pendulum has swung, that anyone can cast as "ultra-left-wing" anyone who....says police are too militarized? Shouldn't shoot unarmed civilians and get away without a trial or review? What? What was so "ultra-left-wing" about comments in that thread?
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [68 favorites]
You're asking everyone to provide an account of their employment and professional commitments
No, as the details of my suggestion that you chose to omit show, I'd be just fine with people putting themselves in a vague industry category, not necessarily who they work for. Your ad absurdum is waaaay down a not-at-all slippery slope where people would simply be asked to post as much as they feel comfortable. Certainly, in Ironmouth's case in that thread, people would know that his professional activities were relevant to what he was saying, and could use that information to ascertain his impartiality.
Anyway, I've been pretty open about my employment situation on the blue, and have even included a "full disclosure" note when I was posting something tangentially related to my own work. So my money's already where my mouth is.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
No, as the details of my suggestion that you chose to omit show, I'd be just fine with people putting themselves in a vague industry category, not necessarily who they work for. Your ad absurdum is waaaay down a not-at-all slippery slope where people would simply be asked to post as much as they feel comfortable. Certainly, in Ironmouth's case in that thread, people would know that his professional activities were relevant to what he was saying, and could use that information to ascertain his impartiality.
Anyway, I've been pretty open about my employment situation on the blue, and have even included a "full disclosure" note when I was posting something tangentially related to my own work. So my money's already where my mouth is.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
What was so "ultra-left-wing" about comments in that thread?
i'm not gonna bother looking back but there always exists the possibility in any thread that i have encouraged others to cast off their chains of capitalist oppression and seize control of the means of production.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [57 favorites]
i'm not gonna bother looking back but there always exists the possibility in any thread that i have encouraged others to cast off their chains of capitalist oppression and seize control of the means of production.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [57 favorites]
You're asking everyone to provide an account of their employment and professional commitments, which seems to me to be way too much to ask for participation in community weblog.
If you're posting on metafilter about a topic in which you have a professional interest, you should disclose that interest however much you feel comfortable. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing it at all, then you should seriously consider not commenting about it, or at the very least carefully consider your motivation for posting.
I used to work for an ISP, and we had a fairly vested interest in net-neutrality issues (ie, opposing it), and anytime I talked about it online, i usually stated that I worked for an isp and tried to balance my professional concerns about it from a technical point of view with my concerns in favor of it as a consumer. It would have been exceedingly dishonest of me (not to mention annoying to everyone else) to come here and solely push the ISP line on it while ignoring the opposite side of the argument.
posted by empath at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you're posting on metafilter about a topic in which you have a professional interest, you should disclose that interest however much you feel comfortable. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing it at all, then you should seriously consider not commenting about it, or at the very least carefully consider your motivation for posting.
I used to work for an ISP, and we had a fairly vested interest in net-neutrality issues (ie, opposing it), and anytime I talked about it online, i usually stated that I worked for an isp and tried to balance my professional concerns about it from a technical point of view with my concerns in favor of it as a consumer. It would have been exceedingly dishonest of me (not to mention annoying to everyone else) to come here and solely push the ISP line on it while ignoring the opposite side of the argument.
posted by empath at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
the collectively owned and operated tree of socialism must occasionally be watered with the blood of the bourgeoisie
posted by poffin boffin at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
I was going to ask how all of the "ultra-left-wingers" already know what Right Views to express when the thread goes live, but I guess it's from the 3-hour co-op meeting that's already been held.
posted by kagredon at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
i'm not gonna bother looking back but there always exists the possibility in any thread that i have encouraged others to cast off their chains of capitalist oppression and seize control of the means of production.
I went and followed that encouragement and now I'm in charge of this damn textile mill.
posted by mudpuppie at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [23 favorites]
I went and followed that encouragement and now I'm in charge of this damn textile mill.
posted by mudpuppie at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [23 favorites]
I can't just take a dinner break can I without the whole playground getting fingerpainted all over?
posted by infini at 10:01 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by infini at 10:01 AM on December 2, 2014
kalessin, you put eloquently what the note says: Everyone needs a hug... and the mods just try to figure out where to seat us so that X doesn't fight Y and Z and T who used to be married musn't even be at the same end etc etc etc
posted by infini at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by infini at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2014
a vague industry category
But that wouldn't even get you as much as Ironmouth has disclosed about his areas of practice and career history. "Lawyer" is pretty broad.
I favor pseudonymous comments with no required link to our real lives. You can probably dox me if you want, based on my comments here. Sometimes I feel like opening up. But I think the goal should be "focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site." It's a guideline: there are many like (and unlike) it. But this one is ours.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
But that wouldn't even get you as much as Ironmouth has disclosed about his areas of practice and career history. "Lawyer" is pretty broad.
I favor pseudonymous comments with no required link to our real lives. You can probably dox me if you want, based on my comments here. Sometimes I feel like opening up. But I think the goal should be "focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site." It's a guideline: there are many like (and unlike) it. But this one is ours.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
What was so "ultra-left-wing" about comments in that thread?
The immediate use of the verdict on its face as proof of racial apartheid rather than trying to critically examine the facts and law in this individual case to see whether, in fact, the grand jury's decision might not have been justified. Extremely uncharitable views of the DA's motives without any attempt to examine his thought process.
And in the first several comments you got stuff like this:
From what I hear, the jury was 9:3 white to black, and nine votes was the minimum to either indict or not.
That's some talented voir dire right there. (45 favorites)
Implying, without any evidence whatsoever, that race alone determined the grand jury's votes.
--
I no longer wonder why things burn. I wonder why they're not burnt every day. (168 favorites)
Legitimizing looting and violence, presumably.
--
I really hope they wake up from the delusional haze of all tht MLK I have a dream stuff and smell the fresh coffee of reality, this is but a small taste of what it's like to be 3/5th. Get used to it. (45 favorites)
Calling MLK's ideas on race "delusional."
I think those are some pretty ultra-left-wing views of reality.
posted by shivohum at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
The immediate use of the verdict on its face as proof of racial apartheid rather than trying to critically examine the facts and law in this individual case to see whether, in fact, the grand jury's decision might not have been justified. Extremely uncharitable views of the DA's motives without any attempt to examine his thought process.
And in the first several comments you got stuff like this:
From what I hear, the jury was 9:3 white to black, and nine votes was the minimum to either indict or not.
That's some talented voir dire right there. (45 favorites)
Implying, without any evidence whatsoever, that race alone determined the grand jury's votes.
--
I no longer wonder why things burn. I wonder why they're not burnt every day. (168 favorites)
Legitimizing looting and violence, presumably.
--
I really hope they wake up from the delusional haze of all tht MLK I have a dream stuff and smell the fresh coffee of reality, this is but a small taste of what it's like to be 3/5th. Get used to it. (45 favorites)
Calling MLK's ideas on race "delusional."
I think those are some pretty ultra-left-wing views of reality.
posted by shivohum at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
you don't say what you consider to be false
for practical purposes all the claims I quoted are false. I was trying to be careful in how I worded that by adding "or irrelevant" because I know there were false or misleading public statements made by the police department early on which confused matters. But the crime scene was measured and the grand jury had detailed measurements mapping the locations of the car, shell casings, and other evidence; the ME's camera battery died but the crime scene detectives filled in (or rather, the ME testified that they always both take the same pictures as protocol); Wilson claimed the day after the shooting that he had been punched two times "at least," not 10.
You're continuing to narrowly focus on the grand jury proceedings as if those proceedings and the evidence presented in them are an objective, full set of the facts
Wait what? I absolutely believe that grand jury was manipulated and McCulloch's claim that it was an objective process is complete horseshit. Just, as a MeTa issue I think it would be good if people would not continue repeating media misinformation as fact in the course of these discussions. I think you yourself repeated those claims three or four times in the other thread, dialetheia, and they're just not true.
In my earlier comment I said I didn't want to argue about these details in the thread on the blue that was largely given to grieving the injustice of Michael Brown's death and the failure to indict Wilson. I don't want to belabor the point here either, so I'll drop it now.
posted by torticat at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
for practical purposes all the claims I quoted are false. I was trying to be careful in how I worded that by adding "or irrelevant" because I know there were false or misleading public statements made by the police department early on which confused matters. But the crime scene was measured and the grand jury had detailed measurements mapping the locations of the car, shell casings, and other evidence; the ME's camera battery died but the crime scene detectives filled in (or rather, the ME testified that they always both take the same pictures as protocol); Wilson claimed the day after the shooting that he had been punched two times "at least," not 10.
You're continuing to narrowly focus on the grand jury proceedings as if those proceedings and the evidence presented in them are an objective, full set of the facts
Wait what? I absolutely believe that grand jury was manipulated and McCulloch's claim that it was an objective process is complete horseshit. Just, as a MeTa issue I think it would be good if people would not continue repeating media misinformation as fact in the course of these discussions. I think you yourself repeated those claims three or four times in the other thread, dialetheia, and they're just not true.
In my earlier comment I said I didn't want to argue about these details in the thread on the blue that was largely given to grieving the injustice of Michael Brown's death and the failure to indict Wilson. I don't want to belabor the point here either, so I'll drop it now.
posted by torticat at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
> I think what happens in Ferguson-style threads nowadays is that they tend quickly to be overwhelmed by a small cadre of high-volume, ultra-left-wing posters who want to use the space to bond and commiserate and favorite-each-other over how the issue confirms a particular, narrowly circumscribed, impeccably politically correct view of the world. By doing so early and energetically in the thread, the impression is created that they are the consensus of the site, when they are likely only a vocal minority.
That is a fascinating analysis. Right-wing political pundits could learn a thing or two from you.
posted by desuetude at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
That is a fascinating analysis. Right-wing political pundits could learn a thing or two from you.
posted by desuetude at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
The immediate use of the verdict on its face as proof of racial apartheid
Except there was no verdict. The grand jury ensured that there will not be a verdict when they decided that the case wasn't worthy of a trial. That's the injustice people were reacting to and yeah, when you "critically examine the facts and law in this individual case," it looks like a racially-biased decision to a lot of people (who subsequently expressed that opinion).
posted by mudpuppie at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
Except there was no verdict. The grand jury ensured that there will not be a verdict when they decided that the case wasn't worthy of a trial. That's the injustice people were reacting to and yeah, when you "critically examine the facts and law in this individual case," it looks like a racially-biased decision to a lot of people (who subsequently expressed that opinion).
posted by mudpuppie at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [17 favorites]
Is it me, or did it get kind of... Gamergatey in here? This sort of picking over statements for hidden left-wing messages does not feel like a good way to go.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
Pretending as if this wasn't the third thread about Ferguson and the path up to using the grand jury (rather than simply indicting, as is often done by that office when there's no need for the subpoena power) is somewhere between willfully ignorant and disingenuous. It certainly altered the early content and trajectory, as you'll notice many of the same cast of characters who had already been in the other threads.
posted by phearlez at 10:21 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 10:21 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
By doing so early and energetically in the thread, the impression is created that they are the consensus of the site, when they are likely only a vocal minority.
This is like a bizarro-world take on how metafilter actually operates. The commenting base of metafilter is overwhelmingly liberal.
posted by empath at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
This is like a bizarro-world take on how metafilter actually operates. The commenting base of metafilter is overwhelmingly liberal.
posted by empath at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
But the crime scene was measured and the grand jury had detailed measurements mapping the locations of the car, shell casings, and other evidence
There were measurements included in the grand jury documents, but AFAIK (and I may have missed something), it's unclear when those measurements were taken and by whom, except for that we know that it wasn't the forensic investigator who initially examined the scene. I think you're acting in good faith here, torticat, but I don't think "for practical purposes all the claims I quoted are false" is a complete or accurate representation of the situation on this point.
posted by kagredon at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
There were measurements included in the grand jury documents, but AFAIK (and I may have missed something), it's unclear when those measurements were taken and by whom, except for that we know that it wasn't the forensic investigator who initially examined the scene. I think you're acting in good faith here, torticat, but I don't think "for practical purposes all the claims I quoted are false" is a complete or accurate representation of the situation on this point.
posted by kagredon at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Legitimizing looting and violence, presumably.
Understanding rage isn't the same as legitimizing its outbursts. The rest of your comment is similarly mistaken.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
Understanding rage isn't the same as legitimizing its outbursts. The rest of your comment is similarly mistaken.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
I think those are some pretty ultra-left-wing views of reality.
No, they're really not. The US has shifted so far to the right that what's labeled "left-wing" is often slightly to the right of center, when the entire spectrum of political opinion (as opposed to Republican vs. Democratic) is considered. Those comments are nowhere even close to "ultra left-wing." They're maybe mildly liberalish.
posted by jaguar at 10:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [35 favorites]
No, they're really not. The US has shifted so far to the right that what's labeled "left-wing" is often slightly to the right of center, when the entire spectrum of political opinion (as opposed to Republican vs. Democratic) is considered. Those comments are nowhere even close to "ultra left-wing." They're maybe mildly liberalish.
posted by jaguar at 10:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [35 favorites]
Calling MLK's ideas on race "delusional."
The Martin Luther King, Jr. of convention, who appeared out of nowhere, gave a rousing speech, and then walked a few feet from the podium onto the balcony where he was shot, is a delusion. This delusion is convenient for people who would prefer to invoke a hero's name than to take on the burden of his cause.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [50 favorites]
The Martin Luther King, Jr. of convention, who appeared out of nowhere, gave a rousing speech, and then walked a few feet from the podium onto the balcony where he was shot, is a delusion. This delusion is convenient for people who would prefer to invoke a hero's name than to take on the burden of his cause.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:30 AM on December 2, 2014 [50 favorites]
But that wouldn't even get you as much as Ironmouth has disclosed about his areas of practice and career history. "Lawyer" is pretty broad.
In his case, I think it would be beneficial for him to note in threads where he's siding with the police that he works for them (or whatever the situation actually is.) I understand that may get close to identifying him personally or whatever, but the more open you are, the better the discussion will go.
But I think the goal should be "focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site."
Ad hominems are germane and non-fallacious when they speak to the credibility of others to interpret facts. Hiding your biases, even when you feel you have a good reason to do so, is toxic to a fair and open discussion where everyone's cards are on the table. I think that's where so many of the "here's Mr. Lawyer..." "Here's the staunch establishment Democrat.." stuff came from -- people wanting to make it clear to observers that someone was speaking in a biased manner without disclosing the nature of that bias.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
In his case, I think it would be beneficial for him to note in threads where he's siding with the police that he works for them (or whatever the situation actually is.) I understand that may get close to identifying him personally or whatever, but the more open you are, the better the discussion will go.
But I think the goal should be "focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site."
Ad hominems are germane and non-fallacious when they speak to the credibility of others to interpret facts. Hiding your biases, even when you feel you have a good reason to do so, is toxic to a fair and open discussion where everyone's cards are on the table. I think that's where so many of the "here's Mr. Lawyer..." "Here's the staunch establishment Democrat.." stuff came from -- people wanting to make it clear to observers that someone was speaking in a biased manner without disclosing the nature of that bias.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Holy shit that is some disingenuous pull-quoting and paraphrasing. I mean, wow.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
The subtext, which you may or may not really mean, is that *you alone* know how to solve this site-wide problem that *you* have identified.
But they don’t need your tools!
mudpuppie
I didn’t identify it and I am hardly the only person aware of it as an issue. I didn’t start this MeTa. Someone else did. Restless_nomad stated early in the discussion that the whole pile-on issue is a hard problem to solve. This has come up repeatedly in various metas: That the mods are not entirely satisfied with how pile-ons are currently handled, but they are stumped as to what else to do.
I don’t claim to be the only person who knows how to solve this. However, I do have prior moderating experience with crowds of somewhat similar demographics in terms of being groups of generally intelligent, generally well-educated individuals who were generally very good at what they did and thus brought a lot of ego to the discussion. They were people who were used to being basically the smartest person in the room and their overall social experience was that if someone did not agree with them, that person probably was less well informed and was basically wrong.
It was quite difficult to get these folks, many with educations from prestigious places like Harvard, to realize that they were talking with other folks who were just as smart and just as educated or informed or competent, but they had a different life experience and/or different perspective and their disagreement was not merely dumbness. It was really hard to get them to talk respectfully with each other as equals and try to understand why the other party had come to a very different conclusion.
This was about sixteen years ago, before metafilter even existed as I understand it. And that is not my only experience with making forward progress on this type of issue.
So what I am trying to say is that as someone with a lot of years of community-building experience, some of that with similar demographics and similar problems to what I am seeing here, I found that certain things helped reduce the issue of entrenched negative patterns surrounding the participation of particular opinionated individuals. And I tried to share some thoughts on what might help here. I tried to be really specific. And then people began saying things like “Michele, Do YOU in YOUR LIFE do blah blah blah.” Which, in my opinion, is someone else making it very personally, very much about me. I have my own opinions as to why that happens so often. I do plan on rereading your comment and seeing what I can get out of it in the future because I do work hard on trying to make my participation not some guaranteed derail.
At this time, I don’t really plan on participating further today in this discussion. I am running a raging fever and my hope is to do some reading and not give my feet too much opportunity to land in my mouth.
posted by Michele in California at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
But they don’t need your tools!
mudpuppie
I didn’t identify it and I am hardly the only person aware of it as an issue. I didn’t start this MeTa. Someone else did. Restless_nomad stated early in the discussion that the whole pile-on issue is a hard problem to solve. This has come up repeatedly in various metas: That the mods are not entirely satisfied with how pile-ons are currently handled, but they are stumped as to what else to do.
I don’t claim to be the only person who knows how to solve this. However, I do have prior moderating experience with crowds of somewhat similar demographics in terms of being groups of generally intelligent, generally well-educated individuals who were generally very good at what they did and thus brought a lot of ego to the discussion. They were people who were used to being basically the smartest person in the room and their overall social experience was that if someone did not agree with them, that person probably was less well informed and was basically wrong.
It was quite difficult to get these folks, many with educations from prestigious places like Harvard, to realize that they were talking with other folks who were just as smart and just as educated or informed or competent, but they had a different life experience and/or different perspective and their disagreement was not merely dumbness. It was really hard to get them to talk respectfully with each other as equals and try to understand why the other party had come to a very different conclusion.
This was about sixteen years ago, before metafilter even existed as I understand it. And that is not my only experience with making forward progress on this type of issue.
So what I am trying to say is that as someone with a lot of years of community-building experience, some of that with similar demographics and similar problems to what I am seeing here, I found that certain things helped reduce the issue of entrenched negative patterns surrounding the participation of particular opinionated individuals. And I tried to share some thoughts on what might help here. I tried to be really specific. And then people began saying things like “Michele, Do YOU in YOUR LIFE do blah blah blah.” Which, in my opinion, is someone else making it very personally, very much about me. I have my own opinions as to why that happens so often. I do plan on rereading your comment and seeing what I can get out of it in the future because I do work hard on trying to make my participation not some guaranteed derail.
At this time, I don’t really plan on participating further today in this discussion. I am running a raging fever and my hope is to do some reading and not give my feet too much opportunity to land in my mouth.
posted by Michele in California at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
This delusion is convenient for people who would prefer to invoke a hero's name than to take on the burden of his cause.
Considering how many people here have been quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail without noting what King said about the Watts riots, I'd say that horse is far past the field.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Considering how many people here have been quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail without noting what King said about the Watts riots, I'd say that horse is far past the field.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ad hominems are germane and non-fallacious when they speak to the credibility of others to interpret facts.
They can be, sure. I'm not accusing anyone of logical fallacies, and I think it's fine to consider Ironmouth's background when evaluating his posting. I'm just saying that this is a bad thing to want generally, and most people won't supply it.
Other than my ad absurdum, I haven't said a lot about why I don't think it will work. Frankly, the practicality issues seem paramount: some people will disclose, and most won't. The evidence is that pseudonymous websites can do pretty well if the pseudonyms are persistent, so we ought to be satisfied with that. But here's where it gets really bad: a disclosure norm would almost certainly be used to justify "outing" and "doxing" people. This is the very opposite of current site norms, and for good reason.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
They can be, sure. I'm not accusing anyone of logical fallacies, and I think it's fine to consider Ironmouth's background when evaluating his posting. I'm just saying that this is a bad thing to want generally, and most people won't supply it.
Other than my ad absurdum, I haven't said a lot about why I don't think it will work. Frankly, the practicality issues seem paramount: some people will disclose, and most won't. The evidence is that pseudonymous websites can do pretty well if the pseudonyms are persistent, so we ought to be satisfied with that. But here's where it gets really bad: a disclosure norm would almost certainly be used to justify "outing" and "doxing" people. This is the very opposite of current site norms, and for good reason.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
it's unclear when those measurements were taken and by whom, except for that we know that it wasn't the forensic investigator who initially examined the scene.
I don't know what to say, there are pages and pages of testimony from the crime scene detective about the measuring process here, p 145, 175 and following, among others.
posted by torticat at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I don't know what to say, there are pages and pages of testimony from the crime scene detective about the measuring process here, p 145, 175 and following, among others.
posted by torticat at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Apparently, if you use the context of race to make judgments, you're a rabid left-winger.
A grand jury, which would normally indict a ham sandwich, gives a pass to a white cop for killing an unarmed black teenager? Well I, who have no biases, will wait for the facts to come in because I am totes centrist come to conclusions through reason and discourse not bias. See!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:46 AM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
A grand jury, which would normally indict a ham sandwich, gives a pass to a white cop for killing an unarmed black teenager? Well I, who have no biases, will wait for the facts to come in because I am totes centrist come to conclusions through reason and discourse not bias. See!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:46 AM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
Thankfully the right-wingers we have on this site are more articulate than the ones I encounter at my thanksgiving table, but man, its still the same old bullshit, isn't it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Is there any MeFi policy on people bringing their day job advocacy to MeFi [?]
Does this mean no more tech folks pounding away in Apple/Google/device threads, ever?
This could change everything.
Though we would lose The Whelk from the comic book threads, which is a problem.
posted by bonehead at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Does this mean no more tech folks pounding away in Apple/Google/device threads, ever?
This could change everything.
Though we would lose The Whelk from the comic book threads, which is a problem.
posted by bonehead at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
I remember, said Granny, after tottering into the room and putting her gnarly old feet up on the tuffet, when I first moved to the US, it was to Pittsburgh, in the late years of the previous century. My first job, she said with a tip of the hat to tonycpsu, was with a rather obscure little playhouse called The Second City. For some random reason, we were four of us in a little office in Pgh instead of Chicago or Toronto, including the corporate Controller and the company Graphic Designer. They were cliches - the first wore a suit, was a Republican and came from good hard working blue collar Eastern European Pittsburgh stock. The second was a grizzly hippie left over from the 60s who wore jeans and unkempt hair.
I was but a 'highly skilled migrant worker' on an H1 visa - a furriner, from far across the seas.
The very first question put to me by the Controller, during our first lunch to welcome n00b employee was "Are you a Librull?"
I distinctly recall answering, "No, I'm not an American citizen"
That day, I realized, that for certain groups, it didn't matter if you were a citizen or not, whether you could vote or not, you didn't even have to be in the country, heck you could be a foreigner halfway around the planet, but they'd ask you "Red or blue state?" as though that were the only really meaningful way by which to understand the entire planet.
Red or blue, sonnyboy, red or blue?
posted by infini at 11:04 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I was but a 'highly skilled migrant worker' on an H1 visa - a furriner, from far across the seas.
The very first question put to me by the Controller, during our first lunch to welcome n00b employee was "Are you a Librull?"
I distinctly recall answering, "No, I'm not an American citizen"
That day, I realized, that for certain groups, it didn't matter if you were a citizen or not, whether you could vote or not, you didn't even have to be in the country, heck you could be a foreigner halfway around the planet, but they'd ask you "Red or blue state?" as though that were the only really meaningful way by which to understand the entire planet.
Red or blue, sonnyboy, red or blue?
posted by infini at 11:04 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
[Ironmouth, I understand this is a topic you have knowledge and interest in, but you absolutely need to not be holding court here. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 10:11 AM on December 2 [6 favorites +][!]
I don't get this. I mean, lots of people go on and on in threads they are personally invested in. I personally find Ironmouth's views abhorrent, but it seems like a selective policy to call him out for repeating himself.
posted by latkes at 11:04 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 10:11 AM on December 2 [6 favorites +][!]
I don't get this. I mean, lots of people go on and on in threads they are personally invested in. I personally find Ironmouth's views abhorrent, but it seems like a selective policy to call him out for repeating himself.
posted by latkes at 11:04 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Considering how many people here have been quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail without noting what King said about the Watts riots, I'd say that horse is far past the field.
Could you be more specific? This is the manuscript of King's press statement following a visit to Watts in the immediate wake of the riots. From the opening:
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Could you be more specific? This is the manuscript of King's press statement following a visit to Watts in the immediate wake of the riots. From the opening:
After visiting the area of the recent riots and talking with hundreds of people of all walks of life it is my opinion that these riots grew out of the depths of despair which afflict a people who see no way out of their economic dilemma. There are serious doubts that the white community is in any way concerned or willing to accommodate their needs. There is also a growing disillusionment and resentment toward the Negro middle-class and the leadership which it has produced. This ever widening breach is a serious factor which leads to the feeling that they are alone in their struggle and must resort to any method to gain attention to their plight. The non-violent movement of the South has meant little to them since we have been fighting for rights which theoretically are already theirs.He does condemn the rioting, but not with the kind of force I would have expected from your comment. What comments of his were you thinking of?
Their fight is for dignity and work. This is the reason that the issue of police brutality looms so high. The slightest discourtesy on the part of an officer of the law is a deprivation of the dignity which most of the residents of Watts came North seeking. But the main issue is economic. Unless some work can be found for the un-employed and under-employed we continually face the possibility of this kind of outbreak at every encounter with police authority.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
I don't get this. I mean, lots of people go on and on in threads they are personally invested in. I personally find Ironmouth's views abhorrent, but it seems like a selective policy to call him out for repeating himself.
Posting a third of the first twelve comments in a thread and posting multiple times in a row are both situations where one person is taking up a lot of the conversational space. He's welcome to participate in the discussion, but that involves letting other people both talk about things and disagree with him without a rapid-fire series of rebuttals.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:07 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
Posting a third of the first twelve comments in a thread and posting multiple times in a row are both situations where one person is taking up a lot of the conversational space. He's welcome to participate in the discussion, but that involves letting other people both talk about things and disagree with him without a rapid-fire series of rebuttals.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:07 AM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
Seems to me, these are basic norms of threadshitting, sitting and posting - are they by chance missing in the FAQ or wiki?
posted by infini at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by infini at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2014
He later condemns the rioting, but not with the kind of force I would have expected from your comment. What comments of his were you thinking of?
I can actually see a couple of reasons not to note this in this case - most obviously that Missouri, although its status as a Southern state has a liminality going back to the Missouri Compromise, was nonetheless a Southern state for Dr King's purposes, certainly in contrast with California (despite Los Angeles being south of St Louis). However, there are certainly commonalities worth noting, 50 years on, when segregation in the South is often economic rather than strictly legal.
That said, I suspect that the part of most interest to anyone seeking to demonstrate that MetaFilter is a hotbed of communism would be the quote "I would minimise the racial significance" in the introductory paragraph. If you cover up the rest of the statement and squint at that in just the right way, one might I guess conceivably imagine that by minimising the consideration of issues of race in the case of Ferguson one is following in the footsteps of Dr King...
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2014
I can actually see a couple of reasons not to note this in this case - most obviously that Missouri, although its status as a Southern state has a liminality going back to the Missouri Compromise, was nonetheless a Southern state for Dr King's purposes, certainly in contrast with California (despite Los Angeles being south of St Louis). However, there are certainly commonalities worth noting, 50 years on, when segregation in the South is often economic rather than strictly legal.
That said, I suspect that the part of most interest to anyone seeking to demonstrate that MetaFilter is a hotbed of communism would be the quote "I would minimise the racial significance" in the introductory paragraph. If you cover up the rest of the statement and squint at that in just the right way, one might I guess conceivably imagine that by minimising the consideration of issues of race in the case of Ferguson one is following in the footsteps of Dr King...
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2014
Dang, you're right torticat. I retract my earlier comment.
posted by kagredon at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by kagredon at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
He does condemn the rioting, but not with the kind of force I would have expected from your comment. What comments of his were you thinking of?
no one in this thread has actually quoted LfaBJ, so I expect TFB is posting from an alternate universe of some sort
posted by kagredon at 11:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
no one in this thread has actually quoted LfaBJ, so I expect TFB is posting from an alternate universe of some sort
posted by kagredon at 11:12 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'd be just fine with people putting themselves in a vague industry category, not necessarily who they work for.
Honestly, every time someone posts, "I have experience in this field" without further specifics, I read, "I temped for an accounting firm that had a client in this field once." Similiarly, I assume "I've studied this extensively" means either "I took a class in undergrad" or "I've read several long form articles about this."
posted by Snarl Furillo at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Honestly, every time someone posts, "I have experience in this field" without further specifics, I read, "I temped for an accounting firm that had a client in this field once." Similiarly, I assume "I've studied this extensively" means either "I took a class in undergrad" or "I've read several long form articles about this."
posted by Snarl Furillo at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I know more about this subject than you can possibly imagine.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Tsk, I've actually had extensive lifetime experience of not being a tall white man. Or a gun.
posted by infini at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by infini at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Megatron didn't ask to be a gun, infini.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Only continuing to respond to provide evidence back up my statements since they were directly questioned, and I'll drop it after this. We continue to not know exactly how far Wilson was from Brown when Brown was shot except for from Wilson's own testimony (if you have that measurement, please let me know, it doesn't appear to be in any of the grand jury documents or anywhere else - everything I can find is that we have no fixed landmark for where Wilson was standing at the time). The initial claim about how far Brown was from the vehicle is well-documented and many activists made a point of debunking those claims early on because it was so obvious that the initial claim was untrue, and I think it's excessively generous to call those claims "confusion," especially if that measurement was actually taken. I mean, Wilson was still making the "35-40 feet" claim in his Stephanopoulos interview!
While there may be pictures taken by the police that the ME could request access to in order to substitute for their own missing pictures, which is also covered in my first link, those photos remain questionable due to the conflict of interest (that's the whole point of having a medical examiner take their own photos). All I claimed is that improper procedures were followed and that we do not have independent ME photos, and I maintain that the examiner having to request access to police photos is still improper, even if they claim that the photos are identical to what they would have taken. It is factually true from the grand jury evidence that the ME didn't take their own photos. I'm having trouble locating my source on the initial ten punches claim so I'll cede that to you, but Wilson has continued to wildly overstate the beating he received ("How do I survive," Wilson recalled thinking. "I didn't know if I'd be able to survive another hit like that." - from the ABC interview linked above)
I don't know what to say, there are pages and pages of testimony from the crime scene detective about the measuring process here, p 145, 175 and following, among others.
First, those measurements were made by police investigators, not the medical examiner; it was the medical examiner's "I took no measurements because it was self-explanatory" comment that aroused so much suspicion and raised questions about procedures in the wake of the shooting. Second, those cites only cover the distance from the car to Brown's body, and if anything the fact that this measurement was taken so many times at the crime scene makes it even more strange and suspicious that the initial police story remained that his body was only 35 feet from the vehicle (perhaps coincidentally, that's the distance that would have made this basically an open-and-shut self-defense case). There is still no measurement of how far Wilson was from Brown's body, which seems like the most important measurement you could possibly have in this case.
Apologies for the derail but I wanted to provide evidence for my claims. Dropping it now, and if we want to talk more about these details it should go in the Ferguson thread.
posted by dialetheia at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
While there may be pictures taken by the police that the ME could request access to in order to substitute for their own missing pictures, which is also covered in my first link, those photos remain questionable due to the conflict of interest (that's the whole point of having a medical examiner take their own photos). All I claimed is that improper procedures were followed and that we do not have independent ME photos, and I maintain that the examiner having to request access to police photos is still improper, even if they claim that the photos are identical to what they would have taken. It is factually true from the grand jury evidence that the ME didn't take their own photos. I'm having trouble locating my source on the initial ten punches claim so I'll cede that to you, but Wilson has continued to wildly overstate the beating he received ("How do I survive," Wilson recalled thinking. "I didn't know if I'd be able to survive another hit like that." - from the ABC interview linked above)
I don't know what to say, there are pages and pages of testimony from the crime scene detective about the measuring process here, p 145, 175 and following, among others.
First, those measurements were made by police investigators, not the medical examiner; it was the medical examiner's "I took no measurements because it was self-explanatory" comment that aroused so much suspicion and raised questions about procedures in the wake of the shooting. Second, those cites only cover the distance from the car to Brown's body, and if anything the fact that this measurement was taken so many times at the crime scene makes it even more strange and suspicious that the initial police story remained that his body was only 35 feet from the vehicle (perhaps coincidentally, that's the distance that would have made this basically an open-and-shut self-defense case). There is still no measurement of how far Wilson was from Brown's body, which seems like the most important measurement you could possibly have in this case.
Apologies for the derail but I wanted to provide evidence for my claims. Dropping it now, and if we want to talk more about these details it should go in the Ferguson thread.
posted by dialetheia at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I wanted to touch on a couple points mentioned above: the idea of “good faith” argument and the question of whether professional interests should be disclosed because of how they might affect the quality of discussion.
Personally, I think the professional and personal experiences of Mefites greatly enriches our conversations. I don't think disclosure is necessary, though it's always helpful to be able to better contextualize a person's position. I don't think people should refrain from talking on topics they also work on because the issue isn't people drawing on their experience; it's whether they do so in a way that promotes productive conversation.
In the spirit of disclosure, I'll note that I am a professional rhetorican, though not currently employed as such. I've found “good faith” to be a less useful standard than others because it deals in internal motivations we can't observe. It's fine as a community aspiration, but when it comes to analysis, it's better to rely on evidence in the discourse itself where we can observe how one way of arguing may tend to produce a certain kind of response.
On one hand, such analysis is a subjective judgment call because argumentation by its nature involves questions that don't have certain answers. On the other hand, some measure of consensus and evidence-based opinion is possible.
Given this context, what standards can we use to judge and improve the quality of our discussions? I've mentioned some more theoretical background elsewhere, but in practical terms I see at least two basic considerations. (1) When I respond to others, am I fairly summarizing their point? (2) Am I engaged in a back-and-forth process of conversation or am I just repeating my point and refusing to engage the points of others? In other words, do discussants explain why they think their position is right and others are wrong? When disagreement can't be reached, is there agreement about why?
If you don't agree with me about institutional racism, that's to be expected. But for a productive conversation, there needs to be engagement on why. The discussion gets derailed, for example, when one discussant insists that others accept as a starting point that Brown is “a very poor case to start the national conversation" as a way to evade any engagement on the topic of racism.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Personally, I think the professional and personal experiences of Mefites greatly enriches our conversations. I don't think disclosure is necessary, though it's always helpful to be able to better contextualize a person's position. I don't think people should refrain from talking on topics they also work on because the issue isn't people drawing on their experience; it's whether they do so in a way that promotes productive conversation.
In the spirit of disclosure, I'll note that I am a professional rhetorican, though not currently employed as such. I've found “good faith” to be a less useful standard than others because it deals in internal motivations we can't observe. It's fine as a community aspiration, but when it comes to analysis, it's better to rely on evidence in the discourse itself where we can observe how one way of arguing may tend to produce a certain kind of response.
On one hand, such analysis is a subjective judgment call because argumentation by its nature involves questions that don't have certain answers. On the other hand, some measure of consensus and evidence-based opinion is possible.
Given this context, what standards can we use to judge and improve the quality of our discussions? I've mentioned some more theoretical background elsewhere, but in practical terms I see at least two basic considerations. (1) When I respond to others, am I fairly summarizing their point? (2) Am I engaged in a back-and-forth process of conversation or am I just repeating my point and refusing to engage the points of others? In other words, do discussants explain why they think their position is right and others are wrong? When disagreement can't be reached, is there agreement about why?
If you don't agree with me about institutional racism, that's to be expected. But for a productive conversation, there needs to be engagement on why. The discussion gets derailed, for example, when one discussant insists that others accept as a starting point that Brown is “a very poor case to start the national conversation" as a way to evade any engagement on the topic of racism.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
no one in this thread has actually quoted LfaBJ, so I expect TFB is posting from an alternate universe of some sort
He's posting about a real phenomenon from previous threads. I myself have quoted "Birmingham Jail" at least once to argue that King was not a saintly moderate who challenged no one and left everyone feeling good until someone shot him for some reason, and to argue, in consequence, that tone arguments which appeal to King's example are so much vapor.
I really do want to know what King thought about Watts. Freeing ourselves of conventional ideas about great historical figures is important.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
He's posting about a real phenomenon from previous threads. I myself have quoted "Birmingham Jail" at least once to argue that King was not a saintly moderate who challenged no one and left everyone feeling good until someone shot him for some reason, and to argue, in consequence, that tone arguments which appeal to King's example are so much vapor.
I really do want to know what King thought about Watts. Freeing ourselves of conventional ideas about great historical figures is important.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
Second to last paragraph above should end "When agreement can't be reached..."
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:34 AM on December 2, 2014
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:34 AM on December 2, 2014
I know more about this subject than you can possibly imagine
The only sensible response to this is always "you would pretty much have to."
posted by phearlez at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
The only sensible response to this is always "you would pretty much have to."
posted by phearlez at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I really do want to know what King thought about Watts. Freeing ourselves of conventional ideas about great historical figures is important.
This interview was conducted the year after the Watts riots.
This interview was conducted the year after the Watts riots.
MIKE WALLACE: There's an increasingly vocal minority who disagree totally with your tactics, Dr. King.posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2014 [20 favorites]
KING: There's no doubt about that. I will agree that there is a group in the Negro community advocating violence now. I happen to feel that this group represents a numerical minority. Surveys have revealed this. The vast majority of Negroes still feel that the best way to deal with the dilemma that we face in this country is through non-violent resistance, and I don't think this vocal group will be able to make a real dent in the Negro community in terms of swaying 22 million Negroes to this particular point of view. And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.
WALLACE: How many summers like this do you imagine that we can expect?
KING: Well, I would say this: we don't have long. The mood of the Negro community now is one of urgency, one of saying that we aren't going to wait. That we've got to have our freedom. We've waited too long. So that I would say that every summer we're going to have this kind of vigorous protest. My hope is that it will be non-violent. I would hope that we can avoid riots because riots are self-defeating and socially destructive. I would hope that we can avoid riots, but that we would be as militant and as determined next summer and through the winter as we have been this summer. And I think the answer about how long it will take will depend on the federal government, on the city halls of our various cities, and on White America to a large extent. This is where we are at this point, and I think White America will determine how long it will be and which way we go in the future.
It's a situation where the evidence and stories were being manipulated, massaged, and retroactively changed in a number of ways, and the spin started the moment the body hit the ground. You'd need a lengthy chart to go through all the details at this point about what the "official" story was at any given point in the process, what the authorities failed to do which could have crucially changed the evidence, etc. The game was being stacked from the start, and those of us paying attention from the start are probably more aware of that than those who tuned in a week ago. And of course Wilson and his people had months to figure out what would play and what wouldn't for the final narrative to present. This is what people are getting at, I think, when they say the grand jury documents represent only a single facet of the larger picture.
posted by naju at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by naju at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I know more about this subject than you can possibly imagine.
My mother works in this subject.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
My mother works in this subject.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
I don't get this. I mean, lots of people go on and on in threads they are personally invested in. I personally find Ironmouth's views abhorrent, but it seems like a selective policy to call him out for repeating himself.
Even aside from the comment quantity, I think when he's gotten to "oh yeah how many of these have YOU gone to" it's not unreasonable for the mods to think he's maybe kicking up more dirt than he is being a part of a productive conversation.
posted by phearlez at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Even aside from the comment quantity, I think when he's gotten to "oh yeah how many of these have YOU gone to" it's not unreasonable for the mods to think he's maybe kicking up more dirt than he is being a part of a productive conversation.
posted by phearlez at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Plus, it seems, relying on his legal expertise to slide half-truths past everyone. As evidenced in that new thread where he talks about privacy legislation but omits that professional activities are largely exempted. That's just dishonest.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Someone who comes in with their first comment being about the looting, and then comes back later to complain about the looting again is certainly showing through their selective focus that they think looting is the primary problem.
This is I think a Metafilter wide problem and one we really need to be better about. Just because someone's first comment is about X thing, and they post later about X thing, does not mean they think X thing is the most important thing about a post or situation. It may mean they have expert knowledge about X thing. It may mean they understand other things, but don't understand X thing, or agree with everything else but disagree with X, or agree with X but don't have the energy to talk about everything else, or any of a host of reasons.
For example - a lot of people seem to have tagged me as having a primary focus of Wilson in the thread because I talked about empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state, even Wilson. But empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state is not the thing I think is the most wrong or upsetting or even important about Ferguson. I find the militarization, police state, and essential occupation of an American town to be insanely upsetting. I find the fact that some people are forgetting that to be upsetting. But if I start talking about that stuff I'm pretty sure I'll start ranting, and I don't think it would benefit anyone, even me.
posted by corb at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
This is I think a Metafilter wide problem and one we really need to be better about. Just because someone's first comment is about X thing, and they post later about X thing, does not mean they think X thing is the most important thing about a post or situation. It may mean they have expert knowledge about X thing. It may mean they understand other things, but don't understand X thing, or agree with everything else but disagree with X, or agree with X but don't have the energy to talk about everything else, or any of a host of reasons.
For example - a lot of people seem to have tagged me as having a primary focus of Wilson in the thread because I talked about empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state, even Wilson. But empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state is not the thing I think is the most wrong or upsetting or even important about Ferguson. I find the militarization, police state, and essential occupation of an American town to be insanely upsetting. I find the fact that some people are forgetting that to be upsetting. But if I start talking about that stuff I'm pretty sure I'll start ranting, and I don't think it would benefit anyone, even me.
posted by corb at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
With regards to professionals and experts who are heavily invested in a particular subject matter contributing to directly related threads, I think we have very positive example to look at in terms of how to do that kind of thing well and in a way that's utterly respectful to other participating MeFites:
I'd like to call out physicsmatt for being a truly awesome kind of expert whose contributions are almost invariable incredibly detailed, well put together and reasonably easy to parse considering the complexity of the matters he tends to comment on.
But that's only one part: he also doesn't try to dominate or derail the threads he's in and he doesn't attempt to choke out conversations that deviate from or contradict the expert knowledge and the viewpoints he contributes and represents. Granted, physics threads are not generally contentious, but he could just as easily be a dick about it all and try to shout down or squeeze out any conversations that are centered around what someone like him might consider to be more "wooey" viewpoints or less expertly informed interpretations and extrapolations of what's being discussed.
Instead he refrains from doing so and chooses to maintain a light touch overall and that's what makes his comments highly appreciated by almost everybody (at least as far as I can tell). He participates in conversations, adds highly valuable insights and doesn't try to suck up all the air in the room by appealing to his own expertness/actively dismissing everybody else's thoughts.
In conclusion, even if you're truly the most expertest expert of them all, just don't be a dick. People may listen to you or they may not, but that's not under your control. Being dismissive most certainly won't sway anybody but it'll quite likely poison the conversation.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I'd like to call out physicsmatt for being a truly awesome kind of expert whose contributions are almost invariable incredibly detailed, well put together and reasonably easy to parse considering the complexity of the matters he tends to comment on.
But that's only one part: he also doesn't try to dominate or derail the threads he's in and he doesn't attempt to choke out conversations that deviate from or contradict the expert knowledge and the viewpoints he contributes and represents. Granted, physics threads are not generally contentious, but he could just as easily be a dick about it all and try to shout down or squeeze out any conversations that are centered around what someone like him might consider to be more "wooey" viewpoints or less expertly informed interpretations and extrapolations of what's being discussed.
Instead he refrains from doing so and chooses to maintain a light touch overall and that's what makes his comments highly appreciated by almost everybody (at least as far as I can tell). He participates in conversations, adds highly valuable insights and doesn't try to suck up all the air in the room by appealing to his own expertness/actively dismissing everybody else's thoughts.
In conclusion, even if you're truly the most expertest expert of them all, just don't be a dick. People may listen to you or they may not, but that's not under your control. Being dismissive most certainly won't sway anybody but it'll quite likely poison the conversation.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
It may mean they understand other things, but don't understand X thing, or agree with everything else but disagree with X, or agree with X but don't have the energy to talk about everything else, or any of a host of reasons.
It may mean those things, or it may mean something closer to the meaning I and some others took from it. In a case like this, where there is a well-known trope of conservatives pointing to looting as a way to dismiss / distract from the complaints of the non-looting protesters, I think the onus is on those who are talking about the looting to make it clear that they're not doing that.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
It may mean those things, or it may mean something closer to the meaning I and some others took from it. In a case like this, where there is a well-known trope of conservatives pointing to looting as a way to dismiss / distract from the complaints of the non-looting protesters, I think the onus is on those who are talking about the looting to make it clear that they're not doing that.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
For example - a lot of people seem to have tagged me as having a primary focus of Wilson in the thread because I talked about empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state, even Wilson. But empathy and understanding of everyone's emotional state is not the thing I think is the most wrong or upsetting or even important about Ferguson. I find the militarization, police state, and essential occupation of an American town to be insanely upsetting. I find the fact that some people are forgetting that to be upsetting. But if I start talking about that stuff I'm pretty sure I'll start ranting, and I don't think it would benefit anyone, even me.
People will tend to assume that you care about the things you choose to discuss and you don't care about the things you choose not to discuss. That seems pretty straightforward and predictable to me.
posted by Lexica at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [24 favorites]
People will tend to assume that you care about the things you choose to discuss and you don't care about the things you choose not to discuss. That seems pretty straightforward and predictable to me.
posted by Lexica at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [24 favorites]
And add to this, something that is entirely within your control, what you decide to discuss and not discuss.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
Ah, thanks for popping in, shivohum.
From what I hear, the jury was 9:3 white to black, and nine votes was the minimum to either indict or not.
That's some talented voir dire right there. (45 favorites)
This is a perfect example of jumping to conclusions if not bad faith. The point is that it took nine votes. This is the grand jury rule and, well, doesn't it look weird that there were also nine white jurors? Can you seriously not see a structural question there that says something other than, "race did it," that there's smoke? Of course GJ votes are forever secret, so we're never going to know, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate the question from discussion.
To state a conclusion that doesn't take this into account is to me the very definition of ignorance. Maybe you didn't see it, maybe you are being evasive, but at the end of the day it is an actual thing that is not in your argument. The evidence, such as it is (but might not meet your personal definition of such), is that it lines up in a, "huh, I wonder how that happened," way. But no, for some reason this correlation is beneath comment.
This speaks directly to the underlying issue for this MeTa, good faith arguing, and reading the room. However, whether it be Ironmouth, you shivohum, or someone else with a suitable grasp, I personally wouldn't mind seeing an argument that disposes of all the questions that many of us see as obvious and concludes that it was a clean process. Is this an ultra-left-wing desire?
posted by rhizome at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
From what I hear, the jury was 9:3 white to black, and nine votes was the minimum to either indict or not.
That's some talented voir dire right there. (45 favorites)
Implying, without any evidence whatsoever, that race alone determined the grand jury's votes.This is a perfect example of jumping to conclusions if not bad faith. The point is that it took nine votes. This is the grand jury rule and, well, doesn't it look weird that there were also nine white jurors? Can you seriously not see a structural question there that says something other than, "race did it," that there's smoke? Of course GJ votes are forever secret, so we're never going to know, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate the question from discussion.
To state a conclusion that doesn't take this into account is to me the very definition of ignorance. Maybe you didn't see it, maybe you are being evasive, but at the end of the day it is an actual thing that is not in your argument. The evidence, such as it is (but might not meet your personal definition of such), is that it lines up in a, "huh, I wonder how that happened," way. But no, for some reason this correlation is beneath comment.
This speaks directly to the underlying issue for this MeTa, good faith arguing, and reading the room. However, whether it be Ironmouth, you shivohum, or someone else with a suitable grasp, I personally wouldn't mind seeing an argument that disposes of all the questions that many of us see as obvious and concludes that it was a clean process. Is this an ultra-left-wing desire?
posted by rhizome at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Posting a third of the first twelve comments in a thread and posting multiple times in a row are both situations where one person is taking up a lot of the conversational space.
Yeah, I hear that. And I defer to mod judgement of course (not that you need me to defer - it's obvioulsy not my call!) but there is something that gives me some discomfort about this. Just registering a perspective I guess.
posted by latkes at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2014
Yeah, I hear that. And I defer to mod judgement of course (not that you need me to defer - it's obvioulsy not my call!) but there is something that gives me some discomfort about this. Just registering a perspective I guess.
posted by latkes at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2014
Actually, and I'm surprised nobody fact-checked this in the original thread, it takes 9 votes in favor of indictment to indict, meaning it only takes 4 votes against to not indict, so the 9 to 3 makeup isn't purposefully stacked with just enough white votes to not indict (but this isn't an argument that it wasn't stacked). Furthermore, I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the jury pool comes from the entire county. Wikipedia gives St. Louis county as being ~70% white, ~23% black. That's pretty close to the make up of the grand jury (75% white, 25% black). So in this case, I do find it somewhat problematic (though not damning, as mistakes happen) that this was provided without evidence, an incorrect fact to view it from, and complemented with a comment that isn't exactly supported, that turns out to amass many favorites.
posted by Skephicles at 12:26 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Skephicles at 12:26 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
People will tend to assume that you care about the things you choose to discuss and you don't care about the things you choose not to discuss. That seems pretty straightforward and predictable to me.
This argument is commonly directed at activists, and I tend to see it most frequently used to attack feminists. An activists talks about an issue of concern, and then someone responds by saying that there are all these much bigger problems that we should be concerned about.
The appropriate response is to say that one can care about multiple things at one time, and just because one is writing about one particular issue at the time, it doesn't mean they don't care about any other number of issues.
There are any number of reasons to comment on one aspect of an issue and not another aspect, and I don't think we should read too heavily into it.
posted by andoatnp at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
This argument is commonly directed at activists, and I tend to see it most frequently used to attack feminists. An activists talks about an issue of concern, and then someone responds by saying that there are all these much bigger problems that we should be concerned about.
The appropriate response is to say that one can care about multiple things at one time, and just because one is writing about one particular issue at the time, it doesn't mean they don't care about any other number of issues.
There are any number of reasons to comment on one aspect of an issue and not another aspect, and I don't think we should read too heavily into it.
posted by andoatnp at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Excellent points, skephicles. It was indeed a St. Louis county jury. To add to the problems, there is also no voir dire for grand juries and no striking of jurors. It's just a random selection. So lots of misinformation here.
posted by shivohum at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by shivohum at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, but corb doesn't seem to get around to ever talking about the other aspects, so its not unreasonable to assume what she finds important is what she speaks up about.
posted by agregoli at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Which is to say my intention is not to pick on corb - I welcome her comments on this and any topic. But she is very consistent on what she speaks up on.
posted by agregoli at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
There are any number of reasons to comment on one aspect of an issue and not another aspect, and I don't think we should read too heavily into it.
You're sort of turning this on its head, because the invocation of looters is itself often used as the shiny object used to distract and dismiss legitimate grievances of the majority of protesters. We can't just pretend all issues raised are on equal footing, or that the invocation of some emotionally-charged subjects is never done tactically. The TV cameras focus on the looters, the internet commenters focus on the looters, and pretty soon it's all about a small minority of jackholes looting instead of the larger conversation. People have a right to raise whatever issues they want, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore the fact that they're doing so out of proportion to the actual scale of the problem (pro tip: you can rebuild a beauty products store, you can't rebuild Michael Brown.)
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
You're sort of turning this on its head, because the invocation of looters is itself often used as the shiny object used to distract and dismiss legitimate grievances of the majority of protesters. We can't just pretend all issues raised are on equal footing, or that the invocation of some emotionally-charged subjects is never done tactically. The TV cameras focus on the looters, the internet commenters focus on the looters, and pretty soon it's all about a small minority of jackholes looting instead of the larger conversation. People have a right to raise whatever issues they want, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore the fact that they're doing so out of proportion to the actual scale of the problem (pro tip: you can rebuild a beauty products store, you can't rebuild Michael Brown.)
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
An activists talks about an issue of concern, and then someone responds by saying that there are all these much bigger problems that we should be concerned about.
That is not what is going on. This is someone saying "I don't know why everyone says I only care about X, I care about X and Y and Z" and people are replying "We only hear you talking about X so we draw the conclusion that you care a lot about X"
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [32 favorites]
That is not what is going on. This is someone saying "I don't know why everyone says I only care about X, I care about X and Y and Z" and people are replying "We only hear you talking about X so we draw the conclusion that you care a lot about X"
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [32 favorites]
He does condemn the rioting, but not with the kind of force I would have expected from your comment. What comments of his were you thinking of?
Thinking in particular of:
Thinking in particular of:
Occasionally, Negroes contend that the 1965 Watts riot and the other riots in various cities represented effective civil rights action. But those who express this view always end up with stumbling words when asked what concrete gains have been won as a result. At best, the riots have produced a little additional anti-poverty money allotted by frightened government officials and a few water sprinklers to cool the children of the ghettos. It is something like improving the food in the prison while the people remain securely incarcerated behind bars. Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations.posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:43 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
feckless fecal fear mongering: Plus, it seems, relying on his legal expertise to slide half-truths past everyone. As evidenced in that new thread where he talks about privacy legislation but omits that professional activities are largely exempted. That's just dishonest.To be fair, he might just be completely incompetent.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:48 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Thanks, TFB, we now know that MLK was not the one-note character that none of us thought he was.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
the 9 to 3 makeup isn't purposefully stacked with just enough white votes to not indict (but this isn't an argument that it wasn't stacked)
Please also note that the normal random selection of grand jurors did not occur here. It was an existing GJ that was extended. McCulloch knew what the makeup of this GJ was in advance.
posted by rhizome at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Please also note that the normal random selection of grand jurors did not occur here. It was an existing GJ that was extended. McCulloch knew what the makeup of this GJ was in advance.
posted by rhizome at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I think we would apply King's thoughts on riots and political strategy to internet conversation on a general-interest forum very differently, but sincere thanks, ThatFuzzyBastard, for elaborating on your idea and linking to that excerpt.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
The random selection of jurors did occur, it simply occurred in May.
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I eagerly await a state lottery where I can use my randomly chosen ticket for future drawings.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Also note that it was a judge who extended the grand jury's term since the case was ongoing, not McCulloch. This seems one of those times when people are making unsupported and nefarious readings into innocuous events.
posted by Justinian at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Huh? The investigation was during this grand jury's term. But it wasn't over when the grand jury's initial term was set to expire. So a judge, not the DA, extended the term so that the investigation could be finished. Not everything is a conspiracy.
posted by Justinian at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Extended at McCulloch's request. Come on.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Rhizome, you ought in fairness to admit now that your original comment was completely wrong and a perfect example of jumping to conclusions. You talked about "talented voir dire" when that's absolutely not what happened here.
posted by shivohum at 1:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by shivohum at 1:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not everything is a conspiracy.
It's hardly conspiracy theorizing to look at McCulloch's pro-police record and the many cock-ups during the investigation and not simply trust that the grand jury being held over at McCulloch's request isn't part of the reason things went the way they did. But we're into litigating blue topics on the gray, so we should take this over there.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's hardly conspiracy theorizing to look at McCulloch's pro-police record and the many cock-ups during the investigation and not simply trust that the grand jury being held over at McCulloch's request isn't part of the reason things went the way they did. But we're into litigating blue topics on the gray, so we should take this over there.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I think we would apply King's thoughts on riots and political strategy to internet conversation on a general-interest forum very differently,
Oh no, I certainly wouldn't suggest the quote applies to how people behave on Metafilter! Just that when there's a riot in the news, lefties often pull out the Birmingham Jail quote about white liberals (judging by my FB feed) while neglecting what King actually said about the tactical inefficacy of riots. King is given too little credit, imho, as a cold tactician.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh no, I certainly wouldn't suggest the quote applies to how people behave on Metafilter! Just that when there's a riot in the news, lefties often pull out the Birmingham Jail quote about white liberals (judging by my FB feed) while neglecting what King actually said about the tactical inefficacy of riots. King is given too little credit, imho, as a cold tactician.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
judging by my FB feed
Well there's your problem.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Well there's your problem.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
Aw, there were signs of fairness in the Grand Jury process in St. Louis. McCulloch didn't need much help to pull off his "I can't get this ham sandwich indicted" act...
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2014
Are we rehashing the thread on the blue here?
posted by futz at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Almost any DA will have close ties to police, it's the nature of the beast. One way I think it makes sense to reform the system is to routinely use special prosecutors in cases involving police shootings.
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
judging by my FB feed
Well there's your problem.
But hardly confined to there.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well there's your problem.
But hardly confined to there.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
You know who else agreed with King on the "the tactical inefficacy of riots"? The Brown Family and all their closest supporters. There is evidence piling up that MOST of the destruction to the community was inflicted by either white "anonymous-afiliated" agitators (probably hyped up on GamerGate) and the KKK and actual white racists trying (pretty damn successfully) to discredit the black community.
THEY BURNED DOWN THE BROWN FAMILY'S CHURCH.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
THEY BURNED DOWN THE BROWN FAMILY'S CHURCH.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
Is this an ultra-left-wing desire?
What The Rest of The World (tm) thinks of all this, for a nice change of perspective here, folkses:
"This is not America’s or the black community’s problem. It is a global problem of people who feel oppressed,” Tory Russell tells the Spanish newspaper. via HuffPost roundup of many EU papers
The Economist sends in from Amsterdam:
I have served on one American jury, and the entirety of our discussion (which required us to be sequestered for two days) turned on whether or not we trusted the police. We ended up with a hung jury because the white jurors trusted the police, and the black jurors did not. The evidence presented in the case consisted of a bag of cocaine, and two police officers who testified that the accused had tossed it under a car while fleeing. (The only defence testimony came from a chemist who challenged the police lab's procedures for measuring the quantity of the drugs; that played little role in the jury's discussion.) For the white jurors, without any testimony contesting the police account, we had no "reasonable doubt" of the state's case. For the black jurors, and for one juror in particular, the testimony of two police officers with no corroborating witnesses or evidence was simply not enough reason to send a man to jail.
These are both reasonable ways of approaching the world. What is dangerous is how neatly the disagreement falls along racial lines. African-Americans have a radically different experience of interaction with police officers than white Americans do, and are much less likely to implicitly trust the testimony of officers accused of brutality or lawbreaking. Most white Americans do not understand this distrust, so minorities are often left with a sense that the legal system offers them no recourse. White Americans cannot understand why African-Americans do not accept the verdict of the justice system. African-Americans suspect that the system is structured in a way that denies them justice.
The Hindu
The Ferguson episode shows how nothing has changed for the African-American community since Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation into law in 1863
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty — Thomas Jefferson
Xinhua Op-Ed
Though legal segregation has faded into history, the racial gaps in the United States are roughly the same, if not wider, as they were decades ago.
Many barriers -- stereotypes, discriminatory housing practices, and institutional racism -- remain out there, stripping African-Americans of decent opportunities enjoyed by the whites.
[...]
What makes things worse is the reluctance of U.S. politicians to fix the policies that result in glaring racial disparities, including the preferential tax treatment that favors the affluent.
Normalcy and peace will descend on Ferguson. But discontent among African-Americans will not automatically disappear. The U.S. government should learn a good lesson from the Ferguson incident: a sound, fair and equitable society can not be realized if the nation lets the current trajectory go on.
Damn commie pinko leftist liberals, all of them... could probably dig up more, but hey wtf that's just the world out there watching through their screens and who cares what they think, all that's important is the bar fight between an elephant and a donkey
posted by infini at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [29 favorites]
What The Rest of The World (tm) thinks of all this, for a nice change of perspective here, folkses:
"This is not America’s or the black community’s problem. It is a global problem of people who feel oppressed,” Tory Russell tells the Spanish newspaper. via HuffPost roundup of many EU papers
The Economist sends in from Amsterdam:
I have served on one American jury, and the entirety of our discussion (which required us to be sequestered for two days) turned on whether or not we trusted the police. We ended up with a hung jury because the white jurors trusted the police, and the black jurors did not. The evidence presented in the case consisted of a bag of cocaine, and two police officers who testified that the accused had tossed it under a car while fleeing. (The only defence testimony came from a chemist who challenged the police lab's procedures for measuring the quantity of the drugs; that played little role in the jury's discussion.) For the white jurors, without any testimony contesting the police account, we had no "reasonable doubt" of the state's case. For the black jurors, and for one juror in particular, the testimony of two police officers with no corroborating witnesses or evidence was simply not enough reason to send a man to jail.
These are both reasonable ways of approaching the world. What is dangerous is how neatly the disagreement falls along racial lines. African-Americans have a radically different experience of interaction with police officers than white Americans do, and are much less likely to implicitly trust the testimony of officers accused of brutality or lawbreaking. Most white Americans do not understand this distrust, so minorities are often left with a sense that the legal system offers them no recourse. White Americans cannot understand why African-Americans do not accept the verdict of the justice system. African-Americans suspect that the system is structured in a way that denies them justice.
The Hindu
The Ferguson episode shows how nothing has changed for the African-American community since Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation into law in 1863
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty — Thomas Jefferson
Xinhua Op-Ed
Though legal segregation has faded into history, the racial gaps in the United States are roughly the same, if not wider, as they were decades ago.
Many barriers -- stereotypes, discriminatory housing practices, and institutional racism -- remain out there, stripping African-Americans of decent opportunities enjoyed by the whites.
[...]
What makes things worse is the reluctance of U.S. politicians to fix the policies that result in glaring racial disparities, including the preferential tax treatment that favors the affluent.
Normalcy and peace will descend on Ferguson. But discontent among African-Americans will not automatically disappear. The U.S. government should learn a good lesson from the Ferguson incident: a sound, fair and equitable society can not be realized if the nation lets the current trajectory go on.
Damn commie pinko leftist liberals, all of them... could probably dig up more, but hey wtf that's just the world out there watching through their screens and who cares what they think, all that's important is the bar fight between an elephant and a donkey
posted by infini at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [29 favorites]
As far as the professional interest disclosure, I think having some kind of financial tie/profit motive should impact the way a user participates in a thread. If one of the cases I'm involved in ended up as an FPP on the Blue, I would either not participate or would disclose my involvement before participating. It just doesn't seem above-board to me to do otherwise...that user has an interest at stake beyond curiosity or wanting to discuss the topic with others.
posted by sallybrown at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 1:19 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
'false flags' are usually not true, which is why it's such a great tactic when it is.
No, it wasn't those white mobs who destroyed the entire Black section of Tulsa in 1921...
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2014
No, it wasn't those white mobs who destroyed the entire Black section of Tulsa in 1921...
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2014
Oh no, I certainly wouldn't suggest the quote applies to how people behave on Metafilter! Just that when there's a riot in the news, lefties often pull out the Birmingham Jail quote about white liberals (judging by my FB feed) while neglecting what King actually said about the tactical inefficacy of riots. King is given too little credit, imho, as a cold tactician.
Meanwhile, on my Twitter feed, a lot of leftists have been quoting from the speech I quoted above. A white moderate who looks at a riot and says "Wow, this is a tactically ineffective assault on property. I will go on thinking and saying nothing about this, except for hectoring the people who want me to look at the 'broader picture'" really is dead weight and insincere in their concern about tactics.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014
Meanwhile, on my Twitter feed, a lot of leftists have been quoting from the speech I quoted above. A white moderate who looks at a riot and says "Wow, this is a tactically ineffective assault on property. I will go on thinking and saying nothing about this, except for hectoring the people who want me to look at the 'broader picture'" really is dead weight and insincere in their concern about tactics.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014
I am concerned about the state of bridge repair in America.
The thread seems to be a rehash of the blue as futz suggests but information is also given that seems pertinent. Tough call.
posted by clavdivs at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
The thread seems to be a rehash of the blue as futz suggests but information is also given that seems pertinent. Tough call.
posted by clavdivs at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Justinian: Also note that it was a judge who extended the grand jury's term since the case was ongoing, not McCulloch.
Unsupported? "...at the prosecutor's request"
shivohum: You talked about "talented voir dire" when that's absolutely not what happened here.
Nope, I was quoting you, quoting from someone else.
posted by rhizome at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Unsupported? "...at the prosecutor's request"
shivohum: You talked about "talented voir dire" when that's absolutely not what happened here.
Nope, I was quoting you, quoting from someone else.
posted by rhizome at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
For the white jurors, without any testimony contesting the police account, we had no "reasonable doubt" of the state's case. For the black jurors, and for one juror in particular, the testimony of two police officers with no corroborating witnesses or evidence was simply not enough reason to send a man to jail.
Testilying
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Testilying
Of course, there is Alan Dershowitz's well-known assertion (made long before his participation in the O.J. Simpson case) that "almost all" officers lie to convict the guilty. [FN15] Dershowitz may have been engaging in hyperbole, but his claim is not as far off as one might think. In one survey, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges estimated that police perjury at Fourth Amendment suppression hearings occurs in twenty to fifty percent of the cases. [FN16] Jerome Skolnick, a veteran observer of the police, has stated that police perjury of this type is "systematic." [FN17] Even prosecutors — or at least former *1042 prosecutors — use terms like "routine," [FN18] "commonplace," [FN19] and "prevalent" [FN20] to describe the phenomenon. Few knowledgeable persons are willing to say that police perjury about investigative matters is sporadic or rare, except perhaps the police, and, as noted above, [FN21] even many of them believe it is common enough to merit a label all its own. [FN22]Emphasis mine.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
corb doesn't seem to get around to ever talking about the other aspects, so its not unreasonable to assume what she finds important is what she speaks up about.
I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I think it's the case that people simply don't notice. For example, in that thread, I also went into the grand jury proceedings and produced excerpts where the prosecutor was treating her own witness like a hostile witness and talked about how she seemed to be framing Brown as a problem herself. I talked later in the thread about how I thought morally citizens should have the right of self defense against cops and argued we should change the law so citizens defending themselves against cops didn't get charged with assault, because the law as it currently stands sucks.
But the memory that people hold is, "man, corb goes into these threads and just sides with the cops." And I don't believe that people are deliberately being shitty with this, I think it's just how human memory works - we tend to remember the things that fit our worldview, how we expect things to be, and forget the ones that don't. But that's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how we are thinking about people's contributions, and whether we are judging them fairly when we think they only care about one thing, simply because that one thing is the most enraging thing they are saying.
posted by corb at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I think it's the case that people simply don't notice. For example, in that thread, I also went into the grand jury proceedings and produced excerpts where the prosecutor was treating her own witness like a hostile witness and talked about how she seemed to be framing Brown as a problem herself. I talked later in the thread about how I thought morally citizens should have the right of self defense against cops and argued we should change the law so citizens defending themselves against cops didn't get charged with assault, because the law as it currently stands sucks.
But the memory that people hold is, "man, corb goes into these threads and just sides with the cops." And I don't believe that people are deliberately being shitty with this, I think it's just how human memory works - we tend to remember the things that fit our worldview, how we expect things to be, and forget the ones that don't. But that's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how we are thinking about people's contributions, and whether we are judging them fairly when we think they only care about one thing, simply because that one thing is the most enraging thing they are saying.
posted by corb at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
man, corb goes into these threads and just sides with the cops.
Nobody thinks that. People do think you side with armed killers of unarmed decedents, because you do.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
Nobody thinks that. People do think you side with armed killers of unarmed decedents, because you do.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
But that's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how we are thinking about people's contributions
Perhaps it's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how you are contributing, and the reasons why people think the things they do when you contribute in exactly the same way, over and over and over and over again.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
Perhaps it's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how you are contributing, and the reasons why people think the things they do when you contribute in exactly the same way, over and over and over and over again.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
"...hat instigators of riots are folks doing false flag operations so that the riots can later"
False flag is not a good definition as a false flag operation is an approach by hostile to friendly intelligence services. The idea is to fool a rigorous vetting process. It's about the pocket litter and patience then violence. Sabotage is more akin to this situation. Sabotage differs from the FF in it's proximity. The former wants to book fast while the latter wants to get in the book. So to say.
posted by clavdivs at 1:38 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
False flag is not a good definition as a false flag operation is an approach by hostile to friendly intelligence services. The idea is to fool a rigorous vetting process. It's about the pocket litter and patience then violence. Sabotage is more akin to this situation. Sabotage differs from the FF in it's proximity. The former wants to book fast while the latter wants to get in the book. So to say.
posted by clavdivs at 1:38 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
disclosure: as a White Male, I have had absolutely no problems with police. My only non-traffic confrontation (and all of those I reflexively confessed my violation on the spot and was more often given a warning than a ticket) was being questioned over some software disks stolen out their packages in a computer store in the 1980s where I was recognized as one of the people going through the pile of Clearance Stuff. I told the officer I had noticed that one of the packages was missing its disks (which was true) and apologized for not bringing it to the attention of a clerk. And that was the end of that. They just look at me and think "here's somebody on OUR side". I'm surprised I've never had to lie to take advantage of that, but I know I could've stolen the disks and gotten away with it.
also disclosure (and purely anecdotal): I was living in a predominantly-not-white section of Los Angeles when the "Rodney King Riots" occurred. In my neighborhood, it was a big non-event except for the frequent police cars passing slowly through with their sirens blaring to tell us they were here and hourly TV reruns of the Reginald Denny beating to assure us that there was a 'riot'. (Denny has outlived Rodney King)
I think MLK's concerns over "white moderates" in his time can apply just as easily to "white liberals" today, although my slide from Moderate to Close-to-Radical was not all MY movement. I was defenestrated through the Overton Window years ago.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
also disclosure (and purely anecdotal): I was living in a predominantly-not-white section of Los Angeles when the "Rodney King Riots" occurred. In my neighborhood, it was a big non-event except for the frequent police cars passing slowly through with their sirens blaring to tell us they were here and hourly TV reruns of the Reginald Denny beating to assure us that there was a 'riot'. (Denny has outlived Rodney King)
I think MLK's concerns over "white moderates" in his time can apply just as easily to "white liberals" today, although my slide from Moderate to Close-to-Radical was not all MY movement. I was defenestrated through the Overton Window years ago.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nope, I was quoting what you had quoted from someone else.
Ha, whoops, you are correct, my apologies. The poster of that original comment is not you.
But you did write above about my thoughts on that comment:
This is a perfect example of jumping to conclusions if not bad faith. The point is that it took nine votes. This is the grand jury rule and, well, doesn't it look weird that there were also nine white jurors? Can you seriously not see a structural question there that says something other than, "race did it," that there's smoke? Of course GJ votes are forever secret, so we're never going to know, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate the question from discussion.
In fact, both the original comment and the above paragraph are excellent examples of the "jumping to conclusions" you mention and exactly the kind of problematic groupthink I talked about earlier.
As others have aptly pointed out, it didn't take nine votes; it only takes four to deny an indictment. It doesn't look weird that there were also nine white jurors since that resembles the racial composition of St. Louis county. Grand juries are empaneled only three times a year in St. Louis, not once per case. There is no smoke on this point, but a smoke-tinted ideology can make it seem as if there is.
posted by shivohum at 1:44 PM on December 2, 2014
Ha, whoops, you are correct, my apologies. The poster of that original comment is not you.
But you did write above about my thoughts on that comment:
This is a perfect example of jumping to conclusions if not bad faith. The point is that it took nine votes. This is the grand jury rule and, well, doesn't it look weird that there were also nine white jurors? Can you seriously not see a structural question there that says something other than, "race did it," that there's smoke? Of course GJ votes are forever secret, so we're never going to know, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate the question from discussion.
In fact, both the original comment and the above paragraph are excellent examples of the "jumping to conclusions" you mention and exactly the kind of problematic groupthink I talked about earlier.
As others have aptly pointed out, it didn't take nine votes; it only takes four to deny an indictment. It doesn't look weird that there were also nine white jurors since that resembles the racial composition of St. Louis county. Grand juries are empaneled only three times a year in St. Louis, not once per case. There is no smoke on this point, but a smoke-tinted ideology can make it seem as if there is.
posted by shivohum at 1:44 PM on December 2, 2014
But that's more of a reason to take a breath and think about how we are thinking about people's contributions
I stopped halfway through because I don't like what I am doing here and yes I've done it already in a half assed way and I won't ever do it again and I've never done this kind of thing before. *takes deep breath* BUT....
posted by infini at 1:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I stopped halfway through because I don't like what I am doing here and yes I've done it already in a half assed way and I won't ever do it again and I've never done this kind of thing before. *takes deep breath* BUT....
posted by infini at 1:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
addressing the general topic:
to me, the behavior that is described as problematic is like adding an irritant to the atmosphere of the room where the discussion is taking place. You take what happened -- a dead unarmed kid -- and there's a certain level of tension. The ideas *we should try to understand Wilson* and *this was a justified shooting* elevates the tension in the discussion. And then the ideas are repeated, regardless of pushback, and tension escalates.
I've been working and maybe sometimes succeeding in not getting caught up in fights around here. I think that's a good value for site members to have. And that's not exactly a value I see embraced by the members at issue here.
And yeah, people shouldn't say, "Oh welcome lawful evil" or whatever, but the thing is, the burden to not get in fights should extend to also those of a minority opinion.
In other words: There's a dead unarmed kid and no accounting for it except for a bunch of completely mangled legal proceedings. Going into a thread to be like, well let's look at some things that make the hurt of the dead unarmed kid without accountability MORE OKAY, and people are going to be like :0
Don't write things that tend to make people go :0 unless there's a benefit to be achieved
for example, i am taking a break from writing cutting comments on student papers. there is a small possibility that there is a pedagogical value to the oppositional nature of the comment. i mean, probably not, but a girl can dream big dreams
posted by angrycat at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
to me, the behavior that is described as problematic is like adding an irritant to the atmosphere of the room where the discussion is taking place. You take what happened -- a dead unarmed kid -- and there's a certain level of tension. The ideas *we should try to understand Wilson* and *this was a justified shooting* elevates the tension in the discussion. And then the ideas are repeated, regardless of pushback, and tension escalates.
I've been working and maybe sometimes succeeding in not getting caught up in fights around here. I think that's a good value for site members to have. And that's not exactly a value I see embraced by the members at issue here.
And yeah, people shouldn't say, "Oh welcome lawful evil" or whatever, but the thing is, the burden to not get in fights should extend to also those of a minority opinion.
In other words: There's a dead unarmed kid and no accounting for it except for a bunch of completely mangled legal proceedings. Going into a thread to be like, well let's look at some things that make the hurt of the dead unarmed kid without accountability MORE OKAY, and people are going to be like :0
Don't write things that tend to make people go :0 unless there's a benefit to be achieved
for example, i am taking a break from writing cutting comments on student papers. there is a small possibility that there is a pedagogical value to the oppositional nature of the comment. i mean, probably not, but a girl can dream big dreams
posted by angrycat at 1:57 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
The question is if McCulloch could have gotten a new jury if he didn't like the first one. If so, having the option gives him even more of an advantage in getting the outcome he desires. It's like if you could bet on one sporting event and then having the option to change your bet to a different game after the first one starts.
I really wonder if Grand Juries serve any useful purpose at all. Since they are unnecessary in the first place and a prosecutor can game the system so badly to get the outcome s/he wants (including using bogus jury instructions), it seems like Grand Juries are probably only used a) to justify spending public money on iffy, expensive criminal cases that could build a prosecutors political career, and b) to prevent prosecution of police (and klansmen in the old days).
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I really wonder if Grand Juries serve any useful purpose at all. Since they are unnecessary in the first place and a prosecutor can game the system so badly to get the outcome s/he wants (including using bogus jury instructions), it seems like Grand Juries are probably only used a) to justify spending public money on iffy, expensive criminal cases that could build a prosecutors political career, and b) to prevent prosecution of police (and klansmen in the old days).
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
I really wonder if Grand Juries serve any useful purpose at all.
Subpoena power.
posted by phearlez at 2:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Subpoena power.
posted by phearlez at 2:05 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have better references thanks though. To assume your cover, one most be vetted. The hostile is verified to be friendly. The first mover, so to say, is never supposed to be detected in the first place thus ancillary operations can proceed under scrutiny of the friendly target with out suspicion. Your military definition is apt in definition of a false flag but this situation is not military situation.
posted by clavdivs at 2:06 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by clavdivs at 2:06 PM on December 2, 2014
For example, in that thread, I also went into the grand jury proceedings and produced excerpts where the prosecutor was treating her own witness like a hostile witness and talked about how she seemed to be framing Brown as a problem herself. I talked later in the thread about how I thought morally citizens should have the right of self defense against cops and argued we should change the law so citizens defending themselves against cops didn't get charged with assault, because the law as it currently stands sucks.
Four of your first six comments were about Wilson, plus you had a really mean-spirited comment on the same topic deleted in that time. It's completely reasonable to think that Wilson is what you cared about.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 2:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Four of your first six comments were about Wilson, plus you had a really mean-spirited comment on the same topic deleted in that time. It's completely reasonable to think that Wilson is what you cared about.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 2:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
The funny thing about corb is...I think if she was posting on a conservative board they would get just as upset with her as people do here. When you don't fit perfectly in a political box, and you like to defend your positions anyway, (and you sometimes put your foot in your mouth), and you can have a lot of empathy for seeing the pros and cons of both sides...that is a recipe for not really fitting in. I'm glad she makes an effort to try because oddball voices are valuable here I think. Standard Fox News Republican though...I don't care so much if that guy doesn't feel welcome.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [19 favorites]
I posted about the grand jury extension on the blue since it doesn't really belong here, as tonycpsu points out.
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on December 2, 2014
(I think most of the conservative/libertarian users who last here are similarly valuable voices, I wish we could cut them a little more slack some times.)
posted by Drinky Die at 2:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
I posted about the grand jury extension on the blue since it doesn't really belong here, as tonycpsu points out.
Yeah, and someone else is going to have to take that one, because you seem to want to exculpate McCulloch on everything he didn't obviously and demonstrably fuck up on instead of acknowledging that he fucked up enough things in suspicious ways that make even his not provably mendacious actions worthy of suspicion.
Nobody's saying the GJ extension or the racial composition are proof of malfeasance, they're saying that they fit into a pattern of a prosecutor with a history of siding with the cops who refused calls to recuse himself, acted as defense counsel for the accused, and a whole host of other things that have been pointed out on in the blue thread. Your corrections to peoples' misunderstandings about the sequence of events are welcome, while your admonishments to people for being suspicious about someone who's done more than enough to earn that suspicion are frankly tiresome.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, and someone else is going to have to take that one, because you seem to want to exculpate McCulloch on everything he didn't obviously and demonstrably fuck up on instead of acknowledging that he fucked up enough things in suspicious ways that make even his not provably mendacious actions worthy of suspicion.
Nobody's saying the GJ extension or the racial composition are proof of malfeasance, they're saying that they fit into a pattern of a prosecutor with a history of siding with the cops who refused calls to recuse himself, acted as defense counsel for the accused, and a whole host of other things that have been pointed out on in the blue thread. Your corrections to peoples' misunderstandings about the sequence of events are welcome, while your admonishments to people for being suspicious about someone who's done more than enough to earn that suspicion are frankly tiresome.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's the corrections about crazy unsupported conspiracy theories which are tiresome, not the crazy unsupported conspiracy theories.
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
In fact, both the original comment and the above paragraph are excellent examples of the "jumping to conclusions" you mention and exactly the kind of problematic groupthink I talked about earlier.
How so? I was basically asking questions in order to to elicit the kind of detail that I think I've been pretty good about providing for my own conclusions. It demonstrates good-faith argumentation when you show your work.
This further underscores the basis of this MeTa: it gets peoples' hackles up to basically (basically) say simply, "The system did something. This is what the system did. The system worked." It's a kind of threadshitting to just reiterate a course of events as self-justifying when it's obvious that it's contentious. At least I would hope it's obvious once you get past the perception that most here are slave-puppets for ultra-liberal tastemakers.
As others have aptly pointed out, it didn't take nine votes; it only takes four to deny an indictment.
Others have pointed this out, but it's a red herring. They are the same condition.
posted by rhizome at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
How so? I was basically asking questions in order to to elicit the kind of detail that I think I've been pretty good about providing for my own conclusions. It demonstrates good-faith argumentation when you show your work.
This further underscores the basis of this MeTa: it gets peoples' hackles up to basically (basically) say simply, "The system did something. This is what the system did. The system worked." It's a kind of threadshitting to just reiterate a course of events as self-justifying when it's obvious that it's contentious. At least I would hope it's obvious once you get past the perception that most here are slave-puppets for ultra-liberal tastemakers.
As others have aptly pointed out, it didn't take nine votes; it only takes four to deny an indictment.
Others have pointed this out, but it's a red herring. They are the same condition.
posted by rhizome at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
People do think you side with armed killers of unarmed decedents, because you do.
Um, did you not notice her assertion that citizens who fight back against police (who are generally armed) should not be jailed? You've been weirdly dickish all through this thread, but you're now just actively misrepresenting.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Um, did you not notice her assertion that citizens who fight back against police (who are generally armed) should not be jailed? You've been weirdly dickish all through this thread, but you're now just actively misrepresenting.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Justinian: Yes, it's the corrections about crazy unsupported conspiracy theories which are tiresome, not the crazy unsupported conspiracy theories.
When do we get to call the consistent of pattern of fuck-ups a conspiracy?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
When do we get to call the consistent of pattern of fuck-ups a conspiracy?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Um, did you not notice her assertion that citizens who fight back against police (who are generally armed) should not be jailed? You've been weirdly dickish all through this thread, but you're now just actively misrepresenting.
Oh, no, I'm totally aware of her support for armed people shooting armed people as well.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh, no, I'm totally aware of her support for armed people shooting armed people as well.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
A white moderate who looks at a riot and says "Wow, this is a tactically ineffective assault on property. I will go on thinking and saying nothing about this, except for hectoring the people who want me to look at the 'broader picture'" really is dead weight and insincere in their concern about tactics.
How about the white radical who looks at a riot and says "Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
How about the white radical who looks at a riot and says "Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Institutionalization isn't a conspiracy.
posted by infini at 2:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by infini at 2:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
How about the white radical who looks at a riot and says "Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
actually, one of the things I really appreciate about the current Ferguson thread is the discussion that has been going on about white allies and/or "allies" who are co-opting, escalating, speaking over people of color, etc. at protests. It's a difficult topic and it's not one that Mefi always does well, and I really appreciate how it's been discussed in the thread.
but probably not the best example TFB could've chosen for his "no u" shtick.
posted by kagredon at 2:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
actually, one of the things I really appreciate about the current Ferguson thread is the discussion that has been going on about white allies and/or "allies" who are co-opting, escalating, speaking over people of color, etc. at protests. It's a difficult topic and it's not one that Mefi always does well, and I really appreciate how it's been discussed in the thread.
but probably not the best example TFB could've chosen for his "no u" shtick.
posted by kagredon at 2:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [13 favorites]
How about the white radical who looks at a riot and says "Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
You don't see a difference between MLK criticizing riots on the grounds that his organized protests are more effective, vs a white person scolding black people for having the "wrong reaction" to something they perceive as an unforgivable injustice perpetrated by white people? It's not "anyone who dares to suggest it," it's "any white person who scolds black folks for their reaction while doing nothing to advance the cause themselves and in many cases actively or tacitly supporting structural racism."
White people policing how black people should react to and fight racism has got to be one of the oldest and most offensive concern troll efforts in human history, and chiding outraged people with cherrypicked MLK quotes* is just one of its more recent incarnations.
* to be clear, I don't mean you TFB - but there have been so many white people tsk-tsking at black folks with "MLK would be ashamed of you" stuff on social media that reacting to that sentiment with MLK quotes that contradict that sentiment is not at all out of line. Maybe you're seeing the pushback from those "white radicals" but not the phenomenon they're pushing back against?
posted by dialetheia at 3:13 PM on December 2, 2014 [25 favorites]
You don't see a difference between MLK criticizing riots on the grounds that his organized protests are more effective, vs a white person scolding black people for having the "wrong reaction" to something they perceive as an unforgivable injustice perpetrated by white people? It's not "anyone who dares to suggest it," it's "any white person who scolds black folks for their reaction while doing nothing to advance the cause themselves and in many cases actively or tacitly supporting structural racism."
White people policing how black people should react to and fight racism has got to be one of the oldest and most offensive concern troll efforts in human history, and chiding outraged people with cherrypicked MLK quotes* is just one of its more recent incarnations.
* to be clear, I don't mean you TFB - but there have been so many white people tsk-tsking at black folks with "MLK would be ashamed of you" stuff on social media that reacting to that sentiment with MLK quotes that contradict that sentiment is not at all out of line. Maybe you're seeing the pushback from those "white radicals" but not the phenomenon they're pushing back against?
posted by dialetheia at 3:13 PM on December 2, 2014 [25 favorites]
Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:35 PM on December 2 [2 favorites +] [!]
Who said that?
I said something like that, where I said that if you condemn the rights but kept your white mouth shut every time white people rioted after a football or hockey game or when their child rapist coddling fav football coach got in trouble, then you are a racist.
But no one said what you said they said. So why say it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:35 PM on December 2 [2 favorites +] [!]
Who said that?
I said something like that, where I said that if you condemn the rights but kept your white mouth shut every time white people rioted after a football or hockey game or when their child rapist coddling fav football coach got in trouble, then you are a racist.
But no one said what you said they said. So why say it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
How about the white radical who looks at a riot and says "Anyone who dares to suggest this is a bad thing is a racist defender of an unjust system"?
The people who cry aloud at race riots, but never give more than a word to the reasons they are happening, often are racist defenders of an unjust system. A white radical like the one you posit generalizes too broadly, but that's the only fault I can find in them.
On preview, kagredon and dialetheia said it better.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
The people who cry aloud at race riots, but never give more than a word to the reasons they are happening, often are racist defenders of an unjust system. A white radical like the one you posit generalizes too broadly, but that's the only fault I can find in them.
On preview, kagredon and dialetheia said it better.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
The weather underground frequently used black power as a tool for their cause ( for example the "days of rage") which I believe some folks thought was co-opting the struggle. so their is historical precedence for this interesting facet of the conversation.
posted by clavdivs at 3:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 3:31 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
You know, I will caution against assuming that the people who are saying various things - on either side - are white. Assuming that people who don't identify their race are white is part of making assumptions about the makeup of society that do not match actual reality.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
good point, but I'm using the royal you
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Corb has a point. I had the privilege to met and talk with Dennis Brutus. I remember someone asking him what Mandela thought of him being white and did this influence whites to join apartheid.
He just smiled at me and I smiled back to the person who asked the question.
posted by clavdivs at 4:09 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
He just smiled at me and I smiled back to the person who asked the question.
posted by clavdivs at 4:09 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Drinky Die: Standard Fox News Republican though...I don't care so much if that guy doesn't feel welcome.
I remember a thread about the Civil War in which corb participated in her very corb-like fashion; a couple of days into it Judge Joe Napolitano was on The Daily Show, and they had him make all his arguments about how slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War and how it should have been handled to a panel of Civil War historians. Naturally, each argument he came up with was demonstrably incorrect on the facts, but what also surprised me a little is how even the order in which he brought them up, let alone the content, was exactly what corb had been arguing in the thread.
From the Trayvon Martin threads, where she consistently tried to explain everything as though George Zimmerman's account, and his account alone, was entirely accurate, through 'The South Was Hard Done By and Didn't Shoot First' in Civil War threads, to her 'but it's the first step to taking away our guns!' rhetoric in gun threads... she may claim anarcho-libertarian beliefs, but they come up remarkably close to Fox News levels. Especially if you take into account that she is frequently as factually inaccurate as they are, and yet still pounds on the same points as it becomes clear that she's dogmatic rather than having a dialogue.
A lot of the suggestions for dealing with posters being difficult in the way they have been in the Ferguson thread I disagree with as any kind of rule going forward. But if you're aware of her posting history it's very tough to regard corb as being a victim of over-aggressive modding or bad faith reading rather than just the cumulative effect of her contributions and contributing style on how everyone else learns to treat her.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [20 favorites]
I remember a thread about the Civil War in which corb participated in her very corb-like fashion; a couple of days into it Judge Joe Napolitano was on The Daily Show, and they had him make all his arguments about how slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War and how it should have been handled to a panel of Civil War historians. Naturally, each argument he came up with was demonstrably incorrect on the facts, but what also surprised me a little is how even the order in which he brought them up, let alone the content, was exactly what corb had been arguing in the thread.
From the Trayvon Martin threads, where she consistently tried to explain everything as though George Zimmerman's account, and his account alone, was entirely accurate, through 'The South Was Hard Done By and Didn't Shoot First' in Civil War threads, to her 'but it's the first step to taking away our guns!' rhetoric in gun threads... she may claim anarcho-libertarian beliefs, but they come up remarkably close to Fox News levels. Especially if you take into account that she is frequently as factually inaccurate as they are, and yet still pounds on the same points as it becomes clear that she's dogmatic rather than having a dialogue.
A lot of the suggestions for dealing with posters being difficult in the way they have been in the Ferguson thread I disagree with as any kind of rule going forward. But if you're aware of her posting history it's very tough to regard corb as being a victim of over-aggressive modding or bad faith reading rather than just the cumulative effect of her contributions and contributing style on how everyone else learns to treat her.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [20 favorites]
So has a mod ever had a flame out? Because I feel like this thread is an attempt to make that happen.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 5:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
i think it's an attempt to put them to sleep
posted by pyramid termite at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I doubt Napolitano expressed moral outrage at slave owners not being compensated for the slaves they lost in the war.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [4 favorites]
Someone please put me to sleep. Like euthanize me.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Because I feel like this thread is an attempt to make that happen.
Are you kidding? This is a remarkably civil MetaTalk, as these things go.
(And no, not here, although I could tell you some stories...)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Are you kidding? This is a remarkably civil MetaTalk, as these things go.
(And no, not here, although I could tell you some stories...)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:12 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Napolitano is not the standard Fox republican, he is a libertarian outlier on the network. He opposes the death penalty, iirc, as one example of how he is out of line with the network party line. I'm not surprised his views might mirror corb's.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:15 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:15 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
(And no, not here, although I could tell you some stories...)
In my head, I can now only hear r_n's voice as Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner.
"I've seen things... that you people wouldn't believe..."
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:16 PM on December 2, 2014
In my head, I can now only hear r_n's voice as Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner.
"I've seen things... that you people wouldn't believe..."
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:16 PM on December 2, 2014
(Wait, Joe Napolitano? I don't even know who that is. I was thinking of Judge Andrew Napolitano.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:18 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 5:18 PM on December 2, 2014
You know, I will caution against assuming that the people who are saying various things - on either side - are white.
Although in my case there isn't much doubt if you see me. I have been referred to as "boiled chicken color".
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on December 2, 2014
Although in my case there isn't much doubt if you see me. I have been referred to as "boiled chicken color".
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on December 2, 2014
Are you kidding? This is a remarkably civil MetaTalk, as these things go.
my personal benchmarks for horrible MeTas are either 1) the Hell Thread kalessin alluded to earlier, or 2) judging from when they get linked now, almost any contentious MeTa from before 2009 or so
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:26 PM on December 2, 2014
my personal benchmarks for horrible MeTas are either 1) the Hell Thread kalessin alluded to earlier, or 2) judging from when they get linked now, almost any contentious MeTa from before 2009 or so
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:26 PM on December 2, 2014
That tseric link is awesome.
posted by clavdivs at 5:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 5:27 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
I believe the nasty thread kalessin was talking about was this one, which was indeed a nightmare.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Chrysostom at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2014
So has a mod ever had a flame out? Because I feel like this thread is an attempt to make that happen.
i think it's an attempt to put them to sleep
Every time a new thread is posted to etiquette/policy, the phone in the mod cave rings and when the mod-on-duty picks up, they hear jessamyn jubilantly shout "I'M FREE FOREVER" before diving into a Scrooge-McDuck-style pool of books
posted by kagredon at 5:44 PM on December 2, 2014 [30 favorites]
i think it's an attempt to put them to sleep
Every time a new thread is posted to etiquette/policy, the phone in the mod cave rings and when the mod-on-duty picks up, they hear jessamyn jubilantly shout "I'M FREE FOREVER" before diving into a Scrooge-McDuck-style pool of books
posted by kagredon at 5:44 PM on December 2, 2014 [30 favorites]
Justinian ain't yellow...he's chicken.
posted by uosuaq at 5:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 5:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Whatever you do, do not bring up giant metal chickens who wear hats indoors. please
posted by futz at 5:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Arise Chicken!
posted by Drinky Die at 5:56 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 5:56 PM on December 2, 2014
It was a Dylan (Bob) reference, btw.
posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
corb: You know, I will caution against assuming that the people who are saying various things - on either side - are white. Assuming that people who don't identify their race are white is part of making assumptions about the makeup of society that do not match actual reality.
This might seem glib, but literally the only people i ever hear saying this in this type of context are white. If it's ever a "don't assume that someone pro establishment/the oppressing side is automatically white!" has never in the history of my internet usage not turned out to be a white person.
Sorry.
It's just like, besides a tiny few exceptions, anyone who says "i don't see race" type stuff is white as freaking copy paper.
This assumption comes up for a reason, and it's because the people slinging and going "why do you assume i'm white?" are always the ones saying "all lives matter!" in place of black lives matter, sort of shit.
So yea, nice try, but i think it matches actual reality just fine in the context of whats recently been discussed. Where 99.999999% of the time anyone saying anything this rebuttal would come after is either pro-establishment, or an "equalist" trying to dilute minority voices.
And i realize you personally may not having posted any of those things right here right now, but many others have, and you have previously. Fielding that defense here is not that great of a horse to ride in this context.
posted by emptythought at 6:30 PM on December 2, 2014
This might seem glib, but literally the only people i ever hear saying this in this type of context are white. If it's ever a "don't assume that someone pro establishment/the oppressing side is automatically white!" has never in the history of my internet usage not turned out to be a white person.
Sorry.
It's just like, besides a tiny few exceptions, anyone who says "i don't see race" type stuff is white as freaking copy paper.
This assumption comes up for a reason, and it's because the people slinging and going "why do you assume i'm white?" are always the ones saying "all lives matter!" in place of black lives matter, sort of shit.
So yea, nice try, but i think it matches actual reality just fine in the context of whats recently been discussed. Where 99.999999% of the time anyone saying anything this rebuttal would come after is either pro-establishment, or an "equalist" trying to dilute minority voices.
And i realize you personally may not having posted any of those things right here right now, but many others have, and you have previously. Fielding that defense here is not that great of a horse to ride in this context.
posted by emptythought at 6:30 PM on December 2, 2014
Welcome to MetaFilter. As reported at Slate and other venues, this place has some of the most intelligent discussion online.
The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site. Like attracts like, and the site tends to be left-leaning, socially liberal, majority urban, etc. If you make an argument that is far off from that, you're going to get a lot more people disagreeing with you than if you make an argument that is middle-of-the-road for this community. Because of the linear nature of the site, that looks like a mob with torches and pitchforks even when it happens so fast none of the respondents could have read any of the others' comments. It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive. This always feels unfair to the minority-view person, because it never, ever looks like they got the last word, but I don't have a better solution.
Just kidding. What we value is the orthodoxy of Portlandia.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
The other thing that's worth acknowledging is that Metafilter is not and has never been a politically neutral site. Like attracts like, and the site tends to be left-leaning, socially liberal, majority urban, etc. If you make an argument that is far off from that, you're going to get a lot more people disagreeing with you than if you make an argument that is middle-of-the-road for this community. Because of the linear nature of the site, that looks like a mob with torches and pitchforks even when it happens so fast none of the respondents could have read any of the others' comments. It's also a really hard problem to solve, and we have found the only reliable way to solve it is by cutting off the argument when it seems to have made the rounds and is getting repetitive. This always feels unfair to the minority-view person, because it never, ever looks like they got the last word, but I don't have a better solution.
Just kidding. What we value is the orthodoxy of Portlandia.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
you act like having intelligent discussion and being liberal are in tension.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Just kidding. What we value is the orthodoxy of Portlandia.
posted by Tanizaki
You constantly expess your displeasure in these metas so why are you still here?
posted by futz at 6:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by Tanizaki
You constantly expess your displeasure in these metas so why are you still here?
posted by futz at 6:42 PM on December 2, 2014 [11 favorites]
AND SUCH SMALL PORTIONS
posted by klangklangston at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014 [42 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014 [42 favorites]
I've never really understood the complaints of 'shouting down' or 'dog piling'.
So lots of people disagree with you. So what? That doesn't mean you don't have the ability to speak your piece - we're not going to run out of internet.
Unless you are being massively offensive or insulting, your comment will generally stand. You're entitled to speak and put your view forward, but not to have people agree with you
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
So lots of people disagree with you. So what? That doesn't mean you don't have the ability to speak your piece - we're not going to run out of internet.
Unless you are being massively offensive or insulting, your comment will generally stand. You're entitled to speak and put your view forward, but not to have people agree with you
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:48 PM on December 2, 2014 [18 favorites]
Good point, it's not like we're going to run out of int
posted by uosuaq at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
>You constantly expess your displeasure in these metas so why are you still here?
Love it or leave it, amirite?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
Love it or leave it, amirite?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2014 [5 favorites]
let him alone, he's just upset that he can't use metatalk as an end-run around posting trolly nonsense
posted by kagredon at 6:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 6:55 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, if that toxic love-it-or-leave-it attitude dies in a fire, I wouldn't miss it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:59 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:59 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
I think it is possible to hold the opinion that Metafilter is not perfect, and that constructive MeTa threads can help improve it, and simultaneously find Tanizaki's contributions in many MeTa threads to be entirely predicable, and a half step removed from outright trolling.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:28 PM on December 2, 2014 [14 favorites]
Of course it is.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2014
So people can only express the right kind of frustrations?
I like the place, would give the blue something like an 80 on a 0-to-100 scale.
I do at least my share of grumbling, to a fair extent in the vein of what Forza so eloquently related a few weeks back, about what reads as hell and fire, assuming bad faith, etc., for those who disagree with the mob.
By the way, with this matter specifically, I agree w. the view that the grand jury was at least disturbing and part of a larger, thoroughly ugly reality. (Some people seem like they would be surprised to learn that a family member who's an assistant district attorney feels the same way.)
And that doesn't mean I have to love the way the way it's discussed here, that there comes across as a sneering, scathing reaction to those who take any teensy little issue with the angry mob.
On the most general level, I want to take in all sorts of views, things that maybe hadn't crossed my mind, things that make me think, etc., not feel like I'm in high school and it's hard times for those who don't always agree with the cool kids.
posted by ambient2 at 7:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I like the place, would give the blue something like an 80 on a 0-to-100 scale.
I do at least my share of grumbling, to a fair extent in the vein of what Forza so eloquently related a few weeks back, about what reads as hell and fire, assuming bad faith, etc., for those who disagree with the mob.
By the way, with this matter specifically, I agree w. the view that the grand jury was at least disturbing and part of a larger, thoroughly ugly reality. (Some people seem like they would be surprised to learn that a family member who's an assistant district attorney feels the same way.)
And that doesn't mean I have to love the way the way it's discussed here, that there comes across as a sneering, scathing reaction to those who take any teensy little issue with the angry mob.
On the most general level, I want to take in all sorts of views, things that maybe hadn't crossed my mind, things that make me think, etc., not feel like I'm in high school and it's hard times for those who don't always agree with the cool kids.
posted by ambient2 at 7:30 PM on December 2, 2014 [7 favorites]
I'm with you. I totally think the Ferguson GJ was a farce, the prosecutor is a dirtbag, the emphasis on "looting" and "mobs" is reactionary bullshit, Mike Brown was murdered, and race in the US is fucking broken (shit, I think the US is broken), but I don't like the treatment of dissenting voices here. It's shitty and beneath us.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:36 PM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
like what? who was treated in a way you didnt like?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:38 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:38 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
In fact, I see a lot of the narcissism of small differences in these "discussions."
On preview: sorry, I'm not good with names and don't have time to do a research project right now (I'm at work, GMT+9 time zone).
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:40 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
On preview: sorry, I'm not good with names and don't have time to do a research project right now (I'm at work, GMT+9 time zone).
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:40 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
This might seem glib, but literally the only people i ever hear saying this in this type of context are white.
For the record, I am not.
posted by corb at 7:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
For the record, I am not.
posted by corb at 7:52 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
I've been reading and commenting here for ten years. The moderation has always been outstanding. There is no online community that has better, more thoughtful, or more even-handed moderation.
Maybe more importantly, the idea that unbiased moderation is meaningfully possible makes no sense to me. Attempting to find fault with the moderation by making accusations of "bias" reveals an overly simplistic (and not coincidentally, supremely self-serving) conception of fairness: it treats the concrete events from which the discussion emerges as mere topics, and accords greatest ethical importance to bounding the discussion as little more than an abstraction, about which it's therefore axiomatically and permanently obligatory for everyone to accept and not criticize the vacuous moral contrarianism of people who think it's reasonable to "empathize" with racists who use their public office to murder the people they're paid to protect, to use the examples at hand.
"Bias" is not a useful way of thinking about how moderation does or should work, because any moderation has to make distinctions. Simply crying "BIAS!" says nothing about the character of the principles of distinction at play. In this case, the OP of this post has argued that moderation should be independent of the actual content of commentary, and that instead a diversity of opinion and commentary is inherently desirable, again, independent of the content of that commentary.
This post is, in other words, a plea for "balance." It has no substantive merit.
posted by clockzero at 8:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
Maybe more importantly, the idea that unbiased moderation is meaningfully possible makes no sense to me. Attempting to find fault with the moderation by making accusations of "bias" reveals an overly simplistic (and not coincidentally, supremely self-serving) conception of fairness: it treats the concrete events from which the discussion emerges as mere topics, and accords greatest ethical importance to bounding the discussion as little more than an abstraction, about which it's therefore axiomatically and permanently obligatory for everyone to accept and not criticize the vacuous moral contrarianism of people who think it's reasonable to "empathize" with racists who use their public office to murder the people they're paid to protect, to use the examples at hand.
"Bias" is not a useful way of thinking about how moderation does or should work, because any moderation has to make distinctions. Simply crying "BIAS!" says nothing about the character of the principles of distinction at play. In this case, the OP of this post has argued that moderation should be independent of the actual content of commentary, and that instead a diversity of opinion and commentary is inherently desirable, again, independent of the content of that commentary.
This post is, in other words, a plea for "balance." It has no substantive merit.
posted by clockzero at 8:54 PM on December 2, 2014 [12 favorites]
In fact, I see a lot of the narcissism of small differences in these "discussions."
That reads to me more like a description of the "Springfield vs. Shelbyville" trope, is there a more down-to-earth application here?
posted by rhizome at 8:56 PM on December 2, 2014
That reads to me more like a description of the "Springfield vs. Shelbyville" trope, is there a more down-to-earth application here?
posted by rhizome at 8:56 PM on December 2, 2014
Those damn smug Eagletonians ruin everything.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [6 favorites]
comes across as a sneering, scathing reaction
Totally. Like calling other people rabid and hysterical.
posted by rtha at 9:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
Totally. Like calling other people rabid and hysterical.
posted by rtha at 9:00 PM on December 2, 2014 [2 favorites]
(Asks drinkydie for a velveeta spritzer)
posted by clavdivs at 9:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 9:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm with you. I totally think the Ferguson GJ was a farce, the prosecutor is a dirtbag, the emphasis on "looting" and "mobs" is reactionary bullshit, Mike Brown was murdered, and race in the US is fucking broken (shit, I think the US is broken), but I don't like the treatment of dissenting voices here. It's shitty and beneath us.
What do you think about the content of those "dissenting" voices, though? Because, to me, it seems like it's a very typically American thing to fetishize dissent as inherently valuable. Having an unpopular opinion isn't exactly a guarantee that you have something useful or interesting or important to say, and sometimes unpopular opinions are unpopular because they're awful.
posted by clockzero at 9:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
What do you think about the content of those "dissenting" voices, though? Because, to me, it seems like it's a very typically American thing to fetishize dissent as inherently valuable. Having an unpopular opinion isn't exactly a guarantee that you have something useful or interesting or important to say, and sometimes unpopular opinions are unpopular because they're awful.
posted by clockzero at 9:23 PM on December 2, 2014 [9 favorites]
I think it's an important and useful part of the discourse.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:25 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:25 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Sorry, I added some clarification there, possibly after you commented.
posted by clockzero at 9:28 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by clockzero at 9:28 PM on December 2, 2014
Oh, well, I guess it varies.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2014
I think it's an important and useful part of the discourse.
Can you give me an example of what you mean? I want to understand.
posted by clockzero at 9:35 PM on December 2, 2014
Can you give me an example of what you mean? I want to understand.
posted by clockzero at 9:35 PM on December 2, 2014
Well, I think a lot of Metafilter commenters are fairly articulate, so instead of reading comments on shitty news sites or FB, I like to see some dissenting views here--it allows me to either change or reinforce my own positions and arrive at more thoughtful ways of seeing things.
For example, I've often found dios grating, but he often thinks of things I haven't thought of, in ways I haven't thought of them. I rarely end up agreeing with him, but I usually benefit from his participation.
Tanizaki is a more extreme case. I find him borderline insufferable, but if I overlook things like tone and my own inferences about what kind of person he is, he often makes me think. I almost never come over to his views (shit, it may have never happened, in fact), but I think this site--and my enrichment from it--would be poorer without him.
I've been here a very long time. I'm not a super active or involved Mefite, but I care a lot about this place and its people.
(Just to be clear--I categorically don't think the mods are biased, except insofar as we are all subject to subconscious biases and blindspots. And even in those ways, I think the mods here are on the extreme end of the scale in terms of self-awareness, open-mindedness, empathy, and patience. Wonderful, wonderful moderation, we've been blessed with.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
For example, I've often found dios grating, but he often thinks of things I haven't thought of, in ways I haven't thought of them. I rarely end up agreeing with him, but I usually benefit from his participation.
Tanizaki is a more extreme case. I find him borderline insufferable, but if I overlook things like tone and my own inferences about what kind of person he is, he often makes me think. I almost never come over to his views (shit, it may have never happened, in fact), but I think this site--and my enrichment from it--would be poorer without him.
I've been here a very long time. I'm not a super active or involved Mefite, but I care a lot about this place and its people.
(Just to be clear--I categorically don't think the mods are biased, except insofar as we are all subject to subconscious biases and blindspots. And even in those ways, I think the mods here are on the extreme end of the scale in terms of self-awareness, open-mindedness, empathy, and patience. Wonderful, wonderful moderation, we've been blessed with.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [10 favorites]
(Wait, Joe Napolitano? I don't even know who that is. I was thinking of Judge Andrew Napolitano.)
That's who I meant, sorry. I also didn't know he was considered more libertarian than a lot of Fox News commenters, mostly because the idea of having to diagram where, exactly, they all fall on the issues kind of makes me want to throw up and punch something, possibly simultaneously.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's who I meant, sorry. I also didn't know he was considered more libertarian than a lot of Fox News commenters, mostly because the idea of having to diagram where, exactly, they all fall on the issues kind of makes me want to throw up and punch something, possibly simultaneously.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:45 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
(Asks drinkydie for a velveeta spritzer)
All I have is cheeze whiz, will that work?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
All I have is cheeze whiz, will that work?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Your holding out sir, I can smell the Kraft.
posted by clavdivs at 10:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 10:01 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's metafilter. The moderation and the community are biased and minority viewpoints are not welcome. That's the reality. The mods will look at posts and comments, make decisions about whether or not they think a thread is going "the right way" and delete accordingly, usually in an attempt to reduce their workload. If I took that approach as an IT guy, I guess I'd shut down the servers instead of updating them, because that's less work. Whatever though, it ain't my website.
But here's why I don't participate in "Ferguson" threads:
I don't think Wilson is a murderer. I think he is incompetent. I don't think people should be rioting. I think people that involve themselves in riots are incredibly stupid and should go to jail. think Michael Brown fucked up but did not deserve to die. I think the OMG RACISM hyperbole is way overdone and quite frankly isn't advancing any kind of forward movement toward ending racism, it's just all shouting into the abyss. I think the federal government should have stepped in long ago - like August - and Obama's continued, prolonged, weak response demonstrates his complete lack of fortitude and inability to govern the country. He's as bad as Bush and getting worse. 60,000 cameras. Are you fucking kidding me?
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick. For any number of reasons I'm sure the user base would find, but primarily because the mods wouldn't want to deal with the aftermath.
The simple truth is that my opinions don't belong here. And that's why I don't usually share them here. I'm not "silenced" - I just know how it would go, and I choose not to go there.
I do like to read the discussions, and I do learn from them. I've got lots of positive things to say about metafilter, not the least of which is that I've learned how to listen to minority voices. It's too bad that the voices that make up the minority opinions on metafilter - those that go against the grain of metafilter's biases - get so much pushback. This is a community that prides itself on welcoming minority voices, but doesn't like hearing dissenting ones. That's a shame.
posted by disclaimer at 10:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
But here's why I don't participate in "Ferguson" threads:
I don't think Wilson is a murderer. I think he is incompetent. I don't think people should be rioting. I think people that involve themselves in riots are incredibly stupid and should go to jail. think Michael Brown fucked up but did not deserve to die. I think the OMG RACISM hyperbole is way overdone and quite frankly isn't advancing any kind of forward movement toward ending racism, it's just all shouting into the abyss. I think the federal government should have stepped in long ago - like August - and Obama's continued, prolonged, weak response demonstrates his complete lack of fortitude and inability to govern the country. He's as bad as Bush and getting worse. 60,000 cameras. Are you fucking kidding me?
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick. For any number of reasons I'm sure the user base would find, but primarily because the mods wouldn't want to deal with the aftermath.
The simple truth is that my opinions don't belong here. And that's why I don't usually share them here. I'm not "silenced" - I just know how it would go, and I choose not to go there.
I do like to read the discussions, and I do learn from them. I've got lots of positive things to say about metafilter, not the least of which is that I've learned how to listen to minority voices. It's too bad that the voices that make up the minority opinions on metafilter - those that go against the grain of metafilter's biases - get so much pushback. This is a community that prides itself on welcoming minority voices, but doesn't like hearing dissenting ones. That's a shame.
posted by disclaimer at 10:06 PM on December 2, 2014 [16 favorites]
Your holding out sir, I can smell the Kraft.
Nah, I'm from Philly. Whiz is the only pseudo cheese product we keep on hand, for cheesesteak related emergencies.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Nah, I'm from Philly. Whiz is the only pseudo cheese product we keep on hand, for cheesesteak related emergencies.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
Pepto works far better for that...
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:11 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
Tanizaki is a more extreme case. I find him borderline insufferable, but if I overlook things like tone and my own inferences about what kind of person he is, he often makes me think. I almost never come over to his views (shit, it may have never happened, in fact), but I think this site--and my enrichment from it--would be poorer without him.
This seems ironic, since the most contentious thing he's said here is that Metafilter evinces the orthodoxy of Portlandia. Is there a substantive opinion involved or is this just a defense of his inviolable right to make baseless and disparaging claims, without anyone reacting negatively, and directed at the whole community, about how people don't agree with him enough?
posted by clockzero at 10:15 PM on December 2, 2014
This seems ironic, since the most contentious thing he's said here is that Metafilter evinces the orthodoxy of Portlandia. Is there a substantive opinion involved or is this just a defense of his inviolable right to make baseless and disparaging claims, without anyone reacting negatively, and directed at the whole community, about how people don't agree with him enough?
posted by clockzero at 10:15 PM on December 2, 2014
My comment is about his longer-term involvement, not his single post in this thread.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:16 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
(although actually, looking again, I think the part of the quote he set in boldface is interesting and makes me think about something I wasn't already thinking about.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:18 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
disclaimer: I don't think Wilson is a murderer. I think he is incompetent.
So we'll put you down for at least a involuntary manslaughter conviction, then, perhaps of the criminally negligent persuasion? Certainly, that's not an opinion you'd be chastised for over in the blue thread, since it assumes a criminal trial, which did not occur.
I don't think people should be rioting. I think people that involve themselves in riots are incredibly stupid and should go to jail.
I also don't think expressing these sentiments would cause problems. If you'll notice, the contentious "what about the looters" comments weren't deleted. Nobody likes the riots. We want peaceful protest, civil disobedience, etc.
I think the OMG RACISM hyperbole is way overdone and quite frankly isn't advancing any kind of forward movement toward ending racism, it's just all shouting into the abyss.
Do you seriously think anyone who believes racism is, at least in part, behind the very frequent occurrence of cops shooting unarmed black citizens really thinks they're taking a step toward ending racism when they post on MetaFilter?
I think the federal government should have stepped in long ago
A lot of people in earlier Ferguson threads were expressing this very sentiment, to get it out of the hands of the junior varsity Keystone Kops in Ferguson/StL County. Again, not even against the grain, and certainly not something that would be deleted.
and Obama's continued, prolonged, weak response demonstrates his complete lack of fortitude and inability to govern the country. He's as bad as Bush and getting worse. 60,000 cameras. Are you fucking kidding me?
This is a sentiment that would probably get 80% support, across the MSNBC <> Fox News continuum. I don't actually think Obama can solve every problem, but with a dipshit like Jay Nixon stepping on his dick time and time again, he certainly couldn't have made it worse. Once more, barely controversial.
So yeah, overall, I think you vastly overstate the extent to which these opinions would be unwelcome.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
So we'll put you down for at least a involuntary manslaughter conviction, then, perhaps of the criminally negligent persuasion? Certainly, that's not an opinion you'd be chastised for over in the blue thread, since it assumes a criminal trial, which did not occur.
I don't think people should be rioting. I think people that involve themselves in riots are incredibly stupid and should go to jail.
I also don't think expressing these sentiments would cause problems. If you'll notice, the contentious "what about the looters" comments weren't deleted. Nobody likes the riots. We want peaceful protest, civil disobedience, etc.
I think the OMG RACISM hyperbole is way overdone and quite frankly isn't advancing any kind of forward movement toward ending racism, it's just all shouting into the abyss.
Do you seriously think anyone who believes racism is, at least in part, behind the very frequent occurrence of cops shooting unarmed black citizens really thinks they're taking a step toward ending racism when they post on MetaFilter?
I think the federal government should have stepped in long ago
A lot of people in earlier Ferguson threads were expressing this very sentiment, to get it out of the hands of the junior varsity Keystone Kops in Ferguson/StL County. Again, not even against the grain, and certainly not something that would be deleted.
and Obama's continued, prolonged, weak response demonstrates his complete lack of fortitude and inability to govern the country. He's as bad as Bush and getting worse. 60,000 cameras. Are you fucking kidding me?
This is a sentiment that would probably get 80% support, across the MSNBC <> Fox News continuum. I don't actually think Obama can solve every problem, but with a dipshit like Jay Nixon stepping on his dick time and time again, he certainly couldn't have made it worse. Once more, barely controversial.
So yeah, overall, I think you vastly overstate the extent to which these opinions would be unwelcome.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 PM on December 2, 2014 [8 favorites]
My comment is about his longer-term involvement, not his single post in this thread.
The mods aren't ejecting him from the site.
posted by clockzero at 10:46 PM on December 2, 2014
The mods aren't ejecting him from the site.
posted by clockzero at 10:46 PM on December 2, 2014
Right, of course not (not even sure where you got that idea). I'm just putting my 2 cents in to register my displeasure with the general response to dissenting voices like his.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:50 PM on December 2, 2014 [3 favorites]
I guess I meant, it isn't as though he's being obliged not to stick around and keep contributing. But I see where you're coming from now. Fair enough.
posted by clockzero at 11:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by clockzero at 11:34 PM on December 2, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm always bemused by the people posting that dissent isn't allowed on MetaFilter while still on MetaFilter. It seems sort of profoundly ironic.
MetaFilter is one of the politest places I've been online. Dissent - even somewhat rude and snarky dissent - still exists on it, and while it may not further discussion, MetaFilter is expressly not an activist context - and thus "productive discussion" exists in parallel with "taking the piss" and "look how smart I am." Also, peoples' definitions of productive discussion vary widely.
MetaFilter is also pretty damn liberal, which doesn't mean far leftist as a few people seem to believe, but instead implies a context of "objectivity is good and achievable" and "dissent is important", which is why about half the people in any of these threads are liberals defending the rights of others to say stuff they disagree with. I'm also often bemused to see liberals described as flaming leftists, as in general I find liberals to be slightly left of center and rather to prone to pronouncing that problems are over and we should move on already into our brighter, utopian future which only coincidentally is run by white people, primarily men.
I'm, of course, a bleeding heart flaming progressive intersectional feminist social justice Elementalist with quivering liberal tendencies when I forget myself, so there you are. Grain of salt, salt lick, etc...
Near as I can tell, actual objectivity is both rare and fragile, and nearly impossible to spot in the wild. Dissent for the sake of dissent can actually, ironically again, polarize and thus simplify discussion, which ends up narrowing discussion and discouraging actual creativity and clarity of thought. I'd claim SCIENCE is on my side for this, but I don't think the study has been replicated and generalized so claiming that seems premature and contrary to the goals of SCIENCE.
In terms of supporting and fomenting wide-ranging discussion which sometimes ends up in productive places, I'd say the mods are doing about as well as any, and better than some. In terms of personal attacks, I think in this context it's inaccurate.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
MetaFilter is one of the politest places I've been online. Dissent - even somewhat rude and snarky dissent - still exists on it, and while it may not further discussion, MetaFilter is expressly not an activist context - and thus "productive discussion" exists in parallel with "taking the piss" and "look how smart I am." Also, peoples' definitions of productive discussion vary widely.
MetaFilter is also pretty damn liberal, which doesn't mean far leftist as a few people seem to believe, but instead implies a context of "objectivity is good and achievable" and "dissent is important", which is why about half the people in any of these threads are liberals defending the rights of others to say stuff they disagree with. I'm also often bemused to see liberals described as flaming leftists, as in general I find liberals to be slightly left of center and rather to prone to pronouncing that problems are over and we should move on already into our brighter, utopian future which only coincidentally is run by white people, primarily men.
I'm, of course, a bleeding heart flaming progressive intersectional feminist social justice Elementalist with quivering liberal tendencies when I forget myself, so there you are. Grain of salt, salt lick, etc...
Near as I can tell, actual objectivity is both rare and fragile, and nearly impossible to spot in the wild. Dissent for the sake of dissent can actually, ironically again, polarize and thus simplify discussion, which ends up narrowing discussion and discouraging actual creativity and clarity of thought. I'd claim SCIENCE is on my side for this, but I don't think the study has been replicated and generalized so claiming that seems premature and contrary to the goals of SCIENCE.
In terms of supporting and fomenting wide-ranging discussion which sometimes ends up in productive places, I'd say the mods are doing about as well as any, and better than some. In terms of personal attacks, I think in this context it's inaccurate.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:49 PM on December 2, 2014 [15 favorites]
Tonycpsu
Plz don't read this as an attack or bullyhanky.
Reading Disclaimers last paragraph, would you agree with it? I would think that depends on the sincerity of the poster which is a grey area simply put.
I say we go to philly for cheese steak. Drinkys driving.
posted by clavdivs at 12:00 AM on December 3, 2014
Plz don't read this as an attack or bullyhanky.
Reading Disclaimers last paragraph, would you agree with it? I would think that depends on the sincerity of the poster which is a grey area simply put.
I say we go to philly for cheese steak. Drinkys driving.
posted by clavdivs at 12:00 AM on December 3, 2014
Uhh, no I'm not driving, get someone else to designated drive.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:03 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:03 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Your holding out sir, I can smell the Kraft."
I thought Kraftbrau closed and Larry Bell was the only kazoo bandleader
posted by klangklangston at 12:24 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
I thought Kraftbrau closed and Larry Bell was the only kazoo bandleader
posted by klangklangston at 12:24 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's just like, besides a tiny few exceptions, anyone who says "i don't see race" type stuff is white as freaking copy paper.
This assumption comes up for a reason, and it's because the people slinging and going "why do you assume i'm white?" are always the ones saying "all lives matter!" in place of black lives matter, sort of shit.
For the record, I am not.
Oh, I'm sorry, but THAT was beautiful. And that is what MetaFilter is all about and why I come here and ignore other places. Both emptythought and corb are free to speak up, even with passion/heat, as emptythought demonstrates here. But there are two sides after all and corb makes the point that sometimes our conclusions really are all wet.
Sometimes crap is just crap.
posted by aryma at 12:57 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
Always a deserved gotcha when that happens, but it's worth pointing out that broadly speaking, being non-white doesn't necessarily absolve anyone in this discussion. I feel like we all still have a responsibility to vigilantly question the dominant narratives here. Unfortunately even those of us with personal experiences of racial oppression can still unthinkingly prop up those systems. I still had to deal with an "I don't understand those blacks" rant from a non-white family member on Thanksgiving. And I've still had to reckon with uncomfortable unconscious prejudice within myself on occasion, much as I hate to admit it. There's a certain strain of thought that goes: people of color can never be racist or support racist systems, because racism relies on power and dominance that people of color do not possess. But that doesn't remotely fit with my lived reality, or in any event, there are intricate hierarchies of oppression that are much more complicated than the statement acknowledges.
posted by naju at 1:40 AM on December 3, 2014 [24 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:40 AM on December 3, 2014 [24 favorites]
"I've never really understood the complaints of 'shouting down' or 'dog piling'."
It's repetitive when a group of like minded people make the same [counter]argument serially.
posted by vapidave at 2:01 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's repetitive when a group of like minded people make the same [counter]argument serially.
posted by vapidave at 2:01 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's repetitive when a group of like minded people make the same [counter]argument serially.
Yes, and that can be annoying, but it doesn't prevent someone with a conflicting opinion from making their point.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:45 AM on December 3, 2014
Yes, and that can be annoying, but it doesn't prevent someone with a conflicting opinion from making their point.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:45 AM on December 3, 2014
It's more than that; psychologically it's a threatening feeling in part because people generally do have a need to experience validation. If it's a topic or issue you care about, your personal value systems and sense of identity is going to be involved, and the process of resolving the kinds of inner conflicts that arise, as opposed to mere conflicts of opinion, is not to be underestimated. Blah blah.
posted by polymodus at 3:22 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 3:22 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you make a dissenting statement, even if you take the greatest care not to offend, or misstate your case, or say anything untrue, you will still have multiple people respond who have found a way to misread you, or who infer other opinions that you haven't even approached and urgently take you to task for them. Oh, so you think [moderate view unpopular on Mefi]? Well do you also think [batshit sociopathic view]? You must be One of Them. That's happened to me here, and I'm so far left that I think I technically voted communist in the midterms.
So there you are having carefully said something that isn't really that extreme and you're surrounded by people apparently demanding that you explain yourself! It's functionally identical to being sea lioned, except it isn't just questions, it's also bonus bad faith. Even if you don't respond, it feels exhausting and frustrating. If you do, you look defensive, and you may get accused of backpedaling or making the thread all about you.
It's very no-win, and it's led me to migrate to other forums more than once. Not because it happens to me a lot, but because I hate to see it happen to anyone and because I think it murders good conversation. I think it's less of a flaw with the user base here, and more a natural result of the site mechanics.
posted by heatvision at 4:28 AM on December 3, 2014 [29 favorites]
So there you are having carefully said something that isn't really that extreme and you're surrounded by people apparently demanding that you explain yourself! It's functionally identical to being sea lioned, except it isn't just questions, it's also bonus bad faith. Even if you don't respond, it feels exhausting and frustrating. If you do, you look defensive, and you may get accused of backpedaling or making the thread all about you.
It's very no-win, and it's led me to migrate to other forums more than once. Not because it happens to me a lot, but because I hate to see it happen to anyone and because I think it murders good conversation. I think it's less of a flaw with the user base here, and more a natural result of the site mechanics.
posted by heatvision at 4:28 AM on December 3, 2014 [29 favorites]
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick. For any number of reasons I'm sure the user base would find, but primarily because the mods wouldn't want to deal with the aftermath.
As we speak, I am crouching, body and mind broken, in one of the many craters left by these truthbombs. Why, I mumble through cracked lips, did the opinion limitation treaties not extent to MetaTalk?
I mean, seriously, yours don't even seem like particularly out there arguments for MetaFilter. They're broadly WaPo-centrist, and Metafilter is broadly a centrist site, with centre-libertarian and center-liberal largely balancing...
In fact, we can pretty much note that what generally gets moderator attention is not beliefs or opinions but behaviors, although this can be hard to see from inside. This thread is a good example of that - the OP believed that he was protesting about censorship of Ironmouth based on his beliefs, but the mods believed that they were responding to threadsitting (the sheer number of comments Ironmouth was making in the FPP) and the one-against-the-world behavior that makes threads unreadable.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:06 AM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
As we speak, I am crouching, body and mind broken, in one of the many craters left by these truthbombs. Why, I mumble through cracked lips, did the opinion limitation treaties not extent to MetaTalk?
I mean, seriously, yours don't even seem like particularly out there arguments for MetaFilter. They're broadly WaPo-centrist, and Metafilter is broadly a centrist site, with centre-libertarian and center-liberal largely balancing...
In fact, we can pretty much note that what generally gets moderator attention is not beliefs or opinions but behaviors, although this can be hard to see from inside. This thread is a good example of that - the OP believed that he was protesting about censorship of Ironmouth based on his beliefs, but the mods believed that they were responding to threadsitting (the sheer number of comments Ironmouth was making in the FPP) and the one-against-the-world behavior that makes threads unreadable.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:06 AM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
I think the OMG RACISM hyperbole is way overdone and quite frankly isn't advancing any kind of forward movement toward ending racism
Goes to show how differently people read these discussions. I wouldn't characterize discussions of racism in these threads as "OMG RACISM." Instead, my greatest disappointment with these threads is the extent to which substantive discussion of racism is avoided in lieu of focusing on facts in a way that presumes colorblind legal institutions.
since the most contentious thing he's said here is that Metafilter evinces the orthodoxy of Portlandia
It's not just what's said but how it's said, which in this case was a claim without supporting reasoning nor engagement with the reasoning of those who differ to try to work through disagreement in a productive manner.
I would disagree with Tanizaki's characterization of restless_nomad's comment as enforcing "orthodoxy" because I read it as a pragmatic explanation of the need to draw some boundaries in the ways in which people participate. restless_nomad's comment was about comments that violate procedural norms of discussion, not content norms of discussion. Obviously sometimes mods can confuse the two or be overzealous in their application of a procedural standard in ways that affect only one group in a given thread, but I do not treat such imperfections as orthodoxy enforcement.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:41 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
Goes to show how differently people read these discussions. I wouldn't characterize discussions of racism in these threads as "OMG RACISM." Instead, my greatest disappointment with these threads is the extent to which substantive discussion of racism is avoided in lieu of focusing on facts in a way that presumes colorblind legal institutions.
since the most contentious thing he's said here is that Metafilter evinces the orthodoxy of Portlandia
It's not just what's said but how it's said, which in this case was a claim without supporting reasoning nor engagement with the reasoning of those who differ to try to work through disagreement in a productive manner.
I would disagree with Tanizaki's characterization of restless_nomad's comment as enforcing "orthodoxy" because I read it as a pragmatic explanation of the need to draw some boundaries in the ways in which people participate. restless_nomad's comment was about comments that violate procedural norms of discussion, not content norms of discussion. Obviously sometimes mods can confuse the two or be overzealous in their application of a procedural standard in ways that affect only one group in a given thread, but I do not treat such imperfections as orthodoxy enforcement.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:41 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
I think I may get what some of you are getting at. I too am as lefty as they come, esp. w/r/t race and gender, but I also have a narrow academic specialty, which presumably I have more nuanced views about.
And every time I say that nuclear weapons aren't all bad or that US policy in the Middle East isn't about stealing their oil, I get attacked in nasty ways.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:44 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
And every time I say that nuclear weapons aren't all bad or that US policy in the Middle East isn't about stealing their oil, I get attacked in nasty ways.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:44 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
The mods will look at posts and comments, make decisions about whether or not they think a thread is going "the right way" and delete accordingly, usually in an attempt to reduce their workload.
You've given me an insight. I think that people who often get deleted in political threads sometimes read that as ideological, when it's largely pragmatic. The mods are attempting to keep the discussion between the rails, and trying to steer between between complaints about deletions for "dissent" and complaints about letting other users "pile on."
It's a pretty narrow line to walk, and they're screwed either way. When someone starts dropping inflammatory comments into a thread in which the largest proportion of commenters can be predicted to respond to those comments, it makes sense for them to say "read the room. You're setting yourself up for a pile-on, you're about to make this thread all about arguing with you, and people's emotions are running a bit high," and to delete the comments if the user isn't able to self-moderate. They will definitely receive complaints, questions, and MeTas like this when that happens. And if the user can't restrain themselves, or needles others subtly enough to maintain the appearance of good faith, then there will be more heated discussions, and, due to the overall lean of the site, what looks like a "pile-on." And there will be complaints and MeTas for that.
I have no solution, I just want to note that I think it might be helpful to recognize the bind created by the rhetoric around "I was deleted for dissent/you're tolerating a pile-on."
posted by Miko at 5:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
You've given me an insight. I think that people who often get deleted in political threads sometimes read that as ideological, when it's largely pragmatic. The mods are attempting to keep the discussion between the rails, and trying to steer between between complaints about deletions for "dissent" and complaints about letting other users "pile on."
It's a pretty narrow line to walk, and they're screwed either way. When someone starts dropping inflammatory comments into a thread in which the largest proportion of commenters can be predicted to respond to those comments, it makes sense for them to say "read the room. You're setting yourself up for a pile-on, you're about to make this thread all about arguing with you, and people's emotions are running a bit high," and to delete the comments if the user isn't able to self-moderate. They will definitely receive complaints, questions, and MeTas like this when that happens. And if the user can't restrain themselves, or needles others subtly enough to maintain the appearance of good faith, then there will be more heated discussions, and, due to the overall lean of the site, what looks like a "pile-on." And there will be complaints and MeTas for that.
I have no solution, I just want to note that I think it might be helpful to recognize the bind created by the rhetoric around "I was deleted for dissent/you're tolerating a pile-on."
posted by Miko at 5:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
Perhaps it's time for the mods to quietly look the other way on some up coming inflammatory thread, let it go, see how bad it gets (help out the worst of the burned and wounded offline). Let one go and get out of control. Watch the servers and thin-skinned crash. Might not be that bad, might lead to IRL fisticuffs or suicides. Oh, wait, carry on and delete at will.
posted by sammyo at 5:54 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by sammyo at 5:54 AM on December 3, 2014
as long as its not in a thread about sexual assault, as many people unfortunately have personal experience with the issue, and a few others seem to have a stake in maintaining the status quo.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:31 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:31 AM on December 3, 2014
I still think the idea of comment limits might be quite reasonable. You get two comments for free, and then after that, 1 comment/thread/hour. Does anyone need more than that?
That would destroy the entire rapid-fire rebuttal problem; it would stop threads from being dominated by fights between any particular people, or by particular people, period.
posted by shivohum at 6:43 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
That would destroy the entire rapid-fire rebuttal problem; it would stop threads from being dominated by fights between any particular people, or by particular people, period.
posted by shivohum at 6:43 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
It would also encourage drive by snark, no?
Maybe a mod induced comment limit at a per case basis?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:46 AM on December 3, 2014
Maybe a mod induced comment limit at a per case basis?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:46 AM on December 3, 2014
I might be misinterpreting the phrase "per case basis", but IMHO such a comment limit should never, ever be directed at an individual, only at threads and/or topics.
That said, there are numerous reasons why it probably wouldn't be actionable to introduce such a comment limit at all. I had brought it up as a thought experiment.
My whole thing is that I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody posting a lot in one thread...IMHO the problems set in when people are just popping off at one another, like they're in an angry chatroom. People get het up and fighty and it takes over the thread.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
That said, there are numerous reasons why it probably wouldn't be actionable to introduce such a comment limit at all. I had brought it up as a thought experiment.
My whole thing is that I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody posting a lot in one thread...IMHO the problems set in when people are just popping off at one another, like they're in an angry chatroom. People get het up and fighty and it takes over the thread.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
I think I've actually figured out, due to the last few comments, one of the things that really bothers me about the mods deleting the contentious comments and saying "read the room" rather than telling everyone responding that they have to behave and follow the rules regardless of how upsetting they find the content. It's because I don't think it's pragmatic. I think it sacrifices long term good in favor of short term expediency, and tends to happen on ideological grounds, where the mods don't personally see value in those viewpoints anyway, so why not?
I firmly, firmly believe that if mods took a hard line on people being shitty in threads even to people with upsetting opinions, or took a hard line on dogpiling, that there would be a rough few months, but then after that, everyone would adjust and start really lessening how much they were doing it. Because I've been here for a while and seen how people have shifted when mods have taken hardline policies on things, or said "we're not going to do that here anymore." And so when I don't see it happening, it tells me not that mods are doing the pragmatic thing, but that mods don't care enough about diversity of opinion to go through the trouble to enforce the policies about "no personal attacks".
posted by corb at 6:52 AM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
I firmly, firmly believe that if mods took a hard line on people being shitty in threads even to people with upsetting opinions, or took a hard line on dogpiling, that there would be a rough few months, but then after that, everyone would adjust and start really lessening how much they were doing it. Because I've been here for a while and seen how people have shifted when mods have taken hardline policies on things, or said "we're not going to do that here anymore." And so when I don't see it happening, it tells me not that mods are doing the pragmatic thing, but that mods don't care enough about diversity of opinion to go through the trouble to enforce the policies about "no personal attacks".
posted by corb at 6:52 AM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
Maybe a mod induced comment limit at a per case basis?
Isn't that exactly what we have?
corb, it is so much not about mods not liking diversity of opinion. It's entirely how those opinions are presented.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:54 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Isn't that exactly what we have?
corb, it is so much not about mods not liking diversity of opinion. It's entirely how those opinions are presented.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:54 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
corb the problem here is that you constantly express opinions in a way that makes a large number of metafilter commenters go 'what the fuck?' and and engage with you. If, in every thread you participated in, the mods told people to stop dogpiling on you, and every single one of those users didn't do it it again, the next thread you participated in, a whole new set of users would do the same thing.
I like you and I think you're pretty smart, but sometimes I think you just repeat things here that you read elsewhere without thinking about them thoroughly, until someone questions you on it and then you have to actually grasp with the meaning of what you are saying for the first time. I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here. You by now should know what people here's objections are going to be before you post them and what pushes peoples buttons, and you should maybe consider them pre-emptively before posting.
posted by empath at 7:03 AM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
I like you and I think you're pretty smart, but sometimes I think you just repeat things here that you read elsewhere without thinking about them thoroughly, until someone questions you on it and then you have to actually grasp with the meaning of what you are saying for the first time. I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here. You by now should know what people here's objections are going to be before you post them and what pushes peoples buttons, and you should maybe consider them pre-emptively before posting.
posted by empath at 7:03 AM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
If you make a dissenting statement, even if you take the greatest care not to offend, or misstate your case, or say anything untrue, you will still have multiple people respond who have found a way to misread you...
I think it's important to keep in mind that misreadings happen on all sides. Majority misreads minority, minority misreads majority. Yes, a minority view that attracts more responses will by virtue of sheer numbers have responses that contain more misreadings, but the act of misreading itself does not occur because it looks at a dissenting viewpoint. Misreading is an inevitable fact of human discourse.
Will mods tend to err on the side of their preferred ideology, misreading views they disagree with more than they misread views they agree with and make incorrect moderating calls based on those unconscious biases? At times. But there's really no way around this other than the kind of conscious, open, reflective and responsive moderation I've seen on evidence here in MetaTalk for years.
There are approaches everyone can take to try to lessen those misreadings, just as there are tendencies that, if unchecked, contribute to misreading. For instance, word choice. To go back to the example of “orthodoxy,” such a word, offered as a claim without context of reasoning, creates conflict because it brings with it implicit meanings at odds with other views instead of taking the time to engage those other views.
If those implicit meanings were made explicit in discussion, there'd be more chance for reasoned back and forth. An argument about orthodoxy can be made, but it needs to use reasoning and evidence open to all sides and it needs to acknowledge the disconnect between viewpoints. So something along the lines of 'I hear that you think this is a pragmatic matter of moderation, but I think mistakes in moderating choices reflect an unfair bias.'
Just to be clear, I don't think that's the case, but I think the point can be made in less inflammatory ways and in ways more conducive to productive discussion than it has, at times, been made in this thread. corb's argument here would be an example of a more productive way of engaging, though there will always come a point in any argument, here or in wider society, where basic conflicts in interpretation of evidence and assumptions in values can't be bridged. Sometimes I think it's necessary to fall back on mechanisms like majority vote, site guidelines, law and authority even if those mechanisms don't support the outcomes any one of us would most like to see.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:25 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
I think it's important to keep in mind that misreadings happen on all sides. Majority misreads minority, minority misreads majority. Yes, a minority view that attracts more responses will by virtue of sheer numbers have responses that contain more misreadings, but the act of misreading itself does not occur because it looks at a dissenting viewpoint. Misreading is an inevitable fact of human discourse.
Will mods tend to err on the side of their preferred ideology, misreading views they disagree with more than they misread views they agree with and make incorrect moderating calls based on those unconscious biases? At times. But there's really no way around this other than the kind of conscious, open, reflective and responsive moderation I've seen on evidence here in MetaTalk for years.
There are approaches everyone can take to try to lessen those misreadings, just as there are tendencies that, if unchecked, contribute to misreading. For instance, word choice. To go back to the example of “orthodoxy,” such a word, offered as a claim without context of reasoning, creates conflict because it brings with it implicit meanings at odds with other views instead of taking the time to engage those other views.
If those implicit meanings were made explicit in discussion, there'd be more chance for reasoned back and forth. An argument about orthodoxy can be made, but it needs to use reasoning and evidence open to all sides and it needs to acknowledge the disconnect between viewpoints. So something along the lines of 'I hear that you think this is a pragmatic matter of moderation, but I think mistakes in moderating choices reflect an unfair bias.'
Just to be clear, I don't think that's the case, but I think the point can be made in less inflammatory ways and in ways more conducive to productive discussion than it has, at times, been made in this thread. corb's argument here would be an example of a more productive way of engaging, though there will always come a point in any argument, here or in wider society, where basic conflicts in interpretation of evidence and assumptions in values can't be bridged. Sometimes I think it's necessary to fall back on mechanisms like majority vote, site guidelines, law and authority even if those mechanisms don't support the outcomes any one of us would most like to see.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:25 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
Hell, a 10 minute cooldown between comments would do a HELL of a lot to shut down soapboxing, threadsitting, and having one or two of the loudest voices crowding out all discussion.
posted by absalom at 7:26 AM on December 3, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by absalom at 7:26 AM on December 3, 2014 [19 favorites]
clavdivs: Reading Disclaimers last paragraph, would you agree with it? I would think that depends on the sincerity of the poster which is a grey area simply put.
I'll quote the paragraph in full, then respond:
However, sometimes the same cast of characters will shamelessly repeat premises that have been debunked numerous times. I'm not talking about starting with different ideological first principles, I'm talking about arguments that have been conclusively and thoroughly been shown to have key flaws that the person posting them declined to provide an explanation for.
Now, do so-called "mainstream" MeFi opinions get the same level of scrutiny? Of course not. Dissenting opinions are dissenting. Is the pool of people evaluating the merit of the non-mainstream argument free of bias? Not even close. Dissenting opinions are dissenting. The thing is, everyone participating in the conversation knows this, and countless MeTas have concluded without any good answer to the problem other than what the mods are doing already, yet people still think they're being treated unfairly.
In the context of the makeup of the site, I feel that the treatment of dissenting voices is fair. I also share disclaimer's belief that differing views are essential to making MetaFilter an enjoyable community, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take it easy on them when they make basic factual errors or put forth flawed arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:43 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'll quote the paragraph in full, then respond:
I do like to read the discussions, and I do learn from them. I've got lots of positive things to say about metafilter, not the least of which is that I've learned how to listen to minority voices. It's too bad that the voices that make up the minority opinions on metafilter - those that go against the grain of metafilter's biases - get so much pushback. This is a community that prides itself on welcoming minority voices, but doesn't like hearing dissenting ones. That's a shame.So, first off, I try not to get bogged down in what you're referring to as "the sincerity of the poster." I do sometimes speak up if there are obvious signs of someone concern trolling, obfuscating key facts, or simply throwing shit against the wall to try to win an argument, and I would hope others would do the same to me if I was doing those things. It's of course true that we have no way to measure good faith, but we can observe patterns of repeated flawed arguments, and if the poster refuses to clarify / defend their position, factor that into our interactions with them.
However, sometimes the same cast of characters will shamelessly repeat premises that have been debunked numerous times. I'm not talking about starting with different ideological first principles, I'm talking about arguments that have been conclusively and thoroughly been shown to have key flaws that the person posting them declined to provide an explanation for.
Now, do so-called "mainstream" MeFi opinions get the same level of scrutiny? Of course not. Dissenting opinions are dissenting. Is the pool of people evaluating the merit of the non-mainstream argument free of bias? Not even close. Dissenting opinions are dissenting. The thing is, everyone participating in the conversation knows this, and countless MeTas have concluded without any good answer to the problem other than what the mods are doing already, yet people still think they're being treated unfairly.
In the context of the makeup of the site, I feel that the treatment of dissenting voices is fair. I also share disclaimer's belief that differing views are essential to making MetaFilter an enjoyable community, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take it easy on them when they make basic factual errors or put forth flawed arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:43 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's come up before in other MeTas, and I still think it would be totally rad if it was workable at all from the pb-computer-wizardry side of things. I would love to see a month of Forced Experiment (similar to the turning-off-favorites month) where everyone is limited to two comments per thread; one to talk about the FPP, and one to clarify or respond to someone else
I think a fairly major dilemma there would be whether to extend it to MetaTalk. If you did, it would be hard to discuss the impact of the experiment in real time. If you didn't, the "silenced all my life" contingent, upon actually being silenced for some part of their lives (the part where they want to make a third comment on a thread) would go absolutely wild.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:47 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think a fairly major dilemma there would be whether to extend it to MetaTalk. If you did, it would be hard to discuss the impact of the experiment in real time. If you didn't, the "silenced all my life" contingent, upon actually being silenced for some part of their lives (the part where they want to make a third comment on a thread) would go absolutely wild.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:47 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
As long as we're proposing experiments, what about a new flag label of "Personal attack?" Naturally the use of it would correlate roughly with the ideological bias of the observers, but at least it could be made clear that the comment in question is a specific kind of violation of the rules aimed at another user. Instead of the offending Ironmouth comments getting a mix of "derail", "it violates the guidelines", "offensive" type flags, it'd be clear that people see it as a counterproductive ad hominem. Might encourage more people to flag and move on if they knew that the signal to the mods would be more clear.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:51 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
I think I may get what some of you are getting at. I too am as lefty as they come, esp. w/r/t race and gender, but I also have a narrow academic specialty, which presumably I have more nuanced views about.
And every time I say that nuclear weapons aren't all bad or that US policy in the Middle East isn't about stealing their oil, I get attacked in nasty ways.
Right, yes, good. Now understand that is how a lot of people feel about your comments on race and gender issues, and how Ironmouth feels when commenting on legal issues.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:06 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
And every time I say that nuclear weapons aren't all bad or that US policy in the Middle East isn't about stealing their oil, I get attacked in nasty ways.
Right, yes, good. Now understand that is how a lot of people feel about your comments on race and gender issues, and how Ironmouth feels when commenting on legal issues.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:06 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Right, yes, good. Now understand that is how a lot of people feel about your comments on race and gender issues, and how Ironmouth feels when commenting on legal issues.
Except, as documented above, Ironmouth was very jerky and condescending in his presentation. Do you ever assign any responsibility to the commenter to take the edge off a bit?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:10 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Except, as documented above, Ironmouth was very jerky and condescending in his presentation. Do you ever assign any responsibility to the commenter to take the edge off a bit?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:10 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
The difference is, I'm not getting paid to hold a specific position, I don't say "I'm an expert and all experts agree with me", and taking an unpopular position on nukes does not in any way attempt to erase people's lived experience, which often happens in race and gender threads.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:17 AM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:17 AM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
Yeah, and it's also relevant that things like race and gender are different enough from beliefs, ideology, etc. that they're explicitly protected classes under the law. The fact that they'd be handled differently as a matter of policy follows logically from that.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:18 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:18 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
at some level, i wonder if people are insecure about what they're arguing - why else would they go to such lengths to be "right"?
I do wonder this as well. When I was in college and the PC age was starting to boom, I had a friend who was the smartest person I knew when it came to computers, components, assembling them, troubleshooting, etc. His comment after quietly observing someone go on and on and on about how much they knew, but ended up being wrong on most levels: "People who are not secure in their knowledge of something will often talk more insistently about it to disguise their insecurity."
Now, it doesn't mean that people who know their stuff don't press insistently. But it does suggest that people who are insecure in why they hold a particular belief can sometimes be the loudest and most persistent. I've never forgotten this, not only in trying to understand why people so staunchly hold to some positions that can be wrong, but also in my own internal dialogue on the reasons I press a particular issue. Is any of it in insecurity on my part? If I deal with the insecurity on a more basic level, will it make me a better and more honest and effective communicator?
So much of communication has to do with protecting our noetic belief structure against attacks (which can be healthy in part, so we don't have an existential breakdown), but the reality is that many of our beliefs that we hold dear were never reasoned to in an infallible way; we inherited them, we developed or eased into them through inference, intuition, indoctrination, opinions of trustworthy authority, and other immediate community or social influences. It makes sense that some of these feel precious and essential to hold the structure together. But knowing this has more to do with me than insisting that we can read the minds and intentions of others (because that's a fool's journey). It would be great if we could trust everyone to do this individually yet collectively. But, I have no idea how to guarantee that in any predictable or non-coercive way; I can only encourage this as a general life virtue. So I'm back to going what can I do myself to make the world a better place, and within that, have some semblance of peace that we sometimes live with a bunch of jackasses.
One other related life-lesson I've learned: because those who are the loudest can sometimes feel the most insecure in the belief structure, I've seen insistent people do a 180 on positions that I never would have guessed the day before. Sometimes people fight and fight for something that isn't tenable, and then they get tired and embrace good conclusions. This gives hope. What I'm also cognizant of is that when people do 180s, they sometimes need a new community to connect with to cultivate those new beliefs, especially if those beliefs ran deep mentally and had significant social implications. Communities that showed grace in that process of social justice rather than animosity are much more likely candidates.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:41 AM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
I do wonder this as well. When I was in college and the PC age was starting to boom, I had a friend who was the smartest person I knew when it came to computers, components, assembling them, troubleshooting, etc. His comment after quietly observing someone go on and on and on about how much they knew, but ended up being wrong on most levels: "People who are not secure in their knowledge of something will often talk more insistently about it to disguise their insecurity."
Now, it doesn't mean that people who know their stuff don't press insistently. But it does suggest that people who are insecure in why they hold a particular belief can sometimes be the loudest and most persistent. I've never forgotten this, not only in trying to understand why people so staunchly hold to some positions that can be wrong, but also in my own internal dialogue on the reasons I press a particular issue. Is any of it in insecurity on my part? If I deal with the insecurity on a more basic level, will it make me a better and more honest and effective communicator?
So much of communication has to do with protecting our noetic belief structure against attacks (which can be healthy in part, so we don't have an existential breakdown), but the reality is that many of our beliefs that we hold dear were never reasoned to in an infallible way; we inherited them, we developed or eased into them through inference, intuition, indoctrination, opinions of trustworthy authority, and other immediate community or social influences. It makes sense that some of these feel precious and essential to hold the structure together. But knowing this has more to do with me than insisting that we can read the minds and intentions of others (because that's a fool's journey). It would be great if we could trust everyone to do this individually yet collectively. But, I have no idea how to guarantee that in any predictable or non-coercive way; I can only encourage this as a general life virtue. So I'm back to going what can I do myself to make the world a better place, and within that, have some semblance of peace that we sometimes live with a bunch of jackasses.
One other related life-lesson I've learned: because those who are the loudest can sometimes feel the most insecure in the belief structure, I've seen insistent people do a 180 on positions that I never would have guessed the day before. Sometimes people fight and fight for something that isn't tenable, and then they get tired and embrace good conclusions. This gives hope. What I'm also cognizant of is that when people do 180s, they sometimes need a new community to connect with to cultivate those new beliefs, especially if those beliefs ran deep mentally and had significant social implications. Communities that showed grace in that process of social justice rather than animosity are much more likely candidates.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:41 AM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Oh, man, just revisited that Guerena thread. Ironmouth and his fucking "up is down" refrain. Dude knows how to be caustic and infuriating, there is no doubt about that.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I do wonder this as well. When I was in college and the PC age was starting to boom, I had a friend who was the smartest person I knew when it came to computers, components, assembling them, troubleshooting, etc. His comment after quietly observing someone go on and on and on about how much they knew, but ended up being wrong on most levels: "People who are not secure in their knowledge of something will often talk more insistently about it to disguise their insecurity."
Now, it doesn't mean that people who know their stuff don't press insistently. But it does suggest that people who are insecure in why they hold a particular belief can sometimes be the loudest and most persistent
At the risk of being told that I'm proving your thesis by arguing with you about people who argue about things, your argument here assumes that being secure about your knowledge is a virtue, which is debatable at best. I like to think I have some knowledge on things, but I'm not at all secure that any of my premises are correct. That's why I argue -- to see how they hold up against counterarguments. Changing my beliefs, or as you say, "doing a 180", isn't a bad thing -- it just means that someone else's argument resonated and caused me to examine my premises. What's wrong with that?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:00 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
Now, it doesn't mean that people who know their stuff don't press insistently. But it does suggest that people who are insecure in why they hold a particular belief can sometimes be the loudest and most persistent
At the risk of being told that I'm proving your thesis by arguing with you about people who argue about things, your argument here assumes that being secure about your knowledge is a virtue, which is debatable at best. I like to think I have some knowledge on things, but I'm not at all secure that any of my premises are correct. That's why I argue -- to see how they hold up against counterarguments. Changing my beliefs, or as you say, "doing a 180", isn't a bad thing -- it just means that someone else's argument resonated and caused me to examine my premises. What's wrong with that?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:00 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
If you make a dissenting statement, even if you take the greatest care not to offend, or misstate your case, or say anything untrue, you will still have multiple people respond who have found a way to misread you, or who infer other opinions that you haven't even approached and urgently take you to task for them. Oh, so you think [moderate view unpopular on Mefi]? Well do you also think [batshit sociopathic view]? You must be One of Them. That's happened to me here, and I'm so far left that I think I technically voted communist in the midterms.
Something like this happened to me (by which I mean, I said something that really upset someone, who called it out, and a lot of people apparently agreed).
I was actually pretty upset about it for a while, but I wasn't angry. I said something in a thread about a survivor of sexual assault that came across as a sort of tone argument. Now, I myself have called those out many times, and I consider myself a feminist and an ally. But what I said really hurt someone in that thread who is a survivor, and she was not gentle in correcting me.
But after I got over feeling upset that maybe I wasn't as good a feminist or ally as I thought I was, I feel like I learned something from that. I only wish now that I could undo that hurt that I caused that woman and anyone else who felt that way after reading my comment.
So my thinking is that you can't take that sort of thing so personally. It's bad for you, it's bad for the site, and honestly, there's no good reason to think that you have to "defend your reputation" or whatever, beyond maybe one or two attempts at clarification or conciliation. That's my opinion, anyway.
posted by clockzero at 10:00 AM on December 3, 2014 [22 favorites]
Something like this happened to me (by which I mean, I said something that really upset someone, who called it out, and a lot of people apparently agreed).
I was actually pretty upset about it for a while, but I wasn't angry. I said something in a thread about a survivor of sexual assault that came across as a sort of tone argument. Now, I myself have called those out many times, and I consider myself a feminist and an ally. But what I said really hurt someone in that thread who is a survivor, and she was not gentle in correcting me.
But after I got over feeling upset that maybe I wasn't as good a feminist or ally as I thought I was, I feel like I learned something from that. I only wish now that I could undo that hurt that I caused that woman and anyone else who felt that way after reading my comment.
So my thinking is that you can't take that sort of thing so personally. It's bad for you, it's bad for the site, and honestly, there's no good reason to think that you have to "defend your reputation" or whatever, beyond maybe one or two attempts at clarification or conciliation. That's my opinion, anyway.
posted by clockzero at 10:00 AM on December 3, 2014 [22 favorites]
took a hard line on dogpiling, that there would be a rough few months, but then after that, everyone would adjust and start really lessening how much they were doing it.
Based on my past experiences, it likely would be only a tough (as in more work in the short term) few weeks, not months, and then the community members would start a) choosing to not be the Nth person to dogpile the person and b) start saying "we don't do that kind of stuff on metafilter, so how about you give it a rest already?" It wouldn't entirely stop, but it would stop being a strongly entrenched, seriously problematic pattern. And then it would turn into less work on the mods, permanently.
People are gonna people. But you can harness groupthink to serve the cause instead of just letting it be part of the problem.
posted by Michele in California at 10:14 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
Based on my past experiences, it likely would be only a tough (as in more work in the short term) few weeks, not months, and then the community members would start a) choosing to not be the Nth person to dogpile the person and b) start saying "we don't do that kind of stuff on metafilter, so how about you give it a rest already?" It wouldn't entirely stop, but it would stop being a strongly entrenched, seriously problematic pattern. And then it would turn into less work on the mods, permanently.
People are gonna people. But you can harness groupthink to serve the cause instead of just letting it be part of the problem.
posted by Michele in California at 10:14 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
At the risk of being told that I'm proving your thesis by arguing with you about people who argue about things, your argument here assumes that being secure about your knowledge is a virtue, which is debatable at best. I like to think I have some knowledge on things, but I'm not at all secure that any of my premises are correct. That's why I argue -- to see how they hold up against counterarguments. Changing my beliefs, or as you say, "doing a 180", isn't a bad thing -- it just means that someone else's argument resonated and caused me to examine my premises. What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that. I think what you described is academic humility and certainly a virtue. It's still possible to feel secure in a position while not implying 100% certainty, only that you were justified in the way that you came to your conclusions based on the evidence that you had, and that you held those beliefs tentatively and were willing to change them in the face of better overall factual explanations. It's a matter of holding beliefs in the right kind of way. There's security in that I suppose, which I'm comfortable enough tagging as "knowledge" (or tentative knowledge for the sake of this discussion) until we run into the defeaters to those beliefs that are subject to change. Rather than the "nature of knowledge"question though, I'm more concerned with people who don't go through this process and hold onto beliefs for unjustified (and insecure) reasons, which leads to a particular social dynamic that isn't helpful.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:22 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nothing wrong with that. I think what you described is academic humility and certainly a virtue. It's still possible to feel secure in a position while not implying 100% certainty, only that you were justified in the way that you came to your conclusions based on the evidence that you had, and that you held those beliefs tentatively and were willing to change them in the face of better overall factual explanations. It's a matter of holding beliefs in the right kind of way. There's security in that I suppose, which I'm comfortable enough tagging as "knowledge" (or tentative knowledge for the sake of this discussion) until we run into the defeaters to those beliefs that are subject to change. Rather than the "nature of knowledge"question though, I'm more concerned with people who don't go through this process and hold onto beliefs for unjustified (and insecure) reasons, which leads to a particular social dynamic that isn't helpful.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:22 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick.
I think you're completely wrong (though I am sure you could articulate almost anything in a poor/slim way and get deleted if it read incendiary to enough people) and I guess we'll find out for sure since the incompetence issue was just raised by flug. Thanks for being the canary in the oppression coal mines, flug!
posted by phearlez at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think you're completely wrong (though I am sure you could articulate almost anything in a poor/slim way and get deleted if it read incendiary to enough people) and I guess we'll find out for sure since the incompetence issue was just raised by flug. Thanks for being the canary in the oppression coal mines, flug!
posted by phearlez at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, favorites != upvotes and all, but that one's been favorited by many of the more prolific members of Team "Wilson Should Have Been Indicted". Sometimes people just need to feel like bold, truth-telling victims of a system that's stacked against them, though.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2014
I still don't understand exactly what's meant by "dogpiling" and I wish we would stop conflating "lots of people disagreeing with me" with "personal attacks" in this conversation. Is the request that certain opinions be protected from response or criticism?
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick.
I don't think they would be deleted at all unless you were a total jerk about how you expressed yourself (like being all "I'm sure this will get deleted because I'm silenced all my life by you P.C. morons, but.."). However, I'm sure people would want to argue and discuss your opinions, so if having people disagree with you (even strenuously) feels like a personal attack, I can see how you might not think it was worth it. I mean, that's the way I feel in real life when I try to talk about issues like Ferguson or feminism or whatever with coworkers or family, so it's not like most of us don't know how that feels - that's how most of us felt at Thanksgiving, or at work, or wherever, because again, the "majority" opinions at MeFi tend to be minority opinions in the world at large. Believe me, feminists or anti-racists are VERY accustomed to being outnumbered and dismissed. We all make our own judgments about where to engage or not engage, and that's fine.
More generally, though, I get really tired of how people act like people agreeing about some things here makes MeFi some groupthink echo chamber. It's possible for a large group of people to disagree with you - and even to talk about the problems that causes and the dynamics around it - without implying that everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, just saying stuff to fit in, or toeing some P.C./leftist line. If we want people to be more tolerant of "dissenting" opinions, it would be nice for once to not start that conversation by insulting people and (in certain extreme cases) acting like you hate most of the awful portlandia people who comment here.
posted by dialetheia at 10:38 AM on December 3, 2014 [21 favorites]
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick.
I don't think they would be deleted at all unless you were a total jerk about how you expressed yourself (like being all "I'm sure this will get deleted because I'm silenced all my life by you P.C. morons, but.."). However, I'm sure people would want to argue and discuss your opinions, so if having people disagree with you (even strenuously) feels like a personal attack, I can see how you might not think it was worth it. I mean, that's the way I feel in real life when I try to talk about issues like Ferguson or feminism or whatever with coworkers or family, so it's not like most of us don't know how that feels - that's how most of us felt at Thanksgiving, or at work, or wherever, because again, the "majority" opinions at MeFi tend to be minority opinions in the world at large. Believe me, feminists or anti-racists are VERY accustomed to being outnumbered and dismissed. We all make our own judgments about where to engage or not engage, and that's fine.
More generally, though, I get really tired of how people act like people agreeing about some things here makes MeFi some groupthink echo chamber. It's possible for a large group of people to disagree with you - and even to talk about the problems that causes and the dynamics around it - without implying that everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, just saying stuff to fit in, or toeing some P.C./leftist line. If we want people to be more tolerant of "dissenting" opinions, it would be nice for once to not start that conversation by insulting people and (in certain extreme cases) acting like you hate most of the awful portlandia people who comment here.
posted by dialetheia at 10:38 AM on December 3, 2014 [21 favorites]
It's entirely how those opinions are presented.
No, it's not. I don't even think moderators will tell you it is. Opinions that imply support for Wilson are more problematic to post, no matter how well you craft the comment.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
No, it's not. I don't even think moderators will tell you it is. Opinions that imply support for Wilson are more problematic to post, no matter how well you craft the comment.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
There's no WAY I could articulate those opinions in those discussions. They'd be flagged and deleted right quick.
Just want to note from a mod perspective that I disagree with this as well. There's nothing in there that's some sort of automatic no-go and I feel like every one of those things has come up and been part of totally okay conversation in various discussions about Ferguson in the last few months. There's definitely ways to broach them poorly, and that's happened in some cases too and been anywhere from a little bumpy to outright messy, but that goes back to framing rather than content as the primary issue.
That's not a guarantee that no one will flag or reply intemperately to a civilly stated comment that disagrees with the prevailing feelings about one or another aspect of the situation, but no such guarantee can exist about anything and the difference between someone responding grumpily or flagging something that won't be deleted, and something surely based on its content alone being flagged up the wazoo and zapped by mods, is a really important one.
I firmly, firmly believe that if mods took a hard line on people being shitty in threads even to people with upsetting opinions, or took a hard line on dogpiling, that there would be a rough few months, but then after that, everyone would adjust and start really lessening how much they were doing it.
The two problems that jump out to me with this characterization of the issue here:
1. What qualifies as people "being shitty" or "dogpiling" is a pretty subjective thing, and there's no clear basis for choosing one of those subjective positions and canonizing it. The poster of this thread took care and has communicated totally reasonably about what is in their view a big handful of examples of problematic personal attacks and vitriol, and a whole lot of people in here likewise reasonably communicated that they just flat out do not agree with that reading. That there's subjectivity involved doesn't mean the problem isn't one worth looking at, which is why it's an evergreen concern for us as moderators, but it does undercut pretty seriously any pat assertion that the solution to a problem is to address subjective thing x as if your personal subjective take is the functionally objective one.
2. People piling on is an emergent structural effect of conversation that has potential negative outcomes; it's not something that itself is inherently bad or problematic in a way that makes aggressively altering moderation policy to address it an obvious net good. We can talk about why pile-ons are problematic and talk about how and why they happen and how it can improve, but recommending that they be treated as some fundamental evil that we should prioritize excising regardless of any notionally not-really-a-big-deal consequences on the feel of this place does not make sense to me as someone who actually deals with it from the mod side. It would certainly solve the problem of people who don't like seeing pile-ons happening having to ever see pile-ons happening, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum and there are lots of folks who will reasonably object to the idea that Metafilter's moderation should be structured specifically to prevent a lot of users from collectively having a negative reaction to some other user's behavior on the site.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:59 AM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Just want to note from a mod perspective that I disagree with this as well. There's nothing in there that's some sort of automatic no-go and I feel like every one of those things has come up and been part of totally okay conversation in various discussions about Ferguson in the last few months. There's definitely ways to broach them poorly, and that's happened in some cases too and been anywhere from a little bumpy to outright messy, but that goes back to framing rather than content as the primary issue.
That's not a guarantee that no one will flag or reply intemperately to a civilly stated comment that disagrees with the prevailing feelings about one or another aspect of the situation, but no such guarantee can exist about anything and the difference between someone responding grumpily or flagging something that won't be deleted, and something surely based on its content alone being flagged up the wazoo and zapped by mods, is a really important one.
I firmly, firmly believe that if mods took a hard line on people being shitty in threads even to people with upsetting opinions, or took a hard line on dogpiling, that there would be a rough few months, but then after that, everyone would adjust and start really lessening how much they were doing it.
The two problems that jump out to me with this characterization of the issue here:
1. What qualifies as people "being shitty" or "dogpiling" is a pretty subjective thing, and there's no clear basis for choosing one of those subjective positions and canonizing it. The poster of this thread took care and has communicated totally reasonably about what is in their view a big handful of examples of problematic personal attacks and vitriol, and a whole lot of people in here likewise reasonably communicated that they just flat out do not agree with that reading. That there's subjectivity involved doesn't mean the problem isn't one worth looking at, which is why it's an evergreen concern for us as moderators, but it does undercut pretty seriously any pat assertion that the solution to a problem is to address subjective thing x as if your personal subjective take is the functionally objective one.
2. People piling on is an emergent structural effect of conversation that has potential negative outcomes; it's not something that itself is inherently bad or problematic in a way that makes aggressively altering moderation policy to address it an obvious net good. We can talk about why pile-ons are problematic and talk about how and why they happen and how it can improve, but recommending that they be treated as some fundamental evil that we should prioritize excising regardless of any notionally not-really-a-big-deal consequences on the feel of this place does not make sense to me as someone who actually deals with it from the mod side. It would certainly solve the problem of people who don't like seeing pile-ons happening having to ever see pile-ons happening, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum and there are lots of folks who will reasonably object to the idea that Metafilter's moderation should be structured specifically to prevent a lot of users from collectively having a negative reaction to some other user's behavior on the site.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:59 AM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Heh, as opposed to the limit on granting favorites per day or a limit on comments per hour I would like to see a limit on favorites recieved per thread.
It's not going to happen of course but it might be an intersting experiment. I think it would result in the more vituperative comments getting cleared out early in the thread.
On preview, wow dialethia.
"Dissenting"? [twice] "Dogpiling"?" "lots of people disagreeing with me"? "I'm sure this will get deleted because I'm silenced all my life by you P.C. morons, but.."? ""personal attacks"? All scare quotes yours dialethia.
"...it would be nice for once to not start that conversation by insulting people and (in certain extreme cases) acting like you hate most of the awful portlandia people who comment here."
"brainwashed"? who said brainwashed?
Just WOW.
posted by vapidave at 11:07 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's not going to happen of course but it might be an intersting experiment. I think it would result in the more vituperative comments getting cleared out early in the thread.
On preview, wow dialethia.
"Dissenting"? [twice] "Dogpiling"?" "lots of people disagreeing with me"? "I'm sure this will get deleted because I'm silenced all my life by you P.C. morons, but.."? ""personal attacks"? All scare quotes yours dialethia.
"...it would be nice for once to not start that conversation by insulting people and (in certain extreme cases) acting like you hate most of the awful portlandia people who comment here."
"brainwashed"? who said brainwashed?
Just WOW.
posted by vapidave at 11:07 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wish people would stop being so goddamn obsessed by how many favorites other people get.
posted by palomar at 11:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [24 favorites]
posted by palomar at 11:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [24 favorites]
I favorited your comment and hope you can get 100 more!
posted by maxsparber at 11:18 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:18 AM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
All scare quotes yours dialethia.
Using quotation marks to set off terms of art is not "scare quotes". See? There, I'm using punctuation to indicate that "scare quotes" is a particular term in question here.
Just WOW.
I agree! It is a very well written and cogent comment on thread dynamics!
(hands out dialetheia fan club buttons)
posted by kagredon at 11:23 AM on December 3, 2014 [19 favorites]
Using quotation marks to set off terms of art is not "scare quotes". See? There, I'm using punctuation to indicate that "scare quotes" is a particular term in question here.
Just WOW.
I agree! It is a very well written and cogent comment on thread dynamics!
(hands out dialetheia fan club buttons)
posted by kagredon at 11:23 AM on December 3, 2014 [19 favorites]
I wish people would stop being so goddamn obsessed by how many favorites other people get.
Turning off the display of them was one of the best things I have ever done on the internet. If I could just now suppress comments where people whine about them as if they're upvotes or argue about how they're not it would be perfect.
posted by phearlez at 11:25 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Turning off the display of them was one of the best things I have ever done on the internet. If I could just now suppress comments where people whine about them as if they're upvotes or argue about how they're not it would be perfect.
posted by phearlez at 11:25 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Turning off the display of them was one of the best things I have ever done on the internet.
I agree. Now I just need a way to be able to turn them off on my own profile. Or maybe I just need to stop hanging around here so much.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:59 AM on December 3, 2014
I agree. Now I just need a way to be able to turn them off on my own profile. Or maybe I just need to stop hanging around here so much.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:59 AM on December 3, 2014
The case Ironmouth was holding up as the one that should have been "picked" because it was a much better case and much more important...has also resulted in no charges.
Presumably, he will be on the picket lines tonight protesting the police.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on December 3, 2014 [18 favorites]
Presumably, he will be on the picket lines tonight protesting the police.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on December 3, 2014 [18 favorites]
Maybe if we hound him just a little more, he'll come around to our way of thinking.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:17 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:17 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
Or maybe there's value to the community in highlighting when someone is acting as an astroturfing charlatan.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:19 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:19 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
He just isn't going to see things your way. So there's cathartic value in a mob making him an evil cartoon character, maybe, but probably not much else.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
"Astroturfing" used to mean something specific.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:25 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:25 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Not only that, but astroturfing is a pretty specific charge, and one with historically severe consequences here for anyone found guilty of it (cf. Givewell's stooges). If you're going to call him an astroturfer, you might consider backing that up with some kind of evidence.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:27 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:27 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
His conflicts of interest were already discussed upthread.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 12:29 PM on December 3, 2014
Having an agenda and pushing it here isn't automatically a conflict of interest, let alone astroturfing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:34 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:34 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
I don't agree with him almost 100% of the time. However, being paid to do legal work is no more a conflict of interest when making comments about the legal system, any more than the people here who collect a paycheck in IT and make questionable assertions in threads about technology (which happens a lot, here). So let's maybe not redefine the meaning of astroturfing, just because you don't like the guy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
"Astroturfing" used to mean something specific.
Yes it did.
posted by maxsparber at 12:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Yes it did.
posted by maxsparber at 12:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
I wish we would stop conflating "lots of people disagreeing with me" with "personal attacks" in this conversation. Is the request that certain opinions be protected from response or criticism?
My belief based on multiple observations of the phenomenon is that this is essentially what the request is, yes.
posted by Miko at 12:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
My belief based on multiple observations of the phenomenon is that this is essentially what the request is, yes.
posted by Miko at 12:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
Ironmouth talking about legal stuff when he is a lawyer, and talking (and defending) his particular area of specialty is not a conflict of interest, and it's not astroturfing. Him being wrong about stuff and not acknowledging it isn't those things either.
posted by rtha at 12:43 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by rtha at 12:43 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
Haranguing Ironmouth is really easy. He's right here and all you have to do is type. If you actually give a crap about this issue, your efforts might be better spent talking to your real life friends and relatives about racism, and getting out in the street to protest.
posted by latkes at 12:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by latkes at 12:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Instead of cherry-picking a comment made in a potentially sarcastic or ironic tone some years ago, consider what's involved in drawing a clear line between his viewpoint advocacy in the Ferguson thread and some payment by, say, a police union or advocacy group with a specific agenda. That would justify an astroturfing charge, probably.
I never agree with Ironmouth and find his comments awful and you have me defending him. This place is really hitting the pits.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I never agree with Ironmouth and find his comments awful and you have me defending him. This place is really hitting the pits.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you actually give a crap about this issue, your efforts might be better spent talking to your real life friends and relatives about racism, and getting out in the street to protest.
Why would you assume that's not being done as well?
posted by maxsparber at 12:46 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Why would you assume that's not being done as well?
posted by maxsparber at 12:46 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
You constantly expess your displeasure in these metas so why are you still here?
This is a fair question. The answer is primarily that I am not "here" nearly as much as I used to be. By my count, this is my 51st MetaTalk comment in the past 365 days (I cannot measure how many MetaTalks constitute "these metas" so I cannot evaluate if "constantly express" is a fair charge). For the same 365 days, I have 174 AskMe comments and merely 14 comments "on the blue". I don't think these are numbers that show a person is leaning on the site particularly hard.
I probably stick mostly to AskMe because (1) tighter moderation makes soapboxes and axe-grinding less likely (although it can be found) and (2) I think I am so smart and have great answers. But, maybe I even most there less because I have gotten smarter and realized that people will do whatever they please no matter what they are told.
The secondary part of the answer is the majority of time, I show up because one or two of my IRL who also happen to be members of these site will send a link.
I dislike moderation for many of the same reasons I dislike the police. Perhaps this reflects my online upbringing on BBSs and Usenet. But, MetaFilter is not my property so the owners can moderate any way they please. At present, the most pleasing way seems to be to emulate Tumblr. There is actually a comment in this meta that I would have written if I were writing a parody of Tumblr, but there it sits without irony. (no, I won't give a hint) It's like the recent discussion of whether the phrase "Chinese checkers" is racist/orientalist/othering-ist.
It is not uncommon for the Wrong Kind of Person to be told, "you need to take XYZ 101". This is not a statement of "you need to learn this piece of information" but "you need to be re-educated". And on the topic of the Wrong Kind of Person, MetaTalk is more often a bug, not a feature. So often it becomes a referendum on the Wrong Kind of Person. In this thread, we have done our duty as to Ironmouth, corb, and Michele in California. Have I missed anyone?
So, this (deleted) thread on the metafilter reddit and this comment hit rather close to the mark. A person can write something as simple as "I think that people should not do X" and you'll get a mob of "why do you hate people who do X and think they should die? robble robble!" (this will not apply if "X" is owning guns or capital). That is certainly one way to be, but I do not know how fruitful it is. I don't believe it supports the back-patting that so often accompanies discussion of the site.
If the site were honest about being a safe space for Tumblr, Portlandia, and other such types, you'd probably see less metas about moderation bias because it would be assumed. No one is surprised by what points of view the moderation of The Daily Kos or The Free Republic will favor or suppress. But for some reason, the idea persists that there is no position that MetaFilter might favor on a given issue. In fact, it's more predictable than a Friday the 13th movie.
posted by Tanizaki at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
This is a fair question. The answer is primarily that I am not "here" nearly as much as I used to be. By my count, this is my 51st MetaTalk comment in the past 365 days (I cannot measure how many MetaTalks constitute "these metas" so I cannot evaluate if "constantly express" is a fair charge). For the same 365 days, I have 174 AskMe comments and merely 14 comments "on the blue". I don't think these are numbers that show a person is leaning on the site particularly hard.
I probably stick mostly to AskMe because (1) tighter moderation makes soapboxes and axe-grinding less likely (although it can be found) and (2) I think I am so smart and have great answers. But, maybe I even most there less because I have gotten smarter and realized that people will do whatever they please no matter what they are told.
The secondary part of the answer is the majority of time, I show up because one or two of my IRL who also happen to be members of these site will send a link.
I dislike moderation for many of the same reasons I dislike the police. Perhaps this reflects my online upbringing on BBSs and Usenet. But, MetaFilter is not my property so the owners can moderate any way they please. At present, the most pleasing way seems to be to emulate Tumblr. There is actually a comment in this meta that I would have written if I were writing a parody of Tumblr, but there it sits without irony. (no, I won't give a hint) It's like the recent discussion of whether the phrase "Chinese checkers" is racist/orientalist/othering-ist.
It is not uncommon for the Wrong Kind of Person to be told, "you need to take XYZ 101". This is not a statement of "you need to learn this piece of information" but "you need to be re-educated". And on the topic of the Wrong Kind of Person, MetaTalk is more often a bug, not a feature. So often it becomes a referendum on the Wrong Kind of Person. In this thread, we have done our duty as to Ironmouth, corb, and Michele in California. Have I missed anyone?
So, this (deleted) thread on the metafilter reddit and this comment hit rather close to the mark. A person can write something as simple as "I think that people should not do X" and you'll get a mob of "why do you hate people who do X and think they should die? robble robble!" (this will not apply if "X" is owning guns or capital). That is certainly one way to be, but I do not know how fruitful it is. I don't believe it supports the back-patting that so often accompanies discussion of the site.
If the site were honest about being a safe space for Tumblr, Portlandia, and other such types, you'd probably see less metas about moderation bias because it would be assumed. No one is surprised by what points of view the moderation of The Daily Kos or The Free Republic will favor or suppress. But for some reason, the idea persists that there is no position that MetaFilter might favor on a given issue. In fact, it's more predictable than a Friday the 13th movie.
posted by Tanizaki at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
If you actually give a crap about this issue, your efforts might be better spent talking to your real life friends and relatives about racism, and getting out in the street to protest.
Yeah, all the astroturf bullshit is just hot air. Thanks for the reality check, latkes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014
Yeah, all the astroturf bullshit is just hot air. Thanks for the reality check, latkes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014
I tihnk the folks doing that probably don't feel too offended if I'm getting bored of the quantity of discussion around one dude with crappy politics on an internet forum.
posted by latkes at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by latkes at 12:47 PM on December 3, 2014
Perhaps, if you're bored here, your efforts might be better spent talking to your real life friends and relatives about racism, and getting out in the street to protest.
posted by maxsparber at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Ironmouth admitting to having done astroturfing work in the past does not change the definition of astroturfing to encompass what his participation in these police threads has entailed.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
I concede that it's not astroturfing so long as we don't have evidence that he's being paid to post on MetaFilter, but it's unquestionably a conflict of interest that is indistinguishable from astroturfing without knowing when he's on/off the clock.
The two interests in conflict are (a) his day job where he advocates for certain things, and (b) the community's interest in not having profit motive influence peoples' contributions. It's as simple as that.
And this:
If you actually give a crap about this issue
Is total false dilemma horseshit that's only ever invoked to shut down discussion.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:51 PM on December 3, 2014
The two interests in conflict are (a) his day job where he advocates for certain things, and (b) the community's interest in not having profit motive influence peoples' contributions. It's as simple as that.
And this:
If you actually give a crap about this issue
Is total false dilemma horseshit that's only ever invoked to shut down discussion.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:51 PM on December 3, 2014
Astroturfing is probably the wrong word, but people have seized on it because it seems like the recurring issue with Ironmouth is advocacy disguising itself as disinterested legal arguments, and because advocacy without transparency from someone who financially gains from that advocacy feels astroturfy.
posted by maxsparber at 12:51 PM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:51 PM on December 3, 2014 [8 favorites]
Perhaps, if you're bored here, your efforts might be better spent talking to your real life friends and relatives about racism, and getting out in the street to protest
You're right.
posted by latkes at 12:52 PM on December 3, 2014
You're right.
posted by latkes at 12:52 PM on December 3, 2014
feels astroturfy
Sounds truthy enough, I guess. Oh, well.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:53 PM on December 3, 2014
Sounds truthy enough, I guess. Oh, well.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:53 PM on December 3, 2014
The two interests in conflict are (a) his day job where he advocates for certain things, and (b) the community's interest in not having profit motive influence peoples' contributions. It's as simple as that
Sorry, you think a client is paying him to get piled on on a website? I mean, if they are, they are not getting their money's worth if what they want is for police-defending lawyers to be well-thought of. I'm sorry, but this is silly. And I don't like Ironmouth's behavior either, so no conflict there.
posted by rtha at 12:54 PM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
Sorry, you think a client is paying him to get piled on on a website? I mean, if they are, they are not getting their money's worth if what they want is for police-defending lawyers to be well-thought of. I'm sorry, but this is silly. And I don't like Ironmouth's behavior either, so no conflict there.
posted by rtha at 12:54 PM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
Sorry, you think a client is paying him to get piled on on a website?
Don't be ridiculous. If he advocates for team X by day and posts good things about team X by night, he gains financially from the off-the-clock advocacy by ensuring the interests of the people who pay him by day are advanced. How can this be controversial?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:56 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Don't be ridiculous. If he advocates for team X by day and posts good things about team X by night, he gains financially from the off-the-clock advocacy by ensuring the interests of the people who pay him by day are advanced. How can this be controversial?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:56 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I mean, look at campaign finance law and how we try (however quixotically) to separate campaign activities from governing.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:58 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 12:58 PM on December 3, 2014
Because he does a terrible fucking job of advancing them? Because when he posts stuff like he did in the police union fpp, immediately several people were like "You're wrong, cite cite cite."
He doesn't hide what he does; he doesn't pretend he's acting from some other viewpoint. He's not in the least sneaky about this. Your objections to his participation on the grounds of astroturfing are incomprehensible to me.
I mean, when Miko comments about museum-related things, is that astroturfing? Or when jessamyn adds insight in a library-related fpp?
posted by rtha at 1:00 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
He doesn't hide what he does; he doesn't pretend he's acting from some other viewpoint. He's not in the least sneaky about this. Your objections to his participation on the grounds of astroturfing are incomprehensible to me.
I mean, when Miko comments about museum-related things, is that astroturfing? Or when jessamyn adds insight in a library-related fpp?
posted by rtha at 1:00 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
If he advocates for team X by day and posts good things about team X by night, he gains financially from the off-the-clock advocacy by ensuring the interests of the people who pay him by day are advanced.
That does not seem to be a reasonable inference to draw to me.
How would he benefit (financially) from giving an opinion here? He doesn't link back to a professional identity at all.
It's simpler for me to just believe that he believes what he says, and not look for complicated conspiracy theory-type explanations.
posted by bonehead at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
That does not seem to be a reasonable inference to draw to me.
How would he benefit (financially) from giving an opinion here? He doesn't link back to a professional identity at all.
It's simpler for me to just believe that he believes what he says, and not look for complicated conspiracy theory-type explanations.
posted by bonehead at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
If we apply the same standard across the board, we'd find that there are gazillions of MeFites who do exactly this, but here Ironmouth is being singled out for special treatment.
If anything, it does reinforce what this post was originally about, so I guess we're finally back on topic.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2014
If anything, it does reinforce what this post was originally about, so I guess we're finally back on topic.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2014
Yeah, Ironmouth is obviously biased on topics of police misconduct, but to argue that he's somehow doing something useful for his clientele by haranguing us on metafilter is cuckoo.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
If he advocates for team X by day and posts good things about team X by night, he gains financially from the off-the-clock advocacy
How does trying to persuade MetaFilter to be more sympathetic to cops translate to Ironmouth getting more paid work defending cops?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
How does trying to persuade MetaFilter to be more sympathetic to cops translate to Ironmouth getting more paid work defending cops?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ironmouth can take care of himself. I don't worry about hurting his feelings as much as I would with other users. It is my impression that he doesn't mind the heat. If that is wrong, I apologize.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:05 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 1:05 PM on December 3, 2014
Sexism, racism, ignorance and lack of thought have no politics. You can be red, blue or green and say some stupid shit. But if you do, then a smart person on metafilter is gonna call you on it. And that's a good thing. And it's why I hang out here. Cause I like to learn stuff.
I just felt the need to say that out loud. Thanks.
posted by valkane at 1:14 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
I just felt the need to say that out loud. Thanks.
posted by valkane at 1:14 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
Because he does a terrible fucking job of advancing them? Because when he posts stuff like he did in the police union fpp, immediately several people were like "You're wrong, cite cite cite."
Evidence that he's doing a bad job advancing them is not evidence that he's not trying hard.
He doesn't hide what he does
I only became aware of it quite recently despite reading his posts for years.
I mean, when Miko comments about museum-related things, is that astroturfing? Or when jessamyn adds insight in a library-related fpp?
There's a big difference when your job is advocacy on behalf of a particular moneyed interest (one that pays you) versus generally talking about a topic. Quoting from the MeFi FAQ on self-linking:
There's no need to call rtha ridiculous for disagreeing with you, tonycpsu. I feel like your fightiness is really high most of the time and it's not great.
I said rtha was being ridiculous, not that s/he is personally ridiculous. rtha is among my favorite contributors here, so the fact we're in such strong disagreement has made me question my presmises several times, though I still come down on the side of clear conflict of interest.
Still, I see that a lot of people, many of whom I respect deeply, disagree with me here. I'll respect that and step away from the thread. (Or at least this derail.)
posted by tonycpsu at 1:14 PM on December 3, 2014
Evidence that he's doing a bad job advancing them is not evidence that he's not trying hard.
He doesn't hide what he does
I only became aware of it quite recently despite reading his posts for years.
I mean, when Miko comments about museum-related things, is that astroturfing? Or when jessamyn adds insight in a library-related fpp?
There's a big difference when your job is advocacy on behalf of a particular moneyed interest (one that pays you) versus generally talking about a topic. Quoting from the MeFi FAQ on self-linking:
It is never okay to use MetaFilter as a promotional tool. Transparency and honesty are important to the community and we rely on users to abide by the guidelines and participate honestly.Now, I get that self-linking is different from pushing the agenda of the people that pay you, but the potential for tainting the community with profit-motivated contributions is similar, because if that entity does well, you do well. The interests of the person paying you to speak on the clock are aligned with the speaking you're doing off the clock.
There's no need to call rtha ridiculous for disagreeing with you, tonycpsu. I feel like your fightiness is really high most of the time and it's not great.
I said rtha was being ridiculous, not that s/he is personally ridiculous. rtha is among my favorite contributors here, so the fact we're in such strong disagreement has made me question my presmises several times, though I still come down on the side of clear conflict of interest.
Still, I see that a lot of people, many of whom I respect deeply, disagree with me here. I'll respect that and step away from the thread. (Or at least this derail.)
posted by tonycpsu at 1:14 PM on December 3, 2014
If Ironmouth really is a lawyer he is not a very good one. He rarely goes beyond a superficial reading of the statutes and rarely shows any knowledge of the legal debates surrounding the issue at hand. He is often dead wrong and when called on it either leaves the thread or pulls his "I'm a lawyer" schtick. If the issue should ever come up again he will behave as though no discussion or documentation has previously occurred and will continue to plug away at advocating his position.
It seems that he treats his interactions here on metafilter as though he is in a courtroom arguing a case. This would seem to indicate that he is not participating in good faith.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
It seems that he treats his interactions here on metafilter as though he is in a courtroom arguing a case. This would seem to indicate that he is not participating in good faith.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
As long as we're proposing experiments, what about a new flag label of "Personal attack?"
I would wholeheartedly endorse that. I struggle with how to flag it - I usually settle for "Does not meet the guidelines" but that leaves a lot more mindreading necessity in the hands of the mods unless I use the contact form every time, and in a fastmoving thread with a lot of personal attacks, that may not be feasible.
posted by corb at 1:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
I would wholeheartedly endorse that. I struggle with how to flag it - I usually settle for "Does not meet the guidelines" but that leaves a lot more mindreading necessity in the hands of the mods unless I use the contact form every time, and in a fastmoving thread with a lot of personal attacks, that may not be feasible.
posted by corb at 1:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
The couple times that I've flagged myself for personal attacks, I think I've used "offensive/sexism/racism" even though that's kind a strange mix of categories. I figured it's the one that would really jump out at the mods to quickly delete, and since I felt my comment was offensive (though not the last two) it seemed to fit.
But yeah, "personal attack" makes sense as a distinct category. I'd vote against "ad hominem" since many ad hominems are germane to the conversation.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:21 PM on December 3, 2014
But yeah, "personal attack" makes sense as a distinct category. I'd vote against "ad hominem" since many ad hominems are germane to the conversation.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:21 PM on December 3, 2014
Somebody better buy the handle "personal attack" or I'm gonna.
posted by valkane at 1:21 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by valkane at 1:21 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I also like the idea of adding "personal attack" to the flagging reasons.
posted by jaguar at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by jaguar at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2014
I don't flag often, but when I do it's almost always a personal attack and I am always a little flummoxed about not having just the right flag reason to categorize it under.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:23 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:23 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Justinian: Not everything is a conspiracy.Of course not. But it's equally mistaken to assume that everything that can be explained without malicious intent wasn't done without malicious intent.
A jury that is "white enough" to vindicate, if race plays a part in their decision-making. Power to use said preselected jury, or not. A notably irregular "prosecution" for indictment, that included inviting the defendent to defend himself for four hours of testimony. Helping said defendent, by reframing his words (Wilson: "he held his hands"; McCulloch: "Held up in fists?")...
If you find enough flimsy pieces of corroborating evidence, even the stack of perfectly ordinary white sheets next to the pile of small circles cut from white sheets starts to look suspicious (that's hyperbole, folks).
And pointing out said flimsy pieces of evidence is still just conjecture, unless framed as proof.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:24 PM on December 3, 2014
Somebody better buy the handle "personal attack" or I'm gonna.
What's up, jerks?
posted by personal attack at 1:30 PM on December 3, 2014 [55 favorites]
What's up, jerks?
posted by personal attack at 1:30 PM on December 3, 2014 [55 favorites]
shivohum: Rhizome, you ought in fairness to admit now that your original comment was completely wrong and a perfect example of jumping to conclusions.Actually, when you remove all the words you put in Rhizome's mouth (such as "talented voir dire", which was said by fifthrider, not Rhizome), his comment was AFAICT 100% accurate.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:31 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've always used the "breaks the guidelines" flag for comments I think are personal attacks. If I think it might be unclear why I'm flagging, I add a note to the mods.
We already can't agree at all about what a personal attack is, or vitriol, or snark. I'm not sure adding a flag will solve the problem.
posted by rtha at 1:32 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
We already can't agree at all about what a personal attack is, or vitriol, or snark. I'm not sure adding a flag will solve the problem.
posted by rtha at 1:32 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
The only flags we really need are: "this is inappropriate---I suggestion deletion", "I think this is fantastic!", and There's a problem here someone might want to fix".
I've never understood why it is necessary to specify why exactly something is inappropriate because a) the mods are all smarty folks who can grok context and b) if something is getting a lot of "delete me!" flags, it likely doesn't matter if it's racism, sexism, or simply sugar intolerance.
I know this is unlikely to change, but we could add more and more refined categories for deletion forever. The whys may change, but what we want to mods to do with that information doesn't.
posted by bonehead at 1:35 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
I've never understood why it is necessary to specify why exactly something is inappropriate because a) the mods are all smarty folks who can grok context and b) if something is getting a lot of "delete me!" flags, it likely doesn't matter if it's racism, sexism, or simply sugar intolerance.
I know this is unlikely to change, but we could add more and more refined categories for deletion forever. The whys may change, but what we want to mods to do with that information doesn't.
posted by bonehead at 1:35 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Is there a FAQ or something somewhere defining the current list of flags and how/when to use them?
And what bonehead said. That is basically what I was thinking (and trying to write), only less muddled and mumbly.
posted by Michele in California at 1:37 PM on December 3, 2014
And what bonehead said. That is basically what I was thinking (and trying to write), only less muddled and mumbly.
posted by Michele in California at 1:37 PM on December 3, 2014
I am not getting paid to post here. I'm losing money to post here because it means I'm procrastinating.
I'm used to the crap. Its fine. Just don't tell me I'm lying because I don't agree with you. That's bullshit and a personal attack.
You may not like my perspective, but it is a real one and one backed up by 10 years of doing this. When I first started this job, I thought I was going to be constantly defending police brutality cases. I was surprised to find out that the incidence of brutality was lower than I expected.
I will add that my experience mirrored that of anotherpanacea, who investigated police complaints for the NYC CCRB, which is an agency independent of the police that investigates these matters. He was also surprised by how many complaints were without foundation.
I have represented officers who have done things that I felt were improper. One of my first cases. But I was surprised to find that it was the only case. Shocked, actually.
Listen, what I say can be hard to hear. It goes against the orthodoxy that I learned myself. But I was wrong in my estimation of what was going on. Experience showed me that.
But there is no doubt that I am the person most experienced in police shootings in the userbase. I've done four of these cases and I know how the investigations work and what the standards the officers use are. And I know that the information that comes out first is often wrong. That's what happened here. Brown was claimed to be running away and shot in the back. He was claimed to be raising his hands up to surrender. Those facts turned out to be not true or controverted by eyewitnesses other than Officer Wilson. I think a lot of people are operating on outrage over factrs long disproven or very much controverted by eyewitnesses who testified before the grand jury.
I stand by my assessment of the case and my assessment of the Garner case in NY.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm used to the crap. Its fine. Just don't tell me I'm lying because I don't agree with you. That's bullshit and a personal attack.
You may not like my perspective, but it is a real one and one backed up by 10 years of doing this. When I first started this job, I thought I was going to be constantly defending police brutality cases. I was surprised to find out that the incidence of brutality was lower than I expected.
I will add that my experience mirrored that of anotherpanacea, who investigated police complaints for the NYC CCRB, which is an agency independent of the police that investigates these matters. He was also surprised by how many complaints were without foundation.
I have represented officers who have done things that I felt were improper. One of my first cases. But I was surprised to find that it was the only case. Shocked, actually.
Listen, what I say can be hard to hear. It goes against the orthodoxy that I learned myself. But I was wrong in my estimation of what was going on. Experience showed me that.
But there is no doubt that I am the person most experienced in police shootings in the userbase. I've done four of these cases and I know how the investigations work and what the standards the officers use are. And I know that the information that comes out first is often wrong. That's what happened here. Brown was claimed to be running away and shot in the back. He was claimed to be raising his hands up to surrender. Those facts turned out to be not true or controverted by eyewitnesses other than Officer Wilson. I think a lot of people are operating on outrage over factrs long disproven or very much controverted by eyewitnesses who testified before the grand jury.
I stand by my assessment of the case and my assessment of the Garner case in NY.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [11 favorites]
Previous MeTa on flags: Another Flag Category?
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:39 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:39 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
So.. the fact that more of the eyewitnesses testified that when he was shot he was a) running away, b) had his hands up, that means nothing?
You get accused of lying because it appears as though you are not telling the whole truth, as evidenced in the recent thread where several people showed up with citations to show so.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
You get accused of lying because it appears as though you are not telling the whole truth, as evidenced in the recent thread where several people showed up with citations to show so.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
No matter what you say, sir, there is no reason that unarmed civilians should be gunned down.
posted by valkane at 1:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by valkane at 1:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
I have a lot of experience identifying raptors from a great distance, but I'm still going to be wrong sometimes and it never yet killed me to admit I was mistaken or misspoke. It sure doesn't mean I'm beyond questioning in trying to ID a bird I haven't even seen, based on someone else's description, because that would be ridiculous.
posted by rtha at 1:53 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by rtha at 1:53 PM on December 3, 2014
I usually flag personal attacks as derails because that's what's happening. The whole conversation turns to that member and their posting history and their argument rather than the original link.
posted by tofu_crouton at 1:55 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 1:55 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ironmouth: But there is no doubt that I am the person most experienced in police shootings in the userbase.Wait a minute... you can determine people's resume's from the userbase?
WTF?
Or... is that just a boast pulled fresh out of your ass?
posted by IAmBroom at 1:56 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
4 cases? 4 cases?
i've had a lot more cases of influenza, but that doesn't make me an expert on it
posted by pyramid termite at 2:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
i've had a lot more cases of influenza, but that doesn't make me an expert on it
posted by pyramid termite at 2:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Argumentation scholars have some interesting treatments of expert opinion. Douglas Walton's Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority is one of the major texts in the area. Walton's take on expert arguments is part of his pragmatic approach. He says that different arguments have different goals and that different behaviors in discussions either contribute to or hamper reaching those goals.
Expert opinion, assuming it really is from an expert, is in itself neither good nor bad. It's quality is measured by how well the person deploying expert opinion does so in a way that respects the shared goals of the argument (e.g. listening and responding to what others say, using relevant evidence in appropriate ways, etc.).
posted by audi alteram partem at 2:05 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Expert opinion, assuming it really is from an expert, is in itself neither good nor bad. It's quality is measured by how well the person deploying expert opinion does so in a way that respects the shared goals of the argument (e.g. listening and responding to what others say, using relevant evidence in appropriate ways, etc.).
posted by audi alteram partem at 2:05 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
But there is no doubt that I am the person most experienced in police shootings in the userbase.
So how do you feel about police chokings then? Got a way to minimize that travesty?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:08 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
So how do you feel about police chokings then? Got a way to minimize that travesty?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:08 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
I trust my (credentialed, experienced, recognized) criminal law professors more than a commenter on the internet, FWIW, and they spent a very great deal of time on police misconduct, racial injustice, and the ways the legal system is set up to absolve time and time again. I have no clue if they're "teevee lawyers" though, I guess you've got that going.
posted by naju at 2:09 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by naju at 2:09 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'd really rather not see a flag for "personal attack." Not only do much of the time here people feel personally attacked when their ideas or arguments are attacked, but the tools for flagging already exist to deal with it: personal attacks can derail, break the guidelines, or be sexist/racist/offensive.
I'd be surprised if such a change would help the moderators do their jobs better.
I don't think it would help the moderators, but I do think it would help the userbase refrain from explaining why such and such is a personal attack, because there'd be a way to label it as such. And since it sounds like people are flagging those things anyway, it doesn't sound like it would create more work for the moderators, either.
I do think it might cut down on nasty responses -- I know that I am much less likely to tear into a shitty sexist comment when I flag it and wait for it to be deleted, and the label keeps me from having to post an explanation of why I think the comment was shitty. And then even if I misjudged and it's not deleted, I at least have the time to cool down while waiting for the potential deletion, or choose to phrase my response in a way that's not going to get deleted if the comment to which I'm responding gets deleted.
posted by jaguar at 2:16 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'd be surprised if such a change would help the moderators do their jobs better.
I don't think it would help the moderators, but I do think it would help the userbase refrain from explaining why such and such is a personal attack, because there'd be a way to label it as such. And since it sounds like people are flagging those things anyway, it doesn't sound like it would create more work for the moderators, either.
I do think it might cut down on nasty responses -- I know that I am much less likely to tear into a shitty sexist comment when I flag it and wait for it to be deleted, and the label keeps me from having to post an explanation of why I think the comment was shitty. And then even if I misjudged and it's not deleted, I at least have the time to cool down while waiting for the potential deletion, or choose to phrase my response in a way that's not going to get deleted if the comment to which I'm responding gets deleted.
posted by jaguar at 2:16 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
We don't think you're lying Ironmouth. We think you're full of shit because you're day job involves peddling that same shit.*
Also, we don't think that you don't know what you're talking about either, well obviously people are buying what you're selling.
It's really not personal. It's that cops are thugs today and that needs to change. I donno if cops were really less thuggish in the past but society moved on and became more peaceful without their involvement.
It's time cops were forced to accept that they live in a civilized society and they're not the big strong man of the tribe who gets to beat up and rape whoever he wants because he'll help protect the tribe from another tribe.
* At a personal level there is all the difference in the world between those two things. I've plenty of friends and family who's day job involves peddling various forms of shit too. Heck, I just spent the last couple years figuring out how identify if I'm peddle shit that'll while it'll hurt people in the short term will help people in the longer term.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
We don't think you're lying Ironmouth. We think you're full of shit because you're day job involves peddling that same shit.*
Also, we don't think that you don't know what you're talking about either, well obviously people are buying what you're selling.
It's really not personal. It's that cops are thugs today and that needs to change. I donno if cops were really less thuggish in the past but society moved on and became more peaceful without their involvement.
It's time cops were forced to accept that they live in a civilized society and they're not the big strong man of the tribe who gets to beat up and rape whoever he wants because he'll help protect the tribe from another tribe.
* At a personal level there is all the difference in the world between those two things. I've plenty of friends and family who's day job involves peddling various forms of shit too. Heck, I just spent the last couple years figuring out how identify if I'm peddle shit that'll while it'll hurt people in the short term will help people in the longer term.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
My take on expert opinion here, when responding from my own little slice of the world, is simply to make an argument as clear as I can and as simply as I'm able. i also don't make a point of sourcing my opinions, as I would in other contexts, though I do try to provide links to more info, or expansions on my point. I generally don't like to bring in experience or credentials, except where it might be relevant to mention, to illustrate a point by a personal experience say.
Part of that is simply because I prefer to be private about what I do here, but, mostly, I think it's a pretty big part of mefi site culture to avoid appealing to personal authority, to not trot out credentials and try to privilege my comments. My words should stand or fall on the merits of what I say, not because I'm wrapping myself in a cap and gown (or a lab coat in my case).
posted by bonehead at 2:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Part of that is simply because I prefer to be private about what I do here, but, mostly, I think it's a pretty big part of mefi site culture to avoid appealing to personal authority, to not trot out credentials and try to privilege my comments. My words should stand or fall on the merits of what I say, not because I'm wrapping myself in a cap and gown (or a lab coat in my case).
posted by bonehead at 2:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
But there is no doubt that I am the person most experienced in police shootings in the userbase.
So you are dead? Cheap shot, but who says they have no doubt?
posted by Mr. Yuck at 2:25 PM on December 3, 2014
So you are dead? Cheap shot, but who says they have no doubt?
posted by Mr. Yuck at 2:25 PM on December 3, 2014
Thanks for keeping your cool, IM. You have been pretty much raked over the coals here and if it was me I would not have handled it nearly as gracefully. I obviously think some of the criticism of you is very valid, but some of it has been over the top.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:25 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:25 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
(And I do appreciate your legal point of view in these threads, I just wish you could find a way to present it differently so you didn't come off as a jerk at times. It would not take a major shift in style. Just a few, "In my view..." or "In my opinion...the facts are" can drastically change the tone of a post.)
posted by Drinky Die at 2:28 PM on December 3, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:28 PM on December 3, 2014 [14 favorites]
Or even prefacing a legal opinion with the word "legally" - there is a vast chasm of difference between "the shooting was justified" and "legally, the shooting was justified," especially when your audience might include people who have reason to fear being shot in the same manner.
posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on December 3, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on December 3, 2014 [18 favorites]
kalessin, i agree - someone, somewhere is going to decide to take their own action on this if it keeps going on
i am deeply cynical about this - i believe there are forces among the elite who WANT to see terrorism develop in this country so they can justify a real crackdown - and i believe that one of the purposes of sending troops to deal with counter-insurgency in the middle east is so they could be trained to deal with it here
posted by pyramid termite at 3:17 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
i am deeply cynical about this - i believe there are forces among the elite who WANT to see terrorism develop in this country so they can justify a real crackdown - and i believe that one of the purposes of sending troops to deal with counter-insurgency in the middle east is so they could be trained to deal with it here
posted by pyramid termite at 3:17 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'd be surprised if such a change would help the moderators do their jobs better.
I don't see how it could do anything but. If people are conflating people attacking their arguments for attacking them personally, the mods can continue to ignore it, but it at least sends more information to them about the reason you're flagging. It's clearly a behavior that people flag often enough, and it seems like people use a bunch of different flags to do it.
Would appreciate a quick yay/nay on this from any mods that are following along, since enough people have expressed interest. I read the previous "more flag categories" MeTa, and it seems like the mods in that thread were aware that the existing categories are sort of imperfect, and willing to consider changes, but nothing really came of it.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't see how it could do anything but. If people are conflating people attacking their arguments for attacking them personally, the mods can continue to ignore it, but it at least sends more information to them about the reason you're flagging. It's clearly a behavior that people flag often enough, and it seems like people use a bunch of different flags to do it.
Would appreciate a quick yay/nay on this from any mods that are following along, since enough people have expressed interest. I read the previous "more flag categories" MeTa, and it seems like the mods in that thread were aware that the existing categories are sort of imperfect, and willing to consider changes, but nothing really came of it.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:18 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
The poster of this thread took care and has communicated totally reasonably about what is in their view a big handful of examples of problematic personal attacks and vitriol, and a whole lot of people in here likewise reasonably communicated that they just flat out do not agree with that reading.'
And to be fair, a whole lot of people in here communicated that they do agree. :)
posted by phoenix_rising at 3:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
And to be fair, a whole lot of people in here communicated that they do agree. :)
posted by phoenix_rising at 3:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Would appreciate a quick yay/nay on this from any mods that are following along
It's an interesting idea that I don't have any strong feelings about yet, is where I am. I'm not immediately convinced that adding that flag will help reduce arguments though I do follow the reasoning that it might.
My first-blush concern about the idea of adding it is it could create more attention on and expectation of specific mod action in cases where we could very well still not agree with the flagger, especially for something that is going to tend to be a little more, well, personal in nature. I don't want to set people up to believe that by using the "personal attack" flag instead of the "breaks the guidelines" flag, that's going to get something deleted that we wouldn't have deleted with the other flag; as much as some folks express a degree of reticence to misflag something when they're not sure what reason to use, that's not something we're really factoring in how we respond to the things that do get flagged. So a big part of me feels like encouraging folks to just actively flag more regardless of the selected label is a more proactive solution here than adding a new label and hoping the flags will come.
But that's off the top of my head. More generally, we have talked on the mod side about revisiting the flagging system at some point to improve overall functionality and usability, and talking about different approaches to flag reasons/labels will definitely be part of that in any case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:29 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's an interesting idea that I don't have any strong feelings about yet, is where I am. I'm not immediately convinced that adding that flag will help reduce arguments though I do follow the reasoning that it might.
My first-blush concern about the idea of adding it is it could create more attention on and expectation of specific mod action in cases where we could very well still not agree with the flagger, especially for something that is going to tend to be a little more, well, personal in nature. I don't want to set people up to believe that by using the "personal attack" flag instead of the "breaks the guidelines" flag, that's going to get something deleted that we wouldn't have deleted with the other flag; as much as some folks express a degree of reticence to misflag something when they're not sure what reason to use, that's not something we're really factoring in how we respond to the things that do get flagged. So a big part of me feels like encouraging folks to just actively flag more regardless of the selected label is a more proactive solution here than adding a new label and hoping the flags will come.
But that's off the top of my head. More generally, we have talked on the mod side about revisiting the flagging system at some point to improve overall functionality and usability, and talking about different approaches to flag reasons/labels will definitely be part of that in any case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:29 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
I will add that my experience mirrored that of anotherpanacea, who investigated police complaints for the NYC CCRB, which is an agency independent of the police that investigates these matters. He was also surprised by how many complaints were without foundation.
This is true, but I kind of resent being outed in this way. I just got done arguing in this thread that we shouldn't be required to have our resumes publicized before participating.
Also, I don't think it's true that all the complaints were without foundation: what's true is that both the standards of evidence and the standards of professional behavior are massively biased towards the police. You'd need to jump a very high bar of evidence to prove that something happened (ostensibly preponderance, but with police officers granted privileged credibility) and then pass a very stringent test to show that the force used was unnecessary. There was also pretty rampant "testilying" where officers used only cliches to make their case: "The suspect reached for his waste-band" or "I observed a hand to hand transaction" or "The defendant thrashed his arms and legs" were repeated over and over. It's court tested language, so the testimony is culturally coached. Perhaps this was how it happened, but the same words came up time and time again to describe the actions of lots of different people in different situations, so you could never know if the officer was describing the fight in question or a different one.
That said, it's also true that in a department with about 40,000 working police officers, we only got 4,000 complaints a year, and only substantiated about 400 of those. And there were repetitions, so that maybe 2/3 of those 4000 complaints were against the same 1000-1200 officers. So yeah, in the NYPD, at least, the vast majority of officers are good people doing the job well enough to avoid complaints. I think that's a good sign. (Of course, the NYPD also spends a lot of money each year on settling lawsuits. So there is still plenty of misconduct.)
One way to think about this is that while we "substantiated" only about 10% of the cases we considered, we didn't "exonerate" the other 90%. Most of the rest of the cases were "unsubstantiated" which meant that we just didn't have enough evidence to proceed (roughly like deciding not to prosecute.)
Anyway, I believe most people think the problem isn't that Wilson would have been convicted, but that the rules are such that he couldn't be convicted. It's roughly like protesting stand your ground laws: sure, under that law it's very difficult to convict Zimmerman. But the protest was partly that the law is written and enforced that way to begin with.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [68 favorites]
This is true, but I kind of resent being outed in this way. I just got done arguing in this thread that we shouldn't be required to have our resumes publicized before participating.
Also, I don't think it's true that all the complaints were without foundation: what's true is that both the standards of evidence and the standards of professional behavior are massively biased towards the police. You'd need to jump a very high bar of evidence to prove that something happened (ostensibly preponderance, but with police officers granted privileged credibility) and then pass a very stringent test to show that the force used was unnecessary. There was also pretty rampant "testilying" where officers used only cliches to make their case: "The suspect reached for his waste-band" or "I observed a hand to hand transaction" or "The defendant thrashed his arms and legs" were repeated over and over. It's court tested language, so the testimony is culturally coached. Perhaps this was how it happened, but the same words came up time and time again to describe the actions of lots of different people in different situations, so you could never know if the officer was describing the fight in question or a different one.
That said, it's also true that in a department with about 40,000 working police officers, we only got 4,000 complaints a year, and only substantiated about 400 of those. And there were repetitions, so that maybe 2/3 of those 4000 complaints were against the same 1000-1200 officers. So yeah, in the NYPD, at least, the vast majority of officers are good people doing the job well enough to avoid complaints. I think that's a good sign. (Of course, the NYPD also spends a lot of money each year on settling lawsuits. So there is still plenty of misconduct.)
One way to think about this is that while we "substantiated" only about 10% of the cases we considered, we didn't "exonerate" the other 90%. Most of the rest of the cases were "unsubstantiated" which meant that we just didn't have enough evidence to proceed (roughly like deciding not to prosecute.)
Anyway, I believe most people think the problem isn't that Wilson would have been convicted, but that the rules are such that he couldn't be convicted. It's roughly like protesting stand your ground laws: sure, under that law it's very difficult to convict Zimmerman. But the protest was partly that the law is written and enforced that way to begin with.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [68 favorites]
I agree with cortex that a "personal attack" flag would come with a higher expectation of automatic deletion, and thus perhaps create more work for the mods. The burden on the users is basically a bit of confusion about what flag to use in lieu of "personal attack", which doesn't seem to me to outweigh that concern.
(I agree that a "personal attack" option is a good idea in the abstract.)
posted by uosuaq at 4:17 PM on December 3, 2014
(I agree that a "personal attack" option is a good idea in the abstract.)
posted by uosuaq at 4:17 PM on December 3, 2014
As one of the people who thinks the "personal attack" flag is a good idea, I would say it wouldn't actually create a higher expectation of delete for me than, say, the "offensive/sexism/racism" flag. I'd just feel my thoughts were more clear.
posted by corb at 4:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:20 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I wonder: what are flags for? Is it something that indicates a priority level? Or something used for analytics ("we got many fewer offensive/sexism/racism flags this year, so everyone is doing better?") Are they meant to be a shortcut that allows people not to have to write emails to explain their objections? Just wondering. It seems like adding a flag should add some useful functionality for the mods, since no one else sees them. Maybe clicking a "personal attack" flag would feel better in some way than an "offensive" flag, but if it doesn't create some kind of useful metric I wonder how worth it it is. Given that it is super subjective and has a lot to do with personal tolerance levels for direct debate and robust conversation.
posted by Miko at 4:25 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by Miko at 4:25 PM on December 3, 2014
What I really mean is, "what are different flag titles for?" I understand why there are flags but not how flag-title data is viewed.
posted by Miko at 4:28 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by Miko at 4:28 PM on December 3, 2014
My thoughts are that a "personal attack" flagging option would signal to the userbase in general that personal attacks are against the guidelines, which might cut down on them; let a user quickly send information to the moderators that they think a comment is a personal attack, which might cut down on users responding to the perceived attack; give users a way to respond to a perceived attack without responding to it in the thread, which again might cut down on users responding to the perceived attack; and give the moderators a heads-up that nastiness may be brewing, even if the flagged comment didn't rise to the level of delete-able.
I guess I just think it would encourage the FIAMO goals.
posted by jaguar at 4:34 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
I guess I just think it would encourage the FIAMO goals.
posted by jaguar at 4:34 PM on December 3, 2014 [7 favorites]
Also, I don't think it's true that all the complaints were without foundation
I for one am just shocked that Ironmouth would make an citation to back up his absolute assertion that, when examined, was kinda sorta true-ish but in its totality did nothing to back him up at all.
posted by phearlez at 4:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I for one am just shocked that Ironmouth would make an citation to back up his absolute assertion that, when examined, was kinda sorta true-ish but in its totality did nothing to back him up at all.
posted by phearlez at 4:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I agree with cortex that a "personal attack" flag would come with a higher expectation of automatic deletion
I could almost get behind a 'personal attack' flag, except for the fact that this very post illustrates that some people can't distinguish between a criticism of an argument, and an attack on or insult aimed at the person making that argument.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:39 PM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
I could almost get behind a 'personal attack' flag, except for the fact that this very post illustrates that some people can't distinguish between a criticism of an argument, and an attack on or insult aimed at the person making that argument.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:39 PM on December 3, 2014 [10 favorites]
That flag would almost certainly be abused every day. I can't imagine the headaches it would cause the mods.
posted by naju at 4:41 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by naju at 4:41 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wonder: what are flags for?
When no one listens anymore?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:41 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
When no one listens anymore?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:41 PM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
That flag would almost certainly be abused every day. I can't imagine the headaches it would cause the mods.
Definitely, but the question is whether it would be abused more than the other flags already being used to flag things as offensive or derails and whether it might get moderators involved more quickly in contentious threads, thus cutting down on clean-up time later.
posted by jaguar at 5:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Definitely, but the question is whether it would be abused more than the other flags already being used to flag things as offensive or derails and whether it might get moderators involved more quickly in contentious threads, thus cutting down on clean-up time later.
posted by jaguar at 5:01 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wonder: what are flags for?
Capes.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:11 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Capes.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:11 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
naju: There's a certain strain of thought that goes: people of color can never be racist or support racist systems, because racism relies on power and dominance that people of color do not possess.
I feel like this is a misread of a lot of thought on different axes of discrimination and prejudice as they relate to power.
The context in which people tend to use the claim that people of color can't be racist is when the targets of the supposed racism are white. By definition, since racism is about power as it expresses itself in discrimination based on presumed racial category, white people can never be targets of racism (prejudice YES, discrimination possible but unlikely, but never racism) because a priori the system of racism is based on the superiority of white people (which ironically even works for anti-Semitism because while Jews are usually claimed to be richer and smarter, they are also considered to be morally inferior).
This is different from the claim that people of color can't be racist with the understanding that white people are never the targets of said racism - and indeed a lot of discussion among different groups of people of color are addressing the intersectional discrimination which vary widely based on presumed ethnic or racial group. This is where intersectional understandings of axes of power come into play, and it's fascinating and important and something happening largely outside of white-dominated spaces like MetaFilter; I'm not sure it's a conversation that can even happen here, as the lines people tend to fall into is "too many people use the race card" and "racism is a serious problem" and the discussion would have to presume the latter in order to work; that's something which happens easiest when the discussion is solely people of color and black because by and large they all have experienced racism (white people often haven't, or have used the term "racist" to mean "I was in a place full of black people and some of them stared at me").
I highly recommend seeking out places where people of color are having conversations with each other about this, and then listening and learning; I've been doing it for years. If you can find Black Twitter and/or Black Tumblr, that can be a good means of entry and education. It's also a good place to practice "just because I think it, I don't need to say it".
posted by Deoridhe at 5:22 PM on December 3, 2014 [20 favorites]
I feel like this is a misread of a lot of thought on different axes of discrimination and prejudice as they relate to power.
The context in which people tend to use the claim that people of color can't be racist is when the targets of the supposed racism are white. By definition, since racism is about power as it expresses itself in discrimination based on presumed racial category, white people can never be targets of racism (prejudice YES, discrimination possible but unlikely, but never racism) because a priori the system of racism is based on the superiority of white people (which ironically even works for anti-Semitism because while Jews are usually claimed to be richer and smarter, they are also considered to be morally inferior).
This is different from the claim that people of color can't be racist with the understanding that white people are never the targets of said racism - and indeed a lot of discussion among different groups of people of color are addressing the intersectional discrimination which vary widely based on presumed ethnic or racial group. This is where intersectional understandings of axes of power come into play, and it's fascinating and important and something happening largely outside of white-dominated spaces like MetaFilter; I'm not sure it's a conversation that can even happen here, as the lines people tend to fall into is "too many people use the race card" and "racism is a serious problem" and the discussion would have to presume the latter in order to work; that's something which happens easiest when the discussion is solely people of color and black because by and large they all have experienced racism (white people often haven't, or have used the term "racist" to mean "I was in a place full of black people and some of them stared at me").
I highly recommend seeking out places where people of color are having conversations with each other about this, and then listening and learning; I've been doing it for years. If you can find Black Twitter and/or Black Tumblr, that can be a good means of entry and education. It's also a good place to practice "just because I think it, I don't need to say it".
posted by Deoridhe at 5:22 PM on December 3, 2014 [20 favorites]
There's also that idea of a flag's inducing the exact thing we would be hoping to eradicate, the sense of having been attacked (as opposed to critiqued). Without a "personal attack" flag, people have to find ways to verbalize any interpersonal problems they are experiencing and are justifiably asked to distinguish "attack" from "critique" in detailed discussion. With a flag, thousands of MeFites who may have never before given a thought to the idea of being personally attacked here will see the flag name and say "hmm, this seems to be a big problem here!" - thus generating a wider sense of and expectation of personal attack being something that happens here a lot, and perhaps more readily construing critique as attack.
posted by Miko at 5:23 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 5:23 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wonder: what are flags for?
Capes.
NO CAPES.
posted by phearlez at 5:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Capes.
NO CAPES.
posted by phearlez at 5:38 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Thanks for clarification, Deoridhe. I don't disagree with any of that.
posted by naju at 5:48 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by naju at 5:48 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just curious about flags: Is there a specific number of flags that will cause a comment to be deleted? Surely one flag can't get a post deleted, can it? Isn't the idea behind the flagging just to attract the attention of the mod, who then decides whether or not the point of the flag is valid and thus whether or not to delete the comment?
I keep thinking of the hassle for the mods to deal with people flagging left, right and backwards over issues that individuals find annoying or "wrong" in some way. Someone upthread said he flags a comment and "then waits to see it deleted." To me, that's some level of control and supervision and power that seems unwarranted for someone who isn't a mod.
As for personal attacks, I've found that certain subjects kindle touchiness in certain people who then snap into defensiveness at any hint of an opposing view. In that mode, some popular posts would be flagged to death and there would absolutely be no chance of discussion at all.
Other comments I would call personal attacks are ignored completely - no one steps up and objects; an example of this would be this, from empath:
corb the problem here is that you constantly express opinions in a way that makes a large number of metafilter commenters go 'what the fuck?' and and engage with you. If, in every thread you participated in, the mods told people to stop dogpiling on you, and every single one of those users didn't do it it again, the next thread you participated in, a whole new set of users would do the same thing.
I like you and I think you're pretty smart, but sometimes I think you just repeat things here that you read elsewhere without thinking about them thoroughly, until someone questions you on it and then you have to actually grasp with the meaning of what you are saying for the first time. I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here. You by now should know what people here's objections are going to be before you post them and what pushes peoples buttons, and you should maybe consider them pre-emptively before posting.
posted by empath at 7:03 AM
I seem to be defending corb against her detractors quite a lot in this game, but that's not because I think corb is undeserving - or deserving - of criticism; I don't know much about corb so that's not my position. But if that comment isn't a personal attack, I obviously wouldn't recognize one. So should that be flagged? How many people would need to flag it before it would be deleted - meaning that no one would know it existed in the first place, which is out of sync with my image of MetaFilter.
I have too much respect for MetaFilter and all the members to want the site converted to some sort of polite, always respectful place where spelling/punctuation/grammar are correct, there are no hidden agendas, no personal quirks, no touchy hot spots or pushbuttons allowed, only three comments allowed to repeat a point of view, no exchange commentary between two people even for a short series of comments - IOW, where offense is not allowed. Instead I'd like to see it remain just as it is - a place where intelligent people can exchange ideas and points of view about new and interesting ideas, fun stuff, music and art and entertainment, but also about hard stuff, controversial stuff, pain and grief.
I don't think it needs fixing - or more flags - but that's just my opinion.
posted by aryma at 6:07 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I keep thinking of the hassle for the mods to deal with people flagging left, right and backwards over issues that individuals find annoying or "wrong" in some way. Someone upthread said he flags a comment and "then waits to see it deleted." To me, that's some level of control and supervision and power that seems unwarranted for someone who isn't a mod.
As for personal attacks, I've found that certain subjects kindle touchiness in certain people who then snap into defensiveness at any hint of an opposing view. In that mode, some popular posts would be flagged to death and there would absolutely be no chance of discussion at all.
Other comments I would call personal attacks are ignored completely - no one steps up and objects; an example of this would be this, from empath:
corb the problem here is that you constantly express opinions in a way that makes a large number of metafilter commenters go 'what the fuck?' and and engage with you. If, in every thread you participated in, the mods told people to stop dogpiling on you, and every single one of those users didn't do it it again, the next thread you participated in, a whole new set of users would do the same thing.
I like you and I think you're pretty smart, but sometimes I think you just repeat things here that you read elsewhere without thinking about them thoroughly, until someone questions you on it and then you have to actually grasp with the meaning of what you are saying for the first time. I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here. You by now should know what people here's objections are going to be before you post them and what pushes peoples buttons, and you should maybe consider them pre-emptively before posting.
posted by empath at 7:03 AM
I seem to be defending corb against her detractors quite a lot in this game, but that's not because I think corb is undeserving - or deserving - of criticism; I don't know much about corb so that's not my position. But if that comment isn't a personal attack, I obviously wouldn't recognize one. So should that be flagged? How many people would need to flag it before it would be deleted - meaning that no one would know it existed in the first place, which is out of sync with my image of MetaFilter.
I have too much respect for MetaFilter and all the members to want the site converted to some sort of polite, always respectful place where spelling/punctuation/grammar are correct, there are no hidden agendas, no personal quirks, no touchy hot spots or pushbuttons allowed, only three comments allowed to repeat a point of view, no exchange commentary between two people even for a short series of comments - IOW, where offense is not allowed. Instead I'd like to see it remain just as it is - a place where intelligent people can exchange ideas and points of view about new and interesting ideas, fun stuff, music and art and entertainment, but also about hard stuff, controversial stuff, pain and grief.
I don't think it needs fixing - or more flags - but that's just my opinion.
posted by aryma at 6:07 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Without a "personal attack" flag, people have to find ways to verbalize any interpersonal problems they are experiencing and are justifiably asked to distinguish "attack" from "critique" in detailed discussion.
See, to me, that just sounds like a fancy way to describe a derail. Yes, the flag will be abused, but people are already undoubtedly misinterpreting attacks on arguments as attacks on them, and using the existing mish-mash of tags to report the alleged attack to mods. Clarity is always better than ambiguity, and I really don't see how the presence of a more appropriate flag category would induce more attacks.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:08 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
See, to me, that just sounds like a fancy way to describe a derail. Yes, the flag will be abused, but people are already undoubtedly misinterpreting attacks on arguments as attacks on them, and using the existing mish-mash of tags to report the alleged attack to mods. Clarity is always better than ambiguity, and I really don't see how the presence of a more appropriate flag category would induce more attacks.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:08 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
See, I don't read any of that comment from empath as a personal attack on corb. It is focused on her behavior, includes positive comments about her ("I like you"), and provides suggestions for ways to engage that would get a different result. Probably the worst thing empath says is that she hangs out with gun-toting libertarians, and that's something she claims herself, repeatedly, so hard to see anything attacking in there.
What reads to you as an attack in that comment?
posted by gingerbeer at 6:22 PM on December 3, 2014 [11 favorites]
What reads to you as an attack in that comment?
posted by gingerbeer at 6:22 PM on December 3, 2014 [11 favorites]
Also, in practical terms, this is MetaTalk - very few things are deleted here.
Just curious about flags: Is there a specific number of flags that will cause a comment to be deleted? Surely one flag can't get a post deleted, can it? Isn't the idea behind the flagging just to attract the attention of the mod, who then decides whether or not the point of the flag is valid and thus whether or not to delete the comment?
No, possibly, and yes, essentially. A comment can be deleted with no flags, if a mod happens upon it. A single flag will mean a mod will look at the comment. Multiple flags might give an indication of the depth and breadth of feeling about that comment. Ultimately, the mods decide what is and is not deleteworthy, based on the guidelines, precedent and their own judgment.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:27 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just curious about flags: Is there a specific number of flags that will cause a comment to be deleted? Surely one flag can't get a post deleted, can it? Isn't the idea behind the flagging just to attract the attention of the mod, who then decides whether or not the point of the flag is valid and thus whether or not to delete the comment?
No, possibly, and yes, essentially. A comment can be deleted with no flags, if a mod happens upon it. A single flag will mean a mod will look at the comment. Multiple flags might give an indication of the depth and breadth of feeling about that comment. Ultimately, the mods decide what is and is not deleteworthy, based on the guidelines, precedent and their own judgment.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:27 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I agree with gingerbeer; that does not read to me as a "personal attack," it reads to me as an earnest attempt at constructive critique of a user's behavior. It is personal, and it may fail in its aim for consisteny constructiveness, but I would not say it is reasonable to call empath's comment an "attack."
See, to me, that just sounds like a fancy way to describe a derail.
My assumption was that any such detailed intepersonal-clarity discussion (other than the usual, common, and non-derailey request for clarification) would happen in email, MeMail or MeTa - where it happens now - rather than be invited to derail the thread.
posted by Miko at 6:32 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
See, to me, that just sounds like a fancy way to describe a derail.
My assumption was that any such detailed intepersonal-clarity discussion (other than the usual, common, and non-derailey request for clarification) would happen in email, MeMail or MeTa - where it happens now - rather than be invited to derail the thread.
posted by Miko at 6:32 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think it's important to talk a bit about flags in the sense of user perception vs actual mod activity. First off -- a mod looks at every single flag. We do sometimes delete stuff that gets flagged once, and of course it's easier to delete stuff if it gets half a dozen flags (and sometimes we ignore that many that seem misplaced).
We have a lot of labels for different flags (5-6, and slightly different for posts and comments), and I would say today, I basically treat them in 2-3 piles and different ways. For posts every flag is just a flag, and the double post flag is special and I try to find the original if more than a few people flag it as such. For comments, HTML/display error is a nuts-and-bolts separate problem, but for the most part all the others are just treated as "flags". When we first added offensive/sexism/racism a few years ago, it was helpful and I would look at those first with those issues in mind, but in the last few years it seems people just pick most flags to go with stuff they disagree with. We ignore/don't act upon about half the flags that come in (I'm pulling that number out of thin air but it feels about right), and the rest we do something about, but the labels aren't actually that helpful much anymore.
We've discussed a possible future version of flagging that drops the choose a reason step entirely, so that you either flag stuff or don't, kind of like favorites. One-click, done. It would certainly simplify things for both users (you'd get to skip a step) and mods but I'm not sure if it'd be a net positive for the site since we'd probably get more flags reported with less info about the flags.
On the flip side, we've also discussed having an open-ended flag system, where you could flag something and optionally there'd be a text box if you wanted to provide more info. That would be one-step for most flags, then extra specific if people wanted to add additional info ("I think this guy is a spammer" or "alice is attacking bob about $issue unfairly").
So in terms of user perception, I think the mental work of picking a flag reason is a hurdle but does communicate well the things we're looking at. I kind of side with Miko above when saying a new flag about personal attacks of users kind of seems to overinflate the sense that it takes place, and might lead to negative consequences. Outside of all this, the way mods use flags on the backend mostly ignores the reasons, so instead of further complicating the flagging system, I'd say in the future you might see it instead get a lot more streamlined.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:33 PM on December 3, 2014 [20 favorites]
We have a lot of labels for different flags (5-6, and slightly different for posts and comments), and I would say today, I basically treat them in 2-3 piles and different ways. For posts every flag is just a flag, and the double post flag is special and I try to find the original if more than a few people flag it as such. For comments, HTML/display error is a nuts-and-bolts separate problem, but for the most part all the others are just treated as "flags". When we first added offensive/sexism/racism a few years ago, it was helpful and I would look at those first with those issues in mind, but in the last few years it seems people just pick most flags to go with stuff they disagree with. We ignore/don't act upon about half the flags that come in (I'm pulling that number out of thin air but it feels about right), and the rest we do something about, but the labels aren't actually that helpful much anymore.
We've discussed a possible future version of flagging that drops the choose a reason step entirely, so that you either flag stuff or don't, kind of like favorites. One-click, done. It would certainly simplify things for both users (you'd get to skip a step) and mods but I'm not sure if it'd be a net positive for the site since we'd probably get more flags reported with less info about the flags.
On the flip side, we've also discussed having an open-ended flag system, where you could flag something and optionally there'd be a text box if you wanted to provide more info. That would be one-step for most flags, then extra specific if people wanted to add additional info ("I think this guy is a spammer" or "alice is attacking bob about $issue unfairly").
So in terms of user perception, I think the mental work of picking a flag reason is a hurdle but does communicate well the things we're looking at. I kind of side with Miko above when saying a new flag about personal attacks of users kind of seems to overinflate the sense that it takes place, and might lead to negative consequences. Outside of all this, the way mods use flags on the backend mostly ignores the reasons, so instead of further complicating the flagging system, I'd say in the future you might see it instead get a lot more streamlined.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:33 PM on December 3, 2014 [20 favorites]
Thanks for that great explanation. I kind of like the text box idea.
posted by Miko at 6:40 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:40 PM on December 3, 2014 [9 favorites]
Yeah, that'd sort of be the best of both worlds.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think part of where the disagreement on personal attack vs. not comes in is that people have varying degrees of tolerance for comments in general that seem to be personally directed, especially if it contains critical content of some sort.
So: empath was certainly very pointedly directing that comment mentioned above at corb; it wasn't a general comment on an issue, it was a comment on corb and her behavior and arguments specifically. And it was in part critical.
Where then is the line between personally critically and a personal attack, is I think the question that doesn't have one answer for all people. And that presents a difficulty to any policy proposal that uses "personal attack" as a lever; if folks don't agree broadly on a significant grey area portion of the stuff in question, there's likely going to be as much disagreement about the notional enforcement of that policy as there is about the current lack of enforcement of it.
There's bright line stuff that's more unambiguously just someone going after another person, and that's stuff that is generally worth flagging or dropping us a line about, and it sucks that we don't always see it or see it promptly when it's happening because, occasional suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding, that's not something we actually condone as mods or want to see happening. But the distinction between personal attack and merely personal is not as clear-cut as I think folks sometimes present when it's something that they perceive to be a personal attack, on themselves or on others. Which is understandable—we all feel whatever we feel—but it's part of the difficulty.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
So: empath was certainly very pointedly directing that comment mentioned above at corb; it wasn't a general comment on an issue, it was a comment on corb and her behavior and arguments specifically. And it was in part critical.
Where then is the line between personally critically and a personal attack, is I think the question that doesn't have one answer for all people. And that presents a difficulty to any policy proposal that uses "personal attack" as a lever; if folks don't agree broadly on a significant grey area portion of the stuff in question, there's likely going to be as much disagreement about the notional enforcement of that policy as there is about the current lack of enforcement of it.
There's bright line stuff that's more unambiguously just someone going after another person, and that's stuff that is generally worth flagging or dropping us a line about, and it sucks that we don't always see it or see it promptly when it's happening because, occasional suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding, that's not something we actually condone as mods or want to see happening. But the distinction between personal attack and merely personal is not as clear-cut as I think folks sometimes present when it's something that they perceive to be a personal attack, on themselves or on others. Which is understandable—we all feel whatever we feel—but it's part of the difficulty.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:47 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Where then is the line between personally critically and a personal attack, is I think the question that doesn't have one answer for all people.
I think I at least thought the line was "if you want to be personally critical of another person's posting style or thoughts or commentary, take it to MeTa." So I wouldn't have flagged empath's comment here, because, voila, MeTa. But i would have if I saw it on the blue, because in my eyes, it doesn't matter if it's personally critical or a personal attack, it still has no business in the discussion.
posted by corb at 6:56 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think I at least thought the line was "if you want to be personally critical of another person's posting style or thoughts or commentary, take it to MeTa." So I wouldn't have flagged empath's comment here, because, voila, MeTa. But i would have if I saw it on the blue, because in my eyes, it doesn't matter if it's personally critical or a personal attack, it still has no business in the discussion.
posted by corb at 6:56 PM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't flag often, but for me if someone is stepping outside the conversation to poke at someone or their comment is superfluously focused on something that seems like a personality conflict, I just use the "noise" flag.
posted by rhizome at 7:04 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:04 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
The question of whether personal/inter-user commentary belongs in a non-metatalk thread is its own issue, though, distinct from the question that's been under discussion a lot in here the idea that something's a personal attack and how that's categorized or defined, and while there can be overlap in those issue I don't think it's going to help illuminate the personal attack question to conflate them.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:09 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:09 PM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
"(And I do appreciate your legal point of view in these threads, I just wish you could find a way to present it differently so you didn't come off as a jerk at times. It would not take a major shift in style. Just a few, "In my view..." or "In my opinion...the facts are" can drastically change the tone of a post.)"
It's an unfortunate dynamic that has two parts. Ironmouth takes a lot of unjustified personal attacks here, including shit like jeffburges describing him as "pro-thug cop" and other slings, instead of challenging him on facts and law, like syzygy did. What seems to happen is then instead of responding to the (stronger, factual or evidentiary) challenges to his opinion, he unloads full bore on people that are just kind of being jabbering assholes. It frustrates people that want to have an honest disagreement with him because it feels like their legitimate points aren't getting answered, and it contributes to the perception that just treating him like an asshole is justified since he's fairly regularly obviously an asshole to people.
I do think that he can add a lot of value here — just like I think that dios adds a lot of value, and a couple other folks that are both generally more right of the MeFi polis and lawyers add a lot of value. But with the current dynamic, and with previous dynamics with dios, that value has been severely compromised. For instance, I'd be willing to bet that Ironmouth does know the most about police-involved shootings and the procedures around them than anyone else on MeFi, and that the desire to dismiss him as a troll is foolish. That doesn't mean that I agree with his position — there are plenty of people who know more about a given topic than I do whom I disagree with.
I do also generally think it has to do with how lawyers argue, specifically the general tendency to state their argument in a way that implies a broader position than they're actually taking — something that people have cited in general as a problem with conversations here, which I believe is magnified with lawyers. But it's also got to do with personalities and temperaments.
That said, I think it's a significantly different problem than the one that Tanizaki is complaining about, and conflating the two makes it seem like they're both instances of unfair groupthink. Specifically, in that Reddit thread that Tanizaki links to, the primary specific complaint is that people on MetaFilter react badly when someone says that trans women aren't women. From the perspective of those complainers, this is an entirely reasonable, tradition-based disagreement on terminology and to have to change that feels unnecessary. But to transgender people, it's a deeply dehumanizing and alienating thing that they deal with regularly. It is analogous to other bigoted opinions, e.g. that gays can be gay but why do they have to rub it in everyone's faces? or complaints about reverse racism. All of the same justifications (tradition, lefties too serious, etc.) apply.
So complaining that the pushback that they get is because they're "the wrong kind of people" is fundamentally dishonest. The pushback they get is because they're blithely perpetuating harm on fellow community members. The "read a 101" that seems to frustrate Tanizaki et al.? It's actually based on the idea that if you understood the harm you were inflicting, you wouldn't do it. It's an a priori assumption that the person is just falling into a tradition of harmful ignorance without intending harm. Simply disagreeing that one's opinion is causing harm isn't sufficient to justify continuing voicing the opinion, unless you're an asshole.
Which brings me back to the fundamental hypocrisy I see in complaints like this: There are plenty of opinions that expressing makes one come across as an asshole, and many of the nominally oppressed opinions here meet the standard of knowingly inflicting harm with no real benefit to the community — it's rare that these opinions are novel for anyone who has read a few of these threads — and yet, those voicing those opinions feel ganged up upon when they're told they're being assholes.
So yes, there is a "wrong sort of opinion," but for good reason. And the complaints in that Reddit thread are bullshit from people not used to being told that their opinions are bullshit and they're being assholes by expressing them. From there, the complaints about a "lack of civility" fall hollow because while I generally feel that the harm inflicted on e.g. transgender people from these obnoxious comments is pretty minimal in the overall scheme of things, the harm inflicted from the lack of civility is significantly lower. It's not harmless; it certainly does discourage some commenters from wading in, but the gain that we get as a community is a lot more voices that aren't available in mainstream media. Having more women participate, having more people of color, more LGBT people participate, that's all valuable.
Now, obviously it's just my opinion that those voices are more valuable than the ones we're losing, and there are certainly topics on which I think that we're poorer for that — while I doubt that I'd learn something new from Tanizaki's views on gays, I certainly have from his views on the Greek Orthodox church.
But ultimately, if you can't stand being told that you're wrong and at least occasionally owning up to being wrong, MetaFilter isn't going to be a good fit for you. And that's OK.
posted by klangklangston at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2014 [44 favorites]
It's an unfortunate dynamic that has two parts. Ironmouth takes a lot of unjustified personal attacks here, including shit like jeffburges describing him as "pro-thug cop" and other slings, instead of challenging him on facts and law, like syzygy did. What seems to happen is then instead of responding to the (stronger, factual or evidentiary) challenges to his opinion, he unloads full bore on people that are just kind of being jabbering assholes. It frustrates people that want to have an honest disagreement with him because it feels like their legitimate points aren't getting answered, and it contributes to the perception that just treating him like an asshole is justified since he's fairly regularly obviously an asshole to people.
I do think that he can add a lot of value here — just like I think that dios adds a lot of value, and a couple other folks that are both generally more right of the MeFi polis and lawyers add a lot of value. But with the current dynamic, and with previous dynamics with dios, that value has been severely compromised. For instance, I'd be willing to bet that Ironmouth does know the most about police-involved shootings and the procedures around them than anyone else on MeFi, and that the desire to dismiss him as a troll is foolish. That doesn't mean that I agree with his position — there are plenty of people who know more about a given topic than I do whom I disagree with.
I do also generally think it has to do with how lawyers argue, specifically the general tendency to state their argument in a way that implies a broader position than they're actually taking — something that people have cited in general as a problem with conversations here, which I believe is magnified with lawyers. But it's also got to do with personalities and temperaments.
That said, I think it's a significantly different problem than the one that Tanizaki is complaining about, and conflating the two makes it seem like they're both instances of unfair groupthink. Specifically, in that Reddit thread that Tanizaki links to, the primary specific complaint is that people on MetaFilter react badly when someone says that trans women aren't women. From the perspective of those complainers, this is an entirely reasonable, tradition-based disagreement on terminology and to have to change that feels unnecessary. But to transgender people, it's a deeply dehumanizing and alienating thing that they deal with regularly. It is analogous to other bigoted opinions, e.g. that gays can be gay but why do they have to rub it in everyone's faces? or complaints about reverse racism. All of the same justifications (tradition, lefties too serious, etc.) apply.
So complaining that the pushback that they get is because they're "the wrong kind of people" is fundamentally dishonest. The pushback they get is because they're blithely perpetuating harm on fellow community members. The "read a 101" that seems to frustrate Tanizaki et al.? It's actually based on the idea that if you understood the harm you were inflicting, you wouldn't do it. It's an a priori assumption that the person is just falling into a tradition of harmful ignorance without intending harm. Simply disagreeing that one's opinion is causing harm isn't sufficient to justify continuing voicing the opinion, unless you're an asshole.
Which brings me back to the fundamental hypocrisy I see in complaints like this: There are plenty of opinions that expressing makes one come across as an asshole, and many of the nominally oppressed opinions here meet the standard of knowingly inflicting harm with no real benefit to the community — it's rare that these opinions are novel for anyone who has read a few of these threads — and yet, those voicing those opinions feel ganged up upon when they're told they're being assholes.
So yes, there is a "wrong sort of opinion," but for good reason. And the complaints in that Reddit thread are bullshit from people not used to being told that their opinions are bullshit and they're being assholes by expressing them. From there, the complaints about a "lack of civility" fall hollow because while I generally feel that the harm inflicted on e.g. transgender people from these obnoxious comments is pretty minimal in the overall scheme of things, the harm inflicted from the lack of civility is significantly lower. It's not harmless; it certainly does discourage some commenters from wading in, but the gain that we get as a community is a lot more voices that aren't available in mainstream media. Having more women participate, having more people of color, more LGBT people participate, that's all valuable.
Now, obviously it's just my opinion that those voices are more valuable than the ones we're losing, and there are certainly topics on which I think that we're poorer for that — while I doubt that I'd learn something new from Tanizaki's views on gays, I certainly have from his views on the Greek Orthodox church.
But ultimately, if you can't stand being told that you're wrong and at least occasionally owning up to being wrong, MetaFilter isn't going to be a good fit for you. And that's OK.
posted by klangklangston at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2014 [44 favorites]
Klang, after such tight and succinct prose, I have never felt more confident in calling myself an asshole.
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
We're all assholes sometimes.
posted by klangklangston at 9:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 9:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
Outside of all this, the way mods use flags on the backend mostly ignores the reasons, so instead of further complicating the flagging system, I'd say in the future you might see it instead get a lot more streamlined.
Please don't get rid of the reasons. You'll lose so much potential data!
posted by clockzero at 9:48 PM on December 3, 2014
Please don't get rid of the reasons. You'll lose so much potential data!
posted by clockzero at 9:48 PM on December 3, 2014
I think uncategorized flag + text box would be perfect. I think there's value in users being able to express why they're flagging something, even if the moderators ignore it. Mods know the rules and can judge a comment cold, but users don't always know that, and I think there should be some sort of feedback mechanism like that. Text boxes seem much more useful than a drop-down.
posted by jaguar at 10:09 PM on December 3, 2014
posted by jaguar at 10:09 PM on December 3, 2014
At least one person asked about this a little bit up the road... I think this is a personal attack. I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here.
On a different note, feels like there's too much "you're wrong." I mean, obviously someone is wrong if they say Montreal is the capital of Canada, but lots of what strikes some people as wrong strikes me as sharply differing opinions.
posted by ambient2 at 10:54 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
On a different note, feels like there's too much "you're wrong." I mean, obviously someone is wrong if they say Montreal is the capital of Canada, but lots of what strikes some people as wrong strikes me as sharply differing opinions.
posted by ambient2 at 10:54 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
Having more women participate, having more people of color, more LGBT people participate, that's all valuable.
With statistics to my knowledge unavailable, it is my strong belief that the relative representation of people of color is higher on Reddit, on account of class.
A subtext is such participation is valuable only from women, PoC, and LGBT people subscribing to Progressivism. For ex. I've no dog in Gamergate but the two people I've met who are supporters are a woman of color and a transgender woman.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:05 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
With statistics to my knowledge unavailable, it is my strong belief that the relative representation of people of color is higher on Reddit, on account of class.
A subtext is such participation is valuable only from women, PoC, and LGBT people subscribing to Progressivism. For ex. I've no dog in Gamergate but the two people I've met who are supporters are a woman of color and a transgender woman.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:05 PM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter has a higher representation of women, people of color and LGBT people after the changes that the Reddit thread referenced were implemented.
A subtext that only women, etc. who "subscrib[e] to Progressivism" are valuable is one you've mistakenly attributed; Corb's participation on some topics is great (though I'm not going to try to tie it to the changes in MeFi moderation), while it's toxic on other topics.
Your Gamergate example doesn't make much sense to me as you've presented it.
posted by klangklangston at 11:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
A subtext that only women, etc. who "subscrib[e] to Progressivism" are valuable is one you've mistakenly attributed; Corb's participation on some topics is great (though I'm not going to try to tie it to the changes in MeFi moderation), while it's toxic on other topics.
Your Gamergate example doesn't make much sense to me as you've presented it.
posted by klangklangston at 11:24 PM on December 3, 2014 [5 favorites]
On a different note, feels like there's too much "you're wrong." I mean, obviously someone is wrong if they say Montreal is the capital of Canada, but lots of what strikes some people as wrong strikes me as sharply differing opinions.
I dunno, if people really don't know that Toronto is the capital of Canada they probably shouldn't be posting here.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
I dunno, if people really don't know that Toronto is the capital of Canada they probably shouldn't be posting here.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:36 PM on December 3, 2014 [12 favorites]
I dunno, if people really don't know that Toronto is the capital of Canada they probably shouldn't be posting here.
Should we really be expecting people, especially people who aren't necessarily American, to know the capitals of all the small states? That's a bit like requiring people to know which explorer is on the $2 note.
posted by frimble at 12:36 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Should we really be expecting people, especially people who aren't necessarily American, to know the capitals of all the small states? That's a bit like requiring people to know which explorer is on the $2 note.
posted by frimble at 12:36 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
That's a bit like requiring people to know which explorer is on the $2 note.
Oh please, you're telling me that only Americans have heard of Captain Kirk? I'm really tired of people acting like any celebration of an American is some kind of jingoistic slippery slope.
posted by kagredon at 1:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh please, you're telling me that only Americans have heard of Captain Kirk? I'm really tired of people acting like any celebration of an American is some kind of jingoistic slippery slope.
posted by kagredon at 1:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well, Thomas Jefferson is on a 2£ note. Being a good American, he sent out many people to do his exploring.
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
The way I see the comment empath directed at corb is as a personal attack, yet others don't see it that way at all; wonderful! That's the whole point, isn't it? How much personal criticism do you personally take before you consider yourself attacked? Oh, my - so many factors involved to answer that question! Way too many to make a flag for personal attack work, IMO.
Just for the record, the first thing I reacted to in empath's post was the use of "you CONSTANTLY" (say things that annoy others). That goes back to "fair fighting" and the use of "always" and "never" being verboten. I just find it superior sounding and grating, but by itself it could be overlooked - but when it's followed by, "I think you're pretty smart, but)" well, come on. Then a remark about how corb has to finally grasp the meaning of what she said for the first time. Wow.
And then the corker, to me: it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here,
Okay - sorry, but how much of a put-down does it take to make an attack?
I do understand that this the gray and this is the place for criticism and complaint, so I assume one shouldn't be flagging any personal attack here - okay, I get that. Still, my point is that what constitutes a personal attack to one person is a mere dose of mild criticism to another. I just can't see flagging working well for this, other than to relieve the tension of the person who's annoyed when he/she can slam home the flag button and wait to see the item deleted.
Again, it's not up to me - just my personal opinion.
posted by aryma at 2:15 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Just for the record, the first thing I reacted to in empath's post was the use of "you CONSTANTLY" (say things that annoy others). That goes back to "fair fighting" and the use of "always" and "never" being verboten. I just find it superior sounding and grating, but by itself it could be overlooked - but when it's followed by, "I think you're pretty smart, but)" well, come on. Then a remark about how corb has to finally grasp the meaning of what she said for the first time. Wow.
And then the corker, to me: it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here,
Okay - sorry, but how much of a put-down does it take to make an attack?
I do understand that this the gray and this is the place for criticism and complaint, so I assume one shouldn't be flagging any personal attack here - okay, I get that. Still, my point is that what constitutes a personal attack to one person is a mere dose of mild criticism to another. I just can't see flagging working well for this, other than to relieve the tension of the person who's annoyed when he/she can slam home the flag button and wait to see the item deleted.
Again, it's not up to me - just my personal opinion.
posted by aryma at 2:15 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Not to pile on or anything, but perhaps it's useful to point out that there's a few more people who feel that this passage is an attack:
I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here.
I can see Miko's point that the comment as a whole was probably meant to be constructive criticism, but that passage isn't constructive. Superficially it advises her to reflect more before commenting, but that's hardly the only thing going on in that sentence. To me it reads as a bit of an unsubtle dig. Sure, it doesn't call her names directly, but it wouldn't have taken much effort to rephrase the sentence in a more neutral fashion. So I can't help but feel there was a deliberate decision to refer to corb's affiliation with "gun-nut echo-chambers". To me, the decision to use tendentious language adds a pretty clear guilt-by-association subtext, and had that comment been directed at me I'd have been quite distressed. I'm impressed that corb doesn't seem upset by that kind of thing, but I would have been.
posted by langtonsant at 3:11 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
I mean it's great that you get out of whatever libertarian/survivalist/gun-nut echo-chamber you live on in the rest of the web to post here, but maybe engage in a little bit of reflection before posting stuff here.
I can see Miko's point that the comment as a whole was probably meant to be constructive criticism, but that passage isn't constructive. Superficially it advises her to reflect more before commenting, but that's hardly the only thing going on in that sentence. To me it reads as a bit of an unsubtle dig. Sure, it doesn't call her names directly, but it wouldn't have taken much effort to rephrase the sentence in a more neutral fashion. So I can't help but feel there was a deliberate decision to refer to corb's affiliation with "gun-nut echo-chambers". To me, the decision to use tendentious language adds a pretty clear guilt-by-association subtext, and had that comment been directed at me I'd have been quite distressed. I'm impressed that corb doesn't seem upset by that kind of thing, but I would have been.
posted by langtonsant at 3:11 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
I think uncategorized flag + text box would be perfect.
My actual job once was trying to make sense of a system like this and I can tell you it would not be perfect; it would be a nightmare. Pre-coded tags may not fit every situation but at least you don't end up attempting to get sense out of things like this:
too blue
unsubscribe
THE THING IS DOING THAT THING
I dont no but it is annoying!!!!
Why skudfhisunciuehfk
racist
Rassist
Rscst
Tsody
Racist!!!
So yeah it would be a disaster and be worse than just the flag with no text at all by a long shot, which is worse than our current system by far. At least with our current system the mods get a rough pointer at what someone thinks might be a problem based on categories they and we are decided merit attention.
posted by winna at 3:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [19 favorites]
My actual job once was trying to make sense of a system like this and I can tell you it would not be perfect; it would be a nightmare. Pre-coded tags may not fit every situation but at least you don't end up attempting to get sense out of things like this:
too blue
unsubscribe
THE THING IS DOING THAT THING
I dont no but it is annoying!!!!
Why skudfhisunciuehfk
racist
Rassist
Rscst
Tsody
Racist!!!
So yeah it would be a disaster and be worse than just the flag with no text at all by a long shot, which is worse than our current system by far. At least with our current system the mods get a rough pointer at what someone thinks might be a problem based on categories they and we are decided merit attention.
posted by winna at 3:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [19 favorites]
For comments, HTML/display error is a nuts-and-bolts separate problem, but for the most part all the others are just treated as "flags".
Personally, I'd prefer to consolidate the existing flags rather than add new categories. Most of the time when I flag something, it's pretty much a coin flip whether I use "noise" or "derail", but either way I mean "hey I think this comment is sort of not a great addition to this thread, I'd like a mod to take a look at it." That encompasses a lot of things: sometimes it's stuff that I think is getting fighty, sometimes it's something that I think is just sort of irrelevant to the discussion or something that was already thoroughly discussed 30 comments back, sometimes it's someone bringing in stuff that's going on a different thread, etc. Sometimes it's comments where I'm like "wow what the fuck" and sometimes it's comments that I really like but just don't think are particularly germane to the thread (esp. in AskMe.) Frankly, I don't think my specific snowflaky reasons for flagging are or should be particularly relevant on the mod end; it all kind of falls under "I think a mod should look at this."
IMO, I think it'd be fine for the flags to be reduced to, say, "fantastic", "HTML/double", "page-a-mod: urgent" (for things like "someone dropped a drive-by racist comment or called another user a fuckstick"), and "page-a-mod: not-urgent" (for "people are starting to get kind of snippy with each other" and "this tangential issue is taking up a lot of air.")
Also if flag reasons become freeform it's only a matter of time before I get drunk and like, paste in the chorus to Africa in all caps or something else dumb.
posted by kagredon at 3:56 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Personally, I'd prefer to consolidate the existing flags rather than add new categories. Most of the time when I flag something, it's pretty much a coin flip whether I use "noise" or "derail", but either way I mean "hey I think this comment is sort of not a great addition to this thread, I'd like a mod to take a look at it." That encompasses a lot of things: sometimes it's stuff that I think is getting fighty, sometimes it's something that I think is just sort of irrelevant to the discussion or something that was already thoroughly discussed 30 comments back, sometimes it's someone bringing in stuff that's going on a different thread, etc. Sometimes it's comments where I'm like "wow what the fuck" and sometimes it's comments that I really like but just don't think are particularly germane to the thread (esp. in AskMe.) Frankly, I don't think my specific snowflaky reasons for flagging are or should be particularly relevant on the mod end; it all kind of falls under "I think a mod should look at this."
IMO, I think it'd be fine for the flags to be reduced to, say, "fantastic", "HTML/double", "page-a-mod: urgent" (for things like "someone dropped a drive-by racist comment or called another user a fuckstick"), and "page-a-mod: not-urgent" (for "people are starting to get kind of snippy with each other" and "this tangential issue is taking up a lot of air.")
Also if flag reasons become freeform it's only a matter of time before I get drunk and like, paste in the chorus to Africa in all caps or something else dumb.
posted by kagredon at 3:56 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Will the next one have any impact on this thread and its assertions?
posted by infini at 5:00 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by infini at 5:00 AM on December 4, 2014
Mouse over the full stop. The full stop betrays intent.
posted by frimble at 5:32 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by frimble at 5:32 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I dunno, if people really don't know that Toronto is the capital of Canada they probably shouldn't be posting here.
Exactly. Everybody knows it's Montréal.
posted by Wolof at 5:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Exactly. Everybody knows it's Montréal.
posted by Wolof at 5:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
I was gonna post my own suggested flag list but kagredon's is better.
posted by harriet vane at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by harriet vane at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014
Pre-coded tags may not fit every situation but at least you don't end up attempting to get sense out of things like
I understand your point about data but it doesn't look like there's that level of data analysis going on here - like, there's no evaluation summary report that means this data needs to be coded to establish patterns. At the same time, I see the argument for minimizing to three or so streams of problem with a flag for each + maybe an optional text box. "fantastic, double, breaks the guidelines" might be enough (where "breaks the guidelines" includes offensive/sexism/racism, noise, derail, and any other guideline-breaking stuff).
the median Reddit user is male (59%), 18–29 years of age
As for MetaFilter, I know this has come up before and we're just fuzzier. Maybe this is useful.
Reddit may have more of every kind of person because it's enormous. At the same time, numbers aside, people on Reddit do not get to have the expectation of being in a "community" and being able to participate on a fair playing field where everyone is under the same guidelines. Many people on Reddit with some flavor of oppressed identity have to pick and choose their participation very carefully, because there are some subs and discussions which exist there explicity to continue oppressive behavior against that identity. Participating on reddit means, to me, participating in a place that tolerates and actively, shruggingly logistically supports oppression. MetaFilter has no such corners or chambers - it is whole. If you can go one place here, you can go everywhere in reasonable expectation of not being targeted for identity-based attack. There's a great deal of value in that for some of us.
posted by Miko at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I understand your point about data but it doesn't look like there's that level of data analysis going on here - like, there's no evaluation summary report that means this data needs to be coded to establish patterns. At the same time, I see the argument for minimizing to three or so streams of problem with a flag for each + maybe an optional text box. "fantastic, double, breaks the guidelines" might be enough (where "breaks the guidelines" includes offensive/sexism/racism, noise, derail, and any other guideline-breaking stuff).
the median Reddit user is male (59%), 18–29 years of age
As for MetaFilter, I know this has come up before and we're just fuzzier. Maybe this is useful.
Reddit may have more of every kind of person because it's enormous. At the same time, numbers aside, people on Reddit do not get to have the expectation of being in a "community" and being able to participate on a fair playing field where everyone is under the same guidelines. Many people on Reddit with some flavor of oppressed identity have to pick and choose their participation very carefully, because there are some subs and discussions which exist there explicity to continue oppressive behavior against that identity. Participating on reddit means, to me, participating in a place that tolerates and actively, shruggingly logistically supports oppression. MetaFilter has no such corners or chambers - it is whole. If you can go one place here, you can go everywhere in reasonable expectation of not being targeted for identity-based attack. There's a great deal of value in that for some of us.
posted by Miko at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
we should just consolidate most of the flag categories under a new one named simply "Yo, Mods!" and let them play a fun game of attempting to deduce from the context what it was we wanted them to do about it
(this is pretty similar to my existing chubby-fingered drunk-flagging process, and so far the mods have seemed to be able to figure out when i actually meant to select "fantastic" and when I meant to say "please kill this with fire" instead)
posted by Jacqueline at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014
(this is pretty similar to my existing chubby-fingered drunk-flagging process, and so far the mods have seemed to be able to figure out when i actually meant to select "fantastic" and when I meant to say "please kill this with fire" instead)
posted by Jacqueline at 5:39 AM on December 4, 2014
Can it be called, "Yo, YO! Mods?" I just use "it breaks the guidelines," because being nasty to someone does break the guidelines.
posted by agregoli at 5:51 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 5:51 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
So complaining that the pushback that they get is because they're "the wrong kind of people" is fundamentally dishonest. The pushback they get is because they're blithely perpetuating harm on fellow community members.
I think that a lot of what you're saying has value, but from my view, it actually seems like both.
There are a lot of people with minority views who have said that the language used to refer to them or others is hurtful and upsetting and they wish that it would stop - that it is, effectively, emotional harm. Some of them have said that it is, in fact, dehumanizing and alienating, to use your language. Some of it, in fact, is in that very pushback you reference. But yet somehow, the same people arguing that harm to community members should not be engaged in are some of the very same people engaging in that harm. And moderation, as well, tends to fall along those lines (even if only for the pragmatic reason that some harm will get more community response than others).
So how are people to interpret it, except that there are some people who it is okay to blithely and knowingly do harm to, and others who it's not?
I see a lot of "well, these people face this every day in their daily lives while others don't," but it's making a lot of assumptions about fellow Mefites to suggest that you know what people face in their daily lives. A lot of that depends on the people in their family, community, or workplace, which are all factors that we here on Metafilter usually have very little idea about. It doesn't really do much to say "well these things are approved of by broader American society, so you can't be alienated," because people don't generally encounter "broader American society" in a monolithic fashion - they experience the society they happen to exist in, which alters according to region, social circle, ethnicity, etc.
posted by corb at 6:24 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think that a lot of what you're saying has value, but from my view, it actually seems like both.
There are a lot of people with minority views who have said that the language used to refer to them or others is hurtful and upsetting and they wish that it would stop - that it is, effectively, emotional harm. Some of them have said that it is, in fact, dehumanizing and alienating, to use your language. Some of it, in fact, is in that very pushback you reference. But yet somehow, the same people arguing that harm to community members should not be engaged in are some of the very same people engaging in that harm. And moderation, as well, tends to fall along those lines (even if only for the pragmatic reason that some harm will get more community response than others).
So how are people to interpret it, except that there are some people who it is okay to blithely and knowingly do harm to, and others who it's not?
I see a lot of "well, these people face this every day in their daily lives while others don't," but it's making a lot of assumptions about fellow Mefites to suggest that you know what people face in their daily lives. A lot of that depends on the people in their family, community, or workplace, which are all factors that we here on Metafilter usually have very little idea about. It doesn't really do much to say "well these things are approved of by broader American society, so you can't be alienated," because people don't generally encounter "broader American society" in a monolithic fashion - they experience the society they happen to exist in, which alters according to region, social circle, ethnicity, etc.
posted by corb at 6:24 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
"fantastic, double, breaks the guidelines"
Or, as it was put last time: Good, Bad, Broken.
posted by bonehead at 6:27 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Or, as it was put last time: Good, Bad, Broken.
posted by bonehead at 6:27 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Can it be called, "Yo, YO! Mods?" I just use "it breaks the guidelines," because being nasty to someone does break the guidelines.
Can we get tight integration between the mobile site and Yo?
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:30 AM on December 4, 2014
Can we get tight integration between the mobile site and Yo?
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:30 AM on December 4, 2014
There is no possible comparison between people being hurt because their political affiliations are criticized and being hurt because the killing of individuals in their ethnic group is minimized in favor of empathizing with cops.
posted by winna at 6:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [25 favorites]
posted by winna at 6:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [25 favorites]
There are plenty of opinions that expressing makes one come across as an asshole
Yes, there sure are. For example, I was once informed by a member of this site, to much favoriting, that I was doing her harm by not giving her money. It was quickly followed by a disclaimer that she didn't really mean that, but this is the equivalent of when someone wiggles a finger a centimeter in front of your face and says you shouldn't be upset because "I'm not touching yoouuuu" or because "hey, can't you take a joke? I didn't mean it".
Who's an asshole? That's a social construct, right? We know what happens here when Right Kind of Social Construct collides with the Wrong Kind of Social Construct.
So complaining that the pushback that they get is because they're "the wrong kind of people" is fundamentally dishonest.
I remember a MetaTalk not too long ago where at least one person was called to task based on the people who favorited his/her comments. So yes, there is definitely such a thing as the Wrong Kind of Person at least as far as some members of this site are concerned.
if you can't stand being told that you're wrong and at least occasionally owning up to being wrong, MetaFilter isn't going to be a good fit for you.
The moderation issues that are the topic of this thread mean that if you are a Portlandia type, you aren't going to get told that you are wrong very often.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes, there sure are. For example, I was once informed by a member of this site, to much favoriting, that I was doing her harm by not giving her money. It was quickly followed by a disclaimer that she didn't really mean that, but this is the equivalent of when someone wiggles a finger a centimeter in front of your face and says you shouldn't be upset because "I'm not touching yoouuuu" or because "hey, can't you take a joke? I didn't mean it".
Who's an asshole? That's a social construct, right? We know what happens here when Right Kind of Social Construct collides with the Wrong Kind of Social Construct.
So complaining that the pushback that they get is because they're "the wrong kind of people" is fundamentally dishonest.
I remember a MetaTalk not too long ago where at least one person was called to task based on the people who favorited his/her comments. So yes, there is definitely such a thing as the Wrong Kind of Person at least as far as some members of this site are concerned.
if you can't stand being told that you're wrong and at least occasionally owning up to being wrong, MetaFilter isn't going to be a good fit for you.
The moderation issues that are the topic of this thread mean that if you are a Portlandia type, you aren't going to get told that you are wrong very often.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
a Portlandia type
Could you explain to this clueless Elsewherian what this means? We like to be able to pretend that we're a part of this site, thank you.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:01 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Could you explain to this clueless Elsewherian what this means? We like to be able to pretend that we're a part of this site, thank you.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:01 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
a Portlandia type
Thank dog someone has the balls to tell the unvarnished truth while casting others as comic stereotypes. There really should be more of this bold truth telling. Or possibly an award for conspicuous bravery.
Maybe a flag?
posted by Wolof at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
Thank dog someone has the balls to tell the unvarnished truth while casting others as comic stereotypes. There really should be more of this bold truth telling. Or possibly an award for conspicuous bravery.
Maybe a flag?
posted by Wolof at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
Portlandia's not a documentary, dude.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Having kept up with this entire thread (i.e., lurking) since its inception, I honestly don't understand why people who are clearly unhappy with the majority userbase of this site or how it's run or apparently feel "silenced all my life" when asked to not be offensive on women's/trans/gay/minority/etc stick around. It's like, it's cool if you don't want to be here. No one is making you be here. If reddit is where you like to hang your hat more, then by all means, hang your hat there. Life is too short to be grumpycakes about a web community you clearly loathe.
posted by Kitteh at 7:06 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 7:06 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Could you explain to this clueless Elsewherian what this means? We like to be able to pretend that we're a part of this site, thank you.
"Portlandia liberal" is a phrase from this thread, alluded to by kalessin above. The contrasting phrase "Boston liberal," which also appears in that thread, never took off, for reasons I can't fathom.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:08 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Portlandia liberal" is a phrase from this thread, alluded to by kalessin above. The contrasting phrase "Boston liberal," which also appears in that thread, never took off, for reasons I can't fathom.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:08 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Portlandia is also a television show that tries to humorously showcase a particular type of liberal that many people associate with the city of Portland. I think the show itself may be affectionate, mocking-from-within, but the term "Portlandia liberal" is generally not.
posted by corb at 7:10 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by corb at 7:10 AM on December 4, 2014
Thanks, but I'm really interested in Tanizaki's explanation, after all s/he may be using the term differently from its general use... what do we know?
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:12 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:12 AM on December 4, 2014
Life is too short to be grumpycakes about a web community you clearly loathe.
You're new to the internet, aren't you?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:14 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
You're new to the internet, aren't you?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:14 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nope, not at all. Just someone who tries to spend her time where my enjoyment and engagement and learning curve is more important than being a jerk all the time.
posted by Kitteh at 7:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 7:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
What seems to happen is then instead of responding to the (stronger, factual or evidentiary) challenges to his opinion, he unloads full bore on people that are just kind of being jabbering assholes.
If I can be meta-meta for a moment, there's a similar process that recurs in these MeTa discussions.
MetaTalk serves at least a couple different roles that are at odds with each other. This space acts at times as a pressure release value for the airing of grievances. At other times, it's a place for substantive discussion of site policy. The low-moderation approach can support the former while hampering the latter, but I've seen both functions work themselves out and serve their purposes.
I don't think MetaTalk would work better any other way, but it's something to keep in mind, especially when any person's participation in one thread mixes both roles.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
If I can be meta-meta for a moment, there's a similar process that recurs in these MeTa discussions.
MetaTalk serves at least a couple different roles that are at odds with each other. This space acts at times as a pressure release value for the airing of grievances. At other times, it's a place for substantive discussion of site policy. The low-moderation approach can support the former while hampering the latter, but I've seen both functions work themselves out and serve their purposes.
I don't think MetaTalk would work better any other way, but it's something to keep in mind, especially when any person's participation in one thread mixes both roles.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
There's a site for us
Somewhere a site for us
Snark and favorites and plates of beans
Wait for us
Somewhere
posted by murphy slaw at 7:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Somewhere a site for us
Snark and favorites and plates of beans
Wait for us
Somewhere
posted by murphy slaw at 7:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Portlandia is also a television show that tries to humorously showcase a particular type of liberal that many people associate with the city of Portland.
If there's one thing I associate with MetaFilter, it's the wife of a down-on-his-luck celery salesman offering to have sex with a bacon salesman. Or a hand job. Which is not a consolation prize.
By which I mean I have a feeling that the people who glom onto "Portlandia liberal" as a pejorative may actually not be hugely familiar with Portlandia the TV show. Which is another Gamergate correspondence, I guess...
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:48 AM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
If there's one thing I associate with MetaFilter, it's the wife of a down-on-his-luck celery salesman offering to have sex with a bacon salesman. Or a hand job. Which is not a consolation prize.
By which I mean I have a feeling that the people who glom onto "Portlandia liberal" as a pejorative may actually not be hugely familiar with Portlandia the TV show. Which is another Gamergate correspondence, I guess...
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:48 AM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
Can it be called, "Yo, YO! Mods?"
Yoyo Mods is my favorite (get it?) virtuoso comment-deleter.
I'm not the one who has to cope with it, but man I think a flag system that doesn't put the trivial bar-to-clear of picking from a list of reasons sounds like a nightmare. I perceive it as providing a bit of a "hey slow down" captcha type value, even if someone who wants to be a bad (or more likely just kind of thoughtless) actor just picks the first choice.
I'd personally suggest, from a usability (for both users & mods) standpoint that you should do some volume tracking if you give it a try. I wouldn't be surprised to see volume rise by over 40% after a few weeks of click&go.
posted by phearlez at 8:12 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yoyo Mods is my favorite (get it?) virtuoso comment-deleter.
I'm not the one who has to cope with it, but man I think a flag system that doesn't put the trivial bar-to-clear of picking from a list of reasons sounds like a nightmare. I perceive it as providing a bit of a "hey slow down" captcha type value, even if someone who wants to be a bad (or more likely just kind of thoughtless) actor just picks the first choice.
I'd personally suggest, from a usability (for both users & mods) standpoint that you should do some volume tracking if you give it a try. I wouldn't be surprised to see volume rise by over 40% after a few weeks of click&go.
posted by phearlez at 8:12 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I obviously need to watch this show.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by cjorgensen at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2014
There is no possible comparison between people being hurt because their political affiliations are criticized and being hurt because the killing of individuals in their ethnic group is minimized in favor of empathizing with cops.
Well, I agree, but not because the latter trivializes the former due to the latter's existence, but because they are instead two different kinds of "hurt".
I think the primary type of infraction towards corb, Ironmouth, and others that I find most troubling/least conducive to productive discussion is the harsh language and almost constant snark towards unpopular opinions. In the original thread, Ironmouth gets called an "idiot", and it is implied that corb supports a "a racist murder by a racist murderer", which is just about the least charitable re-framing of her view as possible. And yes, things like these technically fall within posting guidelines, but do these kinds of words help the person being talked to? Help the community? Help anyone at all? Sometimes, I get the impression that there's a side-effect to mods deleting harmful comments on the blue, and that's when regular posters try to toe the line, and see what the most underhanded things they can get away with. And even when I agree with someone on a topic, when I see them do this, I'm disappointed, as this behavior is not something I want associated with my opinions. (And I'm not talking about any one side here; I see this occur from people holding majority or minority beliefs here.)
I think the best way I can phrase it is that people don't listen in good faith. It seems common enough that either: 1) an opposing viewpoint is taken as the most offensive, generalized, poorly-constructed form as possible, and that is what is argued against, or 2) when a post gets several disagreements, the poster decides to respond to the most offensive, generalized, poorly-constructed reply that was made. And these things don't even need to happen that often for a thread to spiral into a harmful, non-productive place, and I think everyone can prevent this by assuming better intentions, and choosing one's words to be as constructive as possible, even when disagreeing.
For instance, Ironmouth, I think the content of your posts are worthwhile. I am not a legal expert, but I find the legal side of the case to be an interesting topic, because it puts aside morality, and focuses entirely on America's current laws. And I'm of the opinion that it's possible you are entirely right. That even if Wilson was indicted, he wouldn't have been convicted. And that might hold true even if all the evidence was collected in a manner that everyone was happy, or even if there was a clear video recording of the entire event (as in Garner's case). To me, this is useful, because this discussion can change to, if what Wilson did was legal, should it have been? And we can all talk about the balance between police having protection to do their job vs. civilians having protection against the police, and bring in the tension of the racial power structure in areas such as Ferguson, and how that applies, and so on. I don't think your comments had to have been a derail. However, I believe you are smart, and I believe that you believe you are smart, but how you present your arguments seems to imply arrogance to many members here. The idea that you have The Right Answer, and that disagreement to it is Wrong. By saying, "I don't see how X...", it does not appear you want an explanation for that position, but are rather dismissing any interpretation that leads to X belief. And even if you are correct, this shuts down conversation, as people become defensive on all sides. If someone speaking to me doesn't appear willing to listen, than I am less likely to listen, too. I suggest you attempt to adjust how you present your arguments. In this case, possibly being upfront that the content of your post is primarily focusing on the legal aspects, and also acknowledging that there are other legal experts that would disagree with some/all of your opinions (even ignoring the grand jury outcome, things like how the grand jury trial was conducted, how evidence was collected, how no special prosecutor was chosen, etc.)
corb, I think the content of your posts are worthwhile. I have sympathy for Wilson in the sense that, nobody gets to choose the circumstances of their birth or upbringing, and things like that have a lot to do with how a person perceives the world, and chooses to live in it. And because of that, I believe any one person's actions are not just their own. So I can choose to view Wilson from a larger perspective, and imagine him as another piece of this horrendous Machine that has been created in America. He's one of the gears that gets replaced every few years instead of the meat that's getting ground up and churned out, but he's a product of the system just the same. And in that regard, I think viewing his circumstances, and his psyche, could be immensely valuable. Alongside the discussion of how/if to punish Wilson, there can be the discussion of what changes can be made to produce less Wilsons in the future? If his motivations were racist, how do we raise less racists? If his motivations were an assertion of his power dominance, how do we adjust society to make that less appealing? I'd really love to see conversations like this on MetaFilter. But I think there's a resistance to this here, possibly because of how you present these types of discussions, because these can admittedly be difficult discussions to have. The pattern seems to be that you present a hypothetical, or very "meta" type of question, generally early on in what can be very emotional topics. Imagine on September 11th, 2001, someone came into MetaFilter's thread on the topic and said, "You know, America has had a despicable track record on foreign policy in the Middle East for decades, with the amount of civilians they've displaced and killed, the frustration and hatred they have towards America because of our military is unimaginable. Perhaps Osama bin Laden planned this attack to shock Americans into wondering what would cause them to do this, look into our own country's historical policies, realize that this has been a problem for them, and restructure our policies to prevent further civilian deaths. What do you think?" (Ignoring that this person couldn't know all this the day of), these are all very important ideas, and ones that should absolutely be discussed, but it's an incredibly delicate topic, and absolutely not one that will lead to productive thoughts when people are still grieving and emotional over recent events. Try to focus on the context and circumstances before presenting thoughts such as these, and hold them for another time, when you are more likely to get the type of conversation you desire.
To MetaTalk in general: it's my opinions that a lot of the issues I presented above occur most often here, which is incredibly problematic, as this place is intended as a way to attempt to solve such issues. And while this area is the least moderated, I believe it should be the best behaved, and I sincerely believe that the people here have high enough standards to make that possible. So if your post here would fit better on the blue, but would likely be deleted there, please reconsider. If your post is one line, and passive-aggressive, vague and implying something mean, or snarky, you'll probably get favorites, but it doesn't help anyone. Please reconsider. If the conversation becomes 1-3 people on side A vs. 1-3 people on side B, posting at a high rate, and those same 1-3 people are favoriting almost every post on the side they agree with, from an outside observer, this appears to be a debate competition, with neither side listening, but rather spouting off as much as possible to get points, and implications that if either side budges, or reconsiders, it's equivalent to admitting defeat. Please reconsider.
I'm one of those people that have been reading MetaFilter for a long time, 8 years (maybe more), and consider it one of the sites that have been highly influential to my upbringing. I'm also one of those people that finds the methods of conversation here to be deeply troubling at times, and is one of the reasons I've never previously held an account here (but that's mostly due to intense social anxiety). If the problems appear to be harsh, it's because so many people are so close to this site and one another, that the problems feel personal and pinpoint, and that leads to difficulty in discussion. But I keep coming back, I keep reading these posts and comments, and I keep reasoning and arguing internally in an attempt to understand what the issues really are, because I think MetaFilter on the whole is amazing. This site is on a higher level than many other community groups I observe, and as such, encounters problems that are unique to this community, and should be discussed in an effort to always improve upon oneself. I critique because I love.
posted by Skephicles at 8:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [41 favorites]
Well, I agree, but not because the latter trivializes the former due to the latter's existence, but because they are instead two different kinds of "hurt".
I think the primary type of infraction towards corb, Ironmouth, and others that I find most troubling/least conducive to productive discussion is the harsh language and almost constant snark towards unpopular opinions. In the original thread, Ironmouth gets called an "idiot", and it is implied that corb supports a "a racist murder by a racist murderer", which is just about the least charitable re-framing of her view as possible. And yes, things like these technically fall within posting guidelines, but do these kinds of words help the person being talked to? Help the community? Help anyone at all? Sometimes, I get the impression that there's a side-effect to mods deleting harmful comments on the blue, and that's when regular posters try to toe the line, and see what the most underhanded things they can get away with. And even when I agree with someone on a topic, when I see them do this, I'm disappointed, as this behavior is not something I want associated with my opinions. (And I'm not talking about any one side here; I see this occur from people holding majority or minority beliefs here.)
I think the best way I can phrase it is that people don't listen in good faith. It seems common enough that either: 1) an opposing viewpoint is taken as the most offensive, generalized, poorly-constructed form as possible, and that is what is argued against, or 2) when a post gets several disagreements, the poster decides to respond to the most offensive, generalized, poorly-constructed reply that was made. And these things don't even need to happen that often for a thread to spiral into a harmful, non-productive place, and I think everyone can prevent this by assuming better intentions, and choosing one's words to be as constructive as possible, even when disagreeing.
For instance, Ironmouth, I think the content of your posts are worthwhile. I am not a legal expert, but I find the legal side of the case to be an interesting topic, because it puts aside morality, and focuses entirely on America's current laws. And I'm of the opinion that it's possible you are entirely right. That even if Wilson was indicted, he wouldn't have been convicted. And that might hold true even if all the evidence was collected in a manner that everyone was happy, or even if there was a clear video recording of the entire event (as in Garner's case). To me, this is useful, because this discussion can change to, if what Wilson did was legal, should it have been? And we can all talk about the balance between police having protection to do their job vs. civilians having protection against the police, and bring in the tension of the racial power structure in areas such as Ferguson, and how that applies, and so on. I don't think your comments had to have been a derail. However, I believe you are smart, and I believe that you believe you are smart, but how you present your arguments seems to imply arrogance to many members here. The idea that you have The Right Answer, and that disagreement to it is Wrong. By saying, "I don't see how X...", it does not appear you want an explanation for that position, but are rather dismissing any interpretation that leads to X belief. And even if you are correct, this shuts down conversation, as people become defensive on all sides. If someone speaking to me doesn't appear willing to listen, than I am less likely to listen, too. I suggest you attempt to adjust how you present your arguments. In this case, possibly being upfront that the content of your post is primarily focusing on the legal aspects, and also acknowledging that there are other legal experts that would disagree with some/all of your opinions (even ignoring the grand jury outcome, things like how the grand jury trial was conducted, how evidence was collected, how no special prosecutor was chosen, etc.)
corb, I think the content of your posts are worthwhile. I have sympathy for Wilson in the sense that, nobody gets to choose the circumstances of their birth or upbringing, and things like that have a lot to do with how a person perceives the world, and chooses to live in it. And because of that, I believe any one person's actions are not just their own. So I can choose to view Wilson from a larger perspective, and imagine him as another piece of this horrendous Machine that has been created in America. He's one of the gears that gets replaced every few years instead of the meat that's getting ground up and churned out, but he's a product of the system just the same. And in that regard, I think viewing his circumstances, and his psyche, could be immensely valuable. Alongside the discussion of how/if to punish Wilson, there can be the discussion of what changes can be made to produce less Wilsons in the future? If his motivations were racist, how do we raise less racists? If his motivations were an assertion of his power dominance, how do we adjust society to make that less appealing? I'd really love to see conversations like this on MetaFilter. But I think there's a resistance to this here, possibly because of how you present these types of discussions, because these can admittedly be difficult discussions to have. The pattern seems to be that you present a hypothetical, or very "meta" type of question, generally early on in what can be very emotional topics. Imagine on September 11th, 2001, someone came into MetaFilter's thread on the topic and said, "You know, America has had a despicable track record on foreign policy in the Middle East for decades, with the amount of civilians they've displaced and killed, the frustration and hatred they have towards America because of our military is unimaginable. Perhaps Osama bin Laden planned this attack to shock Americans into wondering what would cause them to do this, look into our own country's historical policies, realize that this has been a problem for them, and restructure our policies to prevent further civilian deaths. What do you think?" (Ignoring that this person couldn't know all this the day of), these are all very important ideas, and ones that should absolutely be discussed, but it's an incredibly delicate topic, and absolutely not one that will lead to productive thoughts when people are still grieving and emotional over recent events. Try to focus on the context and circumstances before presenting thoughts such as these, and hold them for another time, when you are more likely to get the type of conversation you desire.
To MetaTalk in general: it's my opinions that a lot of the issues I presented above occur most often here, which is incredibly problematic, as this place is intended as a way to attempt to solve such issues. And while this area is the least moderated, I believe it should be the best behaved, and I sincerely believe that the people here have high enough standards to make that possible. So if your post here would fit better on the blue, but would likely be deleted there, please reconsider. If your post is one line, and passive-aggressive, vague and implying something mean, or snarky, you'll probably get favorites, but it doesn't help anyone. Please reconsider. If the conversation becomes 1-3 people on side A vs. 1-3 people on side B, posting at a high rate, and those same 1-3 people are favoriting almost every post on the side they agree with, from an outside observer, this appears to be a debate competition, with neither side listening, but rather spouting off as much as possible to get points, and implications that if either side budges, or reconsiders, it's equivalent to admitting defeat. Please reconsider.
I'm one of those people that have been reading MetaFilter for a long time, 8 years (maybe more), and consider it one of the sites that have been highly influential to my upbringing. I'm also one of those people that finds the methods of conversation here to be deeply troubling at times, and is one of the reasons I've never previously held an account here (but that's mostly due to intense social anxiety). If the problems appear to be harsh, it's because so many people are so close to this site and one another, that the problems feel personal and pinpoint, and that leads to difficulty in discussion. But I keep coming back, I keep reading these posts and comments, and I keep reasoning and arguing internally in an attempt to understand what the issues really are, because I think MetaFilter on the whole is amazing. This site is on a higher level than many other community groups I observe, and as such, encounters problems that are unique to this community, and should be discussed in an effort to always improve upon oneself. I critique because I love.
posted by Skephicles at 8:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [41 favorites]
Wonderful post Skephicles. You expressed (much more eloquently than I could have) many of the thoughts running through my head the past several days. Thank you for such a thoughtful contribution.
posted by phoenix_rising at 8:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by phoenix_rising at 8:40 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
the harsh language and almost constant snark towards unpopular opinions
Bingo. A few weeks ago, I posted something that disagreed with the apparent consensus on MetaFilter that so-and-so was a bad person. Several hours later, another poster quoted me and wrote nothing but "what the actual fuck." (That poster's only other comment in the rather long thread was three days later.)
I posted a rather snarky response explaining what the actual fuck. That was deleted. I posted a calm response. That, too, was deleted. Nothing happened to the original derail other than getting a handful of favorites.
Drive-by threadshitting and other comments that break the guidelines are de facto permitted as long as they express the correct opinion.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Bingo. A few weeks ago, I posted something that disagreed with the apparent consensus on MetaFilter that so-and-so was a bad person. Several hours later, another poster quoted me and wrote nothing but "what the actual fuck." (That poster's only other comment in the rather long thread was three days later.)
I posted a rather snarky response explaining what the actual fuck. That was deleted. I posted a calm response. That, too, was deleted. Nothing happened to the original derail other than getting a handful of favorites.
Drive-by threadshitting and other comments that break the guidelines are de facto permitted as long as they express the correct opinion.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Thanks, but I'm really interested in Tanizaki's explanation, after all s/he may be using the term differently from its general use... what do we know?
My preferred term is SWPL, which may be the same demographic that David Brooks called "bobos". (David Brook tried to make "bobo" happen but it didn't happen). I used Portlandia because of the reference to Portlandia Liberal in this thread. Also, a lot more people know Portlandia than the word SWPL, although a lot of people remember the eponymous website that hasn't been updated for several years.
There's also a good deal of Tumblr slacktivism as well, which I don't think necessarily falls within SWPL.
posted by Tanizaki at 9:15 AM on December 4, 2014
My preferred term is SWPL, which may be the same demographic that David Brooks called "bobos". (David Brook tried to make "bobo" happen but it didn't happen). I used Portlandia because of the reference to Portlandia Liberal in this thread. Also, a lot more people know Portlandia than the word SWPL, although a lot of people remember the eponymous website that hasn't been updated for several years.
There's also a good deal of Tumblr slacktivism as well, which I don't think necessarily falls within SWPL.
posted by Tanizaki at 9:15 AM on December 4, 2014
My preferred term is SWPL, which may be the same demographic that David Brooks called "bobos". (David Brook tried to make "bobo" happen but it didn't happen). I used Portlandia because of the reference to Portlandia Liberal in this thread. Also, a lot more people know Portlandia than the word SWPL, although a lot of people remember the eponymous website that hasn't been updated for several years.
Okay, so your preferred terms for the majority readership on MetaFilter are all reductivist caricatures. Good to know.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:19 AM on December 4, 2014 [24 favorites]
Okay, so your preferred terms for the majority readership on MetaFilter are all reductivist caricatures. Good to know.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:19 AM on December 4, 2014 [24 favorites]
running order squabble fest: Portlandia is also a television show that tries to humorously showcase a particular type of liberal that many people associate with the city of Portland.Funny, relevant, and yet: How many of us actually listen to Hannity's or Limbaugh's shows? And yet, if someone complained of "Limbaugh conservatives", we'd all know what was meant.
If there's one thing I associate with MetaFilter, it's the wife of a down-on-his-luck celery salesman offering to have sex with a bacon salesman. Or a hand job. Which is not a consolation prize.
By which I mean I have a feeling that the people who glom onto "Portlandia liberal" as a pejorative may actually not be hugely familiar with Portlandia the TV show. Which is another Gamergate correspondence, I guess...
I think "Portlandia liberals" is a fairly understandable, not highly offensive snark about "extreme" or "very vocal, strident" liberals (to be fair, it's also a bit vague). I really don't think it's necessary to log a certain number of hours watching it to use the metaphor.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:21 AM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
Yeah there's nothing like mocking those attempting to make a positive change for equality in the world to show how reasoned and rational your position is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:21 AM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:21 AM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I didn't say it was nice. And both sides generally believe they are working for positive changes.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:30 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by IAmBroom at 9:30 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I was responding to Tanizaki, not you IAmBroom, sorry.
And sure, maybe 'Limbaugh conservatives' is lazy... but I said positive changes for equality. That is not something the right wing can even pretend to be doing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:32 AM on December 4, 2014
And sure, maybe 'Limbaugh conservatives' is lazy... but I said positive changes for equality. That is not something the right wing can even pretend to be doing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:32 AM on December 4, 2014
Sure, but far right and far left are just the extreme positions. Lots of moderate lefts on this site, I think.
posted by misha at 9:39 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by misha at 9:39 AM on December 4, 2014
Lots of moderate lefts on this site, I think.
Also a substantial number of center-rightists who seem to genuinely think they're moderate leftists.
posted by RogerB at 9:50 AM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
Also a substantial number of center-rightists who seem to genuinely think they're moderate leftists.
posted by RogerB at 9:50 AM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
I only just realized it was referencing Portland OR and not Portland ME.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:51 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 9:51 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
My political leanings are more in the style of Portland ME, specifically the part of Portland that is a cryptozoology museum.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
I only just realised that Portland OR and Portland ME are different places, rather than a single city existing simultaneously on both coasts.
posted by frimble at 9:58 AM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by frimble at 9:58 AM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
So, Portlandia Liberal is congruent to Limbaugh Conservative then? That is, people whose politics are defined in terms of TV? Think of what you're arguing for, as far as I can estimate you'd be talking about a majority of people in both wings who can also be defined as never once having left a comment on a website.
posted by rhizome at 10:00 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by rhizome at 10:00 AM on December 4, 2014
Also a substantial number of center-rightists who seem to genuinely think they're moderate leftists.
But I vote a straight Democratic ticket every other year and really laugh hard when Jon Stewart eviscerates Faux News yet again! What more could you want???
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
But I vote a straight Democratic ticket every other year and really laugh hard when Jon Stewart eviscerates Faux News yet again! What more could you want???
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:03 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also a substantial number of center-rightists who seem to genuinely think they're moderate leftists.
And a number of people who think the center is further left than it is.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
And a number of people who think the center is further left than it is.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I said positive changes for equality. That is not something the right wing can even pretend to be doing.
The vast majority of people believe they are working for the good, and I genuinely believe that both the left and the right believe that they are working for equality. If I had to attempt to loosely define it, I would say that the left seems to argue for "equality of effect" where the right seems to argue for "equality of state opportunity/equality under the law." But that doesn't mean that either one isn't, with sincerity, trying to argue for equality to make the world a better place.
posted by corb at 10:11 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
The vast majority of people believe they are working for the good, and I genuinely believe that both the left and the right believe that they are working for equality. If I had to attempt to loosely define it, I would say that the left seems to argue for "equality of effect" where the right seems to argue for "equality of state opportunity/equality under the law." But that doesn't mean that either one isn't, with sincerity, trying to argue for equality to make the world a better place.
posted by corb at 10:11 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Believing you're working for good, fine, but the reality is that the right wing/conservative movement is manifestly not interested in equality of either effect or opportunity. You can argue that point as much as you like--anyone can--but in the real world it is a laughable proposition at best.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:17 AM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I can't tell if anyone really cares or not that Tanizaki brands the perceived majority MeFi viewpoint as "Portlandia liberal?"
Well, probably depends on how you define "cares". Tanizaki is pretty clearly upset by the continuing presence of most of the other people on the community site he has decided to spend his free time on. This therefore seems like a curious leisure choice to me, but is certainly not a unique one.
There are a fair few people here who are clearly getting something out of feeling disgust for the people they have chosen to make their Internet home with, and I guess themselves for having done so. YKIOK.
The term is a pretty good way to indicate that, certainly, and as such it performs a useful service. It's a very useful term - much as it's useful when people use "social justice warrior" as a pejorative term - because it tells you something it might be good to know about the person using it, even if it does not communicate very much of worth about the person being so described.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Well, probably depends on how you define "cares". Tanizaki is pretty clearly upset by the continuing presence of most of the other people on the community site he has decided to spend his free time on. This therefore seems like a curious leisure choice to me, but is certainly not a unique one.
There are a fair few people here who are clearly getting something out of feeling disgust for the people they have chosen to make their Internet home with, and I guess themselves for having done so. YKIOK.
The term is a pretty good way to indicate that, certainly, and as such it performs a useful service. It's a very useful term - much as it's useful when people use "social justice warrior" as a pejorative term - because it tells you something it might be good to know about the person using it, even if it does not communicate very much of worth about the person being so described.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:23 AM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Portlandia is basically what you would get if a witch cast a spell on MetaFilter and turned it into a TV show, I can't believe we're getting hung up on this
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
I, for one, don't give a crap about the words some grumpy myopic guy uses to make strawmen. It's ok to let them be wrong and then they'll just shut up.
That's a fair point, and in this case probably true - the kind of fury Tanizaki represents is pretty much impotent, because it's such an outlier. I guess it was more concerning the last time it turned up, because the treatment of trans people on MetaFilter was (and is) more fluid and more hot-button, and thus this kind of representation a more functional lever. Here it's more an expression of emotion than an attempt to reframe policy discussions.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:45 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's a fair point, and in this case probably true - the kind of fury Tanizaki represents is pretty much impotent, because it's such an outlier. I guess it was more concerning the last time it turned up, because the treatment of trans people on MetaFilter was (and is) more fluid and more hot-button, and thus this kind of representation a more functional lever. Here it's more an expression of emotion than an attempt to reframe policy discussions.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:45 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Grumpy myopic guy" is clearly a personal attack.
posted by 0 at 10:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by 0 at 10:47 AM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I mean, I may disagree with corb about most things, but to say that "the right wing/conservative movement is manifestly not interested in equality of either effect or opportunity" is to look at the effects of their policies and assume those effects are the same as their goals, which is not actually how humans operate.
I know and love many conservatives (still). Most of them are passionately interested in justice. They have a radically different (and to me sometimes horrifying) idea of what justice looks like and how to achieve it, but to say that they don't want some form of justice is to demonize them. Their vision of justice just happens to be sort of opposite of my own.
(Plus, you know, if I was to look at the actual EFFECTS of the Democratic Party, I might think that their GOALS were to make it as easy as possible for Republicans to keep snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, given how wildly ineffective the Dems are. It cuts both ways. Intentions and results are rarely synonymous, but you can't retrospectively insist that they are one and the same.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:48 AM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
I know and love many conservatives (still). Most of them are passionately interested in justice. They have a radically different (and to me sometimes horrifying) idea of what justice looks like and how to achieve it, but to say that they don't want some form of justice is to demonize them. Their vision of justice just happens to be sort of opposite of my own.
(Plus, you know, if I was to look at the actual EFFECTS of the Democratic Party, I might think that their GOALS were to make it as easy as possible for Republicans to keep snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, given how wildly ineffective the Dems are. It cuts both ways. Intentions and results are rarely synonymous, but you can't retrospectively insist that they are one and the same.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:48 AM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
Portlandia is basically what you would get if a witch cast a spell on MetaFilter and turned it into a TV show, I can't believe we're getting hung up on this
It's also interesting that it was a woman who made the comparison, initially, and there's been so much vociferous pushback to her description, ever since. I wonder how much of that denial stems from insecurity. If someone truly felt they were right, the comparison shouldn't bother them so much.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's also interesting that it was a woman who made the comparison, initially, and there's been so much vociferous pushback to her description, ever since. I wonder how much of that denial stems from insecurity. If someone truly felt they were right, the comparison shouldn't bother them so much.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think the problem is a bit subtler than use of harsh language towards certain "minority" members (as in minority view or whatever for this site). In fact, I think the tolerance of harsh language grows out of this larger, subtler thing.
When I first discovered meta, a bunch of people wanted to talk to me. It wasn't even a bunch of people wanting to attack me that first time. This is a thing I attract a lot, wherever I go. And then I got told I was misbehaving for trying to reply to those folks who were trying to talk to me in specific.
I did revisit my first interactions here on the grey to double check my memory. I don't plan to go through my entire history here, but having verified my memory of that is not crazy off the mark, I will say that with being told that I was in the wrong and I was the problem and all that, this did not stop lots of people from trying to talk to me. It did reduce the number of people trying to say nice things to me, perhaps because those folks were trying to be sensitive and not make my problems worse. I don't really know. That's a guess.
My first interaction here (on the grey) started with a mod telling me (inaccurately) that "this is a denied pony request." Nope, it was not. I was asking something a bit different from the previously denied pony request. So I kind of was being treated like an idiot right out the gate and that's the kind of thing you see with some members here where it doesn't matter how accurate their statement is, the crowd kind of agrees they are merely wrong and stupid. That seems to be rooted in dislike of them, as best I can tell.
So one of the things I experienced for a time was that I would make one comment and then multiple comments after mine were all in response to my comment, most of them negative. It's not that I can't take criticism. I think I take criticism pretty well. But the entire conversation would suddenly revolve around me and then I would get told I was behaving badly for trying to respond to multiple people calling me out by name, asking me questions in specific, etc.
I said the first time it happened that I don't think a double standard of that type works -- that it does not work to say the multiple comments by other people responding to me in specific are okay but then, no matter what I do in response, I am in the wrong and behaving badly because of multiple people doing that. And I see that commented on by other people here: That on the blue, if you reply to every person who asked you a question, you are viewed as dogmatic, you are viewed as argumentative, the mods view you as taking over the conversation and so on. But if you do not reply to all of them, then people will say you are being selective, you don't have an answer for the ones you didn't respond to and so on. You find yourself in this damned if you, damned if you don't situation that arises from the actions of multiple other people. And it's really crazy-making to be on the receiving end of it.
I read a book some months ago, possibly called "Emergence," that talked about intelligence of systems and how it grows out of less intelligent or simpler underlying things and the principles that make it work. One of the remarks I recall is "more is different." The example used was that if a few ants leave a pheromone trail, it communicates "eh, there is food around here somewhere, kind of in this general direction." But if a lot of ants leave a pheromone trail, at some point it says "FOOD: DUE NORTH!" And I think that is the issue here: It isn't that any particular criticism is something the individual cannot handle or will overreact to, but you die a death of a thousand cuts here and the forum as a whole is okay with that and says that the folks being subjected to that deserve it, it is their fault and so on -- and are wrong in how they respond, no matter what their response is.
Fortunately for me, I get less of that reaction these days, where the next multiple number of comments after mine revolve around me and the conversation just can't manage to move on to other things (even if I am NOT THERE, as happened once when I was not online and other people stepped up to defend me and it did not get resolved until the next day when I came back online). If one person criticizes me, and then there are dozens of other comments after that having nothing to do with me, and I come back and respond to that one criticism, no, I don't feel like I am being treated unfairly, and I also don't get told I am being a problem child, yadda.
And that's why I think dogpiling is an issue: Because more is different. Because it really does matter whether it is one or two people saying "Hey, yeah, we think you are wrong and stupid and here is why" and then you reply to that versus almost everyone in the thread after your remark jumping in to say "We think you are wrong and stupid" and that becomes the primary focus of the discussion, no matter how you respond or even if you are not even there to respond.
I have used myself as an example here not to make this about me but for reasons like: I was there, so I remember it, whereas I don't know every single thing that has happened to any other member and also I am willing to speak for myself but I have found it causes other people big problems if I use them as examples...etc.
posted by Michele in California at 10:57 AM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
When I first discovered meta, a bunch of people wanted to talk to me. It wasn't even a bunch of people wanting to attack me that first time. This is a thing I attract a lot, wherever I go. And then I got told I was misbehaving for trying to reply to those folks who were trying to talk to me in specific.
I did revisit my first interactions here on the grey to double check my memory. I don't plan to go through my entire history here, but having verified my memory of that is not crazy off the mark, I will say that with being told that I was in the wrong and I was the problem and all that, this did not stop lots of people from trying to talk to me. It did reduce the number of people trying to say nice things to me, perhaps because those folks were trying to be sensitive and not make my problems worse. I don't really know. That's a guess.
My first interaction here (on the grey) started with a mod telling me (inaccurately) that "this is a denied pony request." Nope, it was not. I was asking something a bit different from the previously denied pony request. So I kind of was being treated like an idiot right out the gate and that's the kind of thing you see with some members here where it doesn't matter how accurate their statement is, the crowd kind of agrees they are merely wrong and stupid. That seems to be rooted in dislike of them, as best I can tell.
So one of the things I experienced for a time was that I would make one comment and then multiple comments after mine were all in response to my comment, most of them negative. It's not that I can't take criticism. I think I take criticism pretty well. But the entire conversation would suddenly revolve around me and then I would get told I was behaving badly for trying to respond to multiple people calling me out by name, asking me questions in specific, etc.
I said the first time it happened that I don't think a double standard of that type works -- that it does not work to say the multiple comments by other people responding to me in specific are okay but then, no matter what I do in response, I am in the wrong and behaving badly because of multiple people doing that. And I see that commented on by other people here: That on the blue, if you reply to every person who asked you a question, you are viewed as dogmatic, you are viewed as argumentative, the mods view you as taking over the conversation and so on. But if you do not reply to all of them, then people will say you are being selective, you don't have an answer for the ones you didn't respond to and so on. You find yourself in this damned if you, damned if you don't situation that arises from the actions of multiple other people. And it's really crazy-making to be on the receiving end of it.
I read a book some months ago, possibly called "Emergence," that talked about intelligence of systems and how it grows out of less intelligent or simpler underlying things and the principles that make it work. One of the remarks I recall is "more is different." The example used was that if a few ants leave a pheromone trail, it communicates "eh, there is food around here somewhere, kind of in this general direction." But if a lot of ants leave a pheromone trail, at some point it says "FOOD: DUE NORTH!" And I think that is the issue here: It isn't that any particular criticism is something the individual cannot handle or will overreact to, but you die a death of a thousand cuts here and the forum as a whole is okay with that and says that the folks being subjected to that deserve it, it is their fault and so on -- and are wrong in how they respond, no matter what their response is.
Fortunately for me, I get less of that reaction these days, where the next multiple number of comments after mine revolve around me and the conversation just can't manage to move on to other things (even if I am NOT THERE, as happened once when I was not online and other people stepped up to defend me and it did not get resolved until the next day when I came back online). If one person criticizes me, and then there are dozens of other comments after that having nothing to do with me, and I come back and respond to that one criticism, no, I don't feel like I am being treated unfairly, and I also don't get told I am being a problem child, yadda.
And that's why I think dogpiling is an issue: Because more is different. Because it really does matter whether it is one or two people saying "Hey, yeah, we think you are wrong and stupid and here is why" and then you reply to that versus almost everyone in the thread after your remark jumping in to say "We think you are wrong and stupid" and that becomes the primary focus of the discussion, no matter how you respond or even if you are not even there to respond.
I have used myself as an example here not to make this about me but for reasons like: I was there, so I remember it, whereas I don't know every single thing that has happened to any other member and also I am willing to speak for myself but I have found it causes other people big problems if I use them as examples...etc.
posted by Michele in California at 10:57 AM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
And a pretty apt description. Either/or!
Your privilege is showing.
posted by 0 at 10:57 AM on December 4, 2014
Your privilege is showing.
posted by 0 at 10:57 AM on December 4, 2014
All but the most extreme personal attacks are permitted in MetaTalk, so whether "grumpy myopic guy" is a personal attack or not is not particularly relevant here. If it were permitted in the Blue, that would be a different topic.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:00 AM on December 4, 2014
posted by Chrysostom at 11:00 AM on December 4, 2014
Portlandia is basically what you would get if a witch cast a spell on MetaFilter and turned it into a TV show
Okay, now I'm getting the vaguest idea of what may have been meant. Tanizaki's explanation didn't really help a whole lot.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Okay, now I'm getting the vaguest idea of what may have been meant. Tanizaki's explanation didn't really help a whole lot.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:04 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's also interesting that it was a woman who made the comparison, initially, and there's been so much vociferous pushback to her description, ever since. I wonder how much of that denial stems from insecurity. If someone truly felt they were right, the comparison shouldn't bother them so much.
Also, all homophobes are secretly gay.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:08 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Also, all homophobes are secretly gay.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:08 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
My first interaction here (on the grey) started with a mod telling me (inaccurately) that "this is a denied pony request."
So now you're beating a dead pony request?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:23 AM on December 4, 2014
So now you're beating a dead pony request?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:23 AM on December 4, 2014
So now you're beating a dead pony request?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:23 AM on December 4 [+] [!]
If you go back and read it, I readily agreed with the denial and the reasoning (though I still think it means people earnestly trying to figure out how to better interact with the site are handicapped, I have no good solution given...other stuff). So if you are suggesting that I am trying to get that re-opened, nope.
If you are merely trying to be clever at my expense...whatevs.
posted by Michele in California at 11:28 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 11:23 AM on December 4 [+] [!]
If you go back and read it, I readily agreed with the denial and the reasoning (though I still think it means people earnestly trying to figure out how to better interact with the site are handicapped, I have no good solution given...other stuff). So if you are suggesting that I am trying to get that re-opened, nope.
If you are merely trying to be clever at my expense...whatevs.
posted by Michele in California at 11:28 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
But I'm not 100% sure if that's the case or not, and I'm curious.
FWIW, though an earlier, jokey association shows up in a comment made some years ago, this appears to be the first critical usage associated with site culture and homogeneity of opinion.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:31 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
FWIW, though an earlier, jokey association shows up in a comment made some years ago, this appears to be the first critical usage associated with site culture and homogeneity of opinion.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:31 AM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I mean, I may disagree with corb about most things, but to say that "the right wing/conservative movement is manifestly not interested in equality of either effect or opportunity" is to look at the effects of their policies and assume those effects are the same as their goals, which is not actually how humans operate.
Otherwise one would assume that the goal of the left was committ people interested in justice to to the most ineffectual actions. Which... I sometimes wonder.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Otherwise one would assume that the goal of the left was committ people interested in justice to to the most ineffectual actions. Which... I sometimes wonder.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:33 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I went back and read it too, and have a hard time seeing any problem with it. You asked, it was clearly answered, and the answer did in fact cover the request you were making. When the mods can clarify something like that right away, it usually helps if they do before it gains traction. There was nothing personal in the initial response so I don't think a rough entry can be blamed on mods. I'm sorry that your experience of it was hurtful, but I might gently suggest that is setting a pretty low bar for"being hurt." That thread reads to me as pretty calm and solutions-focused up unto a point where something went haywire - at which point some hurtful stuff probably was happening, but not because of the mod response to your pony req.
posted by Miko at 11:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Miko at 11:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
It's also interesting that it was a woman who made the comparison, initially, and there's been so much vociferous pushback to her description, ever since. I wonder how much of that denial stems from insecurity. If someone truly felt they were right, the comparison shouldn't bother them so much.
Slightly more seriously, "interesting" is kind of an empty calorie there. It's factual, but without a sense of why it's interesting that adjective doesn't do much. Because women are expected to be more liberal than men? Because disagreeing with a woman is intrinsically sexist?
I think in this case it's definitely the case that the comparison was made previously (although whether that was the first example I have no idea) by a woman, but I think that's probably the least relevant part of the background. More relevant, I think, is the context in which it was coined - where, among other things, the acceptable treatment of trans issues and people on MetaFilter was being hotly discussed. And, like I say, whereas Tanizaki is just a kind of crusty uncle nostalgic for the trolleybuses, that discussion was (and probably still is) a live one.
(It was also in the context of nadawi being pushed until she disabled her account, and beyond the mods asking specifically for the pushing to cease, and a number of other MeFites following her out. Cutesy "what are we like, eh?" stuff was not a great fit, in that thread.)
So, yeah. I think it's a silly term, which is not to say that it particularly upsets me, but one that provides useful information - much like "social justice warrior". In part that perceived silliness is because Portlandia is an exaggerated comic fantasy - if one thinks it is accurately depicting an actual political milieu then one has misunderstood the distinction between fantasy and reality - and in part it's because it presumes, as IFSQ,S9 says, that everyone fits into a specifically white, wealthy and Cascadian kind of liberalism,.
(More Gamergate comparisons, in fact, where "the Bay Area" has become synonymous, albeit inaccurately, as the breeding grounds of the Social Justice Warriors.)
So, yeah. I don't know what exactly is interesting about the term having been deployed by a woman, but it's probably worth keeping in mind that it was coined in the context of an ongoing argument that saw a number of MeFites close their accounts, temporarily or otherwise.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
Slightly more seriously, "interesting" is kind of an empty calorie there. It's factual, but without a sense of why it's interesting that adjective doesn't do much. Because women are expected to be more liberal than men? Because disagreeing with a woman is intrinsically sexist?
I think in this case it's definitely the case that the comparison was made previously (although whether that was the first example I have no idea) by a woman, but I think that's probably the least relevant part of the background. More relevant, I think, is the context in which it was coined - where, among other things, the acceptable treatment of trans issues and people on MetaFilter was being hotly discussed. And, like I say, whereas Tanizaki is just a kind of crusty uncle nostalgic for the trolleybuses, that discussion was (and probably still is) a live one.
(It was also in the context of nadawi being pushed until she disabled her account, and beyond the mods asking specifically for the pushing to cease, and a number of other MeFites following her out. Cutesy "what are we like, eh?" stuff was not a great fit, in that thread.)
So, yeah. I think it's a silly term, which is not to say that it particularly upsets me, but one that provides useful information - much like "social justice warrior". In part that perceived silliness is because Portlandia is an exaggerated comic fantasy - if one thinks it is accurately depicting an actual political milieu then one has misunderstood the distinction between fantasy and reality - and in part it's because it presumes, as IFSQ,S9 says, that everyone fits into a specifically white, wealthy and Cascadian kind of liberalism,.
(More Gamergate comparisons, in fact, where "the Bay Area" has become synonymous, albeit inaccurately, as the breeding grounds of the Social Justice Warriors.)
So, yeah. I don't know what exactly is interesting about the term having been deployed by a woman, but it's probably worth keeping in mind that it was coined in the context of an ongoing argument that saw a number of MeFites close their accounts, temporarily or otherwise.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:41 AM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
People can have the best of intentions and still support policies that have terrible results. "Best" and "terrible" to be judged differently by different people of course.
It might make for smoother conversation to concede good intent on the part of your opposition while also critiquing actions. Good intent doesn't excuse bad consequences, but acknowledging it as a pragmatic move in conversation can help keep people engaged and on topic.
Conversely, it might make for rockier conversation to respond to implicit accusations of bad intent with implicit accusations of bad intent. This tends to derail the argument into cross accusations of who is the more terrible person/group.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It might make for smoother conversation to concede good intent on the part of your opposition while also critiquing actions. Good intent doesn't excuse bad consequences, but acknowledging it as a pragmatic move in conversation can help keep people engaged and on topic.
Conversely, it might make for rockier conversation to respond to implicit accusations of bad intent with implicit accusations of bad intent. This tends to derail the argument into cross accusations of who is the more terrible person/group.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:54 AM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think it's reasonable to disagree about whether an intent is "good." Interpretations of a word like "equality," for instance - which seems lovely, who's against equality? - can be a nice window-dressing for the stance of refusing to acknowledge relative privilege as a thing that exists and has real-world outcomes, and arguing to assume in law and private life that it doesn't exist, and being comfortable with the ways that assumption could damage people - and that to me is bad intent.
posted by Miko at 12:04 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Miko at 12:04 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Otherwise one would assume that the goal of the left was committ people interested in justice to to the most ineffectual actions. Which... I sometimes wonder.
As someone far to the left of most leftists on this site, I'd posit there is cathartic value in getting together to grouse about injustice. I don't think people's participation on Metafilter does much to affect social change, mainly because the site culture encourages homogeneity and discourages critical analysis outside narrow boundaries, but it really does feel good to have a place where people get to hoot and yell at the evil primates across the pond. Throwing rocks gets replaced with platitudes and snappy rejoinders. A modern form of tribalism, I suppose.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:05 PM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
As someone far to the left of most leftists on this site, I'd posit there is cathartic value in getting together to grouse about injustice. I don't think people's participation on Metafilter does much to affect social change, mainly because the site culture encourages homogeneity and discourages critical analysis outside narrow boundaries, but it really does feel good to have a place where people get to hoot and yell at the evil primates across the pond. Throwing rocks gets replaced with platitudes and snappy rejoinders. A modern form of tribalism, I suppose.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:05 PM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
While I've enjoyed sharing my view of the better world that I feel is possible here and talking with other like-minded and not-like-minded people about such things, I really felt like I had to move to a space where I could start from a "GIVEN: this is a bad thing, let's do something about it" position in order to actually effect what I consider to be social change. And to do that I had to stop talking about whether a thing was good or bad ad nauseum and forever.
Nothing wrong, to me, with the way MeFi is, but I think people are expecting it to maybe be something else. I learn a lot here, and I go somewhere else when I want to DO something with that knowledge. Understanding the many ways that people think about issues is instructive. Turning that knowledge into action that concretely affects people who are not just the people here is something I decided I wanted to spend more time doing.
So if you're just talking about things like how you feel people should talk to one another, you can actually talk about that and do something about that (and possibly see results) on MeFi. If you're talking about, say, really awful things that are happening with the NFL or with police abuses of power, at some point you have to go into the big blue room and apply the things you've learned.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:10 PM on December 4, 2014 [26 favorites]
Nothing wrong, to me, with the way MeFi is, but I think people are expecting it to maybe be something else. I learn a lot here, and I go somewhere else when I want to DO something with that knowledge. Understanding the many ways that people think about issues is instructive. Turning that knowledge into action that concretely affects people who are not just the people here is something I decided I wanted to spend more time doing.
So if you're just talking about things like how you feel people should talk to one another, you can actually talk about that and do something about that (and possibly see results) on MeFi. If you're talking about, say, really awful things that are happening with the NFL or with police abuses of power, at some point you have to go into the big blue room and apply the things you've learned.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:10 PM on December 4, 2014 [26 favorites]
So if you are suggesting that I am trying to get that re-opened, nope.
No, I am suggesting that you took an interaction with the site and misrepresented how it was handled so you could act like an aggrieved party and make this thread about you.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:22 PM on December 4, 2014
No, I am suggesting that you took an interaction with the site and misrepresented how it was handled so you could act like an aggrieved party and make this thread about you.
My first interaction here (on the grey) started with a mod telling me (inaccurately) that "this is a denied pony request." Nope, it was not. I was asking something a bit different from the previously denied pony request. So I kind of was being treated like an idiot right out the gate and that's the kind of thing you see with some members here where it doesn't matter how accurate their statement is, the crowd kind of agrees they are merely wrong and stupid. That seems to be rooted in dislike of them, as best I can tell.Maybe it's because I don't have any skin in the fight, but that's not my reading of the answer you got at all, so even bringing it up is disingenuous and beating a dead horse, and honestly, if that's the example you are going to use as proof of mistreatment I think there's a pea under your mattress.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:22 PM on December 4, 2014
I think it's reasonable to disagree about whether an intent is "good."
I don't disagree, but you're talking more there about the substance of a discussion. I'm talking about the pragmatic dimension of human communication, so saying something along the lines of "I know you think X is good" is akin to saying hello to a person when they walk in a room or nodding along as they are talking. Theoretically, I can make clear to another my respect for their role as a fellow discussant while also strongly challenging the ideas they put forward. Practically, that's a lot harder to do.
I don't think people's participation on Metafilter does much to affect social change
I take a long view with regard to the role of online content and social change. Discussions such as we have here don't, for my standards, really qualify as advocacy (which itself is something I distinguish from activism and I believe both of these contribute to change), but our talk here isn't without effect. The record of our dialogue persists online. If and when someone is interested in a topic, they might stumble across a conversation and see an issue in a new light. The effect is additive and slow, but minds do change.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I don't disagree, but you're talking more there about the substance of a discussion. I'm talking about the pragmatic dimension of human communication, so saying something along the lines of "I know you think X is good" is akin to saying hello to a person when they walk in a room or nodding along as they are talking. Theoretically, I can make clear to another my respect for their role as a fellow discussant while also strongly challenging the ideas they put forward. Practically, that's a lot harder to do.
I don't think people's participation on Metafilter does much to affect social change
I take a long view with regard to the role of online content and social change. Discussions such as we have here don't, for my standards, really qualify as advocacy (which itself is something I distinguish from activism and I believe both of these contribute to change), but our talk here isn't without effect. The record of our dialogue persists online. If and when someone is interested in a topic, they might stumble across a conversation and see an issue in a new light. The effect is additive and slow, but minds do change.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
"I think that a lot of what you're saying has value, but from my view, it actually seems like both.
There are a lot of people with minority views who have said that the language used to refer to them or others is hurtful and upsetting and they wish that it would stop - that it is, effectively, emotional harm. Some of them have said that it is, in fact, dehumanizing and alienating, to use your language. Some of it, in fact, is in that very pushback you reference. But yet somehow, the same people arguing that harm to community members should not be engaged in are some of the very same people engaging in that harm. And moderation, as well, tends to fall along those lines (even if only for the pragmatic reason that some harm will get more community response than others)."
I addressed that in my comment.
Further, it's worth taking a moment to note that your view of your interactions is something that is not shared by the vast majority of the membership or moderation team. Now, granted, if we're taking a naive view, that could be explained by bias on the community's part, and certainly abstracting it to the level that you've done in this comment makes that explanation more likely. But (and I can dig up links if necessary, but I assume many of the participants here are familiar with these comments) you've also complained about phrases like "eat the rich" as a personal attack, you've posited that other people should be murdered by the state to satisfy your vengeance while explicitly exempting your family from similar consideration, you've had multiple instances where you assert without any evidence that transgender women are a risk for cis women in bathrooms, you've asserted that slavery wasn't as bad as it's popularly portrayed and that slave owners deserved compensation for the emancipation of their slaves, argued that the Civil War was essentially the War of Northern Aggression, sought to exculpate George Zimmerman for his actions in Trayvon Martin's death… In the abstract, it can seem like it's an unfair focus on the feelings of traditionally-disadvantaged groups while not accounting for your feelings about how you're being rebuked, but when the instances are actually examined, you have been immune to thoughtful rebuttals of your opinions and in many cases, repeating those opinions blithely doesn't stop until you are stopped by mods or a pile-on. It's frustrating, and exhausts the goodwill of those who might otherwise engage with you in a more gentle manner, leaving the folks who are not interested in brooking a serious discussion about e.g. why they should be excluded from public restrooms and placed at a documented higher risk of violence because of your evidence-free opinions.
It brings to mind the adage that if everyone you talk to is an asshole to you, it's probably you that's being the asshole.
Or, to be briefer, while there are certainly some instances of you being unfairly lashed, many of the complaints that you bring are specifically related to your opinions and the way that you present them, and examining them in the specific diminishes the overall credibility of your complaint. There may not be a solution that makes you happy.
"So how are people to interpret it, except that there are some people who it is okay to blithely and knowingly do harm to, and others who it's not? "
Aside from the meta-ethical issue (we all live our lives in a modern western state that is predicated on some harm to people), two things help here: First, some self awareness. Second, a recognition that any moderation scheme (or government) involves knowingly doing harm to some people. Presenting it as simply a naive "some people" ignores the underlying arguments about why that harm is inflicted, and the relative scope of those harms. Which is something that I addressed in my previous comment.
"I see a lot of "well, these people face this every day in their daily lives while others don't," but it's making a lot of assumptions about fellow Mefites to suggest that you know what people face in their daily lives. A lot of that depends on the people in their family, community, or workplace, which are all factors that we here on Metafilter usually have very little idea about. It doesn't really do much to say "well these things are approved of by broader American society, so you can't be alienated," because people don't generally encounter "broader American society" in a monolithic fashion - they experience the society they happen to exist in, which alters according to region, social circle, ethnicity, etc."
Again, this is a naive view. First off, I'm not saying that you're not alienated, I'm saying that you're less likely to be and more likely to find your voice reflected in other media. If you're looking for a more libertarian web community, Reddit is inarguably both more libertarian and much larger. There is not a transgender community that is as large nor as mainstream as Reddit. Not only are there myriad other places, there are many other libertarians here on MeFi. MeFi is largely seeded by FPPs that reflect mainstream media — there is very little risk in not getting to read a self-professed libertarian opinion. However, in the past, we have had explicit problems with women not feeling comfortable participating here.
"Yes, there sure are. For example, I was once informed by a member of this site, to much favoriting, that I was doing her harm by not giving her money. It was quickly followed by a disclaimer that she didn't really mean that, but this is the equivalent of when someone wiggles a finger a centimeter in front of your face and says you shouldn't be upset because "I'm not touching yoouuuu" or because "hey, can't you take a joke? I didn't mean it".
I'm not sure what you mean. The only comment I remember that is similar to that is Nora Reed's comment that she should be paid if she is expected to educate, which is both in response to someone else and clearly tongue in cheek. Without a specific, given my experience with your paraphrases, I'd be reluctant to accept this account of the interaction. Can you link to it?
"Who's an asshole? That's a social construct, right? We know what happens here when Right Kind of Social Construct collides with the Wrong Kind of Social Construct."
I think you would benefit from being less oblique. Do you have specific examples? Your "right kind" and "wrong kind" seem too vague for comment.
"I remember a MetaTalk not too long ago where at least one person was called to task based on the people who favorited his/her comments. So yes, there is definitely such a thing as the Wrong Kind of Person at least as far as some members of this site are concerned."
I don't remember this. Can you link?
"The moderation issues that are the topic of this thread mean that if you are a Portlandia type, you aren't going to get told that you are wrong very often."
Hmm. I get told that I'm wrong pretty often, and have had a decent share of comments deleted, so I must not be a Portlandia type. QED.
Bingo. A few weeks ago, I posted something that disagreed with the apparent consensus on MetaFilter that so-and-so was a bad person. Several hours later, another poster quoted me and wrote nothing but "what the actual fuck." (That poster's only other comment in the rather long thread was three days later.)"
According to Google, this is the only thread in which both your username and the phrase "what the actual fuck" appears.
"Grumpy myopic guy" is clearly a personal attack."
Thank you for ably demonstrating why an abstract focus on "attacks" is misplaced relative to harm.
posted by klangklangston at 12:40 PM on December 4, 2014 [13 favorites]
There are a lot of people with minority views who have said that the language used to refer to them or others is hurtful and upsetting and they wish that it would stop - that it is, effectively, emotional harm. Some of them have said that it is, in fact, dehumanizing and alienating, to use your language. Some of it, in fact, is in that very pushback you reference. But yet somehow, the same people arguing that harm to community members should not be engaged in are some of the very same people engaging in that harm. And moderation, as well, tends to fall along those lines (even if only for the pragmatic reason that some harm will get more community response than others)."
I addressed that in my comment.
Further, it's worth taking a moment to note that your view of your interactions is something that is not shared by the vast majority of the membership or moderation team. Now, granted, if we're taking a naive view, that could be explained by bias on the community's part, and certainly abstracting it to the level that you've done in this comment makes that explanation more likely. But (and I can dig up links if necessary, but I assume many of the participants here are familiar with these comments) you've also complained about phrases like "eat the rich" as a personal attack, you've posited that other people should be murdered by the state to satisfy your vengeance while explicitly exempting your family from similar consideration, you've had multiple instances where you assert without any evidence that transgender women are a risk for cis women in bathrooms, you've asserted that slavery wasn't as bad as it's popularly portrayed and that slave owners deserved compensation for the emancipation of their slaves, argued that the Civil War was essentially the War of Northern Aggression, sought to exculpate George Zimmerman for his actions in Trayvon Martin's death… In the abstract, it can seem like it's an unfair focus on the feelings of traditionally-disadvantaged groups while not accounting for your feelings about how you're being rebuked, but when the instances are actually examined, you have been immune to thoughtful rebuttals of your opinions and in many cases, repeating those opinions blithely doesn't stop until you are stopped by mods or a pile-on. It's frustrating, and exhausts the goodwill of those who might otherwise engage with you in a more gentle manner, leaving the folks who are not interested in brooking a serious discussion about e.g. why they should be excluded from public restrooms and placed at a documented higher risk of violence because of your evidence-free opinions.
It brings to mind the adage that if everyone you talk to is an asshole to you, it's probably you that's being the asshole.
Or, to be briefer, while there are certainly some instances of you being unfairly lashed, many of the complaints that you bring are specifically related to your opinions and the way that you present them, and examining them in the specific diminishes the overall credibility of your complaint. There may not be a solution that makes you happy.
"So how are people to interpret it, except that there are some people who it is okay to blithely and knowingly do harm to, and others who it's not? "
Aside from the meta-ethical issue (we all live our lives in a modern western state that is predicated on some harm to people), two things help here: First, some self awareness. Second, a recognition that any moderation scheme (or government) involves knowingly doing harm to some people. Presenting it as simply a naive "some people" ignores the underlying arguments about why that harm is inflicted, and the relative scope of those harms. Which is something that I addressed in my previous comment.
"I see a lot of "well, these people face this every day in their daily lives while others don't," but it's making a lot of assumptions about fellow Mefites to suggest that you know what people face in their daily lives. A lot of that depends on the people in their family, community, or workplace, which are all factors that we here on Metafilter usually have very little idea about. It doesn't really do much to say "well these things are approved of by broader American society, so you can't be alienated," because people don't generally encounter "broader American society" in a monolithic fashion - they experience the society they happen to exist in, which alters according to region, social circle, ethnicity, etc."
Again, this is a naive view. First off, I'm not saying that you're not alienated, I'm saying that you're less likely to be and more likely to find your voice reflected in other media. If you're looking for a more libertarian web community, Reddit is inarguably both more libertarian and much larger. There is not a transgender community that is as large nor as mainstream as Reddit. Not only are there myriad other places, there are many other libertarians here on MeFi. MeFi is largely seeded by FPPs that reflect mainstream media — there is very little risk in not getting to read a self-professed libertarian opinion. However, in the past, we have had explicit problems with women not feeling comfortable participating here.
"Yes, there sure are. For example, I was once informed by a member of this site, to much favoriting, that I was doing her harm by not giving her money. It was quickly followed by a disclaimer that she didn't really mean that, but this is the equivalent of when someone wiggles a finger a centimeter in front of your face and says you shouldn't be upset because "I'm not touching yoouuuu" or because "hey, can't you take a joke? I didn't mean it".
I'm not sure what you mean. The only comment I remember that is similar to that is Nora Reed's comment that she should be paid if she is expected to educate, which is both in response to someone else and clearly tongue in cheek. Without a specific, given my experience with your paraphrases, I'd be reluctant to accept this account of the interaction. Can you link to it?
"Who's an asshole? That's a social construct, right? We know what happens here when Right Kind of Social Construct collides with the Wrong Kind of Social Construct."
I think you would benefit from being less oblique. Do you have specific examples? Your "right kind" and "wrong kind" seem too vague for comment.
"I remember a MetaTalk not too long ago where at least one person was called to task based on the people who favorited his/her comments. So yes, there is definitely such a thing as the Wrong Kind of Person at least as far as some members of this site are concerned."
I don't remember this. Can you link?
"The moderation issues that are the topic of this thread mean that if you are a Portlandia type, you aren't going to get told that you are wrong very often."
Hmm. I get told that I'm wrong pretty often, and have had a decent share of comments deleted, so I must not be a Portlandia type. QED.
Bingo. A few weeks ago, I posted something that disagreed with the apparent consensus on MetaFilter that so-and-so was a bad person. Several hours later, another poster quoted me and wrote nothing but "what the actual fuck." (That poster's only other comment in the rather long thread was three days later.)"
According to Google, this is the only thread in which both your username and the phrase "what the actual fuck" appears.
"Grumpy myopic guy" is clearly a personal attack."
Thank you for ably demonstrating why an abstract focus on "attacks" is misplaced relative to harm.
posted by klangklangston at 12:40 PM on December 4, 2014 [13 favorites]
you have been immune to thoughtful rebuttals of your opinions and in many cases, repeating those opinions blithely doesn't stop until you are stopped
While I disagree with your characterization of some of my opinions, I think this bears examining, because it speaks to a sort of expectation that I feel I've noticed here.
It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance. But that is not generally how arguments, or even basic discussions, work. The fact that one person is claiming things are different - or even citing sources - does not unilaterally win the argument. The other person may believe your opinions or cites are wrong or biased. They may think you are ignoring the issue that for them, is most cogent. They may have half a hundred reasons not to change their opinion.
And this is something that doesn't seem to swing the other way. I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged! I don't begrudge you that - I don't think anyone's opinions necessarily need to change just because I feel I've made a good argument.
Am I misreading you? Is this not what you're meaning to say? Or is there something else that might explicate it better? I would appreciate your thoughts - I really appreciate how you're trying to talk about this seriously, but I think this point is important to clarify.
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
While I disagree with your characterization of some of my opinions, I think this bears examining, because it speaks to a sort of expectation that I feel I've noticed here.
It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance. But that is not generally how arguments, or even basic discussions, work. The fact that one person is claiming things are different - or even citing sources - does not unilaterally win the argument. The other person may believe your opinions or cites are wrong or biased. They may think you are ignoring the issue that for them, is most cogent. They may have half a hundred reasons not to change their opinion.
And this is something that doesn't seem to swing the other way. I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged! I don't begrudge you that - I don't think anyone's opinions necessarily need to change just because I feel I've made a good argument.
Am I misreading you? Is this not what you're meaning to say? Or is there something else that might explicate it better? I would appreciate your thoughts - I really appreciate how you're trying to talk about this seriously, but I think this point is important to clarify.
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
So I kind of was being treated like an idiot right out the gate
I think there may be a perception issue at work here. You feel what you feel. You'd been a user for six weeks and were asking for something that was very similar to a thing we'd previously said we weren't planning on doing. People can read my response at the link cjorgensen provided and see what their interpretation is.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [13 favorites]
I think there may be a perception issue at work here. You feel what you feel. You'd been a user for six weeks and were asking for something that was very similar to a thing we'd previously said we weren't planning on doing. People can read my response at the link cjorgensen provided and see what their interpretation is.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 12:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [13 favorites]
It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance
When your opinions are not based on facts which are congruent with reality, yes, it is reasonable to expect that when rebutted those opinions will change or someone will shut up about them. Your controversial opinions are rarely based in reality; over and over again you advance opinions that are based on scenarios you have made up in your head that don't actually happen.
Interpreting facts differently is one thing, and is a point on which reasonable people can disagree. Making up out-there hypotheticals is something totally other.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:02 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
When your opinions are not based on facts which are congruent with reality, yes, it is reasonable to expect that when rebutted those opinions will change or someone will shut up about them. Your controversial opinions are rarely based in reality; over and over again you advance opinions that are based on scenarios you have made up in your head that don't actually happen.
Interpreting facts differently is one thing, and is a point on which reasonable people can disagree. Making up out-there hypotheticals is something totally other.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:02 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
But that is not generally how arguments, or even basic discussions, work.
I'm a little flabbergasted at the baldness of this (though at least enlightened about your thought process). Argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to be changed and/or to modify one's opinions based on the presentation of evidence and persuasive arguments. Argumentation in good faith does involve the expectation of dialogue that takes note of points presented and accepts, rebuts, or modifies them.
The kinds of arguments that don't do this are bad faith, and/or ideological.
So in identifying this as an expectation you find very strange or difficult, I think you've drilled down to one of the main difficulties you have with engaging on the site: you aren't arguing in good faith. You've decided the outcome, so you don't feel a need to further examine the points offered to you as evidence or persuasion. You just move on.
I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged!
I think that's largely because people saw your rebuttal attempt and found it wanting, inadequate, or missing reasoning or information, and said so. You failed to present appropriate evidence, or failed to persuade.
I'd say that that style is distinctly different from the way most people who have depth arguments here are engaging on MetaFilter. There is that basic expectation for most people who carry on extended dialogues here of dealing with the arguments presented and making a thoughtful, considered response. f you think an argument is wrong or biased? You say how you think that and why and show where. If you think an important issue is being overlooked, you raise it and ask for that point to be discussed. These are behaviors you're saying here you don't do and find non-worthwhile. But those behaviors aren't some bizarre cultural anomaly specific to MeFi. That's what well-intentioned, sincere discourse looks like. If you blow that off, of course I'm going to think you're arguing in terribly bad faith - because you are.
posted by Miko at 1:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
I'm a little flabbergasted at the baldness of this (though at least enlightened about your thought process). Argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to be changed and/or to modify one's opinions based on the presentation of evidence and persuasive arguments. Argumentation in good faith does involve the expectation of dialogue that takes note of points presented and accepts, rebuts, or modifies them.
The kinds of arguments that don't do this are bad faith, and/or ideological.
So in identifying this as an expectation you find very strange or difficult, I think you've drilled down to one of the main difficulties you have with engaging on the site: you aren't arguing in good faith. You've decided the outcome, so you don't feel a need to further examine the points offered to you as evidence or persuasion. You just move on.
I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged!
I think that's largely because people saw your rebuttal attempt and found it wanting, inadequate, or missing reasoning or information, and said so. You failed to present appropriate evidence, or failed to persuade.
I'd say that that style is distinctly different from the way most people who have depth arguments here are engaging on MetaFilter. There is that basic expectation for most people who carry on extended dialogues here of dealing with the arguments presented and making a thoughtful, considered response. f you think an argument is wrong or biased? You say how you think that and why and show where. If you think an important issue is being overlooked, you raise it and ask for that point to be discussed. These are behaviors you're saying here you don't do and find non-worthwhile. But those behaviors aren't some bizarre cultural anomaly specific to MeFi. That's what well-intentioned, sincere discourse looks like. If you blow that off, of course I'm going to think you're arguing in terribly bad faith - because you are.
posted by Miko at 1:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
But I'm curious, if people actually are bothered by it--why? There's almost never any pushback when MeFites use reductionist, silly labels for perceived conservative viewpoints.
I am not bothered by it. It makes me think the poster is stupid or being stupid in that moment, but I feel the same way about similar phrases thrown around against conservatives or libertarians. But I generally think that about any comment that purports to say what someone else's motivations are, including the above comment about how conservatives don't care about equality.
Since I continue to be fortunate enough not to be able to see in other people's heads (is there a more nightmarish ability one could have?) I can't know what their real motivations are. So statements about them, particularly in a discussion, are phenomenally pointless. "This person thinks this!" "No I don't!" Well okay - guess we're done with this stalemate, who wants pizza?
Attributions that someone thinks something because they're Caricature Y or only because Celebrity X said it are similarly pointless. I don't feel slandered by it, I feel like I have lost an opportunity to gain something. As Jessamyn says above, I also don't think I'm going to cause great social change here. I expect I can vent my spleen a little, maybe share some things I found, and through discussion learn some things.
I don't even expect to have my mind change or change minds. I'm halfway through my life and I'd like to think I have spent some sizable mental time refining my beliefs. I evolve some of em, but not tremendously. But it doesn't mean I can't learn some things and maybe it'll happen. But overall the best I expect is understanding. So when someone just shrugs something off as fitting into some narrow role or makes a blanket, unprovable assertion it's not really anger-making. It's just dull and not useful to my mind.
So to actually answer the question - I am mostly unlikely to push back on it because what's the point? That person either had nothing of substance to contribute and that's why they threw out that junk, or they don't want to because they've just written something off. Either way, why engage their junk?
posted by phearlez at 1:11 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am not bothered by it. It makes me think the poster is stupid or being stupid in that moment, but I feel the same way about similar phrases thrown around against conservatives or libertarians. But I generally think that about any comment that purports to say what someone else's motivations are, including the above comment about how conservatives don't care about equality.
Since I continue to be fortunate enough not to be able to see in other people's heads (is there a more nightmarish ability one could have?) I can't know what their real motivations are. So statements about them, particularly in a discussion, are phenomenally pointless. "This person thinks this!" "No I don't!" Well okay - guess we're done with this stalemate, who wants pizza?
Attributions that someone thinks something because they're Caricature Y or only because Celebrity X said it are similarly pointless. I don't feel slandered by it, I feel like I have lost an opportunity to gain something. As Jessamyn says above, I also don't think I'm going to cause great social change here. I expect I can vent my spleen a little, maybe share some things I found, and through discussion learn some things.
I don't even expect to have my mind change or change minds. I'm halfway through my life and I'd like to think I have spent some sizable mental time refining my beliefs. I evolve some of em, but not tremendously. But it doesn't mean I can't learn some things and maybe it'll happen. But overall the best I expect is understanding. So when someone just shrugs something off as fitting into some narrow role or makes a blanket, unprovable assertion it's not really anger-making. It's just dull and not useful to my mind.
So to actually answer the question - I am mostly unlikely to push back on it because what's the point? That person either had nothing of substance to contribute and that's why they threw out that junk, or they don't want to because they've just written something off. Either way, why engage their junk?
posted by phearlez at 1:11 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Thank you for ably demonstrating why an abstract focus on "attacks" is misplaced relative to harm.
Let's face it: The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy", either, and it really strongly suggests a lack of perspective and deep-seated insecurities to argue that it does. We were being identified with caricatures of people who are either participating in society in all the "right" ways, or who are otherwise harmless consumers: Portlandian caricatures are stylish, well-educated, financially comfortable, eat sustainable food, sponsor good social causes, they listen to public radio religiously. The worst sins written for the Portlandian are to become cartoon-ishly narrow-minded and boring when their comfort zones are threatened, and that was pretty much the extent of the exasperated tone on the part of cairdeas. The comparison isn't even really any kind of personal attack when held up to the sunshine of other descriptors. It's not like we're being called the equivalent of Limbaugh Republicans, whose idea of funny is to beat up on disabled people. In fact, I'd wear the harmless Portlandian descriptor with pride, if it had to stick; I suspect it would be easy to assign this community a worse identity.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Let's face it: The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy", either, and it really strongly suggests a lack of perspective and deep-seated insecurities to argue that it does. We were being identified with caricatures of people who are either participating in society in all the "right" ways, or who are otherwise harmless consumers: Portlandian caricatures are stylish, well-educated, financially comfortable, eat sustainable food, sponsor good social causes, they listen to public radio religiously. The worst sins written for the Portlandian are to become cartoon-ishly narrow-minded and boring when their comfort zones are threatened, and that was pretty much the extent of the exasperated tone on the part of cairdeas. The comparison isn't even really any kind of personal attack when held up to the sunshine of other descriptors. It's not like we're being called the equivalent of Limbaugh Republicans, whose idea of funny is to beat up on disabled people. In fact, I'd wear the harmless Portlandian descriptor with pride, if it had to stick; I suspect it would be easy to assign this community a worse identity.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy"
Easy for you to say! What about all the energy it took me to find out even remotely what it meant?
*tilts head backwards, dramatically lifts back of hand to forehead and closes eyes*
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:19 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Easy for you to say! What about all the energy it took me to find out even remotely what it meant?
*tilts head backwards, dramatically lifts back of hand to forehead and closes eyes*
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:19 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Jessamyn, here is what you actually said, the very first sentence:
This is something that falls firmly into the "asked and answered" category enough so it's on the "denied pony requests" page on the wiki.
And that was not true at the time. What you said here -- were asking for something that was very similar to a thing we'd previously said we weren't planning on doing. -- is 100% accurate. But at the time you replied, no, there had not previously been a request for a way to see deleted comments. The denied pony was a way to see denied posts. If you follow the link in your first comment there to the denied pony requests section of the wiki, the denied comments link goes to MY meta. It had not been previously asked.
I am sure you were not intentionally being a jerk, but you were then and are still now treating me like a problem child and kind of an idiot. And you are enormously respected and influential here. If you think that in no way negatively influences how the forum as a whole will treat me, wow. I don't even know what to say to that.
posted by Michele in California at 1:22 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is something that falls firmly into the "asked and answered" category enough so it's on the "denied pony requests" page on the wiki.
And that was not true at the time. What you said here -- were asking for something that was very similar to a thing we'd previously said we weren't planning on doing. -- is 100% accurate. But at the time you replied, no, there had not previously been a request for a way to see deleted comments. The denied pony was a way to see denied posts. If you follow the link in your first comment there to the denied pony requests section of the wiki, the denied comments link goes to MY meta. It had not been previously asked.
I am sure you were not intentionally being a jerk, but you were then and are still now treating me like a problem child and kind of an idiot. And you are enormously respected and influential here. If you think that in no way negatively influences how the forum as a whole will treat me, wow. I don't even know what to say to that.
posted by Michele in California at 1:22 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
And that was not true at the time.
I think this is a real quibble. Yes, it was true: the denied request had been for notification of deletions. A MeMail is notifcation, and many other strategies are notifications. The method of notification is unimportant - the sense of the denial was that there was no bandwidth for notification, and that it might have deleterious effects on the community. So your request fell under the coverage of the denied pony, rather clearly.
you were then and are still now treating me like a problem child
With all due respect, I am not seeing this. I think you may want to check your perception and ask if the assumptions are valid - this is the kind of thing where it's helpful to ask "could there be another explanation?"
posted by Miko at 1:25 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I think this is a real quibble. Yes, it was true: the denied request had been for notification of deletions. A MeMail is notifcation, and many other strategies are notifications. The method of notification is unimportant - the sense of the denial was that there was no bandwidth for notification, and that it might have deleterious effects on the community. So your request fell under the coverage of the denied pony, rather clearly.
you were then and are still now treating me like a problem child
With all due respect, I am not seeing this. I think you may want to check your perception and ask if the assumptions are valid - this is the kind of thing where it's helpful to ask "could there be another explanation?"
posted by Miko at 1:25 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I can assure you that jessamyn's way of speaking to you is not impacting my perception of you as much as your indignation and sense of persecution over being put in a position where you might have to present a follow-up comment saying "no, it is different in X way."
posted by phearlez at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to be changed and/or to modify one's opinions based
I think virtually everyone would agree that argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to change based on evidence and persuasive arguments but the issue then becomes whether any given argument is persuasive. People who have strongly held beliefs are much more likely to find arguments which support their pre-existing belief persuasive and those which contradict it to be unpersuasive.
posted by Justinian at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I think virtually everyone would agree that argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to change based on evidence and persuasive arguments but the issue then becomes whether any given argument is persuasive. People who have strongly held beliefs are much more likely to find arguments which support their pre-existing belief persuasive and those which contradict it to be unpersuasive.
posted by Justinian at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
you were then [...] treating me like a problem child and kind of an idiot.
I can't honestly read it that way even if I try with both hands.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:28 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I can't honestly read it that way even if I try with both hands.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:28 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
the issue then becomes whether any given argument is persuasive
I don't disagree. But if an argument fails to persuade, many interlocutors will explain how in order to establish the basis for the person with the opposite view to add to her position or produce more evidence. If someone who does not find the argument persuasive simply backs out or moves on, they have removed themselves from the argument - but if they come back again without ever taking up those old points and showing where and why they were not persuaded, they are arguing in bad faith because they are simply not engaging the argument at all. That's where the bad faith is - the simple refusal to deal with the counterarguments presented. The question of persuasion is a separate one - you can be persuaded or unpersuaded, but if you're talking in good faith, you really can't ask for a free pass to ignore your interlocutor's arguments completely and just keep pushing your point of view as if they had said nothing.
And it's also persuasion + evidence. It's bad faith to argue for something you know to be untrue. I have just a foggy memory of the slavery thread, and that's a thread in which I think there were many incontrovertible facts about slavery presented that were not accounted for in the continuing attempt at argument. A person may decide they were not persuaded, but rejecting factual evidence in order to maintain a conclusion is also bad faith.
posted by Miko at 1:33 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I don't disagree. But if an argument fails to persuade, many interlocutors will explain how in order to establish the basis for the person with the opposite view to add to her position or produce more evidence. If someone who does not find the argument persuasive simply backs out or moves on, they have removed themselves from the argument - but if they come back again without ever taking up those old points and showing where and why they were not persuaded, they are arguing in bad faith because they are simply not engaging the argument at all. That's where the bad faith is - the simple refusal to deal with the counterarguments presented. The question of persuasion is a separate one - you can be persuaded or unpersuaded, but if you're talking in good faith, you really can't ask for a free pass to ignore your interlocutor's arguments completely and just keep pushing your point of view as if they had said nothing.
And it's also persuasion + evidence. It's bad faith to argue for something you know to be untrue. I have just a foggy memory of the slavery thread, and that's a thread in which I think there were many incontrovertible facts about slavery presented that were not accounted for in the continuing attempt at argument. A person may decide they were not persuaded, but rejecting factual evidence in order to maintain a conclusion is also bad faith.
posted by Miko at 1:33 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I'm a little flabbergasted at the baldness of this (though at least enlightened about your thought process). Argumentation in good faith inherently implies a willingness to be changed and/or to modify one's opinions based on the presentation of evidence and persuasive arguments.
This is ideally true, but rarely true in practice. If someone can show you persuasive evidence that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot, will that change your mind about the shooting?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:33 PM on December 4, 2014
This is ideally true, but rarely true in practice. If someone can show you persuasive evidence that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot, will that change your mind about the shooting?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:33 PM on December 4, 2014
If someone can show you persuasive evidence that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot, will that change your mind about the shooting?
What is my position about the shooting, in your hypothetical? I honestly don't know enough about the hands raised/back-front, etc etc to have an opinion about that myself. That to me is rather beside the point. My opinion about the events of the shooting are open to being changed if that's what the facts revealed (because then it wouldn't, you know, be my opinion - it would be fact), but my opinion about overall systems of injustice in the interactions between police and race are more deep-seated and also more evidence-driven, and less likely to change because the degree of factual evidence that would have to be produced to persuade me from it is monumental and not likely forthcoming. But if that happened, I am open to changing it, yes . I hope it happens in my lifetime.
posted by Miko at 1:36 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
What is my position about the shooting, in your hypothetical? I honestly don't know enough about the hands raised/back-front, etc etc to have an opinion about that myself. That to me is rather beside the point. My opinion about the events of the shooting are open to being changed if that's what the facts revealed (because then it wouldn't, you know, be my opinion - it would be fact), but my opinion about overall systems of injustice in the interactions between police and race are more deep-seated and also more evidence-driven, and less likely to change because the degree of factual evidence that would have to be produced to persuade me from it is monumental and not likely forthcoming. But if that happened, I am open to changing it, yes . I hope it happens in my lifetime.
posted by Miko at 1:36 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
So in identifying this as an expectation you find very strange or difficult, I think you've drilled down to one of the main difficulties you have with engaging on the site: you aren't arguing in good faith.
There can be all sorts of value in debating things with people you don't agree with, and cannot ever expect to see eye-to-eye with, without conversion or some sort of rhetorical victory being the goal. And there are generally so many things (culture, upbringing, education, brain chemistry, life experience, social sphere, etc etc etc) baked into a person's belief systems that the idea that one should expect a sufficiently clever and well-cited rebuttal from an internet commenter to upend them seems frankly absurd to me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
There can be all sorts of value in debating things with people you don't agree with, and cannot ever expect to see eye-to-eye with, without conversion or some sort of rhetorical victory being the goal. And there are generally so many things (culture, upbringing, education, brain chemistry, life experience, social sphere, etc etc etc) baked into a person's belief systems that the idea that one should expect a sufficiently clever and well-cited rebuttal from an internet commenter to upend them seems frankly absurd to me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
If you think that in no way negatively influences how the forum as a whole will treat me, wow. I don't even know what to say to that.
Yeah, no.
If it helps, I try really hard not to respond to your posts, Michelle, because I specifically don't want to do a pile-on when the irritant is due solely to personality. But the way you have of entering any given MeTa and twisting it to talk about how mean everyone is to you is both predictable and tedious.
No one else has provided me with this opinion or influenced me in arriving at it - I came to it by reading what you write.
posted by winna at 1:39 PM on December 4, 2014 [28 favorites]
Yeah, no.
If it helps, I try really hard not to respond to your posts, Michelle, because I specifically don't want to do a pile-on when the irritant is due solely to personality. But the way you have of entering any given MeTa and twisting it to talk about how mean everyone is to you is both predictable and tedious.
No one else has provided me with this opinion or influenced me in arriving at it - I came to it by reading what you write.
posted by winna at 1:39 PM on December 4, 2014 [28 favorites]
I am sure you were not intentionally being a jerk, but you were then and are still now treating me like a problem child and kind of an idiot. And you are enormously respected and influential here. If you think that in no way negatively influences how the forum as a whole will treat me, wow. I don't even know what to say to that.
You've got a weird persecution complex. Most people on metafilter don't read metatalk, and I'd wager that most people don't pay attention to metafilter closely enough to recognize particular users unless they post a lot. People interact with you the way they do because of what you post and how you post it, not because of some mod conspiracy or because you're being picked on.
This thread wasn't even about you, but for some reason you're making it about some perceived persecution of you which only exists in your own mind.
posted by empath at 1:40 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
You've got a weird persecution complex. Most people on metafilter don't read metatalk, and I'd wager that most people don't pay attention to metafilter closely enough to recognize particular users unless they post a lot. People interact with you the way they do because of what you post and how you post it, not because of some mod conspiracy or because you're being picked on.
This thread wasn't even about you, but for some reason you're making it about some perceived persecution of you which only exists in your own mind.
posted by empath at 1:40 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
There can be all sorts of value in debating things with people you don't agree with, and cannot ever expect to see eye-to-eye with, without conversion or some sort of rhetorical victory being the goal
I don't disagree - that can be an interesting exercise. But unless parties are arguing with the assumption that the goal is to arrive at one or more points of consensus or clarify a final point of difference, it's only kind of a pastime. There might be reasons to do it, but it's definitely going to cause irritation when one party is arguing in an attempt to establish a point of consensus, and to do that sincerely, while the other party is claiming to do that, but doing it in bad faith. If the other party was merely saying "I'm just talking here, isn't it interesting we disagree" that might change perceptions of the argument, but that is typically not the stance corb is taking in contentious discourse on the site with others.
This is what I meant by my comment: some conflict is going to arise when people have different understandings about why they are talking together or when one misrepresents their intent (knowingly or unknowingly).
posted by Miko at 1:42 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
I don't disagree - that can be an interesting exercise. But unless parties are arguing with the assumption that the goal is to arrive at one or more points of consensus or clarify a final point of difference, it's only kind of a pastime. There might be reasons to do it, but it's definitely going to cause irritation when one party is arguing in an attempt to establish a point of consensus, and to do that sincerely, while the other party is claiming to do that, but doing it in bad faith. If the other party was merely saying "I'm just talking here, isn't it interesting we disagree" that might change perceptions of the argument, but that is typically not the stance corb is taking in contentious discourse on the site with others.
This is what I meant by my comment: some conflict is going to arise when people have different understandings about why they are talking together or when one misrepresents their intent (knowingly or unknowingly).
posted by Miko at 1:42 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't expect to change minds with every argument I make. Here's what I do expect from someone who I've just engaged with a rebuttal:
(a) you put forth a counterargument
(b) you cede the point, or at least acknowledge that the argument has merit, but that you're still not convinced
(c) failing (a) or (b), you refrain from putting forth the same argument that was previously rebutted in a different thread, or earlier in the same thread
There's no site-wide rule specifically prohibiting sophistry, goalpost-moving, or tossing out the same argument over and over, so I don't expect that these expectations of mine will be met, so I only mention this as a means of conveying that people aren't necessarily looking to change your mind when they complain about you not engaging with their rebuttals. You don't have to change your opinion, and you don't have to shut up, but I think if you're not willing to at least supply a counterargument or explain why you don't find the rebuttal convincing, then your contributions aren't really arguments as much as they're denial-of-service attacks. Argument by repetition isn't an argument -- at some point, are we here to just repeat our premises, or are we here to learn from each other, find common ground, and try to resolve differences, or at least increase understanding?
posted by tonycpsu at 1:43 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't expect to change minds with every argument I make. Here's what I do expect from someone who I've just engaged with a rebuttal:
(a) you put forth a counterargument
(b) you cede the point, or at least acknowledge that the argument has merit, but that you're still not convinced
(c) failing (a) or (b), you refrain from putting forth the same argument that was previously rebutted in a different thread, or earlier in the same thread
There's no site-wide rule specifically prohibiting sophistry, goalpost-moving, or tossing out the same argument over and over, so I don't expect that these expectations of mine will be met, so I only mention this as a means of conveying that people aren't necessarily looking to change your mind when they complain about you not engaging with their rebuttals. You don't have to change your opinion, and you don't have to shut up, but I think if you're not willing to at least supply a counterargument or explain why you don't find the rebuttal convincing, then your contributions aren't really arguments as much as they're denial-of-service attacks. Argument by repetition isn't an argument -- at some point, are we here to just repeat our premises, or are we here to learn from each other, find common ground, and try to resolve differences, or at least increase understanding?
posted by tonycpsu at 1:43 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
This thread wasn't even about you, but for some reason you're making it about some perceived persecution of you which only exists in your own mind.
posted by empath at 1:40 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
No, I am not making it about me. I said what I said upthread to try to talk about why I think dogpiling is a problem. I stated in a footnote my reason for using me as an example and not, say, corb or Tanizaki. Of course, having used some of my own experiences as an example, it is easy for other people to merely be dismissive of me personally -- which is ironic but trying to point out the irony likely won't help anything.
posted by Michele in California at 1:45 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 1:40 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
No, I am not making it about me. I said what I said upthread to try to talk about why I think dogpiling is a problem. I stated in a footnote my reason for using me as an example and not, say, corb or Tanizaki. Of course, having used some of my own experiences as an example, it is easy for other people to merely be dismissive of me personally -- which is ironic but trying to point out the irony likely won't help anything.
posted by Michele in California at 1:45 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Michelle, using yourself as an example is making it about you. That is basically the definition of making it about you.
posted by empath at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by empath at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2014 [15 favorites]
Your very first comment is a perfect example of paranoid thinking:
I have a long history, well before I joined MetaFilter, of being someone who attracts that sort of attention. I almost always attract it when I am absolutely not looking for it and not trying to start shit. I have, in fact, worked extremely hard to try to find ways to reduce the amount of shit-shows that blossom just because I happened to participate in a discussion, without doing anything actually wrong.
You do recognize that the shit-shows start not because of who you are, but because of how you participate in the threads, not just here, but apparently elsewhere?
It's not like people know anything about you other than your name before you start commenting. Do you think people are like,"I hate people named Michelle from the west coast, I'm going to pick on her." Do you think you are some kind of internet celebrity where your notoriety precedes you?
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have a long history, well before I joined MetaFilter, of being someone who attracts that sort of attention. I almost always attract it when I am absolutely not looking for it and not trying to start shit. I have, in fact, worked extremely hard to try to find ways to reduce the amount of shit-shows that blossom just because I happened to participate in a discussion, without doing anything actually wrong.
You do recognize that the shit-shows start not because of who you are, but because of how you participate in the threads, not just here, but apparently elsewhere?
It's not like people know anything about you other than your name before you start commenting. Do you think people are like,"I hate people named Michelle from the west coast, I'm going to pick on her." Do you think you are some kind of internet celebrity where your notoriety precedes you?
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
But unless parties are arguing with the assumption that the goal is to arrive at one or more points of consensus, it's only kind of a pastime.
My time on the internet has taught me that assuming that reaching consensus is anybody's goal is almost always bound to result in disappointment. Shrug.
On preview, oh look, there's a totally unnecessary dogpile happening in realtime, at least it doesn't seem to be motivated by political ideology, that's nice
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
My time on the internet has taught me that assuming that reaching consensus is anybody's goal is almost always bound to result in disappointment. Shrug.
On preview, oh look, there's a totally unnecessary dogpile happening in realtime, at least it doesn't seem to be motivated by political ideology, that's nice
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Michelle, using yourself as an example is making it about you. That is basically the definition of making it about you.
posted by empath at 1:46 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
empath, I disagree.
I am pretty good at self-advocating. That is why I get fewer pile-ons than I used to and my very presence by itself is no longer an automatic derail. But just getting better treatment for me does not improve site culture or policy. It does not put an end to this general practice that once a particular person has a certain history, people can pile on them and be really ugly and the group as a whole says it's all good, they brought it on themselves.
I don't really want to just walk away from metafilter. I also don't really want to be part of that kind of group interaction. Like anyone, I can either try to give my 2 cents worth and hope to be part of peaceable constructive change, or cover my own ass, or walk the fuck away. So I still try to give my 2 cents worth about what can be done better here. That's all.
posted by Michele in California at 1:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 1:46 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
empath, I disagree.
I am pretty good at self-advocating. That is why I get fewer pile-ons than I used to and my very presence by itself is no longer an automatic derail. But just getting better treatment for me does not improve site culture or policy. It does not put an end to this general practice that once a particular person has a certain history, people can pile on them and be really ugly and the group as a whole says it's all good, they brought it on themselves.
I don't really want to just walk away from metafilter. I also don't really want to be part of that kind of group interaction. Like anyone, I can either try to give my 2 cents worth and hope to be part of peaceable constructive change, or cover my own ass, or walk the fuck away. So I still try to give my 2 cents worth about what can be done better here. That's all.
posted by Michele in California at 1:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
The point is "your very presence" never caused a derail.
posted by agregoli at 1:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
My time on the internet has taught me that assuming that reaching consensus is anybody's goal is almost always bound to result in disappointment. Shrug.
I've had a better track record than always disappointment - but I'm not saying it's realistic to expect us all to arrive at consensus; I too know better than that. I'm just noting that it's not pro-social to give the impression that you are trying to make progress toward some point of agreement in a discussion when you're not. If having that kind of dialogic engagement toward establishing clearer, more supported and more respectful positions is not your intent that's fine (it characterizes plenty of interactions including many I participate in) but it's a bit duplicitous to act like you really want to do that, but refusing to do that, and then adding to insult by interpreting the negative reactions received as related to the nature of your opinions rather than the bad-faith style of discourse.
posted by Miko at 1:57 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I've had a better track record than always disappointment - but I'm not saying it's realistic to expect us all to arrive at consensus; I too know better than that. I'm just noting that it's not pro-social to give the impression that you are trying to make progress toward some point of agreement in a discussion when you're not. If having that kind of dialogic engagement toward establishing clearer, more supported and more respectful positions is not your intent that's fine (it characterizes plenty of interactions including many I participate in) but it's a bit duplicitous to act like you really want to do that, but refusing to do that, and then adding to insult by interpreting the negative reactions received as related to the nature of your opinions rather than the bad-faith style of discourse.
posted by Miko at 1:57 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
"It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance."
Some opinions on certain topics, yes. Like claiming that the Confederacy didn't secede because of slavery, which you argued for at least hours and never (as far as I recall) recanted despite the overwhelming evidence. Or that a claim of harassment by transgender girls couldn't be dismissed simply because there was absolutely zero evidence. Or even insisting on referring to people by terms they felt demeaning, then getting het up enough to write a MeTa about it.
"Willful malfeasance" may be overstating, but certainly "justifying curt responses" and "matching levels of disrespect" seem apt.
"And this is something that doesn't seem to swing the other way. I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged! I don't begrudge you that - I don't think anyone's opinions necessarily need to change just because I feel I've made a good argument. "
I don't recall any particularly thoughtful rebuttals of my positions from you, especially ones that hinged on a clear mistake of facts. This isn't to say that you haven't changed my mind on any issues with a thoughtful rebuttal, simply that I do not recall any such instances. Would you like to link to a particularly thoughtful rebuttal that I could examine?
"Am I misreading you? Is this not what you're meaning to say? Or is there something else that might explicate it better? I would appreciate your thoughts - I really appreciate how you're trying to talk about this seriously, but I think this point is important to clarify."
In general, I feel that repeated insistence on ill-informed views is itself disrespectful and lowers the bar for being treated with respect. I also try to be someone who will take it when it is dished out, and to cop to my mistakes.
I've had my mind changed on things by pretty much all of the regular members here, even some of those I regularly disagree with. I would not be surprised if there was something.
"This is ideally true, but rarely true in practice. If someone can show you persuasive evidence that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot, will that change your mind about the shooting?"
Yes, somewhat. But I don't think that piece of evidence is the most dispositive in the encounter, so I'm not sure how much it would change my mind. If he had his arms at his side, he was still killed while not posing an immanent threat to anyone, in congruence with racial tropes, and the reactions of the Ferguson police to the protests were unwarranted and a violation of civil rights. There are certainly facts that would change my mind, and (in general) I try to hold off on forming a firm opinion immediately — e.g. the "murdered" census taker, or the Daniele Watts altercation. I'm just not sure that the "hands up" thing would change much of my mind about the shooting itself, at least relative to the tactical wisdom of continuing to use "hands up" as a protest chant.
Let's face it: The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy", either, and it really strongly suggests a lack of perspective and deep-seated insecurities to argue that it does."
I don't think anyone has argued that the "Portlandia" dig causes as much or more real harm. Can you point that out?
posted by klangklangston at 2:00 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
Some opinions on certain topics, yes. Like claiming that the Confederacy didn't secede because of slavery, which you argued for at least hours and never (as far as I recall) recanted despite the overwhelming evidence. Or that a claim of harassment by transgender girls couldn't be dismissed simply because there was absolutely zero evidence. Or even insisting on referring to people by terms they felt demeaning, then getting het up enough to write a MeTa about it.
"Willful malfeasance" may be overstating, but certainly "justifying curt responses" and "matching levels of disrespect" seem apt.
"And this is something that doesn't seem to swing the other way. I myself might feel that I've had some thoughtful rebuttals of your positions. And yet, your opinions remain unchanged! I don't begrudge you that - I don't think anyone's opinions necessarily need to change just because I feel I've made a good argument. "
I don't recall any particularly thoughtful rebuttals of my positions from you, especially ones that hinged on a clear mistake of facts. This isn't to say that you haven't changed my mind on any issues with a thoughtful rebuttal, simply that I do not recall any such instances. Would you like to link to a particularly thoughtful rebuttal that I could examine?
"Am I misreading you? Is this not what you're meaning to say? Or is there something else that might explicate it better? I would appreciate your thoughts - I really appreciate how you're trying to talk about this seriously, but I think this point is important to clarify."
In general, I feel that repeated insistence on ill-informed views is itself disrespectful and lowers the bar for being treated with respect. I also try to be someone who will take it when it is dished out, and to cop to my mistakes.
I've had my mind changed on things by pretty much all of the regular members here, even some of those I regularly disagree with. I would not be surprised if there was something.
"This is ideally true, but rarely true in practice. If someone can show you persuasive evidence that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot, will that change your mind about the shooting?"
Yes, somewhat. But I don't think that piece of evidence is the most dispositive in the encounter, so I'm not sure how much it would change my mind. If he had his arms at his side, he was still killed while not posing an immanent threat to anyone, in congruence with racial tropes, and the reactions of the Ferguson police to the protests were unwarranted and a violation of civil rights. There are certainly facts that would change my mind, and (in general) I try to hold off on forming a firm opinion immediately — e.g. the "murdered" census taker, or the Daniele Watts altercation. I'm just not sure that the "hands up" thing would change much of my mind about the shooting itself, at least relative to the tactical wisdom of continuing to use "hands up" as a protest chant.
Let's face it: The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy", either, and it really strongly suggests a lack of perspective and deep-seated insecurities to argue that it does."
I don't think anyone has argued that the "Portlandia" dig causes as much or more real harm. Can you point that out?
posted by klangklangston at 2:00 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
empath: Michelle, using yourself as an example is making it about you. That is basically the definition of making it about you.I disagree emphatically. Using yourself as the assumed only possible example is basically the definition of making it about you - and very different from explicitly saying, "using myself as an example".
posted by IAmBroom at 2:01 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'm more and more becoming convinced that argumentation virtually never changes people's minds. What changes their minds is life experience.
posted by Justinian at 2:03 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:03 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Justinian,
I have read that some majority views basically only change when the people who held them literally die, making room for younger generations to think something else, in essence.
So, even life experience does not have the greatest track record, from what I gather.
posted by Michele in California at 2:05 PM on December 4, 2014
I have read that some majority views basically only change when the people who held them literally die, making room for younger generations to think something else, in essence.
So, even life experience does not have the greatest track record, from what I gather.
posted by Michele in California at 2:05 PM on December 4, 2014
Hey, death is a life experience!
posted by Justinian at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Well, I certainly agree that life experience is important but my mind has definitely been changed by argumentation. My mind is changed here every day as I learn more facts and hear more perspectives and grow more or less persuaded of different stances. If I weren't open to having my mind changed and thought I might never change the minds of others, I wouldn't bother with most of the process at all.
If that's a common view of discourse here, I'm surprised this isn't the root of more misperception.
posted by Miko at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
If that's a common view of discourse here, I'm surprised this isn't the root of more misperception.
posted by Miko at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
So is argumentation, no?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Justinian: I'm more and more becoming convinced that argumentation virtually never changes people's minds. What changes their minds is life experience.Favorited, and yet... my mind has been changed by many arguments.
It usually takes a lot longer for the change to happen - emotions need to drain away, rational self-examination isn't instant... etc. But it happens.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
> I'm more and more becoming convinced that argumentation virtually never changes people's minds. What changes their minds is life experience.
Yes, but sometimes it's someone else's life experience, which they've related to me here.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:24 PM on December 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
Yes, but sometimes it's someone else's life experience, which they've related to me here.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:24 PM on December 4, 2014 [23 favorites]
The Portlandia descriptor causes no more real harm than being called a "grumpy myopic guy", either, and it really strongly suggests a lack of perspective and deep-seated insecurities to argue that it does.
Yeah, I have no idea what you're reading.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I have no idea what you're reading.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have certainly had my mind changed as a result of reading discussions here. I haven't been directly disagreed with much, but at least some of those occasions resulted in some re-examination of long-held beliefs. I'm honestly surprised to hear that this isn't a common expectation for particpating in conversations of the kind that go on here.
posted by Ipsifendus at 2:43 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Ipsifendus at 2:43 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm more and more becoming convinced that argumentation virtually never changes people's minds.
If you do it right, arguments *are* life experiences. Obviously I'm professionally biased here, but I like to say that my favorite thing in the world is to be wrong, because then I get to change my mind. It's really cool when you hold on to a belief really tight, and then the force of reasons and evidence somehow gets you to let it go. It's like a revelation, but not divine at all; just mundane people talking.
What I notice about the people I meet from Metafilter is that, like me, they've had a kind of epiphanitic experience with arguments in their past. They have been changed by arguments, and they're hungry to have that experience again. So, I think, we also get frustrated when we realize we're rehashing old territory, and we get pretty mad when we start to think that the people we're talking to aren't interested in having their minds changed or coming up with the kinds of arguments that could change ours.
It's not the only thing that people do, here, of course: we advocate and snark, too. And of course, sometimes we preach with the fanaticism of the converted. But what I like about you folks is that I think I see a glimmer of that gambler, that addict, looking for the right reasons to become someone new, someone who believes not only differently--but because of the force of that change--more fervently committed to reason-giving and arguments than before.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:58 PM on December 4, 2014 [26 favorites]
If you do it right, arguments *are* life experiences. Obviously I'm professionally biased here, but I like to say that my favorite thing in the world is to be wrong, because then I get to change my mind. It's really cool when you hold on to a belief really tight, and then the force of reasons and evidence somehow gets you to let it go. It's like a revelation, but not divine at all; just mundane people talking.
What I notice about the people I meet from Metafilter is that, like me, they've had a kind of epiphanitic experience with arguments in their past. They have been changed by arguments, and they're hungry to have that experience again. So, I think, we also get frustrated when we realize we're rehashing old territory, and we get pretty mad when we start to think that the people we're talking to aren't interested in having their minds changed or coming up with the kinds of arguments that could change ours.
It's not the only thing that people do, here, of course: we advocate and snark, too. And of course, sometimes we preach with the fanaticism of the converted. But what I like about you folks is that I think I see a glimmer of that gambler, that addict, looking for the right reasons to become someone new, someone who believes not only differently--but because of the force of that change--more fervently committed to reason-giving and arguments than before.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:58 PM on December 4, 2014 [26 favorites]
I'm more and more becoming convinced that argumentation virtually never changes people's minds. What changes their minds is life experience.
I don't know if you would count this as having their mind "changed" or as Frowner's comment as an "argument," but see Frowner's comment and zug's response.
posted by rtha at 3:15 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I don't know if you would count this as having their mind "changed" or as Frowner's comment as an "argument," but see Frowner's comment and zug's response.
posted by rtha at 3:15 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I have my mind changed all the time reading MeFi. It's one of the main reasons I like spending time here. anotherpanacea just summed it up perfectly:
What I notice about the people I meet from Metafilter is that, like me, they've had a kind of epiphanitic experience with arguments in their past. They have been changed by arguments, and they're hungry to have that experience again.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
What I notice about the people I meet from Metafilter is that, like me, they've had a kind of epiphanitic experience with arguments in their past. They have been changed by arguments, and they're hungry to have that experience again.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think anyone has argued that the "Portlandia" dig
Perhaps this part of the thread moved very quickly, but it is specifically in reference to this and related comments, which initially refers to describing some Mefites as Portlandia caricatures as attacking a strawman, and then Tanizaki is referred to as a "grumpy myopic guy", which is later described as a personal attack. I'm not sure what seems unclear about being called those names that clearly touched nerves on both sides, but that specific part of the discussion and the subsequent responses seemed relevant to me. Maybe people are fine with these descriptors, but it didn't read that way.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:05 PM on December 4, 2014
Perhaps this part of the thread moved very quickly, but it is specifically in reference to this and related comments, which initially refers to describing some Mefites as Portlandia caricatures as attacking a strawman, and then Tanizaki is referred to as a "grumpy myopic guy", which is later described as a personal attack. I'm not sure what seems unclear about being called those names that clearly touched nerves on both sides, but that specific part of the discussion and the subsequent responses seemed relevant to me. Maybe people are fine with these descriptors, but it didn't read that way.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:05 PM on December 4, 2014
The minds that get changed by argument tend not to be the minds of the arguers themselves, but of onlookers. You have a much better chance of learning something if you don't have anything invested directly and personally in the discussion.
posted by suelac at 4:08 PM on December 4, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by suelac at 4:08 PM on December 4, 2014 [18 favorites]
What I notice about the people I meet from Metafilter is that, like me, they've had a kind of epiphanitic experience with arguments in their past. They have been changed by arguments, and they're hungry to have that experience again. So, I think, we also get frustrated when we realize we're rehashing old territory, and we get pretty mad when we start to think that the people we're talking to aren't interested in having their minds changed or coming up with the kinds of arguments that could change ours. "
YES.
I mean, I tend to be wrong more often about kind of embarrassing stuff, like misusing a technical stats term and then having to correct it because I was blithely snarky, but just as an example: We got into a discussion about something (don't remember what) and you linked to a bunch of research about the median voter being a myth. I don't think I ever came around totally to your larger point of view, but seeing research that basically backhanded the idea of appealing to coherent moderate policy preferences as a way to win elections was both fascinating and made me change beliefs that I'd had for a while. It was great, and I remember it.
Or the time where you responded to something I'd been kind of lazily unclear about with regard to Clarence Thomas, and I learned a lot more about his jurisprudence and just how goddamned weird it is on its own terms. It made me change my mind about reading his opinions, and be more careful about how I phrased my criticism of them in the future.
Those are just two examples from you alone. And I think that does get at why I have so little patience for the folks arguing like they're building horses out of glue, and for the endless whinnies about how condescending the "101" stuff is. I learn and change my mind about things all the time here (and tend to remember arguments better than I remember people, honestly).
I think it's also something that colors my perception of how much of an echo chamber this place is. I understand that often the arguments are over small definitional differences, but fer instance I had to re-evaluate a lot of how I thought about fascism after arguing with Aelfwine over whether America can reasonably be described as fascist. I still would hold that it's not, but that it has fascist elements and tendencies, but having to back that up meant digging a lot further into the specific literature than I'd had to do in a while, and a lot of it was new and different from what I'd learned. So even when a conservative might roll their eyes about "America: How fascist is it?" it's a real disagreement that got pretty heated (and a well-informed conservative would also be able to pick out fascist elements in American politics e.g. New Deal that might irk a liberal, but would have to be conceded).
Similarly, I remember an argument with Miko over whether originality is possible that made me really think about how I was defining originality and how I would support the case for novel works, including thinking about thresholds for originality.
Or any number of arguments that I've just watched here that have changed my mind about how the balance of "free speech" can impact historically-disadvantaged groups.
posted by klangklangston at 4:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
YES.
I mean, I tend to be wrong more often about kind of embarrassing stuff, like misusing a technical stats term and then having to correct it because I was blithely snarky, but just as an example: We got into a discussion about something (don't remember what) and you linked to a bunch of research about the median voter being a myth. I don't think I ever came around totally to your larger point of view, but seeing research that basically backhanded the idea of appealing to coherent moderate policy preferences as a way to win elections was both fascinating and made me change beliefs that I'd had for a while. It was great, and I remember it.
Or the time where you responded to something I'd been kind of lazily unclear about with regard to Clarence Thomas, and I learned a lot more about his jurisprudence and just how goddamned weird it is on its own terms. It made me change my mind about reading his opinions, and be more careful about how I phrased my criticism of them in the future.
Those are just two examples from you alone. And I think that does get at why I have so little patience for the folks arguing like they're building horses out of glue, and for the endless whinnies about how condescending the "101" stuff is. I learn and change my mind about things all the time here (and tend to remember arguments better than I remember people, honestly).
I think it's also something that colors my perception of how much of an echo chamber this place is. I understand that often the arguments are over small definitional differences, but fer instance I had to re-evaluate a lot of how I thought about fascism after arguing with Aelfwine over whether America can reasonably be described as fascist. I still would hold that it's not, but that it has fascist elements and tendencies, but having to back that up meant digging a lot further into the specific literature than I'd had to do in a while, and a lot of it was new and different from what I'd learned. So even when a conservative might roll their eyes about "America: How fascist is it?" it's a real disagreement that got pretty heated (and a well-informed conservative would also be able to pick out fascist elements in American politics e.g. New Deal that might irk a liberal, but would have to be conceded).
Similarly, I remember an argument with Miko over whether originality is possible that made me really think about how I was defining originality and how I would support the case for novel works, including thinking about thresholds for originality.
Or any number of arguments that I've just watched here that have changed my mind about how the balance of "free speech" can impact historically-disadvantaged groups.
posted by klangklangston at 4:27 PM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
As someone who tends to read a lot but not post much, I find that my opinions have been changed by the discussions and arguments on Metafilter. I've developed a much better grasp of trans issues in particular, but I've also ended up with a better understanding of the subtle ways in which sexism and racism manifest. More than that, I've found I had to change some of my own behaviour in real life too because Metafilter has convinced me that some of my actions have been less than helpful.
The things that have changed my opinions the most have almost never been angry or snarky comments. They've tended either to be personal stories and carefully reasoned explanations of why "intuitively reasonable position X" actually turns out to be pretty problematic in practice. None of which is to say that snark or anger is inappropriate for Metafilter: my education is a side benefit to the site, not it's primary purpose! My point is just that when folks take the time and effort to calmly explain things to a more naive audience, there are some of us who spend a lot of time thinking and learning from that kind of discussion. And it's appreciated.
posted by langtonsant at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
The things that have changed my opinions the most have almost never been angry or snarky comments. They've tended either to be personal stories and carefully reasoned explanations of why "intuitively reasonable position X" actually turns out to be pretty problematic in practice. None of which is to say that snark or anger is inappropriate for Metafilter: my education is a side benefit to the site, not it's primary purpose! My point is just that when folks take the time and effort to calmly explain things to a more naive audience, there are some of us who spend a lot of time thinking and learning from that kind of discussion. And it's appreciated.
posted by langtonsant at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [14 favorites]
The minds that get changed by argument tend not to be the minds of the arguers themselves, but of onlookers.
I would say that this is a good point and that it may be true but then I would be disproving my own argument and would explode in a contradictory nova.
posted by Justinian at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
I would say that this is a good point and that it may be true but then I would be disproving my own argument and would explode in a contradictory nova.
posted by Justinian at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [10 favorites]
The minds that get changed by argument tend not to be the minds of the arguers themselves, but of onlookers. You have a much better chance of learning something if you don't have anything invested directly and personally in the discussion.
Speaking for myself, I don't find this to be true. I suspect that one reason I am drawn to argument as a participant is that it pushes me to think, think harder, research things, etc. And through that process alone, even before I deal with counterarguments, I sometimes change my own mind - finding something I took for granted had some pretty shaky foundations, for instance, and maybe I don't want to advance that point after all. Or finding what I thought was the definitive research on the topic is too old and written-over to be useful. Or dealing with conflicts in two positions I've head that I never happened to look at together. So I think I've learned more, in many cases, because I was actively engaged in the discussion process, not just spectating. Though that can also be a way to learn. Because of the life testimonies and arguments of others I have reversed positions on a number of issues, miniscule and large, since I joined MetaFilter.
And I also learn something from other people's arguments, as well. Seeing klangklangston and anotherpanacea directly commenting just above this is a reminder that both of them have a much stronger grasp of philosophy than myself and I've learned a lot by reading what they have to say and, occasionally, being challenged on points by them. I've also made a fair number of sweeping generalizations over the years ("Nobody does..") that have been immediately proved untrue by someone piping in "Well, I have."
posted by Miko at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Speaking for myself, I don't find this to be true. I suspect that one reason I am drawn to argument as a participant is that it pushes me to think, think harder, research things, etc. And through that process alone, even before I deal with counterarguments, I sometimes change my own mind - finding something I took for granted had some pretty shaky foundations, for instance, and maybe I don't want to advance that point after all. Or finding what I thought was the definitive research on the topic is too old and written-over to be useful. Or dealing with conflicts in two positions I've head that I never happened to look at together. So I think I've learned more, in many cases, because I was actively engaged in the discussion process, not just spectating. Though that can also be a way to learn. Because of the life testimonies and arguments of others I have reversed positions on a number of issues, miniscule and large, since I joined MetaFilter.
And I also learn something from other people's arguments, as well. Seeing klangklangston and anotherpanacea directly commenting just above this is a reminder that both of them have a much stronger grasp of philosophy than myself and I've learned a lot by reading what they have to say and, occasionally, being challenged on points by them. I've also made a fair number of sweeping generalizations over the years ("Nobody does..") that have been immediately proved untrue by someone piping in "Well, I have."
posted by Miko at 4:38 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
corb never said she is unwilling to have her mind changed or that she never does have it changed. What she said is that expectation from one side that the other side concede is unrealistic.
According to Google, this is the only thread in which both your username and the phrase "what the actual fuck" appears.
Google is wrong in this case.
posted by 0 at 4:42 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
According to Google, this is the only thread in which both your username and the phrase "what the actual fuck" appears.
Google is wrong in this case.
posted by 0 at 4:42 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Yo, if google is wrong why don't you reading rainbow that shit and give us a link.
posted by klangklangston at 5:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 5:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Because I don't know why it wasn't linked in the first place but assume there was a good reason.
posted by 0 at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by 0 at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2014
Thanks for sending the link over. I don't think it'd be verboten to talk about it here, and it's actually a decent example of someone coming out probably looking better because of deletions, rather than the other way around. I had only heard a little about the Bryant thing through the cycling grapevine, and through reading the links, watching the video and looking at the ultimate outcome, Bryant actually came out looking much less guilty than I'd heard (the version that I'd heard was basically that he'd run over some bicyclist twice because Bryant was drunk). Instead, one dead town… posted a link to the wikipedia page and I googled around on my own and ended up thinking that Bryant still probably broke the law by trying to scrape the cyclist off his car, but the way it was being treated in that thread seemed unsustainable from the evidence that was there.
I'd imagine that the deleted, likely scathing reply would not have been as persuasive.
posted by klangklangston at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2014
I'd imagine that the deleted, likely scathing reply would not have been as persuasive.
posted by klangklangston at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2014
corb never said she is unwilling to have her mind changed or that she never does have it changed. What she said is that expectation from one side that the other side concede is unrealistic.
Never exactly that, no, but she did dismiss outright the need to listen to your opponents, reconsider your arguments in light of theirs, and respond to those arguments in some way if you plan to continue engaging them on that topic in future,, saying "That's not how arguments, or even basic discussions, work."
I was sincere when I said I found this a really enlightening moment for me in understsanding some of the dynamic surrounding her trickier participation. I'm often really dumbfounded at trying to figure out what corb is doing in a discussion. People have called it trolling, she insists it's not, and on that she gets the benefit of the doubt more often than not. But she is saying, right here, that her view is that bad faith argumentation is fine in her book, that this is "how it works." That's not trolling but it's also really not what I come here before and not the best and most illuminating kind of exchange the site has to offer. This is a really useful thing for me to know, since I disagree with this view (and with the implied definition of "argument" and "discussion" ) at such a profound level that I now know why it's not really worth engaging her arguments except to clear up misinformation that might confuse others. Because they're not arguments, at the heart of it. I'm not sure what they are but they aren't good-faith attempts to find any point of common ground or arrive at a clarified understanding of either party's position. There's no shared purpose or shared intent. Understanding this will, I hope, help me liberate myself from the feeling that it would make sense to engage the points made.
posted by Miko at 5:58 PM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
Never exactly that, no, but she did dismiss outright the need to listen to your opponents, reconsider your arguments in light of theirs, and respond to those arguments in some way if you plan to continue engaging them on that topic in future,, saying "That's not how arguments, or even basic discussions, work."
I was sincere when I said I found this a really enlightening moment for me in understsanding some of the dynamic surrounding her trickier participation. I'm often really dumbfounded at trying to figure out what corb is doing in a discussion. People have called it trolling, she insists it's not, and on that she gets the benefit of the doubt more often than not. But she is saying, right here, that her view is that bad faith argumentation is fine in her book, that this is "how it works." That's not trolling but it's also really not what I come here before and not the best and most illuminating kind of exchange the site has to offer. This is a really useful thing for me to know, since I disagree with this view (and with the implied definition of "argument" and "discussion" ) at such a profound level that I now know why it's not really worth engaging her arguments except to clear up misinformation that might confuse others. Because they're not arguments, at the heart of it. I'm not sure what they are but they aren't good-faith attempts to find any point of common ground or arrive at a clarified understanding of either party's position. There's no shared purpose or shared intent. Understanding this will, I hope, help me liberate myself from the feeling that it would make sense to engage the points made.
posted by Miko at 5:58 PM on December 4, 2014 [17 favorites]
But she is saying, right here, that her view is that bad faith argumentation is fine in her book, that this is "how it works."
I think this is a unfair and inaccurate paraphrase.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
I think this is a unfair and inaccurate paraphrase.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
It seems as though you and some others feel that if some opinions on certain topics are thoughtfully "rebutted", then the other person should change their opinions to match the rebuttal or shut up, rather than hold onto their opinion, and that to fail to do so is some sort of wilful malfeasance. But that is not generally how arguments, or even basic discussions, work.
Please explain your read of it.
posted by Miko at 6:12 PM on December 4, 2014
Please explain your read of it.
posted by Miko at 6:12 PM on December 4, 2014
You seem to be presuming the rebuttal in this scenario is objectively correct and can be perceived as such by the other party, has no alternate interpretations, etc. It takes a quite a leap to read this as an insistence on holding on to ones opinions no matter how what, or refusing to consider any opposing views.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:26 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
MoonOrb: I can't tell if anyone really cares or not that Tanizaki brands the perceived majority MeFi viewpoint as "Portlandia liberal?"
I'm more of a Tumblr Social Justice Elementalist, so Portlandia Liberal is too far right to apply to me. I think in terms of MetaFilter as a whole, it's fairly accurate - the beanplating in particular is a characteristic of a stripe of white liberal seeking an objective consensus with the unspoken ideal that if we just talk about shit long enough we'll all agree.
Interestingly, I think there has been shifts and movements between individuals, even while the discussions remain largely in place. One of the things I like about MetaFilter is the ability to agree and disagree with the same people on different topics - it's something I also like about far more tightly moderated places. My experience is that in places more loosely moderated than MetaFilter, or in places where the liberal/progressive atmosphere is maintained via mocking and social pressure, not moderation, the pushback against presumed outsiders restricts inter-group disagreement, even over serious issues.
It's part of why I'm a fan of tightly moderated places.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:36 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
I'm more of a Tumblr Social Justice Elementalist, so Portlandia Liberal is too far right to apply to me. I think in terms of MetaFilter as a whole, it's fairly accurate - the beanplating in particular is a characteristic of a stripe of white liberal seeking an objective consensus with the unspoken ideal that if we just talk about shit long enough we'll all agree.
Interestingly, I think there has been shifts and movements between individuals, even while the discussions remain largely in place. One of the things I like about MetaFilter is the ability to agree and disagree with the same people on different topics - it's something I also like about far more tightly moderated places. My experience is that in places more loosely moderated than MetaFilter, or in places where the liberal/progressive atmosphere is maintained via mocking and social pressure, not moderation, the pushback against presumed outsiders restricts inter-group disagreement, even over serious issues.
It's part of why I'm a fan of tightly moderated places.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:36 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
You seem to be presuming the rebuttal in this scenario is objectively correct and can be perceived as such by the other party, has no alternate interpretations, etc.
I don't think that's the core presumption: it's not that a rebuttal is necessarily foolproof and unassailable, it's that a rebuttal is part of an exchange of ideas and that if the person hearing the rebuttal thinks that portions of it are flawed the usual thing is to respond with a clear explanation of those objections. Or to acknowledge the parts that do seem sound. Or, in probably the most common scenario, a mix of the two.
It's walking right past a rebuttal to restate the core argument again as if nothing has happened that tends to get up people's shirts, especially when it's a pattern of behavior with the same arguments being raised across multiple threads over time. Doubly especially when it's presented in the shape of "I don't understand where you're coming from on this, can you explain why some people feel x" and then that precise query ends up being rolled out again a month or a year later.
Like, I totally agree that to ask for someone else's perspective on something is not to invite the assumption that you'll be converted to their perspective as a result. It's okay to say "I don't feel X about Y; can you help me understand why you feel X about Y?" without implying that you're on the verge of conversion, and to come away from the answers you get still not personally feeling X about Y. There's zero controversial about that: you may or may not be in any way convinced to rethinking your feelings about Y.
But most folks will expect you to come away from it better able to model the fact of and motivations for other people feeling X about Y as part of your understanding of Y, to be willing and able to incorporate what you've previously discussed about Y and about people's X-ish feelings toward it, in future discussions. So if you end up coming into a later discussion of Y, with the same crowd, and roll out some sort of variation on "I just don't understand how you can feel X about Y", a lot of people are going to be very rightly wondering why you're choosing to waste their time.
Nobody's obliged by any informal rules of discussion to be convinced by other people's arguments. But there's some basic social contract stuff that suggests that a person should at least be making an effort to understand and acknowledge those arguments if its a discussion they're going to keep getting involved in on future occasions. The apparent absence of that is I think a significant and reasonable locus of some of the frustrations folks have been expressing in here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [29 favorites]
I don't think that's the core presumption: it's not that a rebuttal is necessarily foolproof and unassailable, it's that a rebuttal is part of an exchange of ideas and that if the person hearing the rebuttal thinks that portions of it are flawed the usual thing is to respond with a clear explanation of those objections. Or to acknowledge the parts that do seem sound. Or, in probably the most common scenario, a mix of the two.
It's walking right past a rebuttal to restate the core argument again as if nothing has happened that tends to get up people's shirts, especially when it's a pattern of behavior with the same arguments being raised across multiple threads over time. Doubly especially when it's presented in the shape of "I don't understand where you're coming from on this, can you explain why some people feel x" and then that precise query ends up being rolled out again a month or a year later.
Like, I totally agree that to ask for someone else's perspective on something is not to invite the assumption that you'll be converted to their perspective as a result. It's okay to say "I don't feel X about Y; can you help me understand why you feel X about Y?" without implying that you're on the verge of conversion, and to come away from the answers you get still not personally feeling X about Y. There's zero controversial about that: you may or may not be in any way convinced to rethinking your feelings about Y.
But most folks will expect you to come away from it better able to model the fact of and motivations for other people feeling X about Y as part of your understanding of Y, to be willing and able to incorporate what you've previously discussed about Y and about people's X-ish feelings toward it, in future discussions. So if you end up coming into a later discussion of Y, with the same crowd, and roll out some sort of variation on "I just don't understand how you can feel X about Y", a lot of people are going to be very rightly wondering why you're choosing to waste their time.
Nobody's obliged by any informal rules of discussion to be convinced by other people's arguments. But there's some basic social contract stuff that suggests that a person should at least be making an effort to understand and acknowledge those arguments if its a discussion they're going to keep getting involved in on future occasions. The apparent absence of that is I think a significant and reasonable locus of some of the frustrations folks have been expressing in here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:55 PM on December 4, 2014 [29 favorites]
You seem to be presuming the rebuttal in this scenario is objectively correct
Nope, I'm not assuming that. The only thing I'm assuming is the need to take other offered points into account when making your future points, in a serious good faith discussion. Their points can be right, wrong, or cattycornered, but if they're just breezed by and ignored, you're not really in a substantive interaction.
Corb also posed a false dilemma: match the rebuttal or shut up. There are, of course, many more ways than those to continue a good-faith discussion.
It takes a quite a leap to read this as an insistence on holding on to ones opinions no matter how what, or refusing to consider any opposing views.
It's not a leap - it's the logical extension of what was said there. If you hold onto your opinion even when factual evidence is clearly against you, you are arguing ideologically, and/or in bad faith. There may be a third possibility that I haven't even counted on, but you're not having a respectful and productive exchange. Sure you might consider some other views sometime, if they appeal to you, and you might change your opinions sometimes, if you feel like it, but if you enter an argument with zero willingness to change your opinion, and aren't able to take into account arguments that render the opinion unsupportable, it's simply not a sincere exercise.
I would be able to offer a more generous read, possibly, had I not experienced the refusal to consider stronger points and factual evidence directly a few times. To be clear, I'm not even condemning it, I'm just glad to finally understand it. I am enlightened that someone I had been thinking of as a serious interlocutor with an odd interaction style just does not consider themselves to be involved the same enterprise as I had thought. If anything, it helps me feel more charitable.
posted by Miko at 7:04 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
Nope, I'm not assuming that. The only thing I'm assuming is the need to take other offered points into account when making your future points, in a serious good faith discussion. Their points can be right, wrong, or cattycornered, but if they're just breezed by and ignored, you're not really in a substantive interaction.
Corb also posed a false dilemma: match the rebuttal or shut up. There are, of course, many more ways than those to continue a good-faith discussion.
It takes a quite a leap to read this as an insistence on holding on to ones opinions no matter how what, or refusing to consider any opposing views.
It's not a leap - it's the logical extension of what was said there. If you hold onto your opinion even when factual evidence is clearly against you, you are arguing ideologically, and/or in bad faith. There may be a third possibility that I haven't even counted on, but you're not having a respectful and productive exchange. Sure you might consider some other views sometime, if they appeal to you, and you might change your opinions sometimes, if you feel like it, but if you enter an argument with zero willingness to change your opinion, and aren't able to take into account arguments that render the opinion unsupportable, it's simply not a sincere exercise.
I would be able to offer a more generous read, possibly, had I not experienced the refusal to consider stronger points and factual evidence directly a few times. To be clear, I'm not even condemning it, I'm just glad to finally understand it. I am enlightened that someone I had been thinking of as a serious interlocutor with an odd interaction style just does not consider themselves to be involved the same enterprise as I had thought. If anything, it helps me feel more charitable.
posted by Miko at 7:04 PM on December 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
respond to their arguments productively
Unfortunately this is the step that corb is missing in your chain.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately this is the step that corb is missing in your chain.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, it wasn't a zinger. You presented a reasonable chain of events whereby a reasonable person--or people--can have a conversation/argument without changing minds. One of the key points of being reasonable is responding productively--as you and I are doing with each other right now (I hope) and as you did with Miko. corb doesn't do that part, making her behaviour unreasonable.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:11 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:11 PM on December 4, 2014 [9 favorites]
Miko: But she is saying, right here, that her view is that bad faith argumentation is fine in her book, that this is "how it works." That's not trolling but it's also really not what I come here before and not the best and most illuminating kind of exchange the site has to offer. This is a really useful thing for me to know, since I disagree with this view (and with the implied definition of "argument" and "discussion" ) at such a profound level that I now know why it's not really worth engaging her arguments except to clear up misinformation that might confuse others. Because they're not arguments, at the heart of it. I'm not sure what they are but they aren't good-faith attempts to find any point of common ground or arrive at a clarified understanding of either party's position.
I honestly look at it as sort of a silencing tactic. And i bet it works great for her in other aspects of her life that aren't mefi.
You just keep grinding, with lots and lots of words and justification, until the other party gives up and lets you through the gate to do whatever you're trying to do. They don't necessarily concede, but they just walk away.
My mother pulls the identical routine, and it almost always gets her what she wants. Even when she ends up in court, or is challenging some institution in an obvious position of authority.
The problem is that while it may be a good way to get a squeaky wheel greased or shut people up, it's not a good way to have a discussion. All it ends up being is a good way to state your opinion in such a way that a lot of people looking on will see it as a "two reasonable sides" thing maybe, and probably mostly just not want to challenge you.
There isn't really any responding going on though, no, it's more of grabbing bits and pieces and forming another attack. There's not any actual processing of what the other sides position is going on because it's outside of their context.
posted by emptythought at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
I honestly look at it as sort of a silencing tactic. And i bet it works great for her in other aspects of her life that aren't mefi.
You just keep grinding, with lots and lots of words and justification, until the other party gives up and lets you through the gate to do whatever you're trying to do. They don't necessarily concede, but they just walk away.
My mother pulls the identical routine, and it almost always gets her what she wants. Even when she ends up in court, or is challenging some institution in an obvious position of authority.
The problem is that while it may be a good way to get a squeaky wheel greased or shut people up, it's not a good way to have a discussion. All it ends up being is a good way to state your opinion in such a way that a lot of people looking on will see it as a "two reasonable sides" thing maybe, and probably mostly just not want to challenge you.
There isn't really any responding going on though, no, it's more of grabbing bits and pieces and forming another attack. There's not any actual processing of what the other sides position is going on because it's outside of their context.
posted by emptythought at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
corb doesn't do that part, making her behaviour unreasonable.
Well, very often doesn't. I think everyone at some point either doesn't see or chooses not to respond to a cogent rebuttal from time to time, but she does it so often that it's extremely frustrating to a lot of people who spend time engaging, only to have her refuse to give an inch, decline to offer a counterargument, and then come back again some time later as if the slate is entirely clean.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
Well, very often doesn't. I think everyone at some point either doesn't see or chooses not to respond to a cogent rebuttal from time to time, but she does it so often that it's extremely frustrating to a lot of people who spend time engaging, only to have her refuse to give an inch, decline to offer a counterargument, and then come back again some time later as if the slate is entirely clean.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2014 [8 favorites]
just because you believe that you've completely dismantled their argument, that they're going to feel the same way
I've granted that point. I agree.
The thing that has a lot of emphasis for me is "dismiss outright the need to.." Basically, if you're being sincere, you do have this need - even if you think they're an idiot, biased, whatever. If you argue that this need to take the discussion seriously and in good faith doesn't exist, then you're thinking of a "discussion" in a different way than I am. Even if sometimes you manage to have a discussion that way, but don't think of it as a "need," a baseline understanding of the project.
It's possible in an argument to continue to listen to your opponent, reconsider [my] argument in light of theirs, respond to their arguments productively and not expect them to turn around and say "You know, I think you're right" at the end of it just because you've made a reasonable and well-supported point.
I fully agree with you on this. At the same time, I think feckless, etc., is exactly right that the "respond to their arguments productively" is a missing link.
Lastly, it's not a gotcha for someone else as much as a light bulb for me. I am happy to generalize the topic.
posted by Miko at 7:15 PM on December 4, 2014
I've granted that point. I agree.
The thing that has a lot of emphasis for me is "dismiss outright the need to.." Basically, if you're being sincere, you do have this need - even if you think they're an idiot, biased, whatever. If you argue that this need to take the discussion seriously and in good faith doesn't exist, then you're thinking of a "discussion" in a different way than I am. Even if sometimes you manage to have a discussion that way, but don't think of it as a "need," a baseline understanding of the project.
It's possible in an argument to continue to listen to your opponent, reconsider [my] argument in light of theirs, respond to their arguments productively and not expect them to turn around and say "You know, I think you're right" at the end of it just because you've made a reasonable and well-supported point.
I fully agree with you on this. At the same time, I think feckless, etc., is exactly right that the "respond to their arguments productively" is a missing link.
Lastly, it's not a gotcha for someone else as much as a light bulb for me. I am happy to generalize the topic.
posted by Miko at 7:15 PM on December 4, 2014
Yeah, fair dos there tonycpsu.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on December 4, 2014
cortex, I feel like you're bringing some mod-history-with-corb to the table with your analysis there, which is, like, completely understandable, but I think it's worth considering the merits of the general point that arguing with the expectation that the facts are unambiguously on your side, and if you just argue them hard enough or right enough or well-cited enough or whatever anyone on the other side should come around (and they're acting in bad faith if they don't), is not an ideal way to approach contentious discussions in a place like this.
Miko, I'll just cosign what MoonOrb said and accept that we're having a difference of interpretation here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:32 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Miko, I'll just cosign what MoonOrb said and accept that we're having a difference of interpretation here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:32 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
AFAICT, "Portlandia liberal" is the new "hipster", just like "tumblr people"/"tumblr types"/etc is the new "social justice warrior". Both are dog whistles.
posted by NoraReed at 7:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 7:52 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's pretty hard to separate the offered reasoning from past behavior, yes, so I will allow that my read is colored by knowledge of past behavior (and cortex offered a an analysis which I think clearly outlines the non-productivity of the dynamic). I still think there is some explanatory power there. In other words, I can see your argument that it may not derive fully from what was written but have yet to be convinced that it is wrong.
The word "expectation" seems to be muddling things a little. My basic expectation on entering an argument or focused topical discussion is that my opinion might be changed at some point entering it. I don't have the expectation that others will change their opinions as a result of the argument, but I do have the general expectation that they are open to those opinions being changed because of strong argument or evidence. They aren't always changed, it's true, but it is bad faith (and I mean that as term of art) to continue to argue if you are unwilling to change your position based on any possible presented evidence/persuasion. I don't expect people to change their positions, but I expect them to be willing to, as a precondition of argument. If that willingness is not there. Does that make sense?
Engaging with someone who is not responding productively, who seems to be deciding as you go that they have many good reasons not to listen to or respond to your opinion or change their opinion, even as they ask you to listen to theirs or take theirs seriously, is indeed a waste of time, and not a discussion or an argument as I understand it.
And when the position is plainly and objectively counterfactual, I think that any refusal to modify the position is a definite indication of bad faith.
posted by Miko at 7:53 PM on December 4, 2014
The word "expectation" seems to be muddling things a little. My basic expectation on entering an argument or focused topical discussion is that my opinion might be changed at some point entering it. I don't have the expectation that others will change their opinions as a result of the argument, but I do have the general expectation that they are open to those opinions being changed because of strong argument or evidence. They aren't always changed, it's true, but it is bad faith (and I mean that as term of art) to continue to argue if you are unwilling to change your position based on any possible presented evidence/persuasion. I don't expect people to change their positions, but I expect them to be willing to, as a precondition of argument. If that willingness is not there. Does that make sense?
Engaging with someone who is not responding productively, who seems to be deciding as you go that they have many good reasons not to listen to or respond to your opinion or change their opinion, even as they ask you to listen to theirs or take theirs seriously, is indeed a waste of time, and not a discussion or an argument as I understand it.
And when the position is plainly and objectively counterfactual, I think that any refusal to modify the position is a definite indication of bad faith.
posted by Miko at 7:53 PM on December 4, 2014
plainly and objectively
But there are entire multiverses contained within those little words
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:59 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
But there are entire multiverses contained within those little words
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:59 PM on December 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
Not when it comes to something like the reason South Carolina seceded.
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Or the fact that rural residents draw more from government transfer programs on a per-capita basis than metro residents.
Or the fact that socialized medicine doesn't create a ceiling on how much healthcare people can obtain if they have the resources to pay for it, only a floor on the amount of healthcare provided to people regardless of what resources they have.
Or the fact that doctors don't "work for free" if the government's paying them to treat patients who can't pay themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:17 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Or the fact that socialized medicine doesn't create a ceiling on how much healthcare people can obtain if they have the resources to pay for it, only a floor on the amount of healthcare provided to people regardless of what resources they have.
Or the fact that doctors don't "work for free" if the government's paying them to treat patients who can't pay themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:17 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
But there are entire multiverses contained within those little words
Absolutely: people in the midst of an argument can fail to agree on what constitutes "plainly and objectively", and on that basis both participants may find themselves unable to change the other's mind. This is not what's at issue.
What's surprising, and what seems to explain a lot about Corb's approach to conversation here, is that she seems to be asserting that a change in her thinking, resulting from argumentation or discussion, is a rare occurrence. That more often than not, she doesn't find argument a compelling reason to change her mind. And note, that's "argument" itself, as a category of behavior, not "a specific argument". I, for one, am having a really hard time imagining the state of mind in which one experiences so little change of thinking from participating in argument that one expects, in advance, for that to be most likely outcome: "This conversation cannot sway my outlook, because conversation never does!"
That seems deeply weird to me. For one thing, I'm not sure I'd see the point in discussing anything if I felt that way. And for another thing, I can't imagine what would motivate one to participate in discussions on contentious topics, absent the expectation that sharing ideas, facts, experiences, and arguments might possible result in a new way of thinking, even if only once in a great while. Frankly, all of the alternative motivations that I can imagine are pretty unpleasant, so I'm gonna assume that there's some other possibility that I haven't thought of. But I will, for sure, be a lot more likely to disregard anything that Corb says in future controversies, because it seems clear that she's not thinking of herself as participating in the same activity as I think I am, and as I think most people here are.
posted by Ipsifendus at 8:18 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
Absolutely: people in the midst of an argument can fail to agree on what constitutes "plainly and objectively", and on that basis both participants may find themselves unable to change the other's mind. This is not what's at issue.
What's surprising, and what seems to explain a lot about Corb's approach to conversation here, is that she seems to be asserting that a change in her thinking, resulting from argumentation or discussion, is a rare occurrence. That more often than not, she doesn't find argument a compelling reason to change her mind. And note, that's "argument" itself, as a category of behavior, not "a specific argument". I, for one, am having a really hard time imagining the state of mind in which one experiences so little change of thinking from participating in argument that one expects, in advance, for that to be most likely outcome: "This conversation cannot sway my outlook, because conversation never does!"
That seems deeply weird to me. For one thing, I'm not sure I'd see the point in discussing anything if I felt that way. And for another thing, I can't imagine what would motivate one to participate in discussions on contentious topics, absent the expectation that sharing ideas, facts, experiences, and arguments might possible result in a new way of thinking, even if only once in a great while. Frankly, all of the alternative motivations that I can imagine are pretty unpleasant, so I'm gonna assume that there's some other possibility that I haven't thought of. But I will, for sure, be a lot more likely to disregard anything that Corb says in future controversies, because it seems clear that she's not thinking of herself as participating in the same activity as I think I am, and as I think most people here are.
posted by Ipsifendus at 8:18 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
AFAICT, "Portlandia liberal" is the new "hipster", just like "tumblr people"/"tumblr types"/etc is the new "social justice warrior". Both are dog whistles.
It seems unlikely people use Portlandia references to reach out to GOP voters, but anything is possible.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:48 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It seems unlikely people use Portlandia references to reach out to GOP voters, but anything is possible.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:48 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It seems unlikely people use Portlandia references to reach out to GOP voters, but anything is possible.
You must be joking - I hear conservatives make sneering comments about Portlandia all the time. Not sure what reaching out to GOP voters has to do with anything though.
posted by dialetheia at 8:51 PM on December 4, 2014
You must be joking - I hear conservatives make sneering comments about Portlandia all the time. Not sure what reaching out to GOP voters has to do with anything though.
posted by dialetheia at 8:51 PM on December 4, 2014
AFAICT, "Portlandia liberal" is the new "hipster", just like "tumblr people"/"tumblr types"/etc is the new "social justice warrior".
They're not dog whistles at all, though. A social justice warrior is someone who fights for social justice, with a gentle (or stinging, i guess) implication that they take it too seriously and aren't as potent and effective as they think they are. A tumblr person posts on tumblr, often about social justice. They're direct description.
posted by Sebmojo at 9:00 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
They're not dog whistles at all, though. A social justice warrior is someone who fights for social justice, with a gentle (or stinging, i guess) implication that they take it too seriously and aren't as potent and effective as they think they are. A tumblr person posts on tumblr, often about social justice. They're direct description.
posted by Sebmojo at 9:00 PM on December 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
They are also used by the right wing as sneering, mocking epithets. See also: intellectual.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Why do you let them decide how you should feel?
posted by Sebmojo at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not sure what reaching out to GOP voters has to do with anything though.
Just referring to the use of the phrase "dog whistle", which means a message in coded language intended to reach out to Republican voters. It's like reinventing the term "astroturf", which usually means something else.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just referring to the use of the phrase "dog whistle", which means a message in coded language intended to reach out to Republican voters. It's like reinventing the term "astroturf", which usually means something else.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
They're not solely used as dog whistles, is the point. They have other applications, other meanings, other connotations.
Also, the right wing has a way of making many, many useful and/or good words (feminist, pro-choice, liberal, e.g) into sneering mocking epithets. Just because some people use a word badly doesn't automatically mean the word is forever bad.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also, the right wing has a way of making many, many useful and/or good words (feminist, pro-choice, liberal, e.g) into sneering mocking epithets. Just because some people use a word badly doesn't automatically mean the word is forever bad.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:09 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just referring to the use of the phrase "dog whistle", which means a message in coded language
Yes.
intended to reach out to Republican voters.
No.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:10 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Yes.
intended to reach out to Republican voters.
No.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:10 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Sebmojo, "social justice warrior" is almost entirely used by people who are anti-SJ; SJ types have managed to "take it back" some, but I still often see it used pejoratively; people use "tumblr" synonymously with an exaggeration of a portion of its social justice focused userbase. Tanizaki is certainly using it that way.
posted by NoraReed at 9:22 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 9:22 PM on December 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Good grief. When we're accusing each other of dog whistles and astroturfing, the well has been truly fucking poisoned. Not even the flimsiest vestige of good faith or good will remains standing. This has become a stomping ground for ideologues, all protestations of "I've learned and changed so much!" notwithstanding.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:24 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:24 PM on December 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
Today I learned that nobody ever posts in bad faith.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:29 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:29 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
No.
I suppose I should have included Tories and Conservatives, to be in line with editorial guidelines at The Economist. It doesn't really change what the phrase means, though.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:06 PM on December 4, 2014
I suppose I should have included Tories and Conservatives, to be in line with editorial guidelines at The Economist. It doesn't really change what the phrase means, though.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:06 PM on December 4, 2014
Nah, dog whistles can be used by anybody with any flavor of politics, it's just that conservative groups tend to get more mileage out of them. I'm sure people have made cases for liberal dog whistles before, too - it's a rhetorical strategy, not an ideologically associated thing at all. That Economist article really does provide a great definition that doesn't specify anything about the user's political beliefs, despite the focus of the article being conservative politics:
It means putting out a message that, like a high-pitched dog-whistle, is only fully audible to those at whom it is directly aimed. The intention is to make potential supporters sit up and take notice while avoiding offending those to whom the message will not appeal.
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It means putting out a message that, like a high-pitched dog-whistle, is only fully audible to those at whom it is directly aimed. The intention is to make potential supporters sit up and take notice while avoiding offending those to whom the message will not appeal.
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 PM on December 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
despite the focus of the article being conservative politics
Okay, whatever.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 PM on December 4, 2014
Okay, whatever.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 PM on December 4, 2014
The idea behind the political metaphor -- dog-whistle politics -- is not who hears your signal, but who does not have the special sensitivity to catch the message. Your whistle is pitched high enough to rally your ''base'' without running the risk of turning out your opposition's base. Nice turn of phrase.
--Noted bleeding-heart SJW William Safire
posted by kagredon at 10:31 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
--Noted bleeding-heart SJW William Safire
posted by kagredon at 10:31 PM on December 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
"States' rights".
"Welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks".
"Food Stamp President".
"Doesn't love America".
"Shuck and Jive".
That's six off the top of my head. Give me half that many dog whistles used by Democrats.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 PM on December 4, 2014
"Welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks".
"Food Stamp President".
"Doesn't love America".
"Shuck and Jive".
That's six off the top of my head. Give me half that many dog whistles used by Democrats.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 PM on December 4, 2014
Barack Hussein Obama would be a seventh.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:08 PM on December 4, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:08 PM on December 4, 2014
From the Wikipedia article Nora linked:
posted by klangklangston at 11:18 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
During the 2008 Democratic primaries, several writers criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign's reliance on code words and innuendo seemingly designed to frame Barack Obama's race as problematic, saying Obama was characterized by the Clinton campaign and its prominent supporters as anti-white due to his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as only able to get black votes, as anti-patriotic, a drug user, possibly a drug seller, and married to an angry, ungrateful black woman.[21] Obama was himself accused of dog-whistling to African-American voters by using a blend of gestures, style and rhetoric, such as fist-bumps and walking with a "street lope," that carefully affirmed and underscored his black identity.[22][page needed]While conservatives make more use of dog whistles than liberals do (liberals may use more jargon), dog whistles aren't inherently conservative, at least to my mind.
…
During the United States presidential election, 2012, conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro accused the Obama campaign of anti-Semitic dog whistling after campaign staffer Julianna Smoot stated in an email that Paul Ryan was "'making a pilgrimage' to Las Vegas to 'kiss the ring'" of Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.[24] This was described as "a classic anti-Semitic dog whistle signaling voters that Ryan is in the thrall of the 'Israel Lobby'."[25]
Also in that campaign, Obama's campaign ran an add that said Mitt Romney is "not one of us." [26] The ad, which Washington Post journalist Karen Tumulty said "echoes a slogan that has been used as a racial code over at least the past half-century",[27] ran in Ohio, a state that is only 0.52% Mormon.[28]
posted by klangklangston at 11:18 PM on December 4, 2014 [7 favorites]
That's six off the top of my head. Give me half that many dog whistles used by Democrats.
I think lungful of dragon's trying to argue that "dog whistle" is only used to criticize conservative politics, so I don't see why he'd take you up on that challenge. But I will!
"She's got the China flying"
"A little bit of time in a secular madrassah"
"Confused" and "out of touch"
"Clinging to their guns and their religion"
And those are all from one election!
posted by kagredon at 11:21 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think lungful of dragon's trying to argue that "dog whistle" is only used to criticize conservative politics, so I don't see why he'd take you up on that challenge. But I will!
"She's got the China flying"
"A little bit of time in a secular madrassah"
"Confused" and "out of touch"
"Clinging to their guns and their religion"
And those are all from one election!
posted by kagredon at 11:21 PM on December 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
> Today I learned that nobody ever posts in bad faith.
Only because trolls lack any particular faith whatsoever.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 1:04 AM on December 5, 2014
Only because trolls lack any particular faith whatsoever.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 1:04 AM on December 5, 2014
Sebmojo, "social justice warrior" is almost entirely used by people who are anti-SJ
I've also seen/heard about it being used (and perhaps coined) as a way of dismissing people who advocate for the "wrong" or "too extreme" social justice by other social justice people. I've not done the research on this, but I've heard it was coined on Tumblr by white feminists to refer to black feminists, womanists, and feminists of color who spoke up about racism within feminism, as a way of trying to undercut what they were doing. Given the history of aggressive, horrible interactions between white feminists and other feminists and womanists, I am inclined toward believing the women I read talk about this.
I would agree that Gamergate popularized the term to be used against all social justice people, and even many who are not (such as... 4chan...), but I believe it predates that use by a while.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've also seen/heard about it being used (and perhaps coined) as a way of dismissing people who advocate for the "wrong" or "too extreme" social justice by other social justice people. I've not done the research on this, but I've heard it was coined on Tumblr by white feminists to refer to black feminists, womanists, and feminists of color who spoke up about racism within feminism, as a way of trying to undercut what they were doing. Given the history of aggressive, horrible interactions between white feminists and other feminists and womanists, I am inclined toward believing the women I read talk about this.
I would agree that Gamergate popularized the term to be used against all social justice people, and even many who are not (such as... 4chan...), but I believe it predates that use by a while.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
corb: There are a lot of people with minority views who have said that the language used to refer to them or others is hurtful and upsetting and they wish that it would stop - that it is, effectively, emotional harm. Some of them have said that it is, in fact, dehumanizing and alienating, to use your language. Some of it, in fact, is in that very pushback you reference. But yet somehow, the same people arguing that harm to community members should not be engaged in are some of the very same people engaging in that harm.
Sorry, but this is a crock. It reminds me of a sentiment expressed to me by a beloved (really, painfully) relative of mine whose husband, a confirmed gun-nut Glenn Beck fanboy ultra orthodox non denominational protestant survivalist, a couple of years ago bought an overseas shipping container, buried it in the side of a hill on their farm, and filled it with rice, canned goods, salt, sugar and bullets in order to be prepared for the impending takeover by them communist UN nazi moslem Eurotrash immigrant Spanish-speaking dark-skinned homo-lovers that Barry Hussein Obummer was setting the stage for (not an exaggeration). But I digress.
My (white, privileged) relative (and many like her) is fond of complaining (pitifully) that the 'discrimination' (more like disapprobation) she and her family 'suffer' for supporting laws and policies that are discriminatory against members of historically oppressed groups is equally as bad as the discrimination that members of those oppressed groups suffer.
Like I said - a 100% Grade "A" XXL crock o' you know what.
posted by syzygy at 6:10 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but this is a crock. It reminds me of a sentiment expressed to me by a beloved (really, painfully) relative of mine whose husband, a confirmed gun-nut Glenn Beck fanboy ultra orthodox non denominational protestant survivalist, a couple of years ago bought an overseas shipping container, buried it in the side of a hill on their farm, and filled it with rice, canned goods, salt, sugar and bullets in order to be prepared for the impending takeover by them communist UN nazi moslem Eurotrash immigrant Spanish-speaking dark-skinned homo-lovers that Barry Hussein Obummer was setting the stage for (not an exaggeration). But I digress.
My (white, privileged) relative (and many like her) is fond of complaining (pitifully) that the 'discrimination' (more like disapprobation) she and her family 'suffer' for supporting laws and policies that are discriminatory against members of historically oppressed groups is equally as bad as the discrimination that members of those oppressed groups suffer.
Like I said - a 100% Grade "A" XXL crock o' you know what.
posted by syzygy at 6:10 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
So shitty to compare corb to that asshole, is the thing.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:27 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:27 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
One of the times I hear a "bad faith" argument when arguing for feminism is here - it's the idea, essentially, "you're arguing this because you get a kick out of it/it's a place for you to vent your righteous indignation/you just want the 'cred' of being on this side," etc. In other words, your motivation for arguing your point is insincere because you don't actually want what you say you want, you want something else that you're not being upfront about.
If that were true, those would be bad-faith arguments. A bad faith argument is a dishonest one - concealing the real intentions behind your participation in the argument, being insincere. I agree that calling an argument bad-faith is used as a tactic that rests on the assumption that you're being insincere or motivated by something other than what you say, and that anti-SJ people do resort to it. At the same time, an argument really is bad faith when that position of insincerity and unwillingness to find clarification on positions is real.
Reddit had a somewhat overwhelmingly convoluted discussion of bad faith here - I think it's overkill-y but contains some good nuggets.
posted by Miko at 6:42 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
If that were true, those would be bad-faith arguments. A bad faith argument is a dishonest one - concealing the real intentions behind your participation in the argument, being insincere. I agree that calling an argument bad-faith is used as a tactic that rests on the assumption that you're being insincere or motivated by something other than what you say, and that anti-SJ people do resort to it. At the same time, an argument really is bad faith when that position of insincerity and unwillingness to find clarification on positions is real.
Reddit had a somewhat overwhelmingly convoluted discussion of bad faith here - I think it's overkill-y but contains some good nuggets.
posted by Miko at 6:42 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
klangklangston: While conservatives make more use of dog whistles than liberals do (liberals may use more jargon), dog whistles aren't inherently conservative, at least to my mind.
Well, the thing I was asserting was the former, not the latter. I had forgotten about a couple of those that you and kagredon mentioned, but what strikes me about them is that nearly all of them were one-off tactical moves made during campaigns, whereas things like "states' rights" and the 'welfare queen / young buck" language were centerpieces of political messaging not attached to political campaigns.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:46 AM on December 5, 2014
Well, the thing I was asserting was the former, not the latter. I had forgotten about a couple of those that you and kagredon mentioned, but what strikes me about them is that nearly all of them were one-off tactical moves made during campaigns, whereas things like "states' rights" and the 'welfare queen / young buck" language were centerpieces of political messaging not attached to political campaigns.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:46 AM on December 5, 2014
If someone who does not find the argument persuasive simply backs out or moves on, they have removed themselves from the argument - but if they come back again without ever taking up those old points and showing where and why they were not persuaded, they are arguing in bad faith because they are simply not engaging the argument at all.
The problem with this idea - and the ideas that avoiding responding to rebuttals is engaging in bad faith or not showing a willingness to be persuaded - is the nature of Metafilter, particularly when it comes to pile-ons and minority views.
Because I assure you, what I want most of all is to sit down and respond to every single person who addresses me who isn't deliberately being a dick. Like, I really do want that! It would be great to have a bunch of simultaneous conversations with people! But because so many people are responding to the thing I say, and because often, whatever I say is like dragon's teeth and will spawn a hundred more arguments, it is impossible for me to respond to every argument, because that becomes "taking on all comers" and gets my ass deleted.
So generally, you get to respond to one, or at most two, people in one comment. More is pushing it. Which means that if ten people are talking, 8 people are going to go unaddressed. It doesn't mean I'm deliberately failing to engage them. It means due to the nature of Metafilter, I can't engage them. I sometimes try to memail to resolve this issue, but some people don't want to be memailed or don't want to engage over memail, which is a totally valid position but makes this more difficult.
And if I were to enter a conversation, it actually seems less productive to start off with what seems like a chip on your shoulder, saying "I know we're not talking about it yet, but you argued this before, and here are the many reasons why it was wrong." That seems pretty derail-y to me, especially when you're talking about dozens of people. And it also requires me to kind of keep track of each individual person and their arguments, which honestly, there is no really good system on Metafilter to do. I'd have to make a Word doc where I pasted in links to every argument I thought was bad, which also seems like a bad way to engage on Metafilter.
posted by corb at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
The problem with this idea - and the ideas that avoiding responding to rebuttals is engaging in bad faith or not showing a willingness to be persuaded - is the nature of Metafilter, particularly when it comes to pile-ons and minority views.
Because I assure you, what I want most of all is to sit down and respond to every single person who addresses me who isn't deliberately being a dick. Like, I really do want that! It would be great to have a bunch of simultaneous conversations with people! But because so many people are responding to the thing I say, and because often, whatever I say is like dragon's teeth and will spawn a hundred more arguments, it is impossible for me to respond to every argument, because that becomes "taking on all comers" and gets my ass deleted.
So generally, you get to respond to one, or at most two, people in one comment. More is pushing it. Which means that if ten people are talking, 8 people are going to go unaddressed. It doesn't mean I'm deliberately failing to engage them. It means due to the nature of Metafilter, I can't engage them. I sometimes try to memail to resolve this issue, but some people don't want to be memailed or don't want to engage over memail, which is a totally valid position but makes this more difficult.
And if I were to enter a conversation, it actually seems less productive to start off with what seems like a chip on your shoulder, saying "I know we're not talking about it yet, but you argued this before, and here are the many reasons why it was wrong." That seems pretty derail-y to me, especially when you're talking about dozens of people. And it also requires me to kind of keep track of each individual person and their arguments, which honestly, there is no really good system on Metafilter to do. I'd have to make a Word doc where I pasted in links to every argument I thought was bad, which also seems like a bad way to engage on Metafilter.
posted by corb at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
(And, in typical fashion, most of the examples of them being used by Democrats are aimed at other Democrats. Circular firing squad FTL!)
posted by tonycpsu at 6:49 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:49 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
And one more; if ten people are talking, and you only get to respond to two of them, and, say, six of them are making thoughtful arguments, and four of them are being dicks and accusing you of some pretty awful shit, you really have two ways to go. You can engage the people with thoughtful arguments and let the dicks masturbate by themselves, or you can engage the dicks, who are being jerky as fuck, but also think they're making arguments in among their jerkishness. I used to do the latter, because I was being accused of egregious shit: I am now trying to do the former, which often means I wind up completely ignoring certain users, because they seem fundamentally incapable of responding to me without vitriol.
posted by corb at 6:50 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:50 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
If vitriol is what's coming out of a dick, then there's a serious problem somewhere upstream.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 7:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 7:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's not true, Ice Cream Socialist. We're all xenomorphs here, right?
Right?
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:14 AM on December 5, 2014
Right?
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:14 AM on December 5, 2014
if ten people are talking, 8 people are going to go unaddressed.
What more often happens is that the eight people (or the six who aren't being jerks) are often supporting one another/adding to the same point. So you don't need six or eight individual responses; you just need to take in the collective information in the responses and respond to that. There's no need for eight separate comments or eight bullet points or anything. Just a general acknowledgement of points generally made.
And if I were to enter a conversation, it actually seems less productive to start off with what seems like a chip on your shoulder, saying "I know we're not talking about it yet, but you argued this before, and here are the many reasons why it was wrong."
I agree that no one should assume anyone's position before they have spoken. Absolutely granted (though it is unrealistic to think everyone has forgotten, it's also unfair to assume they haven't changed in the interim). But if someone actually does raise a position that was dealt with thoroughly in a past thread, especially if it was factually debunked in the past, it's fair to remind that person where that argument had left off and ask them to work from the shared understanding that those things happened, and recall any points agreed upon or widely established (or not challenged) in that last discussion pr set of discussions. An important part of a good discussion, and especially an ongoing one that, on some topics, may extend over years, such as "What is equality and how do we achieve it?" - is establishing positions - where are we? What has already been resolved? What position are we looking at right now?
If Sally is still holding onto a position from three or four threads back that was pretty well dealt with and/or shown to be false on a factual level, it's really understandable that most people are going to be ready to move on, and will want some indication from Sally that she does recall that many of the participants have already discussed those points thoroughly with her and are looking to cover some new ground rather than walk back through those same arguments with her once more. What ends up happening is that a resistance to starting where the conversation left off baits both new and frustrated people, who respond to the old position, which makes the thread about walking back through that same position once more, attempting to engage it only it to find (eventually) there is no progress to made . And that makes the site boring for others to read because they have been there, done that and there is nothing much new to learn or think about.
posted by Miko at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [11 favorites]
What more often happens is that the eight people (or the six who aren't being jerks) are often supporting one another/adding to the same point. So you don't need six or eight individual responses; you just need to take in the collective information in the responses and respond to that. There's no need for eight separate comments or eight bullet points or anything. Just a general acknowledgement of points generally made.
And if I were to enter a conversation, it actually seems less productive to start off with what seems like a chip on your shoulder, saying "I know we're not talking about it yet, but you argued this before, and here are the many reasons why it was wrong."
I agree that no one should assume anyone's position before they have spoken. Absolutely granted (though it is unrealistic to think everyone has forgotten, it's also unfair to assume they haven't changed in the interim). But if someone actually does raise a position that was dealt with thoroughly in a past thread, especially if it was factually debunked in the past, it's fair to remind that person where that argument had left off and ask them to work from the shared understanding that those things happened, and recall any points agreed upon or widely established (or not challenged) in that last discussion pr set of discussions. An important part of a good discussion, and especially an ongoing one that, on some topics, may extend over years, such as "What is equality and how do we achieve it?" - is establishing positions - where are we? What has already been resolved? What position are we looking at right now?
If Sally is still holding onto a position from three or four threads back that was pretty well dealt with and/or shown to be false on a factual level, it's really understandable that most people are going to be ready to move on, and will want some indication from Sally that she does recall that many of the participants have already discussed those points thoroughly with her and are looking to cover some new ground rather than walk back through those same arguments with her once more. What ends up happening is that a resistance to starting where the conversation left off baits both new and frustrated people, who respond to the old position, which makes the thread about walking back through that same position once more, attempting to engage it only it to find (eventually) there is no progress to made . And that makes the site boring for others to read because they have been there, done that and there is nothing much new to learn or think about.
posted by Miko at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [11 favorites]
Metafilter: let the dicks masturbate by themselves
posted by phearlez at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
I want this to be my next Metafilter t-shirt
Life is too short to be grumpycakes about a web community you clearly loathe.
I already have one that says Note: Everyone needs a hug, thanks...
posted by infini at 7:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
Life is too short to be grumpycakes about a web community you clearly loathe.
I already have one that says Note: Everyone needs a hug, thanks...
posted by infini at 7:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
I used to do the latter, because I was being accused of egregious shit: I am now trying to do the former, which often means I wind up completely ignoring certain users, because they seem fundamentally incapable of responding to me without vitriol.
In addition to echoing what Miko said about responding to sentiments expressed by multiple people (and in so doing, providing an example thereof), and also noting that many threads and topics don't draw nearly the level of asymmetry you're talking about (for instance, second amendment threads always draw a large number of supporters for your position), I've observed another pattern where you either (a) ignore every single one of the counterarguments or (b) cherry-pick one of the easier ones to respond to and then pretend none of the points you didn't respond to were ever made.
You don't have to respond to every point, but you must be reading them, right? If you're reading them, and you have time to make additional arguments, then you have time to include a paragraph, or even a sentence, stating why you feel the arguments made by others are without merit, especially if the same point is made by multiple people. Whistling past them to make new arguments is bush league, and I've seen it enough times that it's hard to believe that it's just coincidental.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
In addition to echoing what Miko said about responding to sentiments expressed by multiple people (and in so doing, providing an example thereof), and also noting that many threads and topics don't draw nearly the level of asymmetry you're talking about (for instance, second amendment threads always draw a large number of supporters for your position), I've observed another pattern where you either (a) ignore every single one of the counterarguments or (b) cherry-pick one of the easier ones to respond to and then pretend none of the points you didn't respond to were ever made.
You don't have to respond to every point, but you must be reading them, right? If you're reading them, and you have time to make additional arguments, then you have time to include a paragraph, or even a sentence, stating why you feel the arguments made by others are without merit, especially if the same point is made by multiple people. Whistling past them to make new arguments is bush league, and I've seen it enough times that it's hard to believe that it's just coincidental.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
Joseph Gurl: I didn't compare corb to 'that asshole', is the thing. I compared her ridiculous argument to the very similar ridiculous argument made by my relative, is the thing.
posted by syzygy at 8:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by syzygy at 8:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
What more often happens is that the eight people (or the six who aren't being jerks) are often supporting one another/adding to the same point.
Sorry, Miko, but I don't think you are in a position to tell minority viewpoints on MetaFilter what *really* happens to them.
posted by 0 at 8:10 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sorry, Miko, but I don't think you are in a position to tell minority viewpoints on MetaFilter what *really* happens to them.
posted by 0 at 8:10 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
Nobody else can offer a differing account of the facts of how someone has been treated?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:12 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:12 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
0: Are you trying to imply that Miko should check her Metafilter privilege?
*rolls eyes*
posted by syzygy at 8:13 AM on December 5, 2014
*rolls eyes*
posted by syzygy at 8:13 AM on December 5, 2014
I don't think Miko is any position to state what is *really* happening inside corb's head, no one can do that but corb. However, Miko - or anyone else - can describe actual observed behavior in threads, which is what happened in the text you quoted.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [14 favorites]
Meet 0, SJOMW (Social Justice On Metafilter Warrior), bravely fighting for the interests of those who are, by and large, privileged in the real word, but who are part of an oppressed minority in this virtual space known as Metafilter - since September, 2012.
Bravo.
posted by syzygy at 8:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
Bravo.
posted by syzygy at 8:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
Sorry, Miko, but I don't think you are in a position to tell minority viewpoints on MetaFilter what *really* happens to them.
*turns a table 360 degrees*
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:31 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
*turns a table 360 degrees*
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:31 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
This has become a stomping ground for ideologues, all protestations of "I've learned and changed so much!" notwithstanding.
Yeah---you've noticed that all the "well I've changed my mind about things!" is all people saying how they used to think something less Metafilter-Left-Consensus, and now I am better? Yeah. That's not changing minds, that's an evangelical conversion narrative.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:32 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
Yeah---you've noticed that all the "well I've changed my mind about things!" is all people saying how they used to think something less Metafilter-Left-Consensus, and now I am better? Yeah. That's not changing minds, that's an evangelical conversion narrative.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:32 AM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
Did a comment get deleted? I'm not seeing the line Rustic quoted in context.
posted by klangklangston at 8:33 AM on December 5, 2014
posted by klangklangston at 8:33 AM on December 5, 2014
Whups, nevermind. I just missed it scrolling.
posted by klangklangston at 8:34 AM on December 5, 2014
posted by klangklangston at 8:34 AM on December 5, 2014
"Yeah---you've noticed that all the "well I've changed my mind about things!" is all people saying how they used to think something less Metafilter-Left-Consensus, and now I am better? Yeah. That's not changing minds, that's an evangelical conversion narrative."
The MetaFilter left consensus is that Clarence Thomas's opinions are actually really interesting and far apart from any other justice on the bench, maybe any justice ever? Or that moderate voters basically don't exist and aren't a meaningful part of electoral coalitions? That the New Deal was in line with fascist ideology? That Bryant wasn't inarguably a murderer who escaped justice?
Those were my examples, along with changing how I think about originality in music (which doesn't seem like a left/right thing to me) and thinking about the costs of free speech differently, which is arguably illiberal and the only point that really comports with your claim.
When you make comments like this, it diminishes your credibility in my eyes as it seems like these are subjective readings that you seem to believe buttress your claims about the "Metafilter-Left-Consensus" but are insubstantial or mistaken on closer examination.
posted by klangklangston at 8:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [20 favorites]
The MetaFilter left consensus is that Clarence Thomas's opinions are actually really interesting and far apart from any other justice on the bench, maybe any justice ever? Or that moderate voters basically don't exist and aren't a meaningful part of electoral coalitions? That the New Deal was in line with fascist ideology? That Bryant wasn't inarguably a murderer who escaped justice?
Those were my examples, along with changing how I think about originality in music (which doesn't seem like a left/right thing to me) and thinking about the costs of free speech differently, which is arguably illiberal and the only point that really comports with your claim.
When you make comments like this, it diminishes your credibility in my eyes as it seems like these are subjective readings that you seem to believe buttress your claims about the "Metafilter-Left-Consensus" but are insubstantial or mistaken on closer examination.
posted by klangklangston at 8:46 AM on December 5, 2014 [20 favorites]
that was pretty well dealt with and/or shown to be false on a factual level
Again, the problem is that there is no way to definitively do this on a lot of positions.
For an example: let's say I have argument Y, which you think is countered by argument Z. You find a source that says Z, while I find a source that says Y. You think my source is biased: I think yours is biased. Either of those feelings about biased sources are kind of difficult to prove or disprove, because bias is a thing that is in the heart and we do not have the power to do that objectively. And particularly on historical matters, there's a lot of conflicting sources that historians choose which they're going to go with.
Just because you think that something was proven to be false on a factual level, because you accept the word of Z historian, does not mean I believe that it has been proven false on a factual level, because I may not accept the word of Z historian.
posted by corb at 8:57 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Again, the problem is that there is no way to definitively do this on a lot of positions.
For an example: let's say I have argument Y, which you think is countered by argument Z. You find a source that says Z, while I find a source that says Y. You think my source is biased: I think yours is biased. Either of those feelings about biased sources are kind of difficult to prove or disprove, because bias is a thing that is in the heart and we do not have the power to do that objectively. And particularly on historical matters, there's a lot of conflicting sources that historians choose which they're going to go with.
Just because you think that something was proven to be false on a factual level, because you accept the word of Z historian, does not mean I believe that it has been proven false on a factual level, because I may not accept the word of Z historian.
posted by corb at 8:57 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
you've noticed that all the "well I've changed my mind about things!" is all people saying how they used to think something less Metafilter-Left-Consensus, and now I am better?
Well sure. If you state a consensus opinion, you're not going to be challenged very often, almost by definition, while people with minority viewpoints are challenged frequently. If we're only discussing cases where argument moves opinion, you're obviously going to see a lot more of the latter changing than the former.
I've personally moved way towards the consensus view here on feminism, harassment, etc, in the past few years, not from me directly arguing with people (though there was a little bit of that a few years ago), but more from reading a lot of comments and posts over the years that I found persuasive.
posted by empath at 9:01 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well sure. If you state a consensus opinion, you're not going to be challenged very often, almost by definition, while people with minority viewpoints are challenged frequently. If we're only discussing cases where argument moves opinion, you're obviously going to see a lot more of the latter changing than the former.
I've personally moved way towards the consensus view here on feminism, harassment, etc, in the past few years, not from me directly arguing with people (though there was a little bit of that a few years ago), but more from reading a lot of comments and posts over the years that I found persuasive.
posted by empath at 9:01 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
bias is a thing that is in the heart and we do not have the power to do that objectively
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
posted by RogerB at 9:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
posted by RogerB at 9:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Just because you think that something was proven to be false on a factual level, because you accept the word of Z historian, does not mean I believe that it has been proven false on a factual level, because I may not accept the word of Z historian."
This sounds fine in the abstract, until you realize it's the same argument that Holocaust deniers make. Or Confederate apologists. There's often some ambiguity in historical interpretation, but retreating to a post-modern solipsism where all sources are treated equally is absurd and brings us back to not understanding or accepting how evidence and arguments work.
posted by klangklangston at 9:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [15 favorites]
This sounds fine in the abstract, until you realize it's the same argument that Holocaust deniers make. Or Confederate apologists. There's often some ambiguity in historical interpretation, but retreating to a post-modern solipsism where all sources are treated equally is absurd and brings us back to not understanding or accepting how evidence and arguments work.
posted by klangklangston at 9:08 AM on December 5, 2014 [15 favorites]
And sometimes people believe things that are [objectively/considered by overwhelming consensus to be] wrong or problematic for reasons that aren't likely to be dismantled in the comment threads of a general-interest website. Provided they are engaging respectfully and within the conduct guidelines of the site, what is the value of singling them out for regular approbation or dogpiling every questionable statement?
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:14 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:14 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sorry, Miko, but I don't think you are in a position to tell minority viewpoints on MetaFilter what *really* happens to them.
I'm talking about what happens to me.
Again, the problem is that there is no way to definitively do this on a lot of positions.
That's why I was sticking to things that do definitively do this.
posted by Miko at 9:16 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm talking about what happens to me.
Again, the problem is that there is no way to definitively do this on a lot of positions.
That's why I was sticking to things that do definitively do this.
posted by Miko at 9:16 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
aren't likely to be dismantled in the comment threads of a general-interest website
Perhaps not dismantled in the mind of the person you're arguing with, but as many have mentioned, there's a lot of people following along who might be persuaded by one argument or another. There's value in pointing out where others are making bad arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Perhaps not dismantled in the mind of the person you're arguing with, but as many have mentioned, there's a lot of people following along who might be persuaded by one argument or another. There's value in pointing out where others are making bad arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Just because you think that something was proven to be false on a factual level, because you accept the word of Z historian, does not mean I believe that it has been proven false on a factual level, because I may not accept the word of Z historian."
It is not the case that accepting the word of some expert is how most of us approach the task of discovering what it true. That's arguing from authority. What you said is very similar to how fundamentalist christians argue. "Darwin is just some guy. I believe the bible."
posted by empath at 9:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
It is not the case that accepting the word of some expert is how most of us approach the task of discovering what it true. That's arguing from authority. What you said is very similar to how fundamentalist christians argue. "Darwin is just some guy. I believe the bible."
posted by empath at 9:18 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
It is not the case that accepting the word of some expert is how most of us approach the task of discovering what it true
Sure, I'm just talking about the things where people think something has been definitively proved factually true/untrue, not necessarily how I figure things out for myself.
posted by corb at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2014
Sure, I'm just talking about the things where people think something has been definitively proved factually true/untrue, not necessarily how I figure things out for myself.
posted by corb at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2014
I've personally moved way towards the consensus view here on feminism
And it's not like a "consensus view" on feminism here never goes challenged. It still does, but for the most part we've been able to move from "feminism is anti-egalitarian on its face" to more nuanced points deeper into the discussion about rape culture, parenting, etc. because we don't have to cover old ground as much. First principles have been granted after a lot of effort, and that's overall been a really good thing that has made our discussions much more interesting, and challenging even for people who have accepted the first principles and think of themselves as feminists. I've had to complicate my views about feminism because of perspectives aired here about gender identity, racial divisions within feminism, etc. That's been a good thing that could never have happened if we were still stuck arguing whether feminism was even legitimate.
posted by Miko at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
And it's not like a "consensus view" on feminism here never goes challenged. It still does, but for the most part we've been able to move from "feminism is anti-egalitarian on its face" to more nuanced points deeper into the discussion about rape culture, parenting, etc. because we don't have to cover old ground as much. First principles have been granted after a lot of effort, and that's overall been a really good thing that has made our discussions much more interesting, and challenging even for people who have accepted the first principles and think of themselves as feminists. I've had to complicate my views about feminism because of perspectives aired here about gender identity, racial divisions within feminism, etc. That's been a good thing that could never have happened if we were still stuck arguing whether feminism was even legitimate.
posted by Miko at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
There's value in pointing out where others are making bad arguments.
I'm not talking about countering bad arguments, I'm talking about the kind of routine slagging on "outlier" members of the site as regularly happens in MeTas like these, which tends to happen at a fairly personal and granular level of detail.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:23 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm not talking about countering bad arguments, I'm talking about the kind of routine slagging on "outlier" members of the site as regularly happens in MeTas like these, which tends to happen at a fairly personal and granular level of detail.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:23 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm not talking about countering bad arguments, I'm talking about the kind of routine slagging on "outlier" members of the site as regularly happens in MeTas like these, which tends to happen at a fairly personal and granular level of detail.
How do you differentiate these, given that we have no empirical ground truth on who's making better arguments?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
How do you differentiate these, given that we have no empirical ground truth on who's making better arguments?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Provided they are engaging respectfully and within the conduct guidelines of the site, what is the value of singling them out for regular approbation or dogpiling every questionable statement?
I personally have extended my own three-strikes rule to "if three people have made that point and I have nothing to add beyond that, I don't need to say it". But there are definitely some people with minority opinions who could stand to adopt the three-strikes rule about their own opinions. If you've stated your opinion three times and are still getting 100% pushback on your issues, and particularly if you've done it in a half-dozen threads, maybe it's time to back off.
NB: I have been this person on certain topics. I don't address them any more on Metafilter.
posted by immlass at 9:26 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
I personally have extended my own three-strikes rule to "if three people have made that point and I have nothing to add beyond that, I don't need to say it". But there are definitely some people with minority opinions who could stand to adopt the three-strikes rule about their own opinions. If you've stated your opinion three times and are still getting 100% pushback on your issues, and particularly if you've done it in a half-dozen threads, maybe it's time to back off.
NB: I have been this person on certain topics. I don't address them any more on Metafilter.
posted by immlass at 9:26 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm just talking about the things where people think something has been definitively proved factually true/untrue
That's why I chose the example I did. The example of South Carolina's secession is not about the interpretation of a historian. It's about the reasons South Carolina gives in their Declaration of Immediate Causes. It's not a debatable point or one that depends upon interpretation, which is why it's a good example.
Provided they are engaging respectfully and within the conduct guidelines of the site, what is the value of singling them out for regular approbation or dogpiling every questionable statement?
There is no value to it. That's what I've been saying has been the enlightening thing for me in this thread. I've realized that when someone is stuck on a particular, repeated viewpoint and is engaging in argument on that point without the willingness to be open to being changed by evidence or persuasion, there's absolutely no point in dealing with the viewpoint seriously. It's not being made in an earnest attempt to clarify positions or progress discussion on an issue toward new insights or agreements. You're absolutely right. They're welcome to post but I'm welcome to feel that there's no reason to treat them as arguments with merit. This understanding promises to be really helpful to me. That might be trivially obvious to some of you, but I typically approach serious conversations earnestly and have made assumptions that others are, too. Understanding that there's a basic disagreement about what the exercise is is helping me understand that some points are not going to be worth pursuing. I'm hopeful that it will change my interaction patterns and that I will be quicker to perceive when there is no room for progress. It might still be worthwhile to counter those viewpoints for the record, but I'm hopeful that I will no longer do it in the expectation of being taken seriously by the folks who post those viewpoints.
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on December 5, 2014 [23 favorites]
That's why I chose the example I did. The example of South Carolina's secession is not about the interpretation of a historian. It's about the reasons South Carolina gives in their Declaration of Immediate Causes. It's not a debatable point or one that depends upon interpretation, which is why it's a good example.
Provided they are engaging respectfully and within the conduct guidelines of the site, what is the value of singling them out for regular approbation or dogpiling every questionable statement?
There is no value to it. That's what I've been saying has been the enlightening thing for me in this thread. I've realized that when someone is stuck on a particular, repeated viewpoint and is engaging in argument on that point without the willingness to be open to being changed by evidence or persuasion, there's absolutely no point in dealing with the viewpoint seriously. It's not being made in an earnest attempt to clarify positions or progress discussion on an issue toward new insights or agreements. You're absolutely right. They're welcome to post but I'm welcome to feel that there's no reason to treat them as arguments with merit. This understanding promises to be really helpful to me. That might be trivially obvious to some of you, but I typically approach serious conversations earnestly and have made assumptions that others are, too. Understanding that there's a basic disagreement about what the exercise is is helping me understand that some points are not going to be worth pursuing. I'm hopeful that it will change my interaction patterns and that I will be quicker to perceive when there is no room for progress. It might still be worthwhile to counter those viewpoints for the record, but I'm hopeful that I will no longer do it in the expectation of being taken seriously by the folks who post those viewpoints.
posted by Miko at 9:28 AM on December 5, 2014 [23 favorites]
"Just because you think that something was proven to be false on a factual level, because you accept the word of Z historian, does not mean I believe that it has been proven false on a factual level, because I may not accept the word of Z historian."
This sounds fine in the abstract, until you realize it's the same argument that Holocaust deniers make. Or
Sometimes I wish to hell History was a Science, not an Art. Other times, I am so glad that it is exactly what it is -- the argument that keeps demanding engagement lest those-who-are-clearly-wrong-in-my-pretty-well-educated-opinion start reaching too broad an audience.
Which isn't to say I have much doubt about the Holocaust's actually happening. My dad was there in Europe at the end of WW2 and saw some evidence for himself. We had neighbors when I was a kid who were survivors. But my dad is dead now and so, no doubt, are those neighbors. At some point, the truth of what really happened abstracts. And unlike Science, we can't just re-produce an experiment or whatever. All we can do really is research, educate, discuss, argue, communicate ... and there's no communication if we get so pissed at someone that we refuse to engage with them. Thus rules of discourse, because though we may be discussing life or death, it's not life or death.
and so on ...
posted by philip-random at 9:36 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
This sounds fine in the abstract, until you realize it's the same argument that Holocaust deniers make. Or
Sometimes I wish to hell History was a Science, not an Art. Other times, I am so glad that it is exactly what it is -- the argument that keeps demanding engagement lest those-who-are-clearly-wrong-in-my-pretty-well-educated-opinion start reaching too broad an audience.
Which isn't to say I have much doubt about the Holocaust's actually happening. My dad was there in Europe at the end of WW2 and saw some evidence for himself. We had neighbors when I was a kid who were survivors. But my dad is dead now and so, no doubt, are those neighbors. At some point, the truth of what really happened abstracts. And unlike Science, we can't just re-produce an experiment or whatever. All we can do really is research, educate, discuss, argue, communicate ... and there's no communication if we get so pissed at someone that we refuse to engage with them. Thus rules of discourse, because though we may be discussing life or death, it's not life or death.
and so on ...
posted by philip-random at 9:36 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
How do you differentiate these, given that we have no empirical ground truth on who's making better arguments?
How do I differentiate what? If there's a FPP about Warren G. Harding on the blue and Sally MeFite starts going off on how Warren G. Harding gets a bad rap and is actually one of the USA's greatest presidents, knowledgable people will push back on that and enlightening information will be shared in the thread and impressionable minds will be able to synthesize some better understanding of the Warren G. Harding presidency out of the arguments being presented, the system works, etc
What gets under my skin is when Sally MeFite makes some valid-on-its-face statement about site interactions three weeks later in MeTa, and somebody comes in all "how can we listen to anything you say, you think Warren G. Harding was a great president!" and then half a dozen people line up to point out something less-than-ideal they've noticed about how Sally MeFite conducts herself on MetaFilter, culminating in somebody spiking the football by suggesting Sally leave the site or that she should have been banned already. If Sally comes back to the thread to defend herself, the whole cycle can begin anew.
Which is not to say that there aren't legitimate issues or criticisms of how Sally MeFite interacts with the site, but because she has some weird outlier opinion, she gets so much more scrutiny and pushback than the average user who operates within the general MetaFilter consensus. That feels kinda high school to me and I think we can do better than that.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:44 AM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
How do I differentiate what? If there's a FPP about Warren G. Harding on the blue and Sally MeFite starts going off on how Warren G. Harding gets a bad rap and is actually one of the USA's greatest presidents, knowledgable people will push back on that and enlightening information will be shared in the thread and impressionable minds will be able to synthesize some better understanding of the Warren G. Harding presidency out of the arguments being presented, the system works, etc
What gets under my skin is when Sally MeFite makes some valid-on-its-face statement about site interactions three weeks later in MeTa, and somebody comes in all "how can we listen to anything you say, you think Warren G. Harding was a great president!" and then half a dozen people line up to point out something less-than-ideal they've noticed about how Sally MeFite conducts herself on MetaFilter, culminating in somebody spiking the football by suggesting Sally leave the site or that she should have been banned already. If Sally comes back to the thread to defend herself, the whole cycle can begin anew.
Which is not to say that there aren't legitimate issues or criticisms of how Sally MeFite interacts with the site, but because she has some weird outlier opinion, she gets so much more scrutiny and pushback than the average user who operates within the general MetaFilter consensus. That feels kinda high school to me and I think we can do better than that.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:44 AM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
I've realized that when someone is stuck on a particular, repeated viewpoint and is engaging in argument on that point without the willingness to be open to being changed by evidence or persuasion, there's absolutely no point in dealing with the viewpoint seriously. It's not being made in an earnest attempt to clarify positions or progress discussion on an issue toward new insights or agreements.
I completely agree. Sometimes it is really obvious (like how the same people do the same drive-by misogyny in every gender discussion, say), but sometimes it is harder to spot because it's someone with whom you had a great back and forth discussion in another thread, but for whatever reason of mood, medication, or issue they've dug in their heels and are going full Tone Deaf Repetition.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:45 AM on December 5, 2014
I completely agree. Sometimes it is really obvious (like how the same people do the same drive-by misogyny in every gender discussion, say), but sometimes it is harder to spot because it's someone with whom you had a great back and forth discussion in another thread, but for whatever reason of mood, medication, or issue they've dug in their heels and are going full Tone Deaf Repetition.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:45 AM on December 5, 2014
At some point, the truth of what really happened abstracts.
This, itself, is only true in the abstract. In Miko's example, the primary source document that cites defense of slavery as chief among the reasons for South Carolina's secession would have to be shown to be a forgery, or the language within it can be shown to not be citing defense of slavery as the primary reason for secession, in order for there to be any doubt cast on the question of why they seceded. In the many threads about the topic, I'm not sure I've even seen an attempt at doing that -- usually the goalposts get moved to some other state where the language is less clear, or to some letters written by some other minority of citizens who had other reasons.
At that point, we have something that, like the Holocaust example, people are free to differ with, but until they supply evidence, we can only assume their opposition is an article of faith rather than something supportable by evidence. The conversation can continue even if this doesn't happen, but when those same people keep bringing the same fact-free assertions back to the table, it's hard not to view that behavior as toxic to the goal of having a fair and honest discussion.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
This, itself, is only true in the abstract. In Miko's example, the primary source document that cites defense of slavery as chief among the reasons for South Carolina's secession would have to be shown to be a forgery, or the language within it can be shown to not be citing defense of slavery as the primary reason for secession, in order for there to be any doubt cast on the question of why they seceded. In the many threads about the topic, I'm not sure I've even seen an attempt at doing that -- usually the goalposts get moved to some other state where the language is less clear, or to some letters written by some other minority of citizens who had other reasons.
At that point, we have something that, like the Holocaust example, people are free to differ with, but until they supply evidence, we can only assume their opposition is an article of faith rather than something supportable by evidence. The conversation can continue even if this doesn't happen, but when those same people keep bringing the same fact-free assertions back to the table, it's hard not to view that behavior as toxic to the goal of having a fair and honest discussion.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
At some point, the truth of what really happened abstracts.
Witnesses may be dead, but documents and records made by the Nazis themselves survive. That is not abstract; neither are the various Articles of Secession that say in precisely so many words that the reason they're seceding is slavery. Of course a lot of historical events have aspects that are open to interpretation and nuance of different understandings and emphases, but it really doesn't do anyone (except maybe denialists of any stripe) any good to act like "history" is all just handwavey opinion.
posted by rtha at 10:03 AM on December 5, 2014 [20 favorites]
Witnesses may be dead, but documents and records made by the Nazis themselves survive. That is not abstract; neither are the various Articles of Secession that say in precisely so many words that the reason they're seceding is slavery. Of course a lot of historical events have aspects that are open to interpretation and nuance of different understandings and emphases, but it really doesn't do anyone (except maybe denialists of any stripe) any good to act like "history" is all just handwavey opinion.
posted by rtha at 10:03 AM on December 5, 2014 [20 favorites]
Sometimes I wish to hell History was a Science, not an Art. Other times, I am so glad that it is exactly what it is -- the argument that keeps demanding engagement lest those-who-are-clearly-wrong-in-my-pretty-well-educated-opinion start reaching too broad an audience.
Which isn't to say I have much doubt about the Holocaust's actually happening.
Well, first, we need to push the Holocaust back up to the top of this hill...
posted by phearlez at 10:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Which isn't to say I have much doubt about the Holocaust's actually happening.
Well, first, we need to push the Holocaust back up to the top of this hill...
posted by phearlez at 10:47 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
but it really doesn't do anyone (except maybe denialists of any stripe) any good to act like "history" is all just handwavey opinion.
sorry, if I implied such. I personally put a lot of faith in a lot of our culture's accepted history about a lot of things. But I'm also not blind to what happens to historic "truth" over time. Look no further to how people feel about Napoleon, the man responsible for more premature deaths than pretty much anyone else in European History up until the Hitlers and Stalins of the 20th century.
Was Hitler a villain? Obviously. But I wouldn't bet on the answer being quite so easy to predict in fifty or a hundred years. As for Stalin, well there's already more than a little doubt on that already.
posted by philip-random at 11:01 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
sorry, if I implied such. I personally put a lot of faith in a lot of our culture's accepted history about a lot of things. But I'm also not blind to what happens to historic "truth" over time. Look no further to how people feel about Napoleon, the man responsible for more premature deaths than pretty much anyone else in European History up until the Hitlers and Stalins of the 20th century.
Was Hitler a villain? Obviously. But I wouldn't bet on the answer being quite so easy to predict in fifty or a hundred years. As for Stalin, well there's already more than a little doubt on that already.
posted by philip-random at 11:01 AM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've said it before: History massively discounts human suffering.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:06 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 11:06 AM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
Hitler's not a "villain" solely on the basis of numerical death count. Hitler led one of the most successful installations in human history of a widespread, state-supported machine for exploitation, torture and genocide.
Stalin, likewise, cannot solely be judged by some "number of lives saved by Joe Chill" nonsense.
posted by kagredon at 11:10 AM on December 5, 2014
Stalin, likewise, cannot solely be judged by some "number of lives saved by Joe Chill" nonsense.
posted by kagredon at 11:10 AM on December 5, 2014
neither are the various Articles of Secession that say in precisely so many words that the reason they're seceding is slavery.
So without reopening that debate, let me just address the issue of historical documents and complexity of motivation.
So when you see a political document prepared by a bunch of politicians, in my understanding of history, you actually can't take it at face value. You have to look at who they were preparing it for, who their audience was, what they might be retaliating against, and whether they were correct or not.
To take a hopefully less controversial example, let's look at, say, the Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536, in England, which hopefully no one will have strong feelings about. A document was issued that we can clearly look at - the "24 Articles." Of those articles, the majority deal with religious grievances. It would be really easy to look at that, and look at how history interpreted that rising for hundreds of years, and say, "The Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace was about religion, because most of the things said were about religion and they fought under religious iconography." But that would also ignore other articles, and the context in which those articles were formed, particularly the economic forces that were impacting the North. It would ignore the fact that for many of the common people, religious houses were their only source of medical care and various other goods and services. It would ignore the fact that religious holidays were the only ones that could be counted on, and without them, they could be forced to work more days of the year (labor grievances). It would ignore the fact that many land tenants were upset about their rent increases, which were being levied because Henry VIII was taxing more heavily. It would ignore the issue of local versus centralized power - the nobles wanting to maintain their feudal privileges, and Thomas Cromwell trying to tear them down. And it would ignore the fact that for Henry VIII and the nobles he sent to put the rebellion down, their primary motivation was not religious, but shutting the rebellion down.
So it would be entirely reasonable, based on clear documents, to say "the rebellion was about religion." But it would also be entirely reasonable, based on a broader reading of clear documents and letters and laws at the time, to say "the rebellion was not just about religion, the rebellion was about a lot of factors that permeate the issue of religion, and the response to the rebellion was definitely not about religion."
And so it would be really unfair to say "Hey, I gave you the 24 articles, and you didn't listen to this clear and convincing evidence, you obviously don't care about arguing in good faith, so I'm not going to listen to you anymore."
posted by corb at 11:33 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
So without reopening that debate, let me just address the issue of historical documents and complexity of motivation.
So when you see a political document prepared by a bunch of politicians, in my understanding of history, you actually can't take it at face value. You have to look at who they were preparing it for, who their audience was, what they might be retaliating against, and whether they were correct or not.
To take a hopefully less controversial example, let's look at, say, the Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536, in England, which hopefully no one will have strong feelings about. A document was issued that we can clearly look at - the "24 Articles." Of those articles, the majority deal with religious grievances. It would be really easy to look at that, and look at how history interpreted that rising for hundreds of years, and say, "The Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace was about religion, because most of the things said were about religion and they fought under religious iconography." But that would also ignore other articles, and the context in which those articles were formed, particularly the economic forces that were impacting the North. It would ignore the fact that for many of the common people, religious houses were their only source of medical care and various other goods and services. It would ignore the fact that religious holidays were the only ones that could be counted on, and without them, they could be forced to work more days of the year (labor grievances). It would ignore the fact that many land tenants were upset about their rent increases, which were being levied because Henry VIII was taxing more heavily. It would ignore the issue of local versus centralized power - the nobles wanting to maintain their feudal privileges, and Thomas Cromwell trying to tear them down. And it would ignore the fact that for Henry VIII and the nobles he sent to put the rebellion down, their primary motivation was not religious, but shutting the rebellion down.
So it would be entirely reasonable, based on clear documents, to say "the rebellion was about religion." But it would also be entirely reasonable, based on a broader reading of clear documents and letters and laws at the time, to say "the rebellion was not just about religion, the rebellion was about a lot of factors that permeate the issue of religion, and the response to the rebellion was definitely not about religion."
And so it would be really unfair to say "Hey, I gave you the 24 articles, and you didn't listen to this clear and convincing evidence, you obviously don't care about arguing in good faith, so I'm not going to listen to you anymore."
posted by corb at 11:33 AM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
oh god you are doing that thing where you claim it wasn't about slavery again except this time you're putting a fig leaf on your argument
It is not reasonable to say that the rebellion was about anything other than slavery. This has been explained to you time and time and time again and it is time for you to seriously consider the fact that the only people who agree with you are actual flat-out racists. Then please consider why it is we consider that ill-informed and totally debunked opinion such offensive and puerile garbage, and just bloody well stop it already, thanks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:41 AM on December 5, 2014 [15 favorites]
It is not reasonable to say that the rebellion was about anything other than slavery. This has been explained to you time and time and time again and it is time for you to seriously consider the fact that the only people who agree with you are actual flat-out racists. Then please consider why it is we consider that ill-informed and totally debunked opinion such offensive and puerile garbage, and just bloody well stop it already, thanks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:41 AM on December 5, 2014 [15 favorites]
To take a hopefully less controversial example, let's look at, say, the Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536
Well, and this is the thing about American history and historiography: if you're arguing about the past, you're inherently arguing about the present. Given that official Jim Crow laws are in living memory, the repercussions of the Civil War are hardly a dead issue. My historical training tells me that single-cause explanations are generally suspect, but there are two intertwined issues that come up in terms of secession documents: first, the significant question is whether slavery is a central factor, just as you'd be kind of an idiot to say religion had nothing to do with the Pilgrimage of Grace. Second, if you want to talk about the economy in the South as a factor in the Civil War, you can't do that without talking about the very ugly economics of human bondage. Sure, the South was fighting to defend its economy and way of life: an economy and way of life that depended on owning other people.
Also as someone who has actually lived in the North of England, I think you may be underestimating the way in which historical controversies that are centuries old are sometimes still hard felt by people who live where they happened. But that's an aside that doesn't require further discussion in this MeTa.
posted by immlass at 11:50 AM on December 5, 2014 [26 favorites]
Well, and this is the thing about American history and historiography: if you're arguing about the past, you're inherently arguing about the present. Given that official Jim Crow laws are in living memory, the repercussions of the Civil War are hardly a dead issue. My historical training tells me that single-cause explanations are generally suspect, but there are two intertwined issues that come up in terms of secession documents: first, the significant question is whether slavery is a central factor, just as you'd be kind of an idiot to say religion had nothing to do with the Pilgrimage of Grace. Second, if you want to talk about the economy in the South as a factor in the Civil War, you can't do that without talking about the very ugly economics of human bondage. Sure, the South was fighting to defend its economy and way of life: an economy and way of life that depended on owning other people.
Also as someone who has actually lived in the North of England, I think you may be underestimating the way in which historical controversies that are centuries old are sometimes still hard felt by people who live where they happened. But that's an aside that doesn't require further discussion in this MeTa.
posted by immlass at 11:50 AM on December 5, 2014 [26 favorites]
An appeal to history's broader context, beyond documents like South Carolina's declaration of secession, does not help the Southern cause at all. Slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern economy, not some side issue which political circumstances arbitrarily brought to the fore. From Wikipedia's FAQ on the Talk page for the American Civil War:
Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:52 AM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Slaveholding states presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. However, the US Congress did try to take slavery off the table at the last minute with the Crittenden Resolution, stating that the goal of the Northern States was not abolition of slavery, but preservation of the Union. Ironically, these positions were reversed later, especially with the rise of the Lost Cause interpretation.
There are other issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights which have been included in the article as well. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research. The best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter) don't support Lost Cause interpretations of causes.
States' rights was a lesser issue. The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did try to separate state's rights from slavery after the Confederate defeat.
The tariff was a lesser issue. The tariff issue was a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven Lincoln said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue.
While northern states didn't allow equal civil rights for blacks, they were still much more antislavery than the South. Also, secessionists mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials.
Both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis said a great deal about controversy over slavery before the war. They downplayed the slavery issue when the war began because, as historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union, and Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular.
you can't just say we're not going to debate about something and then drop the turd you did and expect it all to be fine.
Seriously. This really is exactly the thing people are talking about. So I guess it's good that this is an example of That Thing you do, but on the other hand, maybe not talking about the Civil War and your opinion on it (even obliquely) would be a terrific idea.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 11:54 AM on December 5, 2014 [27 favorites]
Seriously. This really is exactly the thing people are talking about. So I guess it's good that this is an example of That Thing you do, but on the other hand, maybe not talking about the Civil War and your opinion on it (even obliquely) would be a terrific idea.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 11:54 AM on December 5, 2014 [27 favorites]
I'll state for the record that I am someone who has been frustrated with corb's participation here nearly to the point of tears, on several occasions. But as someone who has ALSO occasionally been the center of a maelstrom discussion where I've been the minority opinion holder, I just want to point out that in the thick of things, the line between:
If you've stated your opinion three times and are still getting 100% pushback on your issues, and particularly if you've done it in a half-dozen threads, maybe it's time to back off.
and:
I've observed another pattern where you either (a) ignore every single one of the counterarguments or (b) cherry-pick one of the easier ones to respond to and then pretend none of the points you didn't respond to were ever made.
is hard to walk accurately every single time. Particularly because not everyone, not even all the people on one side of the argument, will ever have the same idea of where it will be drawn.
posted by KathrynT at 11:59 AM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
If you've stated your opinion three times and are still getting 100% pushback on your issues, and particularly if you've done it in a half-dozen threads, maybe it's time to back off.
and:
I've observed another pattern where you either (a) ignore every single one of the counterarguments or (b) cherry-pick one of the easier ones to respond to and then pretend none of the points you didn't respond to were ever made.
is hard to walk accurately every single time. Particularly because not everyone, not even all the people on one side of the argument, will ever have the same idea of where it will be drawn.
posted by KathrynT at 11:59 AM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
yeah, please don't let us hash out the causes of the civil war all over again. This metatalk was about moderation not debating issues from a 150 year old war.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:02 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:02 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
You know, generally I wouldn't expect either "you guys are making too big a deal out of slavery" or "history's view of Adolf Hitler really isn't settled yet" to be things said in a proper PC echo chamber. If we are ruthlessly demanding obeisance to the nostrums of the SJWs, we're doing a terrible job of it.
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:06 PM on December 5, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:06 PM on December 5, 2014 [13 favorites]
you can't just say we're not going to debate about something and then drop the turd you did and expect it all to be fine
There's a certain kind of Free Speech absolutist who doesn't quite seem to understand--or doesn't want to--that literally the only thing that means is the government can't stop you from saying things.
Many of them seem to think that what Free Speech really means is that they get to spout off whatever notion comes into their fool heads, no matter how odious, dangerous, or flat-out wrong it is, without any consequence or challenge.
It comes down to a fundamental divide: the notion that one must justify and back up their assertions with facts, and the notion that one can just say anything and it must be accepted as prima facie true--FOX News is the exemplar of the latter attitude. And that challenging these unsupported positions is somehow some kind of evil personal attack. In a broader sense, it is the tension between the reality-based world, and the this-is-what-I-have-decided-reality-is world. Facts vs. ideology, reality vs fantasy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
There's a certain kind of Free Speech absolutist who doesn't quite seem to understand--or doesn't want to--that literally the only thing that means is the government can't stop you from saying things.
Many of them seem to think that what Free Speech really means is that they get to spout off whatever notion comes into their fool heads, no matter how odious, dangerous, or flat-out wrong it is, without any consequence or challenge.
It comes down to a fundamental divide: the notion that one must justify and back up their assertions with facts, and the notion that one can just say anything and it must be accepted as prima facie true--FOX News is the exemplar of the latter attitude. And that challenging these unsupported positions is somehow some kind of evil personal attack. In a broader sense, it is the tension between the reality-based world, and the this-is-what-I-have-decided-reality-is world. Facts vs. ideology, reality vs fantasy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
The "Civil War" was brought up twice in this thread before corb (didn't) talk about it. Succession was brought up 5 times, including several references to corb's past comments on the subject. Nobody had a problem with those comments. But as soon as corb herself addresses them (or doesn't actually*) it's a turd/thing-she-does?
* Bad faith, corb, you didn't address the succession thing!
posted by 0 at 12:29 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
* Bad faith, corb, you didn't address the succession thing!
posted by 0 at 12:29 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's against the rules to hash out unrelated issues or old threads here, so I don't see a problem.
posted by agregoli at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2014
posted by agregoli at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2014
This really is exactly the thing people are talking about. So I guess it's good that this is an example of That Thing you do, but on the other hand, maybe not talking about the Civil War and your opinion on it (even obliquely) would be a terrific idea.
Am I missing something here, or maybe misreading this? Sure, this MeTa should stick to the core topics of moderation, pile ons and personal attacks as raised by the OP, but I think that holding corb responsible for this derail is an example of the problem the OP raised.
Did I miss the part where corb opened this can of worms? I thought it was Miko who brought up the historical documents issue here, making specific reference to South Carolina, and others joined in afterwards. The particular issue surrounding that claim was that corb doesn't change her opinions (enough?) when we raise historical documents. How should corb have responded there? I thought that here approach of trying to shift away from talking about the American Civil War while talking about why historical document don't always produce the belief change that her interlocutors were hoping for was actually a pretty good way of trying to respond.
I don't see a problem with mathowies phrasing here:
ah, please don't let us hash out the causes of the civil war all over again. This metatalk was about moderation not debating issues from a 150 year old war.
since it doesn't directly ascribe the fault to corb. But the impression I got from jessamyns comment was that it was somehow wrong of corb to give *any* response to Miko. Given that Miko's core claim was that corb doesn't argue in good faith (and implicitly, I think, that this lack of good faith is the reason we end up with nasty pile ons?) I'd be really interested in knowing how people think corb could possibly have responded to the "South Carolina documents" example without provoking comments like this:
Uh, you can't just say we're not going to debate about something and then drop the turd you did and expect it all to be fine.
But this it the problem, right? As far as I can tell, this whole line of discussion started with corb's claim that people don't change their beliefs much as a consequence of arguments. The "turd" in question arose because Miko picked an unfortunate example (albeit with some justification), not from anything corb did.
Sure, the Civil War stuff is a horrible derail, but I think it's an illustration of how an nasty side discussion can be started by well-intentioned comments (corb's original claim about arguments, and Miko's example of historical documents), be side-tracked by a specific detail that speaks to the ideological divide that lurks underneath (the fact that Miko's example pertained to the Civil War), and then everyone gets angry at corb for causing the derail, which eventually requires intervention by mods. And the net result looks like corb is being singled out, even though the mods seem to be bending over backwards to do the opposite.
That seems to be the problem, as I see it. Sometimes corb really does say stuff that I think is horrible and requires deletion. But at other times her mere presence seems to just accidentally lead to things going awry.
I honestly don't know how the mods can fix this, or what we as a community could do better, but working that out that seems to be the point of this MeTa, right?
posted by langtonsant at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
Am I missing something here, or maybe misreading this? Sure, this MeTa should stick to the core topics of moderation, pile ons and personal attacks as raised by the OP, but I think that holding corb responsible for this derail is an example of the problem the OP raised.
Did I miss the part where corb opened this can of worms? I thought it was Miko who brought up the historical documents issue here, making specific reference to South Carolina, and others joined in afterwards. The particular issue surrounding that claim was that corb doesn't change her opinions (enough?) when we raise historical documents. How should corb have responded there? I thought that here approach of trying to shift away from talking about the American Civil War while talking about why historical document don't always produce the belief change that her interlocutors were hoping for was actually a pretty good way of trying to respond.
I don't see a problem with mathowies phrasing here:
ah, please don't let us hash out the causes of the civil war all over again. This metatalk was about moderation not debating issues from a 150 year old war.
since it doesn't directly ascribe the fault to corb. But the impression I got from jessamyns comment was that it was somehow wrong of corb to give *any* response to Miko. Given that Miko's core claim was that corb doesn't argue in good faith (and implicitly, I think, that this lack of good faith is the reason we end up with nasty pile ons?) I'd be really interested in knowing how people think corb could possibly have responded to the "South Carolina documents" example without provoking comments like this:
Uh, you can't just say we're not going to debate about something and then drop the turd you did and expect it all to be fine.
But this it the problem, right? As far as I can tell, this whole line of discussion started with corb's claim that people don't change their beliefs much as a consequence of arguments. The "turd" in question arose because Miko picked an unfortunate example (albeit with some justification), not from anything corb did.
Sure, the Civil War stuff is a horrible derail, but I think it's an illustration of how an nasty side discussion can be started by well-intentioned comments (corb's original claim about arguments, and Miko's example of historical documents), be side-tracked by a specific detail that speaks to the ideological divide that lurks underneath (the fact that Miko's example pertained to the Civil War), and then everyone gets angry at corb for causing the derail, which eventually requires intervention by mods. And the net result looks like corb is being singled out, even though the mods seem to be bending over backwards to do the opposite.
That seems to be the problem, as I see it. Sometimes corb really does say stuff that I think is horrible and requires deletion. But at other times her mere presence seems to just accidentally lead to things going awry.
I honestly don't know how the mods can fix this, or what we as a community could do better, but working that out that seems to be the point of this MeTa, right?
posted by langtonsant at 12:32 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
No, That Thing She Does is doubling down and repeatedly simply refusing to grasp that she is wrong about something. In this case, pretending she's not talking about something when what she is doing is actually talking about that thing, where that thing is something she has specifically been shot down and refuted for before and she is relitigating it.
It has been brought up here as sort of the canonical example of 'corb doesn't get it, corb does not engage in good faith, corb is impervious to facts' thing that corb does on basically every issue more fraught than "hey this was a fun movie."
I don't think anyone's angry at corb for causing a derail. Everyone's angry that corb does the exact same thing over and over again--her opinions about the Civil War being a great example--and here she is, doing it again; using the fig leaf of some other totally unrelated event to actually say "no it is totally reasonable for me to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery even though everyone else on the planet who isn't a racist says so and has proof." [NB: I am not saying corb is a racist, I am not implying it, I am saying that her fellow travelers bear some examination; when everyone else who agrees with your position is an amoral asshole it might be worth re-examining that position.]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:38 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
It has been brought up here as sort of the canonical example of 'corb doesn't get it, corb does not engage in good faith, corb is impervious to facts' thing that corb does on basically every issue more fraught than "hey this was a fun movie."
I don't think anyone's angry at corb for causing a derail. Everyone's angry that corb does the exact same thing over and over again--her opinions about the Civil War being a great example--and here she is, doing it again; using the fig leaf of some other totally unrelated event to actually say "no it is totally reasonable for me to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery even though everyone else on the planet who isn't a racist says so and has proof." [NB: I am not saying corb is a racist, I am not implying it, I am saying that her fellow travelers bear some examination; when everyone else who agrees with your position is an amoral asshole it might be worth re-examining that position.]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:38 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
I agree with corb that human history is really compli-fucking-cated, feckless. I am not an amoral asshole.
posted by 0 at 12:41 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by 0 at 12:41 PM on December 5, 2014 [4 favorites]
If you don't want to reopen the debate, don't reopen the debate, it's pretty simple.
However, going "well here is an unrelated example that coincidentally I get to use to say how totally reasonable I am in believing whatever I choose to believe no matter what all the experts say, but this has nothing at all to do with my beliefs about the Civil War nope" isn't a good way to not reopen the debate.
Perhaps 'amoral asshole' was a slight overstatement. 'Asshole espousing racist beliefs' may have been more accurate, and no matter how 'compli-fucking-cated' human history may be, anything saying that slavery wasn't the root cause of the Civil War is a racist belief.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:46 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
However, going "well here is an unrelated example that coincidentally I get to use to say how totally reasonable I am in believing whatever I choose to believe no matter what all the experts say, but this has nothing at all to do with my beliefs about the Civil War nope" isn't a good way to not reopen the debate.
Perhaps 'amoral asshole' was a slight overstatement. 'Asshole espousing racist beliefs' may have been more accurate, and no matter how 'compli-fucking-cated' human history may be, anything saying that slavery wasn't the root cause of the Civil War is a racist belief.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:46 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Eh, as I said so far above... it's not the what, it's the how--in general terms, anyway. In corb's case, it's kind of hard to separate 'never ever ever acknowledges that she could be factually incorrect about something' from 'here she is arguing again how it's totally reasonable to espouse a belief that literally no expert shares,' so here it's both the what and the how, given the specific subject (Civil War); she could have easily addressed the general concept without going into the specifics or drawing a specific parallel.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:59 PM on December 5, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:59 PM on December 5, 2014
No, That Thing She Does is doubling down and repeatedly simply refusing to grasp that she is wrong about something. In this case, pretending she's not talking about something when what she is doing is actually talking about that thing, where that thing is something she has specifically been shot down and refuted for before and she is relitigating it.
Okay, I feel like I half agree here. "Doubling down" does seem like a very corb thing to do, though it's probably not an uncommon failing.
But short of saying "okay I'm totally wrong and you all are right", what would have struck you as a reasonable response, given that Miko's comment had already pushed the discussion into a place where everyone had conflated the "corb doesn't change her beliefs enough" topic with the "historical documents and the US Civil War" derail? If corb had responded by switching back to the abstract question, she could have (and probably would have) been attacked for refusing to acknowledge Miko's very specific example. If she had picked an issue entirely unrelated to the Civil War she could have (and maybe would have) been attacked for being evasive and changing the topic. The approach she did take, in trying to disentangle the "response to historical documents" issue from the contentious Civil War context, was criticised by you as an attempt to obliquely relitigate a discussion of the Civil War.
I'm honestly at a loss. It feels to me like the conversation had backed her into a rhetorical corner. Can you think of anything that corb could have said that would have been okay, and wouldn't have led to an unfortunate side discussion necessitating mod intervention?
posted by langtonsant at 1:01 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
Okay, I feel like I half agree here. "Doubling down" does seem like a very corb thing to do, though it's probably not an uncommon failing.
But short of saying "okay I'm totally wrong and you all are right", what would have struck you as a reasonable response, given that Miko's comment had already pushed the discussion into a place where everyone had conflated the "corb doesn't change her beliefs enough" topic with the "historical documents and the US Civil War" derail? If corb had responded by switching back to the abstract question, she could have (and probably would have) been attacked for refusing to acknowledge Miko's very specific example. If she had picked an issue entirely unrelated to the Civil War she could have (and maybe would have) been attacked for being evasive and changing the topic. The approach she did take, in trying to disentangle the "response to historical documents" issue from the contentious Civil War context, was criticised by you as an attempt to obliquely relitigate a discussion of the Civil War.
I'm honestly at a loss. It feels to me like the conversation had backed her into a rhetorical corner. Can you think of anything that corb could have said that would have been okay, and wouldn't have led to an unfortunate side discussion necessitating mod intervention?
posted by langtonsant at 1:01 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
what we as a community could do better
We could cease passively tolerating and actively participating in bullying unpopular users. It may feel good but it convinces no one and just makes everyone look bad.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:03 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
We could cease passively tolerating and actively participating in bullying unpopular users. It may feel good but it convinces no one and just makes everyone look bad.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:03 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
Mathowie could admit he bungled this one.
posted by 0 at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by 0 at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
she could have easily addressed the general concept without going into the specifics or drawing a specific parallel.
Ah, only just saw this comment. Do you think that would have worked? Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think that someone else would have jumped in and said something to the effect of "but hey, look at Miko's specific example! Right here in this thread you're not responding to evidence!" Obviously we can never know for sure that this would have happened, but it doesn't strike me as being all that unlikely.
posted by langtonsant at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ah, only just saw this comment. Do you think that would have worked? Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think that someone else would have jumped in and said something to the effect of "but hey, look at Miko's specific example! Right here in this thread you're not responding to evidence!" Obviously we can never know for sure that this would have happened, but it doesn't strike me as being all that unlikely.
posted by langtonsant at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm honestly at a loss. It feels to me like the conversation had backed her into a rhetorical corner. Can you think of anything that corb could have said that would have been okay, and wouldn't have led to an unfortunate side discussion necessitating mod intervention?
You can always say "hey, I feel like this discussion has hit a dead end and I'm leaving". Frex: I personally am so royally pissed off at corb playing a version of the usual bullshit game with the Civil War and the Pilgrimage of Grace that I think my productive participation here is at an end, so I'm peacing out [of this thread] myself.
posted by immlass at 1:05 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
You can always say "hey, I feel like this discussion has hit a dead end and I'm leaving". Frex: I personally am so royally pissed off at corb playing a version of the usual bullshit game with the Civil War and the Pilgrimage of Grace that I think my productive participation here is at an end, so I'm peacing out [of this thread] myself.
posted by immlass at 1:05 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
It feels to me like the conversation had backed her into a rhetorical corner. Can you think of anything that corb could have said that would have been okay, and wouldn't have led to an unfortunate side discussion necessitating mod intervention?
"You're right."
Seriously. No joke. Some kind of acknowledgement of what she does, how she does it, and why it is so fucking frustrating to everyone trying to have an actual reality-based conversation. But, and this is kind of the sticking point, she would need to back that up with actual action the next time she decides to opine on something instead of just going right back to the same habits.
We could cease passively tolerating and actively participating in bullying unpopular users. It may feel good but it convinces no one and just makes everyone look bad.
It's not bullying. It's years and years of frustration at having to deal with the same disingenuous bullshit over and over and over again without the slightest hint that she is even considering the hint of an idea that maybe we might have a point.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:06 PM on December 5, 2014
"You're right."
Seriously. No joke. Some kind of acknowledgement of what she does, how she does it, and why it is so fucking frustrating to everyone trying to have an actual reality-based conversation. But, and this is kind of the sticking point, she would need to back that up with actual action the next time she decides to opine on something instead of just going right back to the same habits.
We could cease passively tolerating and actively participating in bullying unpopular users. It may feel good but it convinces no one and just makes everyone look bad.
It's not bullying. It's years and years of frustration at having to deal with the same disingenuous bullshit over and over and over again without the slightest hint that she is even considering the hint of an idea that maybe we might have a point.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:06 PM on December 5, 2014
KathrynT: the line between: ... is hard to walk accurately every single time. Particularly because not everyone, not even all the people on one side of the argument, will ever have the same idea of where it will be drawn.
Yeah, it's hard. At some point, given enough time, many people will end up in a situation where they're the lone holdout or one of a small number against a larger majority. It happened to me a while back in an Israel/Palestine thread where I ended up being the user being told in a MeTa that I was the problem, and it even happened to me in this very MeTa just a couple of days ago.
In the former case, which much to my disappointment contributed to zarq disabling his account (I do hope you come back, zarq!), I apologized for the way I expressed my opinion on the firing of a professor who engaged in incendiary rhetoric against Israeli's policy toward Palestinians. I did try to convey the reasons I felt the accusations against me were unfair, but enough of the community had spoken up to tell me that what I was doing crossed the line that I had a duty to recognize that the line is where the community wants it to be, not where I wanted it to be.
In the more recent case up-thread, I recognized that we were at an impasse, conceded that the behavior in question wasn't what I'd originally said it was, and indicated that I was going to step away from the discussion of any remaining points of contention due to the fact that the numbers were clearly not in my favor. It was a recognition that even if I was right, me continuing to argue that wasn't going to improve the conversation.
After these two experiences, I can promise you that I do not hope for a repeat of either of these events, and thus will not be advancing the same claims that got me into these situations. I can maintain my belief that I was correct on some or all of my points (other than the ones I explicitly ceded or apologized for) without needing to bring these things up again in future discussions. I now know that bringing up these views rubs people the wrong way, and it's not my place to tell the community how they should respond.
This last bit, in my estimation, is where my story diverges from corb's pattern. Now, of course there are differences in the specific situations i found myself in versus those she encounters, and I'm sure that the fact that I'm often in agreement with the MetaFilter consensus on many issues gets me some leeway with people, and reduces the number of times I'm taking enemy fire. I'm not blind to these differences.
Still, if I tried to advance these claims that got me into trouble again, I guarantee I"d get the same pushback I got before, perhaps much more so because I've already been told that the community isn't buying what I'm selling. So it's on me to change my behavior to comport with community norms.
Someone brought up the "transperson" vs. "trans person" kerfuffle earlier in this thread, and if I recall correctly, corb offered a sincere apology in that MeTa, recognizing that her usage, whatever her justifications for it were, went against MeFi community norms, and promising to try to conform to them better. I thought this was fantastic, and I don't think this has become an issue with her since then.
Of course she doesn't need to apologize for her differing beliefs on the causes of the Civil War any more than I have to apologize for my beliefs that led me to admit I was wrong in previous instances, but given how her attempts to engage in these conversations have gone over before, and given the strong connection in many peoples' minds (justified or not) between people who try to minimize the role of slavery and people who have retrograde views on race, I kind of feel like it's on her to refrain from popping into so many threads about the Civil War to remind us that she feels slavery wasn't the primary reason behind Southern secession. On some other issues, I'd simply be happy if she were more consistent about providing citations for her claims, acknowledging when someone else has credible evidence that give lie to her claims, etc. But those are much more minor issues that don't usually lead to "silenced all my life" MeTas.
So yeah, I get that these are hard lines to walk, but the record shows that corb has trouble operating within community norms more than others, and that small changes in her behavior would go along way toward reducing the amount of GRAR overall. She doesn't like that, but she's been told that's how things will be handled, just as several members are on a very short leash when they talk I/P stuff because of their inability to keep it from getting too heated. Likewise, mods have asked Ironmouth to be aware of how he presents his opinions from a legal perspective. Community norms aren't subject to negotiation -- they evolve from something roughly approaching consensus / majority rule within mathowie's benevolent dictatorship. If there were more neoconfederates in the user base, or if the staff were more receptive to these arguments, perhaps those decisions would break down in a different way. But we go to war on the MetaFilter we have, not the one we might wish to have.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, it's hard. At some point, given enough time, many people will end up in a situation where they're the lone holdout or one of a small number against a larger majority. It happened to me a while back in an Israel/Palestine thread where I ended up being the user being told in a MeTa that I was the problem, and it even happened to me in this very MeTa just a couple of days ago.
In the former case, which much to my disappointment contributed to zarq disabling his account (I do hope you come back, zarq!), I apologized for the way I expressed my opinion on the firing of a professor who engaged in incendiary rhetoric against Israeli's policy toward Palestinians. I did try to convey the reasons I felt the accusations against me were unfair, but enough of the community had spoken up to tell me that what I was doing crossed the line that I had a duty to recognize that the line is where the community wants it to be, not where I wanted it to be.
In the more recent case up-thread, I recognized that we were at an impasse, conceded that the behavior in question wasn't what I'd originally said it was, and indicated that I was going to step away from the discussion of any remaining points of contention due to the fact that the numbers were clearly not in my favor. It was a recognition that even if I was right, me continuing to argue that wasn't going to improve the conversation.
After these two experiences, I can promise you that I do not hope for a repeat of either of these events, and thus will not be advancing the same claims that got me into these situations. I can maintain my belief that I was correct on some or all of my points (other than the ones I explicitly ceded or apologized for) without needing to bring these things up again in future discussions. I now know that bringing up these views rubs people the wrong way, and it's not my place to tell the community how they should respond.
This last bit, in my estimation, is where my story diverges from corb's pattern. Now, of course there are differences in the specific situations i found myself in versus those she encounters, and I'm sure that the fact that I'm often in agreement with the MetaFilter consensus on many issues gets me some leeway with people, and reduces the number of times I'm taking enemy fire. I'm not blind to these differences.
Still, if I tried to advance these claims that got me into trouble again, I guarantee I"d get the same pushback I got before, perhaps much more so because I've already been told that the community isn't buying what I'm selling. So it's on me to change my behavior to comport with community norms.
Someone brought up the "transperson" vs. "trans person" kerfuffle earlier in this thread, and if I recall correctly, corb offered a sincere apology in that MeTa, recognizing that her usage, whatever her justifications for it were, went against MeFi community norms, and promising to try to conform to them better. I thought this was fantastic, and I don't think this has become an issue with her since then.
Of course she doesn't need to apologize for her differing beliefs on the causes of the Civil War any more than I have to apologize for my beliefs that led me to admit I was wrong in previous instances, but given how her attempts to engage in these conversations have gone over before, and given the strong connection in many peoples' minds (justified or not) between people who try to minimize the role of slavery and people who have retrograde views on race, I kind of feel like it's on her to refrain from popping into so many threads about the Civil War to remind us that she feels slavery wasn't the primary reason behind Southern secession. On some other issues, I'd simply be happy if she were more consistent about providing citations for her claims, acknowledging when someone else has credible evidence that give lie to her claims, etc. But those are much more minor issues that don't usually lead to "silenced all my life" MeTas.
So yeah, I get that these are hard lines to walk, but the record shows that corb has trouble operating within community norms more than others, and that small changes in her behavior would go along way toward reducing the amount of GRAR overall. She doesn't like that, but she's been told that's how things will be handled, just as several members are on a very short leash when they talk I/P stuff because of their inability to keep it from getting too heated. Likewise, mods have asked Ironmouth to be aware of how he presents his opinions from a legal perspective. Community norms aren't subject to negotiation -- they evolve from something roughly approaching consensus / majority rule within mathowie's benevolent dictatorship. If there were more neoconfederates in the user base, or if the staff were more receptive to these arguments, perhaps those decisions would break down in a different way. But we go to war on the MetaFilter we have, not the one we might wish to have.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
And I feel like I should add, a lingful of dragon, yet again: corb is not unpopular because of her opinions. She is unpopular because of her behaviour. Behaviour can change. She has been told over and over again for years both publicly by members here and AFAIK privately by mods how her behaviour needs to change in order to be less unpopular. She has proven resistant, at least to the public suggestions (obviously I have no knowledge of what the mods have told her privately), and thus the same merry-go-round keeps happening.
as a thought experiment, you might want to consider that your participation on this site has been substantially frustrating and frequently not great, and it's not like you often go out of your way to concede a point in the heat of an argument, either.
This is not something I need to be told. In fact, is something I have alluded to in this thread. Unlike corb, or so it seems, I am interested in changing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:13 PM on December 5, 2014
as a thought experiment, you might want to consider that your participation on this site has been substantially frustrating and frequently not great, and it's not like you often go out of your way to concede a point in the heat of an argument, either.
This is not something I need to be told. In fact, is something I have alluded to in this thread. Unlike corb, or so it seems, I am interested in changing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:13 PM on December 5, 2014
She has proven resistant
The beatings will continue until morals improve.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:18 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
The beatings will continue until morals improve.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:18 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
Why should corb give a shit whether or not she's "popular?" She should care whether or not she's complying with the conduct guidelines of the site, and if she is, everybody else should have the good sense and grace to not gratuitously pile on her for saying "unpopular" things.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:19 PM on December 5, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:19 PM on December 5, 2014 [11 favorites]
I am interested in changing.
You literally called me an asshole not 1/2 hour ago. Though I do appreciate you taking back the amoral part.
posted by 0 at 1:19 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
You literally called me an asshole not 1/2 hour ago. Though I do appreciate you taking back the amoral part.
posted by 0 at 1:19 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
I didn't, actually. You chose to tar yourself with that brush.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:21 PM on December 5, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:21 PM on December 5, 2014
Corb didn't bring up the Civil War, or the reasons for seccesion. Miko brought it up as Exhibit A of how corb refuses to listen to reason. Corb replied with a general statement about how historical documents aren't always the conversation-ender people want them to be. Miko (and others) pushed harder on the specific issue of the Civil War. Corb replied "Okay, I won't discuss that contentious issues here, but here's a different example of how historical documents don't only mean what they say." At which point the same old users (and mods) start yelling about how she's bringing up the Civil War.
Finally, a user admits that the only thing corb could say to make people stop is "You're right."
Corb is not the problem here.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [23 favorites]
Finally, a user admits that the only thing corb could say to make people stop is "You're right."
Corb is not the problem here.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [23 favorites]
The ironic thing is that this is actually one of her less offensive views about the civil war.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:33 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:33 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
There's a lovely thing on Twitter that I've discovered helps me solve this problem even better than FIAMO, its called Mute. Told some guy twice he was right on the interwebs but he wasn't stopping.
hey pb, pony??????
posted by infini at 1:41 PM on December 5, 2014
hey pb, pony??????
posted by infini at 1:41 PM on December 5, 2014
I really don't think that ceding a point is the only way to have a different conversation. "I'm still not interested in changing my interpretation of these events so let's agree to disagree" is fine, makes intent clear without reopening debate, is direct and offers no bait, and could easily have put the whole thing to rest.
I'm honestly not trying to be a bully, either. I've been working toward a way of understanding and accepting the central futility of these discussions so I can move on from them. I'm trying to let go.
posted by Miko at 1:45 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
I'm honestly not trying to be a bully, either. I've been working toward a way of understanding and accepting the central futility of these discussions so I can move on from them. I'm trying to let go.
posted by Miko at 1:45 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
"You're right."
I disagree that this is what corb needs to say, for the record, since I'm sure lots of people are now going to try to characterize FFFM's statement as the Official Mainstream Mefi Position. All I want is for her to honestly engage with peoples' arguments when this stuff happens. It's that mythical middle ground between "completely ignore everyone's arguments" and "be 100% convinced" that remains elusive.
posted by dialetheia at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
I disagree that this is what corb needs to say, for the record, since I'm sure lots of people are now going to try to characterize FFFM's statement as the Official Mainstream Mefi Position. All I want is for her to honestly engage with peoples' arguments when this stuff happens. It's that mythical middle ground between "completely ignore everyone's arguments" and "be 100% convinced" that remains elusive.
posted by dialetheia at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
Insofar as the issue is "Individual historical documents are not slam-dunk conversation-enders, and a more systematic approach is needed," corb has a point. Simply taking the Lincolnshire rising as a primarily religious conflict on the say-so of a few documents, for instance, would be lazy. The problem is that this point is disingenuous coming from someone whose past contentions about history are, to say the least, not well served by that more systematic approach.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [10 favorites]
Finally, a user admits that the only thing corb could say to make people stop is "You're right."
It seems odd to put corb on the spot here for starting a derail that... she didn't start. It seems odder to demand compliant agreement with an argument... she isn't here to have.
If you do not favorite this comment, then you obviously think that the gender wage gap is a myth. That's right, by not favoriting my comment, you're siding with Christina Hoff Sommers. Do you really want that on your conscience? (Should I call all the people who don't favorite me misogynists in future threads?)
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:55 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
It seems odd to put corb on the spot here for starting a derail that... she didn't start. It seems odder to demand compliant agreement with an argument... she isn't here to have.
If you do not favorite this comment, then you obviously think that the gender wage gap is a myth. That's right, by not favoriting my comment, you're siding with Christina Hoff Sommers. Do you really want that on your conscience? (Should I call all the people who don't favorite me misogynists in future threads?)
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:55 PM on December 5, 2014 [8 favorites]
"You're right" was referring to "You're right, I do those things," as clarified by the very next sentence: "Some kind of acknowledgement of what she does, how she does it, and why it is so fucking frustrating to everyone trying to have an actual reality-based conversation."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
The ironic thing is that this is actually one of her less offensive views about the civil war.
posted by poffin boffin at 4:33 PM on December 5 [2 favorites +] [!]
Maybe it's time to lay off bringing up her views on the Civil War since the mods said we shouldn't be debating those topics?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 4:33 PM on December 5 [2 favorites +] [!]
Maybe it's time to lay off bringing up her views on the Civil War since the mods said we shouldn't be debating those topics?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
Nobody should have to offer up some pro forma acknowledgement of their perceived failings in order to be treated with a baseline of respect around here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
They have to do something about them, though.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2014
0: The "Civil War" was brought up twice in this thread before corb (didn't) talk about it. Succession was brought up 5 times, including several references to corb's past comments on the subject. Nobody had a problem with those comments. But as soon as corb herself addresses them (or doesn't actually*) it's a turd/thing-she-does?
Last time i checked, no one was _required_ to reply. Just because your ears are burning doesn't mean you need to engage or jump back in.
I know that no one is perfect at this, but really, there's plenty of times where the best response you could possibly have is just shutting the fuck up. Anything she could have or did say here is a worse response than just saying nothing, in the context of that civil war thing.
It's like a bully goading you in to embarrassing yourself*, the best response really is to walk away. Belaboring your point just creates a platonic example of what people were annoyed with, in this case.
Everyones debating the legitimacy of her reply, how about why did she even reply at all? and is that choice to reply, in and of itself kind of BS shitstirring?
*i don't think that what went on here in any way resembled bullying by the way
posted by emptythought at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Last time i checked, no one was _required_ to reply. Just because your ears are burning doesn't mean you need to engage or jump back in.
I know that no one is perfect at this, but really, there's plenty of times where the best response you could possibly have is just shutting the fuck up. Anything she could have or did say here is a worse response than just saying nothing, in the context of that civil war thing.
It's like a bully goading you in to embarrassing yourself*, the best response really is to walk away. Belaboring your point just creates a platonic example of what people were annoyed with, in this case.
Everyones debating the legitimacy of her reply, how about why did she even reply at all? and is that choice to reply, in and of itself kind of BS shitstirring?
*i don't think that what went on here in any way resembled bullying by the way
posted by emptythought at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's a certain kind of Free Speech absolutist who doesn't quite seem to understand--or doesn't want to--that literally the only thing that means is the government can't stop you from saying things.
The First Amendment, for the case of America, is the bit about the government. The general principle of free speech can also be applied or abjured to varying degrees in the administration of real and Internet private spaces.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:53 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
The First Amendment, for the case of America, is the bit about the government. The general principle of free speech can also be applied or abjured to varying degrees in the administration of real and Internet private spaces.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:53 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Nobody should have to offer up some pro forma acknowledgement of their perceived failings in order to be treated with a baseline of respect around here.
In what social context is this type of thing ever true? I mean, where are people interacting with other human beings completely free from the necessity to own up to fucking stupid, offensive, socially maladroit behavior that's worn their conversational partners' patience right down to the fucking bone?
I'm a big fan of addressing the complexity of history, of resisting one-cause explanations for massive social upheavals, and without backing down from that I can say, with complete confidence, that no attempt to provide alternate explanations for the the cause of the Civil War hold any water, unless they are in some way intending to get at the unpredictable follow-on effects of slavery as an economic institution.
The only people who postulate otherwise are racists and the dupes of racists, and lest we forget, there a people participating in the discussions here who are the descendants of enslaved blacks. In a direct, face to face conversation about the Civil War that involved a black American, a person fronting this not-about-slavery bullshit would lucky not to get their rhetorical ass kicked to curb, and rightfully so.
To expect to be able to come back to the same group of people you offended once, again, and start up with the same shit? Where the fuck would that fly? You fucking bet she should "offer up some pro forma acknowledgement". At a bare minimum. That's how people with any kind of goddamn empathy at all react, when they have it brought to their attention that they've behaved badly. This not unique to Metafilter.
posted by Ipsifendus at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2014 [14 favorites]
In what social context is this type of thing ever true? I mean, where are people interacting with other human beings completely free from the necessity to own up to fucking stupid, offensive, socially maladroit behavior that's worn their conversational partners' patience right down to the fucking bone?
I'm a big fan of addressing the complexity of history, of resisting one-cause explanations for massive social upheavals, and without backing down from that I can say, with complete confidence, that no attempt to provide alternate explanations for the the cause of the Civil War hold any water, unless they are in some way intending to get at the unpredictable follow-on effects of slavery as an economic institution.
The only people who postulate otherwise are racists and the dupes of racists, and lest we forget, there a people participating in the discussions here who are the descendants of enslaved blacks. In a direct, face to face conversation about the Civil War that involved a black American, a person fronting this not-about-slavery bullshit would lucky not to get their rhetorical ass kicked to curb, and rightfully so.
To expect to be able to come back to the same group of people you offended once, again, and start up with the same shit? Where the fuck would that fly? You fucking bet she should "offer up some pro forma acknowledgement". At a bare minimum. That's how people with any kind of goddamn empathy at all react, when they have it brought to their attention that they've behaved badly. This not unique to Metafilter.
posted by Ipsifendus at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2014 [14 favorites]
There are some members who stick in the craw more than others. As others have noted, it really is more about the how at times than the actual content of the argument for many points of tension. Disagreement seems to work fine between some members, but for some reason, other members get push-back for being more irritating. What is that naturally elicits a different response?
I can relate to the irritation, and in giving it some thought, I have developed an idea about what bothers me about some interactions more than others. There is a recently burgeoning area of analytic philosophy that is wonderful, and it looks closely at question of epistemic virtue. Namely, it recognizes that there are habits that we can bring to the process of community learning that increase the probability that we will gain knowledge or come away more informed. If these things are lacking, it creates tension in the learning process.
If we grant that virtues are habits of character that increase chances of flourshing or success, and epistemic virtues increase the possibility of successfully coming closer to knowledge of something, there are certainly some learning habits that I think we would agree are essential for the process in order for communities to succeed in their endeavor.
Here are just a handful of epistemic virtues, or positive habits of learning (thanks, wikipedia):
attentiveness
charity
coachability
creativity/imagination
curiosity
humility
objectivity
perceptiveness
There are a bunch more, but I think a few key ones are relevant to this discussion and describe what rankles me a bit when I see them violated in discussions. Some members seem to become black holes who absorb a lot of the push-back when these virtues are violated, perhaps because they exhibit the particular concerns more overtly. Here are three that I think are especially relevant.
Regarding coachability, there is a mode of presentation that is too self-authoritative. It naturally rankles and prevents beneficial two-way discussion. The most common that I can think of are when people come into a new community and start giving advice without first taking time to listen and learn. I think the voice here that people buck against the most is the one that communicates, “I am the teacher more than I am a student." Both internal posture and timing are important here. Premature soapboxes rankle, where people are self-proclaimed experts with only some of the information, and are not nearly as open to feedback.
Regarding imagination, black-and-white thinking about an issue and taking a strident side without considering the other sometimes betrays a lack of necessary creativity. It can betray an inability to empathize via modes of imagination. I get frustrated when participants camp out so much on their own view that they can't imagine others or sit in their shoes for awhile, at least not in a way that appears that they are allowing for new information to enter the matrix. A lack of imagination can get in the way of sympathy and a balanced view of the situation. I think this is sometimes apparent when people use *I* statements too much and also tell stories designed to regularly elicit sympathy for a viewpoint. I want to be careful with that one, as we all have stories to tell, and stories are the primary mode for changing things. But guess what happens when that's too one-sided, or people use stories for constantly self-serving purposes? People start to wonder if you are capable of seeing outside of your own perspective, which is frustrating.
Humility, then, is an ability to see one's self accurately (not an issue of self-deprecation) that is open to the success of others. In conversation, humility goes a long, long way; perhaps further than most virtues. I also tend to think it’s one of the prime epistemic virtues that allows other virtues to sit under its umbrella. I have a whole lot of tolerance for people who mess up and yet come back for a new day (perhaps because I really appreciate it when people extend me the same kindness). I have much less admiration for people who never admit that they are wrong, even if they do end up changing their mind. Transparency of self within the human condition we all share is a significant epistemic virtue. We rightly get frustrated with people who are always right in their own mind, because really, even among the best of us, no one is.
If I were to sum it up, the mode of presentation that rankles me the most is the one that exhibits a lack of humility that states I am more often teacher and rarely the student. Because real epistemic virtue sees the learning process as part of a community endeavor to refine ourselves collectively, as both student and teacher. It's a balance that seeks to share and receive within a transparent house. It's the lone-ranger mentality that always knows best that rightly rankles, because it is not reflective of good social interaction that leads to genuine learning. We pick up on that intuitively, even if we struggle to point out examples that will stick and have a lasting effect when we point out shortcomings.
The great tragedy, I think, is that the vice that comes from lack of proper virtue can create a scenario in which people are blind to their own shortcomings, even when others point out the need for change.
And perhaps the greatest tragedy is that I'm not nearly what I aspire to become in this regard, either.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:58 PM on December 5, 2014 [41 favorites]
I can relate to the irritation, and in giving it some thought, I have developed an idea about what bothers me about some interactions more than others. There is a recently burgeoning area of analytic philosophy that is wonderful, and it looks closely at question of epistemic virtue. Namely, it recognizes that there are habits that we can bring to the process of community learning that increase the probability that we will gain knowledge or come away more informed. If these things are lacking, it creates tension in the learning process.
If we grant that virtues are habits of character that increase chances of flourshing or success, and epistemic virtues increase the possibility of successfully coming closer to knowledge of something, there are certainly some learning habits that I think we would agree are essential for the process in order for communities to succeed in their endeavor.
Here are just a handful of epistemic virtues, or positive habits of learning (thanks, wikipedia):
attentiveness
charity
coachability
creativity/imagination
curiosity
humility
objectivity
perceptiveness
There are a bunch more, but I think a few key ones are relevant to this discussion and describe what rankles me a bit when I see them violated in discussions. Some members seem to become black holes who absorb a lot of the push-back when these virtues are violated, perhaps because they exhibit the particular concerns more overtly. Here are three that I think are especially relevant.
Regarding coachability, there is a mode of presentation that is too self-authoritative. It naturally rankles and prevents beneficial two-way discussion. The most common that I can think of are when people come into a new community and start giving advice without first taking time to listen and learn. I think the voice here that people buck against the most is the one that communicates, “I am the teacher more than I am a student." Both internal posture and timing are important here. Premature soapboxes rankle, where people are self-proclaimed experts with only some of the information, and are not nearly as open to feedback.
Regarding imagination, black-and-white thinking about an issue and taking a strident side without considering the other sometimes betrays a lack of necessary creativity. It can betray an inability to empathize via modes of imagination. I get frustrated when participants camp out so much on their own view that they can't imagine others or sit in their shoes for awhile, at least not in a way that appears that they are allowing for new information to enter the matrix. A lack of imagination can get in the way of sympathy and a balanced view of the situation. I think this is sometimes apparent when people use *I* statements too much and also tell stories designed to regularly elicit sympathy for a viewpoint. I want to be careful with that one, as we all have stories to tell, and stories are the primary mode for changing things. But guess what happens when that's too one-sided, or people use stories for constantly self-serving purposes? People start to wonder if you are capable of seeing outside of your own perspective, which is frustrating.
Humility, then, is an ability to see one's self accurately (not an issue of self-deprecation) that is open to the success of others. In conversation, humility goes a long, long way; perhaps further than most virtues. I also tend to think it’s one of the prime epistemic virtues that allows other virtues to sit under its umbrella. I have a whole lot of tolerance for people who mess up and yet come back for a new day (perhaps because I really appreciate it when people extend me the same kindness). I have much less admiration for people who never admit that they are wrong, even if they do end up changing their mind. Transparency of self within the human condition we all share is a significant epistemic virtue. We rightly get frustrated with people who are always right in their own mind, because really, even among the best of us, no one is.
If I were to sum it up, the mode of presentation that rankles me the most is the one that exhibits a lack of humility that states I am more often teacher and rarely the student. Because real epistemic virtue sees the learning process as part of a community endeavor to refine ourselves collectively, as both student and teacher. It's a balance that seeks to share and receive within a transparent house. It's the lone-ranger mentality that always knows best that rightly rankles, because it is not reflective of good social interaction that leads to genuine learning. We pick up on that intuitively, even if we struggle to point out examples that will stick and have a lasting effect when we point out shortcomings.
The great tragedy, I think, is that the vice that comes from lack of proper virtue can create a scenario in which people are blind to their own shortcomings, even when others point out the need for change.
And perhaps the greatest tragedy is that I'm not nearly what I aspire to become in this regard, either.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:58 PM on December 5, 2014 [41 favorites]
SpacemanStix: thank you. Thank you a million times as this comment of yours has helped me with an interpersonal conflict that has had me vaguely nauseated all day and is wholly unrelated to MeFi.
posted by crush-onastick at 3:02 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by crush-onastick at 3:02 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
prize bull octorok: Nobody should have to offer up some pro forma acknowledgement of their perceived failings in order to be treated with a baseline of respect around here.
They should, however, have to at least put up some modicum of a veneer that they respect almost anyone on this site. Give it to get it.
She regularly paints the other side as supporting something they don't, in a strawman style. Or just completely misrepresents the opposing side in general, ignoring multiple people going "that isn't what i said" or "that isn't what we're talking about" or even "that isn't what actually happened".
Shadowboxing against a strawman is not respecting who you're having a "discussion" with. Why does that deserve, and how does that engender respect?
if this becomes some kind of "pls provide examples" thing then yea, i collected plenty here.
posted by emptythought at 3:03 PM on December 5, 2014
They should, however, have to at least put up some modicum of a veneer that they respect almost anyone on this site. Give it to get it.
She regularly paints the other side as supporting something they don't, in a strawman style. Or just completely misrepresents the opposing side in general, ignoring multiple people going "that isn't what i said" or "that isn't what we're talking about" or even "that isn't what actually happened".
Shadowboxing against a strawman is not respecting who you're having a "discussion" with. Why does that deserve, and how does that engender respect?
if this becomes some kind of "pls provide examples" thing then yea, i collected plenty here.
posted by emptythought at 3:03 PM on December 5, 2014
The general principle of free speech can also be applied or abjured to varying degrees in the administration of real and Internet private spaces.
Yeah, but nowhere is the principle 'I should be allowed to say whatever I want and never have it challenged, never suffer any consequences for it, and never be asked--or sometimes required--to defend it' at play.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:06 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but nowhere is the principle 'I should be allowed to say whatever I want and never have it challenged, never suffer any consequences for it, and never be asked--or sometimes required--to defend it' at play.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:06 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Everyones debating the legitimacy of her reply, how about why did she even reply at all? and is that choice to reply, in and of itself kind of BS shitstirring?
No, if we're in here having a rap session about why we have a problem with corb and citing old arguments on the blue to bolster our points, she certainly ought to be able to respond to that.
I don't begrudge people whatever individual negative impressions of other site members they hold but I have no idea why they feel it's necessary to air and creatively restate them so frequently. It creates the impression that if you get on the wrong side of MetaFilter you're fair game for cheap shots and I think that frankly sucks.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
No, if we're in here having a rap session about why we have a problem with corb and citing old arguments on the blue to bolster our points, she certainly ought to be able to respond to that.
I don't begrudge people whatever individual negative impressions of other site members they hold but I have no idea why they feel it's necessary to air and creatively restate them so frequently. It creates the impression that if you get on the wrong side of MetaFilter you're fair game for cheap shots and I think that frankly sucks.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [12 favorites]
I don't begrudge people whatever individual negative impressions of other site members they hold but I have no idea why they feel it's necessary to air and creatively restate them so frequently. It creates the impression that if you get on the wrong side of MetaFilter you're fair game for cheap shots and I think that frankly sucks
Why is this the question, instead of "why is it necessary to air for corb to air racist bullshit when she's had ample explanation that it is both racist and bullshit?"
And again:
if you get on the wrong side of MetaFilter you're fair game for cheap shot
...if you insert "and make it clear that you have no intention of backing down on the behavior that got you there" right after "Metafilter", you're 100% correct, and you're also describing most every community both online and off. A cheap shot is getting off easy.
posted by Ipsifendus at 3:38 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
Why is this the question, instead of "why is it necessary to air for corb to air racist bullshit when she's had ample explanation that it is both racist and bullshit?"
And again:
if you get on the wrong side of MetaFilter you're fair game for cheap shot
...if you insert "and make it clear that you have no intention of backing down on the behavior that got you there" right after "Metafilter", you're 100% correct, and you're also describing most every community both online and off. A cheap shot is getting off easy.
posted by Ipsifendus at 3:38 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
Someone send me a memail when this thread isn't the "all about corb show" anymore.
It's really, really fucking tiring to read the Corb Chronicles in every damned discussion. Sometimes it really feels like the user base (including the damn mods for gods sake) trolls Corb more than she trolls the user base.
posted by disclaimer at 3:49 PM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
It's really, really fucking tiring to read the Corb Chronicles in every damned discussion. Sometimes it really feels like the user base (including the damn mods for gods sake) trolls Corb more than she trolls the user base.
posted by disclaimer at 3:49 PM on December 5, 2014 [17 favorites]
And I'm not inferring that Corb is trolling. I don't know her or her motivations. But those pile ons that were discussed earlier? Pot, meet kettle.
posted by disclaimer at 3:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by disclaimer at 3:51 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
Why is this the question, instead of "why is it necessary to air for corb to air racist bullshit when she's had ample explanation that it is both racist and bullshit?"
You ride your hobbyhorse, I'll ride mine.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:59 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
You ride your hobbyhorse, I'll ride mine.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:59 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's kind of a good example of what MiC was talking about earlier. I think Matt's response was in line with what MiC thinks is ideal. Don't individualize it when there is blame to go around. Jess (who of course is retired but who is looked up to and respected for her vast experience moderating and her standing in the community) could have probably handled it a little differently, like without seemingly concurring that corb's comment was a "turd" and maybe not focusing on corb being the singular issue considering the MULTIPLE comments that brought up the topic before she responded. Regardless, once all was said, I don't know why we are still piling on corb when she clearly is not going to say anything that will please the crowd at this point. She can't address the substance of the complaint because it would involve a debate the moderators don't want to have in this time and place.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on December 5, 2014 [7 favorites]
No, if we're in here having a rap session about why we have a problem with corb and citing old arguments on the blue to bolster our points, she certainly ought to be able to respond to that
Except this wasn't so much a direct response to that as an essay/monologue of her beliefs about the civil war stuff. There's a difference between engaging the discussion, and using the appearance of that to segway in to soapboxing your beliefs.
It wasn't so much a response to the current discussion as a pivot in to bringing that stuff up again, which is why i was saying not posting at all is totally an option.
And i still say, even if someone is directly discussing you and stuff you've done, you're not required to reply or even doing anything but digging a deeper hole by.
Nowhere did i say anyone wasn't entitled to reply in situations like this, just that it's not always the smart move. Any time i bring up the "why did you have to post at all?" chestnut though i get that "well if someones being talked about they're certainly entitled a voice!" thing. And it's like yea, i wasn't saying they aren't.
Someone send me a memail when this thread isn't the "all about corb show" anymore.
Then why did you keep reading after the initial post? it's been about corb since literally, the originating post of the thread. it didn't derail in to that.
posted by emptythought at 4:10 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
Except this wasn't so much a direct response to that as an essay/monologue of her beliefs about the civil war stuff. There's a difference between engaging the discussion, and using the appearance of that to segway in to soapboxing your beliefs.
It wasn't so much a response to the current discussion as a pivot in to bringing that stuff up again, which is why i was saying not posting at all is totally an option.
And i still say, even if someone is directly discussing you and stuff you've done, you're not required to reply or even doing anything but digging a deeper hole by.
Nowhere did i say anyone wasn't entitled to reply in situations like this, just that it's not always the smart move. Any time i bring up the "why did you have to post at all?" chestnut though i get that "well if someones being talked about they're certainly entitled a voice!" thing. And it's like yea, i wasn't saying they aren't.
Someone send me a memail when this thread isn't the "all about corb show" anymore.
Then why did you keep reading after the initial post? it's been about corb since literally, the originating post of the thread. it didn't derail in to that.
posted by emptythought at 4:10 PM on December 5, 2014 [5 favorites]
Because I thought this thread was about bias in moderation and personal attacks, as it is titled? Because I didn't read all 30-fucking six links to the examples, but went forward with the presumption that the participants would participate without getting into an individual's posting style and singling it out? There are a lot of posters that have minority views. I thought it was about the issues in aggregate rather than singling out individuals to cite and/or bitch about. THAT is what I thought we were discussing.
But if it's all about Corb, I'll go run through her complete posting history, arrive at my own conclusions, share my opinion. Or maybe not. Because that will do exactly NOTHING to forward the discussion even one little bit.
But if that's the metafilter way, well, enjoy your circle jerk, because that's all this thread is, isn't it?
Carry on metafilter!
posted by disclaimer at 4:25 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
But if it's all about Corb, I'll go run through her complete posting history, arrive at my own conclusions, share my opinion. Or maybe not. Because that will do exactly NOTHING to forward the discussion even one little bit.
But if that's the metafilter way, well, enjoy your circle jerk, because that's all this thread is, isn't it?
Carry on metafilter!
posted by disclaimer at 4:25 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
SpacemanStix, that was a very excellent comment. Thanks for taking the time and effort to write it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:46 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:46 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Jess ... could have probably handled it a little differently
As could everyone in this thread. I'm not taking the thing from your hand.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
As could everyone in this thread. I'm not taking the thing from your hand.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
As could everyone in this thread. I'm not taking the thing from your hand.
Heh, never seen that phrase before. Thread reminds me of this:
Lisa: Bart, just get out of here.
Bart Simpson: Hey, you get out out. It's a free country.
Lisa: That doesn't make any sense.
Bart Simpson: I know you are, but what am I?
Lisa: Get out, get out!
Bart Simpson: All right. But on my way, I'm going to be doing this...
[windmills his arms]
Bart Simpson: If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Lisa: Okay, then I'm going to start kicking air, like this...
[kicks up her foot]
Lisa: And if any part of you should fill that air...
[kicks up her other foot]
Lisa: It's *your* own fault.
[They shut their eyes and move toward each other, grunting as they flail or kick. Cut to downstairs in the kitchen, where Marge and Homer are. Their grunts soon turn to yells of pain, and sounds of fighting]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on December 5, 2014
Heh, never seen that phrase before. Thread reminds me of this:
Lisa: Bart, just get out of here.
Bart Simpson: Hey, you get out out. It's a free country.
Lisa: That doesn't make any sense.
Bart Simpson: I know you are, but what am I?
Lisa: Get out, get out!
Bart Simpson: All right. But on my way, I'm going to be doing this...
[windmills his arms]
Bart Simpson: If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Lisa: Okay, then I'm going to start kicking air, like this...
[kicks up her foot]
Lisa: And if any part of you should fill that air...
[kicks up her other foot]
Lisa: It's *your* own fault.
[They shut their eyes and move toward each other, grunting as they flail or kick. Cut to downstairs in the kitchen, where Marge and Homer are. Their grunts soon turn to yells of pain, and sounds of fighting]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on December 5, 2014
> Sometimes I wish to hell History was a Science, not an Art.
It actually is classified as a science in French, though as a human or social science rather than a physical science. I think their system of classifying research fields is more coherent than ours.
posted by nangar at 4:55 PM on December 5, 2014
It actually is classified as a science in French, though as a human or social science rather than a physical science. I think their system of classifying research fields is more coherent than ours.
posted by nangar at 4:55 PM on December 5, 2014
> In conversation, humility goes a long, long way; perhaps further than most virtues. I also tend to think it’s one of the prime epistemic virtues that allows other virtues to sit under its umbrella.
Yep.
And, yeah, fantastic comment, SpacemanStix .
posted by nangar at 5:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yep.
And, yeah, fantastic comment, SpacemanStix .
posted by nangar at 5:30 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
i think i understand corb's problem, now - she's an agrarian romantic who sees something appealing in peasants and monasteries, or, god help us, slaves and plantations
posted by pyramid termite at 5:40 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:40 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
And then they do little or nothing when comments after that continue to basically harangue the person who has walked away and, essentially, been deprived of the right to defend themselves (themselves, not their point -- that is usually what the real issue is here).
posted by Drinky Die at 6:01 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:01 PM on December 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think whether the past seems emotionally appealing lies in which side of the lash you think your hand would be on. This is for all people in all times.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:03 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:03 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
The present, too.
posted by RogerB at 6:40 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 6:40 PM on December 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
So true, GenjiandProust. I have given and taken a lot of tours of fancy historic houses, and when people stand in luxurious parlors and exclaim "I sure wouldn't mind living like this!" it's tempting to point out that people like themelves (and myself) wouldn't have been allowed in that room, except maybe to wash floors.
posted by Miko at 6:42 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:42 PM on December 5, 2014 [6 favorites]
...or sexually assaulted. History is ugly.
posted by Miko at 6:56 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:56 PM on December 5, 2014 [3 favorites]
The present, too.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:16 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:16 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
I really don't know anything much about corb's posting history. I will say, though, that in this thread she seems to me to have been polite and thoughtful, and if doing that isn't enough to earn her a far greater degree of courtesy than I've seen from almost everybody else in this thread, I really don't know what would be.
And yes, cortex, regarding Jacqueline's comment, if I saw a mod slapping down a specific user for expressing an opinion, I'd interpret that as being a general statement of moderation policy, and conclude that I wasn't allowed to express that opinion either, unless it was spelled out to the contrary. If your intent is to direct that kind of admonition at one user only, I'd respectfully suggest you either send it privately, or make clear in your public statement that it applies to only that user. As I recall, this specific example was addressed to "folks."
posted by bac at 11:57 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
And yes, cortex, regarding Jacqueline's comment, if I saw a mod slapping down a specific user for expressing an opinion, I'd interpret that as being a general statement of moderation policy, and conclude that I wasn't allowed to express that opinion either, unless it was spelled out to the contrary. If your intent is to direct that kind of admonition at one user only, I'd respectfully suggest you either send it privately, or make clear in your public statement that it applies to only that user. As I recall, this specific example was addressed to "folks."
posted by bac at 11:57 PM on December 5, 2014 [9 favorites]
The First Amendment, for the case of America, is the bit about the government. The general principle of free speech can also be applied or abjured to varying degrees in the administration of real and Internet private spaces.
It can be applied, but I don't see why anyone would expect it to be. I can assure you that inside my house, you don't get to say (or at least keep saying) stuff that I don't want to hear. Even if I invited you in.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:24 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
It can be applied, but I don't see why anyone would expect it to be. I can assure you that inside my house, you don't get to say (or at least keep saying) stuff that I don't want to hear. Even if I invited you in.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:24 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
You can all come over and say whatever stupid shit you want at my place if Too-Ticky turns you away!
it's in Seoul...
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:45 AM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
it's in Seoul...
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:45 AM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
I really don't know anything much about corb's posting history.
Users are explicitly linking to her posting history, talking about how this is a recurring pattern, even specifically saying that it's a problem because it is a pattern, rather than just a one-off occurrence.
So sure, in this thread, she seems reasonable. Based on tone alone, she usually does. But it really adds nothing to a thread that is dealing with a poster's past behaviour to say that you know nothing of what's happened before this one discussion, but here's your opinion anyway.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
Users are explicitly linking to her posting history, talking about how this is a recurring pattern, even specifically saying that it's a problem because it is a pattern, rather than just a one-off occurrence.
So sure, in this thread, she seems reasonable. Based on tone alone, she usually does. But it really adds nothing to a thread that is dealing with a poster's past behaviour to say that you know nothing of what's happened before this one discussion, but here's your opinion anyway.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
if doing that isn't enough to earn her a far greater degree of courtesy
Speaking generally, absolutely generally as a general part of the discussion of site discourse, a calm and courteous stance can be pleasant, but I'm long past the part in life where I think that being polite gives all other behavior a pass. Some of the most pleasant and nice people I've ever met have taken some of the cruelest actions I've ever witnessed. Pleasantness can be another tactic of manipulation, providing a plausible deniability of negative intent. I'm not saying anything in particular about any user here, just nothing that niceness and courteousness are orthogonal to intent and effect, so they're not good rubrics for determining whether there is a positive or negative overall effect to a community member's participation.
posted by Miko at 6:06 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
Speaking generally, absolutely generally as a general part of the discussion of site discourse, a calm and courteous stance can be pleasant, but I'm long past the part in life where I think that being polite gives all other behavior a pass. Some of the most pleasant and nice people I've ever met have taken some of the cruelest actions I've ever witnessed. Pleasantness can be another tactic of manipulation, providing a plausible deniability of negative intent. I'm not saying anything in particular about any user here, just nothing that niceness and courteousness are orthogonal to intent and effect, so they're not good rubrics for determining whether there is a positive or negative overall effect to a community member's participation.
posted by Miko at 6:06 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
(Corollary, some of the gruffest and rudest curmudgeons I've known have done some of the most justice-driven, fairest, kindest things. It's interesting).
posted by Miko at 6:07 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:07 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
As an aside, I'm extremely pleased with how far this issue has come. It wasn't long ago that even posting about stories like Mike Brown or Eric Garner was effectively impossible on metafilter, they'd just be deleted with "Metafilter does not do police brutality well" or similar.
We're now having this discussion because a lot of people both in Ferguson and elsewhere did a lot of work to get the main stream media to pay attention, at which point we discuss it here too.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:18 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
We're now having this discussion because a lot of people both in Ferguson and elsewhere did a lot of work to get the main stream media to pay attention, at which point we discuss it here too.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:18 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
It can be applie don't see why anyone would expect it to be. I can assure you that inside my house, you don't get to say (or at least keep saying) stuff that I don't want to hear.
I'm not discussing some weird fringe phenomenon here. Examples: Twitter and Reddit (sitewide/most subreddits) operate with a greater degree of free speech than Metafilter. Many personal blogs and certain subreddits (askscience, anarchism) allow less free speech than Metafilter. Restrictions can be based on multitudinous different criteria.
I am irked by the conflation of the general principle of free speech with the protection from governmental interference with same.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:14 AM on December 6, 2014
I'm not discussing some weird fringe phenomenon here. Examples: Twitter and Reddit (sitewide/most subreddits) operate with a greater degree of free speech than Metafilter. Many personal blogs and certain subreddits (askscience, anarchism) allow less free speech than Metafilter. Restrictions can be based on multitudinous different criteria.
I am irked by the conflation of the general principle of free speech with the protection from governmental interference with same.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:14 AM on December 6, 2014
Examples: Twitter and Reddit (sitewide/most subreddits) operate with a greater degree of free speech than Metafilter.
Well, they operate with less moderation, or different moderation. And twitter allows users much finer control than we have here - if you don't want to listen to me on twitter, you can block or mute me, and that's not in any way a violation of my right to speak. Twitter's policies have also demonstrably allowed for the kinds of harassment campaigns that would not be allowed here. I don't spend much time on reddit, but I was under the impression that mods of subreddits have a pretty free hand to allow or disallow things as they see fit.
posted by rtha at 8:28 AM on December 6, 2014 [8 favorites]
Well, they operate with less moderation, or different moderation. And twitter allows users much finer control than we have here - if you don't want to listen to me on twitter, you can block or mute me, and that's not in any way a violation of my right to speak. Twitter's policies have also demonstrably allowed for the kinds of harassment campaigns that would not be allowed here. I don't spend much time on reddit, but I was under the impression that mods of subreddits have a pretty free hand to allow or disallow things as they see fit.
posted by rtha at 8:28 AM on December 6, 2014 [8 favorites]
If your intent is to direct that kind of admonition at one user only, I'd respectfully suggest you either send it privately, or make clear in your public statement that it applies to only that user.
I get the idea in theory, but in practice it's not that simple. Complicating factors: we have had plenty of private conversation with that user (that's usually where we try and start with any serious recurring behavior issue on the site, in the hopes that they'll take it to heart there and we can avoid having to give them a hard time in public) and so keeping it private ceases after a while to be a fair compromise for us; in a fast-moving thread leaving a public sign-post that something that's been posted and responded to has then been deleted can be more important than usual to stem the flow of responses from folks who didn't reload first and see the deletion; and explicitly naming users in notes is itself something folks (especially when they're the ones being named) complain about as being more objectionable/unfair than leaving a general note about the behavior/topic issue.
Like, I do hear where you're coming from. If we had a foolproof method for steering behavior on the site that also never involved publicly addressing user behavior or potentially chilling a specific topic of discussion associated with rather than inherent in some specific problem behavior, we would use it. But that is not the practical situation we're in; we're obliged to moderate in public, in real time, for the benefit of everybody and not just folks having trouble navigating the crowd or thread successfully. There are no easy, no-compromise solutions to much of this stuff.
It wasn't long ago that even posting about stories like Mike Brown or Eric Garner was effectively impossible on metafilter, they'd just be deleted with "Metafilter does not do police brutality well" or similar.
I think that's generalizing a great deal from the deletion of your own post a year ago; we have had many posts about it before that, and posts since; we've also deleted some of them, when it's gotten too thick on the ground or when posts seem to be less about "here's something that is specifically notable right now" and more "here's some more stuff about police brutality because people should talk about police brutality", the latter being an understandable instinct but not really the ideal starting point for a Metafilter post about bad news. So too with other hot-button topics, where some stuff gets deleted but not everything and certainly not for a blanket reason that it's just fundamentally undiscussible.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:29 AM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
I get the idea in theory, but in practice it's not that simple. Complicating factors: we have had plenty of private conversation with that user (that's usually where we try and start with any serious recurring behavior issue on the site, in the hopes that they'll take it to heart there and we can avoid having to give them a hard time in public) and so keeping it private ceases after a while to be a fair compromise for us; in a fast-moving thread leaving a public sign-post that something that's been posted and responded to has then been deleted can be more important than usual to stem the flow of responses from folks who didn't reload first and see the deletion; and explicitly naming users in notes is itself something folks (especially when they're the ones being named) complain about as being more objectionable/unfair than leaving a general note about the behavior/topic issue.
Like, I do hear where you're coming from. If we had a foolproof method for steering behavior on the site that also never involved publicly addressing user behavior or potentially chilling a specific topic of discussion associated with rather than inherent in some specific problem behavior, we would use it. But that is not the practical situation we're in; we're obliged to moderate in public, in real time, for the benefit of everybody and not just folks having trouble navigating the crowd or thread successfully. There are no easy, no-compromise solutions to much of this stuff.
It wasn't long ago that even posting about stories like Mike Brown or Eric Garner was effectively impossible on metafilter, they'd just be deleted with "Metafilter does not do police brutality well" or similar.
I think that's generalizing a great deal from the deletion of your own post a year ago; we have had many posts about it before that, and posts since; we've also deleted some of them, when it's gotten too thick on the ground or when posts seem to be less about "here's something that is specifically notable right now" and more "here's some more stuff about police brutality because people should talk about police brutality", the latter being an understandable instinct but not really the ideal starting point for a Metafilter post about bad news. So too with other hot-button topics, where some stuff gets deleted but not everything and certainly not for a blanket reason that it's just fundamentally undiscussible.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:29 AM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
But it really adds nothing to a thread that is dealing with a poster's past behaviour to say that you know nothing of what's happened before this one discussion, but here's your opinion anyway.
It adds, I hope, the viewpoint of someone looking at the user's present behavior, without the baggage of a lot of past conflict. If someone is behaving reasonably now, dragging up a bunch of nonsense from the past and firing a bunch of preemptory shots is unreasonable and discourages the behavior people say they want.
posted by bac at 8:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
It adds, I hope, the viewpoint of someone looking at the user's present behavior, without the baggage of a lot of past conflict. If someone is behaving reasonably now, dragging up a bunch of nonsense from the past and firing a bunch of preemptory shots is unreasonable and discourages the behavior people say they want.
posted by bac at 8:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
I see equating "patterns of behavior" with "bunch of nonsense from the past" as unreasonable.
posted by rtha at 9:37 AM on December 6, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:37 AM on December 6, 2014 [17 favorites]
I do not.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:23 AM on December 6, 2014
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:23 AM on December 6, 2014
Well, then how can you - or can you at all - talk about someone's possibly unhelpful behavior if looking at or for the patterns is just "nonsense"?
For example, if we're going to discuss moderation policies here, looking at past mod decisions around deletions or notes in threads might be useful. But if they're just nonsense, then how do we discuss them?
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
For example, if we're going to discuss moderation policies here, looking at past mod decisions around deletions or notes in threads might be useful. But if they're just nonsense, then how do we discuss them?
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
It is virtually impossible to talk about site communication and moderation without referencing things that have happened outside this thread. Otherwise, all we can talk about is the communication and moderation in this thread. And the thread itself is about communication and moderation in other threads and general patterns of communication and moderation.
posted by Miko at 10:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Miko at 10:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
I think that's generalizing a great deal from the deletion of your own post a year ago; we have had many posts about it before that, and posts since; we've also deleted some of them, when it's gotten too thick on the ground or when posts seem to be less about "here's something that is specifically notable right now"
jeffburdges can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you might be missing his point a little, which is not (I hope, being charitable) that he's been silenced all his life but rather that (a) what gets deleted and what doesn't (or, say, in your terms what's "specifically notable" discussion of police violence and what isn't) depends quite a bit on the ideological preconditions of mainstream-ish US public discourse, and (b) it's really cheering to note how those preconditions are shifting at the moment with the groundswell of spontaneous outrage about police killings of unarmed black men. I read part (a) not really as a complaint about moderation but as a simple observation that moderation depends on flagging and on site culture and on the mods' sense of what the user base as a whole is going to want to talk about naturally and organically (vs. what will seem axe-grindy). And all those things depend a great deal on the way the prevailing political winds in the US are blowing. You don't need a weatherman to see that that's shifting right now, along with the general-purpose mainstream Internet's sense of what conversations are desirable.
posted by RogerB at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
jeffburdges can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you might be missing his point a little, which is not (I hope, being charitable) that he's been silenced all his life but rather that (a) what gets deleted and what doesn't (or, say, in your terms what's "specifically notable" discussion of police violence and what isn't) depends quite a bit on the ideological preconditions of mainstream-ish US public discourse, and (b) it's really cheering to note how those preconditions are shifting at the moment with the groundswell of spontaneous outrage about police killings of unarmed black men. I read part (a) not really as a complaint about moderation but as a simple observation that moderation depends on flagging and on site culture and on the mods' sense of what the user base as a whole is going to want to talk about naturally and organically (vs. what will seem axe-grindy). And all those things depend a great deal on the way the prevailing political winds in the US are blowing. You don't need a weatherman to see that that's shifting right now, along with the general-purpose mainstream Internet's sense of what conversations are desirable.
posted by RogerB at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [13 favorites]
To everyone who's saying bringing up past behavior is somehow a major violation: what's your plan for keeping these same conversations from happening again and again? Some users engage in ways that go against community norms. People respond, tempers flare, and in this case, some personal attacks get past the moderators. What now?
The staff has said, even in this thread, that they assign some culpability to the person at the center of the pile-on for not "reading the room", not avoiding topics they know will provoke this response, etc. Of course those who take the bait by responding to these topics (some of which those users have specifically been told to change their approach toward) have a responsibility to stay within site guidelines as well.
The thing is, do you really think you're going to get everyone, including the vast majority of the site that doesn't read MeTa, to go along with the idea that people should just let the provocative comments go? Do you think it's possible for the mods to get every single comment that crosses the line into being a personal attack, given that some people take attacks on their beliefs as personal attacks? Do you think that user's right to make their provocative comments outweighs the community desire to have conversations that don't go off the rails?
If you know that the way your opinion is received (whether that's the presentation or the content) creates these situations, how is it not on you to either change your approach or in some cases refrain from pushing that opinion so often? Have I been "silenced" because people told me my opinion upthread was wrong? No, I decided that I was clearly in the minority, had my voice heard, so it was time for me to shut the fuck up about it.* If I bring that topic up in the future, people would be right to say "hey, tonycpsu, remember when you brought this up before? Yeah, that didn't go so well. Why do it again?" I honestly don't see what the issue is with people being accountable for their behavior on the site and occasionally getting a reminder of how unproductive patterns are repeating themselves.
*(I'm only mentioning it here in a meta sort of way because it's a very fresh example of me eating my own dog food.)
posted by tonycpsu at 11:07 AM on December 6, 2014
The staff has said, even in this thread, that they assign some culpability to the person at the center of the pile-on for not "reading the room", not avoiding topics they know will provoke this response, etc. Of course those who take the bait by responding to these topics (some of which those users have specifically been told to change their approach toward) have a responsibility to stay within site guidelines as well.
The thing is, do you really think you're going to get everyone, including the vast majority of the site that doesn't read MeTa, to go along with the idea that people should just let the provocative comments go? Do you think it's possible for the mods to get every single comment that crosses the line into being a personal attack, given that some people take attacks on their beliefs as personal attacks? Do you think that user's right to make their provocative comments outweighs the community desire to have conversations that don't go off the rails?
If you know that the way your opinion is received (whether that's the presentation or the content) creates these situations, how is it not on you to either change your approach or in some cases refrain from pushing that opinion so often? Have I been "silenced" because people told me my opinion upthread was wrong? No, I decided that I was clearly in the minority, had my voice heard, so it was time for me to shut the fuck up about it.* If I bring that topic up in the future, people would be right to say "hey, tonycpsu, remember when you brought this up before? Yeah, that didn't go so well. Why do it again?" I honestly don't see what the issue is with people being accountable for their behavior on the site and occasionally getting a reminder of how unproductive patterns are repeating themselves.
*(I'm only mentioning it here in a meta sort of way because it's a very fresh example of me eating my own dog food.)
posted by tonycpsu at 11:07 AM on December 6, 2014
But if they're just nonsense, then how do we discuss them?
You're not having a "discussion", you're beating up on someone who isn't even participating. Couching that behavior in terms of "discussion" to make it sound "reasonable" is not truthful. It's manipulating language to justify feeling good about yelling at someone. I'm tired of the corb show, and it's less and less because of corb: It's because we have the same users who take turns in making these threads into corb-shows. That's unreasonable. No one is obliging you to "discuss" anything.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 AM on December 6, 2014 [11 favorites]
You're not having a "discussion", you're beating up on someone who isn't even participating. Couching that behavior in terms of "discussion" to make it sound "reasonable" is not truthful. It's manipulating language to justify feeling good about yelling at someone. I'm tired of the corb show, and it's less and less because of corb: It's because we have the same users who take turns in making these threads into corb-shows. That's unreasonable. No one is obliging you to "discuss" anything.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 AM on December 6, 2014 [11 favorites]
You're not having a "discussion", you're beating up on someone who isn't even participating.
She participated in the blue thread that led to this MeTa, she was one of the targets of the comments linked in this MeTa, and she has participated in this MeTa. Even if she walks away while the conversation is still happening, that doesn't change the fact that the events that led to this MeTa occurred, and that we as a community have an interest in trying to keep them from happening again. perspective is that these are unfair attacks, and you've said that many times, but people who have been characterized as unfairly attacking her have a right to explain their behavior as well, including bringing up past times where she was informed by moderators that she has some responsibility to engage in ways that don't lead to unproductive derails. If you don't like that policy, take it up with the mods, but stop browbeating people for having a different perspective on the group dynamics than you do.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:20 AM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
She participated in the blue thread that led to this MeTa, she was one of the targets of the comments linked in this MeTa, and she has participated in this MeTa. Even if she walks away while the conversation is still happening, that doesn't change the fact that the events that led to this MeTa occurred, and that we as a community have an interest in trying to keep them from happening again. perspective is that these are unfair attacks, and you've said that many times, but people who have been characterized as unfairly attacking her have a right to explain their behavior as well, including bringing up past times where she was informed by moderators that she has some responsibility to engage in ways that don't lead to unproductive derails. If you don't like that policy, take it up with the mods, but stop browbeating people for having a different perspective on the group dynamics than you do.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:20 AM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
stop browbeating people
Stop bullying people.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:27 AM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
Stop bullying people.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:27 AM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's not what's happening. And "No one is obliging you to "discuss" anything" applies to you, too.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:29 AM on December 6, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:29 AM on December 6, 2014
Stop bullying people.
I made an argument. You repeated your premise and banged the table. If that's where we're at, you might want to remember that this is MeTa and I don't see a [staff] badge next to your name. I'm happy to engage if you're going to bring something other than an accusation to the table, but you don't get to tell me what I can say here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
I made an argument. You repeated your premise and banged the table. If that's where we're at, you might want to remember that this is MeTa and I don't see a [staff] badge next to your name. I'm happy to engage if you're going to bring something other than an accusation to the table, but you don't get to tell me what I can say here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:32 AM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you don't like that policy, take it up with the mods, but stop browbeating people for having a different perspective on the group dynamics than you do.
tonycpsu, MeTa is a subsite specifically for talking about site policy and etiquette. People allowed to discuss these issues here, and this includes expressing opinions about site policy and "group dynamics" that are different from yours.
posted by nangar at 11:40 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
tonycpsu, MeTa is a subsite specifically for talking about site policy and etiquette. People allowed to discuss these issues here, and this includes expressing opinions about site policy and "group dynamics" that are different from yours.
posted by nangar at 11:40 AM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'm tired of the corb show, and it's less and less because of corb: It's because we have the same users who take turns in making these threads into corb-shows.
no point in naming any names here, but when I first joined MeFi (six or so years ago now), trust that there was more than one current version of the "corb show" going on. Being essentially an outsider, it was intriguing to watch them play out. I mean, sometimes it was obvious that "contentious person" was a problem, because they were so obviously behaving badly, foolishly, ignorantly, whatever. But other times, it wasn't clear at all what the problem was ... which led me to believe that, whatever once may have been the issue with "contentious person", that just wasn't the case anymore -- it was "uncontentious people" who just couldn't let the past go.
Which is just my way of saying yeah to this ...
If someone is behaving reasonably now, dragging up a bunch of nonsense from the past and firing a bunch of preemptory shots is unreasonable and discourages the behavior people say they want.
Which, as I said, isn't the case all the time with "contentious people", but it certainly is some of the time. Specific to corb, I personally am not aware of having an issue with her.
posted by philip-random at 11:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [8 favorites]
no point in naming any names here, but when I first joined MeFi (six or so years ago now), trust that there was more than one current version of the "corb show" going on. Being essentially an outsider, it was intriguing to watch them play out. I mean, sometimes it was obvious that "contentious person" was a problem, because they were so obviously behaving badly, foolishly, ignorantly, whatever. But other times, it wasn't clear at all what the problem was ... which led me to believe that, whatever once may have been the issue with "contentious person", that just wasn't the case anymore -- it was "uncontentious people" who just couldn't let the past go.
Which is just my way of saying yeah to this ...
If someone is behaving reasonably now, dragging up a bunch of nonsense from the past and firing a bunch of preemptory shots is unreasonable and discourages the behavior people say they want.
Which, as I said, isn't the case all the time with "contentious people", but it certainly is some of the time. Specific to corb, I personally am not aware of having an issue with her.
posted by philip-random at 11:42 AM on December 6, 2014 [8 favorites]
nangar: tonycpsu, MeTa is a subsite specifically for talking about site policy and etiquette. People allowed to discuss these issues here, and this includes expressing opinions about site policy and "group dynamics" that are different from yours.
Yes, but accusations of "bullying" escalates it from "difference of opinion on a site issue" to "violation of site guidelines against personal attacks", an escalation I believe is unwarranted. a lungful of dragon keeps trying to accuse people who are discussing this of punching below the belt, and because it clearly hasn't been perceived that way by the people qualified to make those decisions, I feel repeating them is itself incendiary.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:47 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, but accusations of "bullying" escalates it from "difference of opinion on a site issue" to "violation of site guidelines against personal attacks", an escalation I believe is unwarranted. a lungful of dragon keeps trying to accuse people who are discussing this of punching below the belt, and because it clearly hasn't been perceived that way by the people qualified to make those decisions, I feel repeating them is itself incendiary.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:47 AM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
I didn't accuse you of bullying, tonycpsu, I was criticizing your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you about site policy and etiquette "take it up with the mods" rather than discussing it here.
That's why I quoted the comment where you said that. That's what I was responding to.
posted by nangar at 12:07 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's why I quoted the comment where you said that. That's what I was responding to.
posted by nangar at 12:07 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
And I wasn't attributing the accusations of bullying to you, so I don't know what we're arguing about at this point.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:09 PM on December 6, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 12:09 PM on December 6, 2014
When bullying reaches profile descriptions one wonders how many generations there are to gap...
which led me to believe that, whatever once may have been the issue with "contentious person", that just wasn't the case anymore -- it was "uncontentious people" who just couldn't let the past go.
Yes, I remember thinking this about St Alia, hope there's a BND that's finally worked that out peacefully
posted by infini at 12:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
which led me to believe that, whatever once may have been the issue with "contentious person", that just wasn't the case anymore -- it was "uncontentious people" who just couldn't let the past go.
Yes, I remember thinking this about St Alia, hope there's a BND that's finally worked that out peacefully
posted by infini at 12:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [4 favorites]
GRAR, GRAR, GRAR
*removes from recent activity*
posted by infini at 12:22 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
*removes from recent activity*
posted by infini at 12:22 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
metafilter: I don't know what we're arguing about at this point
posted by pyramid termite at 12:28 PM on December 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:28 PM on December 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
> *removes from recent activity*
Add the Quonsmas Thank You thread. It's a good antidote.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:53 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
Add the Quonsmas Thank You thread. It's a good antidote.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:53 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
I've actually never made many police brutality posts here1 because (a) I saw early on that moderators seemed to deleted them all2 and (b) stories about individuals are "small news". I linked my own deleted post above only because it was contentious deletion I could find without effort.
It's quite understandable : If an issue attracts arguments, then it's vastly more work to moderate that discussion. And moderators would prefer not to waste time keeping folks from fighting just to produce a rehash of old threads.
As RogerB said, the winds have changed now. Activists made enough noise about the issue that main stream liberals noticed, including exposing the systemic racism aspect. That converted a lot of people, changed nature of the dialog, made people note the details, etc. So now a police brutality thread has a smaller base of "lawful evil" and a wider basis of knowledge to discuss. It's still tricky to moderate I'm sure, but now it's not quite as bad as it was back when more people just accepted the cops views, and the discussion has more value too.
1 I do remember being amused to "squeeze" this police brutality post "past the mods" though.
2 Amusingly replacing "police" with "Israel" in that search drops the results count from 2250 to 1530, which surprised me.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:49 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's quite understandable : If an issue attracts arguments, then it's vastly more work to moderate that discussion. And moderators would prefer not to waste time keeping folks from fighting just to produce a rehash of old threads.
As RogerB said, the winds have changed now. Activists made enough noise about the issue that main stream liberals noticed, including exposing the systemic racism aspect. That converted a lot of people, changed nature of the dialog, made people note the details, etc. So now a police brutality thread has a smaller base of "lawful evil" and a wider basis of knowledge to discuss. It's still tricky to moderate I'm sure, but now it's not quite as bad as it was back when more people just accepted the cops views, and the discussion has more value too.
1 I do remember being amused to "squeeze" this police brutality post "past the mods" though.
2 Amusingly replacing "police" with "Israel" in that search drops the results count from 2250 to 1530, which surprised me.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:49 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
which led me to believe that, whatever once may have been the issue with "contentious person", that just wasn't the case anymore -- it was "uncontentious people" who just couldn't let the past go.
That may have been that case in some incident(s) you are remembering. I suspect it was in at least once instance I can also remember. But in order to let the past go, the past has to be the past, not a continuing set of behaviors that is causing the same type of troublesome interaction to recur.
posted by Miko at 2:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
That may have been that case in some incident(s) you are remembering. I suspect it was in at least once instance I can also remember. But in order to let the past go, the past has to be the past, not a continuing set of behaviors that is causing the same type of troublesome interaction to recur.
posted by Miko at 2:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
the systemic racism aspect
I'm not 100% sure the story here is all about a changed mainstream or changed site view on police brutality. The "systematic racism" aspect is, to me, the central component of the story and what has drawn my investment. I'm certainly asking questions (like most decent people) about what conditions in police forces create this particular expression of systematic racism, and willing to talk about whether it's part of a larger generalized pattern of brutality, but for me at least this isn't just "the police brutality story that went mainstream," it's also drawn in people who have more familiarity with other patterns of oppression against African-Americans, which creates more overlap potential for shared concerns. Like, it's possible for someone to think it's perfectly fine for police to have military weapons but not that it's fine for them to apply them in a way that oppresses some groups and privileges others.
posted by Miko at 2:28 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm not 100% sure the story here is all about a changed mainstream or changed site view on police brutality. The "systematic racism" aspect is, to me, the central component of the story and what has drawn my investment. I'm certainly asking questions (like most decent people) about what conditions in police forces create this particular expression of systematic racism, and willing to talk about whether it's part of a larger generalized pattern of brutality, but for me at least this isn't just "the police brutality story that went mainstream," it's also drawn in people who have more familiarity with other patterns of oppression against African-Americans, which creates more overlap potential for shared concerns. Like, it's possible for someone to think it's perfectly fine for police to have military weapons but not that it's fine for them to apply them in a way that oppresses some groups and privileges others.
posted by Miko at 2:28 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
jeffburdges: 2 Amusingly replacing "police" with "Israel" in that search drops the results count from 2250 to 1530, which surprised me.
1. Your whole contention that a search for "police" in mefideleted shows that police brutality is a particularly hot topic is flawed, because the word police is going to be quit common in the text of many FPPs not devoted specifically to police brutality. Some of the first few results do show those kind of posts being deleted, but a page or two down, you're into things on totally different topics.
2. "Police" is a much more common word than Israel in non-police and non-Israel related FPPs.
3. The way Google calculates the number of search results is notorious for being a very rough estimate rather than anything you could meaningfully extrapolate from based on a difference of ~30%.
I think you're fine saying "I've observed police brutality posts getting nixed more often" -- that's a more subjective thing that there may be evidence for -- but this isn't that evidence, IMHO.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:30 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
1. Your whole contention that a search for "police" in mefideleted shows that police brutality is a particularly hot topic is flawed, because the word police is going to be quit common in the text of many FPPs not devoted specifically to police brutality. Some of the first few results do show those kind of posts being deleted, but a page or two down, you're into things on totally different topics.
2. "Police" is a much more common word than Israel in non-police and non-Israel related FPPs.
3. The way Google calculates the number of search results is notorious for being a very rough estimate rather than anything you could meaningfully extrapolate from based on a difference of ~30%.
I think you're fine saying "I've observed police brutality posts getting nixed more often" -- that's a more subjective thing that there may be evidence for -- but this isn't that evidence, IMHO.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:30 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
So, your neighbours have a drum circle that meets after midnight and usually continues until someone demands they stop. And not even from you, or one of their other neighbours - the drummers are polite about your complaints but as soon as you leave their door or get off the phone they resume their drumming, and it's really not until the police are called that they eventually stop. They meet frequently as well, and regularly enough that you can predict a lot of their music nights. Sure, there are the occasional times when you're up doing work that late and the accompaniment is actually welcome, but that's hardly guaranteed.
So this has been going on for a couple of years now, and you have a friend over on a Friday night, and it's just turned nine when the drums start. "This shit again! God, this always happens," you growl, reaching for the phone to call the police.
Your friend protests. "It's 9 on a Friday. That's not that bad, and they could stop soon. Why call the cops? Why not go over there and ask them to stop? Plus from what you've told me before, it's not like this always happens, just some nights when they meet, so maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't even mind it that much, so maybe you should just chill? I think you're being unfair to the drum circle."
I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how they respond to their friend.
Any resemblance to events from my life may or may not be entirely coincidental.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:06 PM on December 6, 2014 [20 favorites]
So this has been going on for a couple of years now, and you have a friend over on a Friday night, and it's just turned nine when the drums start. "This shit again! God, this always happens," you growl, reaching for the phone to call the police.
Your friend protests. "It's 9 on a Friday. That's not that bad, and they could stop soon. Why call the cops? Why not go over there and ask them to stop? Plus from what you've told me before, it's not like this always happens, just some nights when they meet, so maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't even mind it that much, so maybe you should just chill? I think you're being unfair to the drum circle."
I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how they respond to their friend.
Any resemblance to events from my life may or may not be entirely coincidental.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:06 PM on December 6, 2014 [20 favorites]
If Metafilter comments are preventing you from sleeping, you're doing it wrong.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:02 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:02 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
If the point you're trying to make requires taking an analogy literally, you're doing it wrong.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:07 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 4:07 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
The analogy doesn't fit.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:14 PM on December 6, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:14 PM on December 6, 2014
How so? Let's make it a silent yoga group instead of a drum circle. Like, you know, comments appearing on the internet, which are silent and have no power to disrupt your basic existence.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:22 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:22 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
I hate hate hate using analogies for complex situations like this, because they usually obscure more than they convey. Still, if what you're saying as true, then this MeTa wouldn't existed. Comments appeared on the Internet, someone heard them and got upset. And here you and I are talking about it, so obviously they have some power. Power to keep us awake at night? I should hope not.
Still, it's an analogy, so substitute "annoy someone enough to post a MeTa" for "making noise and keeping people awake" if it gets your pedantometer below a "must snark about it" reading.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:31 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
Still, it's an analogy, so substitute "annoy someone enough to post a MeTa" for "making noise and keeping people awake" if it gets your pedantometer below a "must snark about it" reading.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:31 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
joseph gurl, I've gotten the impression that a core value of MetaFilter is that what people say here matters, and is taken seriously. I think that encourages people to engage more fully with each other and is good. You may personally take a view of "it's just comments, they don't mean anything", but I don't think that's the policy of either the mods of the bulk of the membership.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:32 PM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 4:32 PM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
Your friend protests. "It's 9 on a Friday. That's not that bad, and they could stop soon. Why call the cops? Why not go over there and ask them to stop? Plus from what you've told me before, it's not like this always happens, just some nights when they meet, so maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't even mind it that much, so maybe you should just chill? I think you're being unfair to the drum circle."
One of the problems with that analogy is that it is rather one-sided. Everyone here keeps saying things like "What do you expect -- look at the history" to justify the group ganging up on a particular individual right out the gate and not giving them the benefit of the doubt. But that street runs both ways: The individuals who find themselves under the gun here find themselves in situations where, no matter how hard they try, other people will keep haranguing them and the mods do nothing about it and the individual knows it's coming, no matter how hard they try to behave better. There are two things that happen then: First, if behaving better does not improve your situation, why bother? And second, pushed hard enough, long enough, we all have a breaking point. And if you are repeatedly pushed to your breaking point and then the fact that you lost your cool (yet again) is used as yet more proof that you are the problem, it gets nigh impossible to dig your way out of that hole.
I am not for one second suggesting that corb or Tanizaki or whomever is merely innocent victims and their behavior does not need to be worked on. But the feedback mechanism here is broken.
I have a long history of social problems. So just leaving winds up having its limits. You come to a place where there is nowhere else to go, you have walked away again and again and again and no one has ever helped you fit in. And I was initially met with the expectation that because my behavior was problematic, I was doing it on purpose and was unlikely to improve. I understand why people make such assumptions. They have seen problem users before and that is how it tends to go. I get that. But when you start out assuming someone is intentionally being an asshole and unwilling to change, and then don't provide them the same protections other members get (or appear to get) because you are viewed as an asshole, it creates a situation where you cannot solve it yourself, no matter how hard you try, and you cannot get the help you need either. And then you are blamed for failing, in spite of heroic efforts to somehow figure out.
My very first meta was asking for a copy of my deleted comments so I could learn from them. I did not feel like anyone was at all sympathetic to the idea that I sincerely wanted to figure out what I was doing wrong and find a way to change and I was having enormous difficulty doing that because I didn't have a record of my "bad" comments, the ones that got deleted. Unlike a lot of metas about comment deletions, the two I did were both seeking in earnest to learn how I could improve my performance and were not accusing the mods or anyone of bias, of unfair treatment of me, of interfering with my right to free speech and so on. Yet, it made little difference in how I was perceived and treated. The crowd still treated me like a problem child, and not like someone frustrated at being actively denied the kind of feedback I needed in order to have any hope of actually learning a) what I was doing wrong and b) how to do it better.
So I am not saying that individuals who find themselves in this situation here should get a clean slate or whatever. There is a mechanism for that already: The Brand New Day. But I am saying that the way things are currently handled means it is nigh impossible to get out from under that once you are in that situation and since lots of people find it disruptive, since it winds up being problematic for the group as a whole, finding some other means to address this so that the individual is more able to get out of it helps everyone, not just them.
And one of the reasons I feel compelled to speak to the problem is because I am aware that I could be used as the "exception that proves the rule": The fact that I do fit in better these days could be used as "evidence" that, no, really it totally can be done, "now that Michele behaves better, we don't gang up on her so much, so it MUST still be YOUR fault." And I think that really does not work. The fact that one person can figure out how to escape it does not prove that other people caught up in it are just not trying hard enough. It's a lot more complicated than that. So I speak up in part because it would deeply bother me if I got used as an excuse for continuing to do this crappy thing to people like corb.
posted by Michele in California at 4:36 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
One of the problems with that analogy is that it is rather one-sided. Everyone here keeps saying things like "What do you expect -- look at the history" to justify the group ganging up on a particular individual right out the gate and not giving them the benefit of the doubt. But that street runs both ways: The individuals who find themselves under the gun here find themselves in situations where, no matter how hard they try, other people will keep haranguing them and the mods do nothing about it and the individual knows it's coming, no matter how hard they try to behave better. There are two things that happen then: First, if behaving better does not improve your situation, why bother? And second, pushed hard enough, long enough, we all have a breaking point. And if you are repeatedly pushed to your breaking point and then the fact that you lost your cool (yet again) is used as yet more proof that you are the problem, it gets nigh impossible to dig your way out of that hole.
I am not for one second suggesting that corb or Tanizaki or whomever is merely innocent victims and their behavior does not need to be worked on. But the feedback mechanism here is broken.
I have a long history of social problems. So just leaving winds up having its limits. You come to a place where there is nowhere else to go, you have walked away again and again and again and no one has ever helped you fit in. And I was initially met with the expectation that because my behavior was problematic, I was doing it on purpose and was unlikely to improve. I understand why people make such assumptions. They have seen problem users before and that is how it tends to go. I get that. But when you start out assuming someone is intentionally being an asshole and unwilling to change, and then don't provide them the same protections other members get (or appear to get) because you are viewed as an asshole, it creates a situation where you cannot solve it yourself, no matter how hard you try, and you cannot get the help you need either. And then you are blamed for failing, in spite of heroic efforts to somehow figure out.
My very first meta was asking for a copy of my deleted comments so I could learn from them. I did not feel like anyone was at all sympathetic to the idea that I sincerely wanted to figure out what I was doing wrong and find a way to change and I was having enormous difficulty doing that because I didn't have a record of my "bad" comments, the ones that got deleted. Unlike a lot of metas about comment deletions, the two I did were both seeking in earnest to learn how I could improve my performance and were not accusing the mods or anyone of bias, of unfair treatment of me, of interfering with my right to free speech and so on. Yet, it made little difference in how I was perceived and treated. The crowd still treated me like a problem child, and not like someone frustrated at being actively denied the kind of feedback I needed in order to have any hope of actually learning a) what I was doing wrong and b) how to do it better.
So I am not saying that individuals who find themselves in this situation here should get a clean slate or whatever. There is a mechanism for that already: The Brand New Day. But I am saying that the way things are currently handled means it is nigh impossible to get out from under that once you are in that situation and since lots of people find it disruptive, since it winds up being problematic for the group as a whole, finding some other means to address this so that the individual is more able to get out of it helps everyone, not just them.
And one of the reasons I feel compelled to speak to the problem is because I am aware that I could be used as the "exception that proves the rule": The fact that I do fit in better these days could be used as "evidence" that, no, really it totally can be done, "now that Michele behaves better, we don't gang up on her so much, so it MUST still be YOUR fault." And I think that really does not work. The fact that one person can figure out how to escape it does not prove that other people caught up in it are just not trying hard enough. It's a lot more complicated than that. So I speak up in part because it would deeply bother me if I got used as an excuse for continuing to do this crappy thing to people like corb.
posted by Michele in California at 4:36 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
No, I don't think that, but the analogy absolutely hinges on the drum circle.
OF COURSE comments on Metafilter annoy people, but that's not the same thing as loud noises in your personal space when you're trying to sleep.
I think the analogy is misleading and inappropriate, and I pointed out why.
>Still, it's an analogy, so substitute "annoy someone enough to post a MeTa" for "making noise and keeping people awake" if it gets your pedantometer below a "must snark about it" reading.
"Pedantometer"? Stay classy, tonycpsu.
But really, you're right. Let's make that substitution, as you suggest:
OF COURSE comments on Metafilter annoy people, but that's not the same thing as loud noises in your personal space when you're trying to sleep.
I think the analogy is misleading and inappropriate, and I pointed out why.
>Still, it's an analogy, so substitute "annoy someone enough to post a MeTa" for "making noise and keeping people awake" if it gets your pedantometer below a "must snark about it" reading.
"Pedantometer"? Stay classy, tonycpsu.
But really, you're right. Let's make that substitution, as you suggest:
So, strangers make comments you don't like on the internet and never stop ever because the internet. The commenters are polite about your complaints but they resume their commenting, and it's really not until the mods are called that they sometimes stop (and sometimes not, because the mods don't always agree with you). They comment frequently as well, and regularly enough that you can predict a lot of their threads. Sure, there are the occasional times when you appreciate and learn from their comments, but that's hardly guaranteed.posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:43 PM on December 6, 2014 [3 favorites]
So this has been going on for a couple of years now, and you have a friend over on a Friday night, and it's just turned nine when you log in and check a thread--the're commenting again! "This shit again! God, this always happens," you growl, reaching for the phone to call the police.
Your friend protests. "It's the internet. That's not that bad, and they could stop soon. Why call the cops? Why not go over there and ask them to stop? Plus from what you've told me before, it's not like this always happens, just some nights when they meet, so maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't even mind it that much, so maybe you should just chill? I think you're being rather inhospitable to be on the internet when I'm over at your house for a visit."
I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how they respond to their friend.
My very first meta was asking for a copy of my deleted comments so I could learn from them. I did not feel like anyone was at all sympathetic to the idea that I sincerely wanted to figure out what I was doing wrong and find a way to change and I was having enormous difficulty doing that because I didn't have a record of my "bad" comments, the ones that got deleted.
Not to rehash that thread again, but I'm pretty sure the mods have explained in that thread and elsewhere that if a user contacts them about having had a particular deleted comment, they will upon request send the user the text of said comment. The pushback in that MeTa was against any kind of automated notification (with or without the text of the comment) of comment deletion, because that has (as mentioned) been requested many many times and will not be implemented, for a number of good reasons.
posted by Lexica at 4:51 PM on December 6, 2014 [3 favorites]
Not to rehash that thread again, but I'm pretty sure the mods have explained in that thread and elsewhere that if a user contacts them about having had a particular deleted comment, they will upon request send the user the text of said comment. The pushback in that MeTa was against any kind of automated notification (with or without the text of the comment) of comment deletion, because that has (as mentioned) been requested many many times and will not be implemented, for a number of good reasons.
posted by Lexica at 4:51 PM on December 6, 2014 [3 favorites]
"If Metafilter comments are preventing you from sleeping, you're doing it wrong."
cant sleep flags will eat me
posted by klangklangston at 5:04 PM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
cant sleep flags will eat me
posted by klangklangston at 5:04 PM on December 6, 2014 [12 favorites]
> And now that she's here, let's see how long it takes from lots of people discussing corb while she's not here to somebody complaining about corb making this thread the corb show.
and
> Bonus point: I don't understand how someone can say the mods are biased against these same actors who seem to show up in every thread about anything contentious to pour gas on the fire.
So nearly prescient…
posted by cjorgensen at 5:07 PM on December 6, 2014
and
> Bonus point: I don't understand how someone can say the mods are biased against these same actors who seem to show up in every thread about anything contentious to pour gas on the fire.
So nearly prescient…
posted by cjorgensen at 5:07 PM on December 6, 2014
I don't think that some of the users who run into problems here are doing it on purpose or trying to be assholes. There are certainly contrarians who are, but I think there are a number of users who, for cognitive or psychological or other not-really-in-their-control reasons, don't get how their own behavior is creating problems. But it still creates problems, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume they shouldn't be held accountable for those problems.
posted by jaguar at 5:10 PM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 5:10 PM on December 6, 2014 [16 favorites]
So, your neighbours have a drum circle that meets after midnight and usually continues until someone demands they stop.
"i'm the original discriminating buffalo man
and i'll do what's wrong as long as i can"
posted by pyramid termite at 5:16 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
"i'm the original discriminating buffalo man
and i'll do what's wrong as long as i can"
posted by pyramid termite at 5:16 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
ISB, nice.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:26 PM on December 6, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:26 PM on December 6, 2014
There are two things that happen then: First, if behaving better does not improve your situation, why bother?
I don't know - but before getting to "why bother" I suggest that the user try it first and see what happens.
it still creates problems, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume they shouldn't be held accountable for those problems.
It definitely gets a lot easier to reframe an interaction when I understand a user is having some form of cognitive/affective/processing/etc difficulty that makes it more likely they will unintentionally get into ituations where there is bad communication. At the same time, I agree that the accountability systems here remain the same. The mods have indicated willingness to scaffold participation by being willing to do things like review comments and posts that are run by them before going up, have email and MeMail exchanges about what might work better or what isn't working, keep discussions within the established (wide) rails, respond to MeTas, etc. From a universal design perspective that seeks to accommodate, that's a lot. I think there are also a lot of well-meaning users who have indicated in their profiles that they can be contacted if someone wants to talk about stuff that is causing them stress, maybe stuff up to and including "I'm having a lot of trouble on this site and not figuring out why." So, I'm super sympathetic that sometimes there are these concerns at play and think there are at least some good mechanism here for improving access to discussion. And when all that stuff isn't enough to help somebody participate productively, the feedback they get on that might point to some individual modifications needed, here or elsewhere, to be able to do that kind of participation. So hearing "this attempt at conversation isn't working" is at least information that might help identify a course of action.
posted by Miko at 5:32 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't know - but before getting to "why bother" I suggest that the user try it first and see what happens.
it still creates problems, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume they shouldn't be held accountable for those problems.
It definitely gets a lot easier to reframe an interaction when I understand a user is having some form of cognitive/affective/processing/etc difficulty that makes it more likely they will unintentionally get into ituations where there is bad communication. At the same time, I agree that the accountability systems here remain the same. The mods have indicated willingness to scaffold participation by being willing to do things like review comments and posts that are run by them before going up, have email and MeMail exchanges about what might work better or what isn't working, keep discussions within the established (wide) rails, respond to MeTas, etc. From a universal design perspective that seeks to accommodate, that's a lot. I think there are also a lot of well-meaning users who have indicated in their profiles that they can be contacted if someone wants to talk about stuff that is causing them stress, maybe stuff up to and including "I'm having a lot of trouble on this site and not figuring out why." So, I'm super sympathetic that sometimes there are these concerns at play and think there are at least some good mechanism here for improving access to discussion. And when all that stuff isn't enough to help somebody participate productively, the feedback they get on that might point to some individual modifications needed, here or elsewhere, to be able to do that kind of participation. So hearing "this attempt at conversation isn't working" is at least information that might help identify a course of action.
posted by Miko at 5:32 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
OF COURSE comments on Metafilter annoy people, but that's not the same thing as loud noises in your personal space when you're trying to sleep.
I think the analogy is misleading and inappropriate, and I pointed out why.
Oh for crying out loud. You are taking the analogy entirely too literally, to the point of absurdity. Of course loud noises in meatspace are, on some kind of Absolute Scale of Personal Harm, worse than annoying internet comments. The disruptiveness is the point. The drum circle is disrupting my sleep, the MeFite contrarian/ideologue is disrupting a conversation I am trying to have with other people via the Internet. Just because one is more physically harmful than the other doesn't mean I'm out of line to complain about the disruptiveness of the non-meatspace problem.
"I think you're being unfair to the drum circle" is not the equivalent of "I think you're being rather inhospitable to be on the internet when I'm over at your house for a visit" and it's disingenuous to recast the sentences like this, since your re-statement now puts the person who has been disturbed in the role of being rude to their friend, not rude to the disruptive people. That's not a "substitution", that's a wholesale alteration.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [11 favorites]
I think the analogy is misleading and inappropriate, and I pointed out why.
Oh for crying out loud. You are taking the analogy entirely too literally, to the point of absurdity. Of course loud noises in meatspace are, on some kind of Absolute Scale of Personal Harm, worse than annoying internet comments. The disruptiveness is the point. The drum circle is disrupting my sleep, the MeFite contrarian/ideologue is disrupting a conversation I am trying to have with other people via the Internet. Just because one is more physically harmful than the other doesn't mean I'm out of line to complain about the disruptiveness of the non-meatspace problem.
"I think you're being unfair to the drum circle" is not the equivalent of "I think you're being rather inhospitable to be on the internet when I'm over at your house for a visit" and it's disingenuous to recast the sentences like this, since your re-statement now puts the person who has been disturbed in the role of being rude to their friend, not rude to the disruptive people. That's not a "substitution", that's a wholesale alteration.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:21 PM on December 6, 2014 [11 favorites]
That "inhospitable" line was just a throwaway joke and not meant to be pointed in any way. Feel free to ignore it.
And no, I'm not taking the analogy to the point of absurdity; the analogy itself is absurd. My criticism of it is not pedantic. Pedantry involves focusing on trivialities and treating them with outsized importance--the entire analogy hinges on the drum circle, next door, at night. I re-cast it at the urging of tonycpsu, even.
As for "the MeFite contrarian/ideologue is disrupting a conversation I am trying to have with other people via the Internet," well, hell is other people. If you want a private conversation, there are places to do that. Whereas you have a right to drum-circle free sleep in every municipality I've ever lived, you have no such right to contrarian/dissent-free discussion on Metafilter. And even when you think you've "won" (ugh) an argument with an interlocutor, she is under no obligation to be convinced by you. Either give up and leave her alone (a convenient way to avoid the pile-ons that so many of us find shitty!) or be more convincing.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:35 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
And no, I'm not taking the analogy to the point of absurdity; the analogy itself is absurd. My criticism of it is not pedantic. Pedantry involves focusing on trivialities and treating them with outsized importance--the entire analogy hinges on the drum circle, next door, at night. I re-cast it at the urging of tonycpsu, even.
As for "the MeFite contrarian/ideologue is disrupting a conversation I am trying to have with other people via the Internet," well, hell is other people. If you want a private conversation, there are places to do that. Whereas you have a right to drum-circle free sleep in every municipality I've ever lived, you have no such right to contrarian/dissent-free discussion on Metafilter. And even when you think you've "won" (ugh) an argument with an interlocutor, she is under no obligation to be convinced by you. Either give up and leave her alone (a convenient way to avoid the pile-ons that so many of us find shitty!) or be more convincing.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:35 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
If you want a private conversation, there are places to do that.
Never said I wanted a private conversation, so I don't know what point you're trying to make, here.
you have no such right to contrarian/dissent-free discussion on Metafilter.
Never claimed I had a right to that, either. But right in the FAQ it says "Please do not make a thread all about your own opinions and ideas at the expense of other people trying to have a discussion." So I think I have the "right" to note and object to someone regularly making threads all about their contrarianism or ideological axe-grinding.
And even when you think you've "won" (ugh) an argument with an interlocutor, she is under no obligation to be convinced by you. Either give up and leave her alone (a convenient way to avoid the pile-ons that so many of us find shitty!) or be more convincing.
I have said nothing of the sort in this thread, so again, I've no idea what point you're trying to make.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:59 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
Never said I wanted a private conversation, so I don't know what point you're trying to make, here.
you have no such right to contrarian/dissent-free discussion on Metafilter.
Never claimed I had a right to that, either. But right in the FAQ it says "Please do not make a thread all about your own opinions and ideas at the expense of other people trying to have a discussion." So I think I have the "right" to note and object to someone regularly making threads all about their contrarianism or ideological axe-grinding.
And even when you think you've "won" (ugh) an argument with an interlocutor, she is under no obligation to be convinced by you. Either give up and leave her alone (a convenient way to avoid the pile-ons that so many of us find shitty!) or be more convincing.
I have said nothing of the sort in this thread, so again, I've no idea what point you're trying to make.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:59 PM on December 6, 2014 [1 favorite]
So I think I have the "right" to note and object to someone regularly making threads all about their contrarianism or ideological axe-grinding.
And the mods routinely clamp down on this stuff as advertised, which is why I wonder why so many people think the post facto shit-talking is necessary and defensible.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:04 PM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
And the mods routinely clamp down on this stuff as advertised, which is why I wonder why so many people think the post facto shit-talking is necessary and defensible.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:04 PM on December 6, 2014 [6 favorites]
The FAQ does say "Please do not make a thread all about your own opinions and ideas at the expense of other people trying to have a discussion."
But you'll not that it does not say "if you think someone's doing this, you should police it yourself by piling on."
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:09 PM on December 6, 2014 [10 favorites]
But you'll not that it does not say "if you think someone's doing this, you should police it yourself by piling on."
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:09 PM on December 6, 2014 [10 favorites]
And the mods routinely clamp down on this stuff as advertised, which is why I wonder why so many people think the post facto shit-talking is necessary and defensible.
When the mods clamp down, they're accused of "biased moderation." As in this very MeTa.
What you call "shit-talking" could also be read as members of the community pointing out that they understand why the mods clamped down, and that they agree with said clampdown.
But you'll not that it does not say "if you think someone's doing this, you should police it yourself by piling on."
A lot of people objecting to the substance of comments by a particular user may be a pile-on, but it's not policing - it's just a lot of people disagreeing with that user's positions. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A lot of people objecting to the behavioral pattern of how and when a user comments is part of the process of establishing and defining community standards. You can call it "policing" if you like, but that doesn't make it intrinsically without value to the community at large.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:33 PM on December 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
When the mods clamp down, they're accused of "biased moderation." As in this very MeTa.
What you call "shit-talking" could also be read as members of the community pointing out that they understand why the mods clamped down, and that they agree with said clampdown.
But you'll not that it does not say "if you think someone's doing this, you should police it yourself by piling on."
A lot of people objecting to the substance of comments by a particular user may be a pile-on, but it's not policing - it's just a lot of people disagreeing with that user's positions. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
A lot of people objecting to the behavioral pattern of how and when a user comments is part of the process of establishing and defining community standards. You can call it "policing" if you like, but that doesn't make it intrinsically without value to the community at large.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:33 PM on December 6, 2014 [7 favorites]
Then you should be fine with other people objecting to the behavioral pattern of those who are piling on.
Anyway, we're in a back-and-forth, and that's not the best use of my time or this space, so I'll bow out if you'll let me.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:44 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
Anyway, we're in a back-and-forth, and that's not the best use of my time or this space, so I'll bow out if you'll let me.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:44 PM on December 6, 2014 [2 favorites]
no but what if there's a pile on of the piling on to the piling onners
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 PM on December 6, 2014 [5 favorites]
"Pedantometer"? Stay classy, tonycpsu.
Several folks above already outlined reasons why your criticism of the analogy came off as pedantic, so let me just add that (a) if you find yourself arguing that Internet comments aren't worth taking seriously in an Internet comment, then it might be time to head back to the drawing board, and (b) it's pretty sad if the threshold for being called classless (or something less than classy) has been lowered to the point where calling out pedantry by invoking a hypothetical device that can sense things to be pedantic about qualifies.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:08 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Several folks above already outlined reasons why your criticism of the analogy came off as pedantic, so let me just add that (a) if you find yourself arguing that Internet comments aren't worth taking seriously in an Internet comment, then it might be time to head back to the drawing board, and (b) it's pretty sad if the threshold for being called classless (or something less than classy) has been lowered to the point where calling out pedantry by invoking a hypothetical device that can sense things to be pedantic about qualifies.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:08 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Whereas others of us just wonder exactly how helpful 82 comments by any single commenter in a thread could possibly be.
posted by Wolof at 12:35 AM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Wolof at 12:35 AM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
It IS bullying. It IS, apparently, a group of four or five members who think they're more "right" than corb is - probably more than anyone else is - always. That group is rude, fighty, belligerant, bossy, arrogant, aggressive, disparaging, and openly hostile. They require no provocation other than an opposing opinion to their own; when they run short of material, they just dig something up from the past and use that. They speak of how often the mods have stepped in to correct corb; hmmph. I wonder why the brassy superiority rhetoric of feckless fecal fear mongering, Miko, tonycpsu, ipsifendus and emptythought, for example. is tolerated by the mods - I guess it's because the gray is the place for pile-ons.
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
I detest racism and bigotry and I'm reading that corb is known for racism, anyway. That's too bad, and if I come across a comment of hers that is racist, I'll tell her what I think. But I'm damned if I think it's right for a particular group of people who apparently want corb to either come over to their side with her opinions or go someplace else to run her into the ground by recycling her comments from other threads in some pathetic effort to demonstrate what a loser she is. Haven't you guys learned yet that the way to make yourself big is not to make others look small? That's a fail - every time.
I personally would have to have a stiff drink (and I don't drink) before I could stomach reading fffm's comments from thread after thread; a particularly nasty, uber-critical comment is very often tagged with his name.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're unhappy with the comments some people make, block them! Or just train your brain to skip over them when reading comments. But get it out of your head that your comments have any more significance than anyone else's.
That's it - I'm to bed for tonight. I just can't believe the way this thread deteriorated into a scorching fry-up of corb.
posted by aryma at 1:11 AM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
I detest racism and bigotry and I'm reading that corb is known for racism, anyway. That's too bad, and if I come across a comment of hers that is racist, I'll tell her what I think. But I'm damned if I think it's right for a particular group of people who apparently want corb to either come over to their side with her opinions or go someplace else to run her into the ground by recycling her comments from other threads in some pathetic effort to demonstrate what a loser she is. Haven't you guys learned yet that the way to make yourself big is not to make others look small? That's a fail - every time.
I personally would have to have a stiff drink (and I don't drink) before I could stomach reading fffm's comments from thread after thread; a particularly nasty, uber-critical comment is very often tagged with his name.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're unhappy with the comments some people make, block them! Or just train your brain to skip over them when reading comments. But get it out of your head that your comments have any more significance than anyone else's.
That's it - I'm to bed for tonight. I just can't believe the way this thread deteriorated into a scorching fry-up of corb.
posted by aryma at 1:11 AM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
Just to add, as someone who very much believes intent matters: of course I was drawing a parallel with that analogy. But it was also just me being strongly reminded of a specific situation. It was neither a perfect representation of how I saw things going with corb, nor an exact reflection of past events in my experience. I just saw enough overlap between the two to draw the comparison. Reject away! if the less-than 1-to-1 mapping means the entire thing is invalid.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:40 AM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:40 AM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
I like how formulaic this can get. I don't even know why i bothered as much as i did, or have.
If you don't bring up past behavior with examples, you're just grinding an axe and hate that person. If you do, you're just digging up stuff from the past in some pathetic tryhard effort that means you're obsessed.
That's some wargames level shit there, where the only winning move is not to play at all.
I think the lines have been pretty clearly drawn here. There's a fair sized group of people who think this is crappy behavior, and a fair sized group who think that the people saying it's crappy behavior are bullies or something.
And, you know what, I don't really see any logical path to a resolution here. I am just, seriously, incapable of seeing how you could make the argument that we're holding someone to their past when any time this gets brought up on the grey they start doing the exact thing discussed right there in the thread. It isn't like this is some stuff that went down a couple months ago or whatever that we aren't letting go and keep bringing up to sling poop. It's right here.
This is probably one of those things that just will never be reconciled.
And to be clear, this isn't some "don't like it? don't read it" thing. I could easily set up a greasemonkey script or whatever to just disappear all of several peoples posts. That wouldn't solve my primary issue with it though, which is that oftentimes the thread becomes everyone else replying to those sealioning outrageous posts. A lot of people here are framing this as some personal issue of me and a few others just not liking someone. But it becomes a site issue when it actually runs conversations off the road into a tree.
And i mean, i want to be clear that i have some sympathy and understanding for some aspects of that response. If you just walk in to the discussion now you basically see a bunch of people all mad at one person. I get reflexively siding with that person, and seeing it as some kind of gang-up bullying situation. But more than a cursory examination of what's actually being stated here would show that there's more to this than "we don't like you and are going to hound you to the ends of the earth" or... whatever some people seem to think it is.
posted by emptythought at 5:16 AM on December 7, 2014 [18 favorites]
If you don't bring up past behavior with examples, you're just grinding an axe and hate that person. If you do, you're just digging up stuff from the past in some pathetic tryhard effort that means you're obsessed.
That's some wargames level shit there, where the only winning move is not to play at all.
I think the lines have been pretty clearly drawn here. There's a fair sized group of people who think this is crappy behavior, and a fair sized group who think that the people saying it's crappy behavior are bullies or something.
And, you know what, I don't really see any logical path to a resolution here. I am just, seriously, incapable of seeing how you could make the argument that we're holding someone to their past when any time this gets brought up on the grey they start doing the exact thing discussed right there in the thread. It isn't like this is some stuff that went down a couple months ago or whatever that we aren't letting go and keep bringing up to sling poop. It's right here.
This is probably one of those things that just will never be reconciled.
And to be clear, this isn't some "don't like it? don't read it" thing. I could easily set up a greasemonkey script or whatever to just disappear all of several peoples posts. That wouldn't solve my primary issue with it though, which is that oftentimes the thread becomes everyone else replying to those sealioning outrageous posts. A lot of people here are framing this as some personal issue of me and a few others just not liking someone. But it becomes a site issue when it actually runs conversations off the road into a tree.
And i mean, i want to be clear that i have some sympathy and understanding for some aspects of that response. If you just walk in to the discussion now you basically see a bunch of people all mad at one person. I get reflexively siding with that person, and seeing it as some kind of gang-up bullying situation. But more than a cursory examination of what's actually being stated here would show that there's more to this than "we don't like you and are going to hound you to the ends of the earth" or... whatever some people seem to think it is.
posted by emptythought at 5:16 AM on December 7, 2014 [18 favorites]
If you do, you're just digging up stuff from the past in some pathetic tryhard effort that means you're obsessed.
I can't speak for anybody else, of course, but that is not my position. If it's relevant to the conversation and hasn't alreay been said a 1/2 dozen times, then by all means bring up past examples of someone's behavior. My objection is when that someone is not given a chance to respond without being accused of "making it all about them."
And when it's staff making that accusation, especially when they've let dozens of rhetorical attacks go without comment, then yeah that looks like mod bias to me.
posted by 0 at 5:31 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can't speak for anybody else, of course, but that is not my position. If it's relevant to the conversation and hasn't alreay been said a 1/2 dozen times, then by all means bring up past examples of someone's behavior. My objection is when that someone is not given a chance to respond without being accused of "making it all about them."
And when it's staff making that accusation, especially when they've let dozens of rhetorical attacks go without comment, then yeah that looks like mod bias to me.
posted by 0 at 5:31 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
A good question to ask, in Metatalk, is what the goal of the post is.
This post was aimed at curbing something the poster saw as a pattern of biased moderation. I don't think there's much support for that, because I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
Others have spent a good deal of time attacking particular posters, among them Ironmouth and corb. I'll just note that I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb, since we already have the higher moderator standards for their contributions and they both navigate those higher standards relatively effectively. (They both have more favorites than me, for instance.)
So what's left: in the absence of responses from the accused, we can continue to argue about their specific virtues and vices. We can try to get to some matter of policy. Or we can just move on.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:39 AM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
This post was aimed at curbing something the poster saw as a pattern of biased moderation. I don't think there's much support for that, because I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
Others have spent a good deal of time attacking particular posters, among them Ironmouth and corb. I'll just note that I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb, since we already have the higher moderator standards for their contributions and they both navigate those higher standards relatively effectively. (They both have more favorites than me, for instance.)
So what's left: in the absence of responses from the accused, we can continue to argue about their specific virtues and vices. We can try to get to some matter of policy. Or we can just move on.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:39 AM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
Yeah, no. Resigned to it, maybe. But not everyone is comfortable with it.
posted by 0 at 5:43 AM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, no. Resigned to it, maybe. But not everyone is comfortable with it.
posted by 0 at 5:43 AM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
anotherpanacea: I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians
Seems like a loaded statement, at worst, to me, but I don't want to give it an uncharitable reading. Either way, I think plenty who are fine with the status quo of the mods keeping an eye out for problems-in-the-making and stepping in before things get out of hand would disagree that that necessarily implies holding contrarians to a higher standard.
I'll just note that I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see the mods simply continue to keep an eye out for problems-in-the-making and step in before things get out of hand. It seems to be working reasonably well, to me. The known problem posters are able to have their say, but they're asked to put a lid on it if the mods observe that their behavior is becoming problematic (e.g. 16.25 posts per hour in a contentious thread in which your first comment ended with the words "this was a justified shooting").
posted by syzygy at 5:54 AM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
Seems like a loaded statement, at worst, to me, but I don't want to give it an uncharitable reading. Either way, I think plenty who are fine with the status quo of the mods keeping an eye out for problems-in-the-making and stepping in before things get out of hand would disagree that that necessarily implies holding contrarians to a higher standard.
I'll just note that I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see the mods simply continue to keep an eye out for problems-in-the-making and step in before things get out of hand. It seems to be working reasonably well, to me. The known problem posters are able to have their say, but they're asked to put a lid on it if the mods observe that their behavior is becoming problematic (e.g. 16.25 posts per hour in a contentious thread in which your first comment ended with the words "this was a justified shooting").
posted by syzygy at 5:54 AM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
That's quite an assertion to be granted as a premise and I can't really move on to the rest of your position because of that. I think that deserves some unpacking. In my view, the standards are the standards, and if I began pushing at them in the same way as the people called "contrarians" in your formulation, I could expect the same response. If they can be called "contrarians" I'd like to look at what they are contrary to - perhaps it is because they position themselves as contrary to site standards and norms, not as to political consensus.
posted by Miko at 6:17 AM on December 7, 2014 [9 favorites]
That's quite an assertion to be granted as a premise and I can't really move on to the rest of your position because of that. I think that deserves some unpacking. In my view, the standards are the standards, and if I began pushing at them in the same way as the people called "contrarians" in your formulation, I could expect the same response. If they can be called "contrarians" I'd like to look at what they are contrary to - perhaps it is because they position themselves as contrary to site standards and norms, not as to political consensus.
posted by Miko at 6:17 AM on December 7, 2014 [9 favorites]
I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb
Oh, for me, I have not been advocating for policy change but for behavior change, and mainly for my own behavior change. Through this thread I've arrived at an understanding that I need to remember that sometimes, other users in serious and focused topical discussions are pursuing a completely different goal than I am and that because of that I should limit my engagement of their points and limit direct debate with them, remaining aware that it will not be a learning exercise for either party. In those cases it makes sense only to respond thinking of other readers, if at all. That's my personal takeaway. Not everything has to result in more policy (thank heavens). Sometimes these discussions end in personal resolutions; sometimes they just incrementally shift norms and expectations.
As for what I'd like to happen for others, in my ideal MetaFilter there would be more earnest and serious engagement and openness to the possibility of being changed by the discussion in some way, on all sides, but I can't control others, so I can only say it would be nice.
posted by Miko at 6:27 AM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
Oh, for me, I have not been advocating for policy change but for behavior change, and mainly for my own behavior change. Through this thread I've arrived at an understanding that I need to remember that sometimes, other users in serious and focused topical discussions are pursuing a completely different goal than I am and that because of that I should limit my engagement of their points and limit direct debate with them, remaining aware that it will not be a learning exercise for either party. In those cases it makes sense only to respond thinking of other readers, if at all. That's my personal takeaway. Not everything has to result in more policy (thank heavens). Sometimes these discussions end in personal resolutions; sometimes they just incrementally shift norms and expectations.
As for what I'd like to happen for others, in my ideal MetaFilter there would be more earnest and serious engagement and openness to the possibility of being changed by the discussion in some way, on all sides, but I can't control others, so I can only say it would be nice.
posted by Miko at 6:27 AM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
Tanizaki is certainly using it that way.
I have not used the term "SJW" in this thread. However, I do use that term to make fun of the Tumbler user who suffers microgressions because plu* identifies with Pluto and was marginalized when Pluto was made a dwarf planet. It is very hurtful to plu that the Internet loves Neil deGrasse Tyson so much.
Someone who is actually doing the work of social justice, such as a medical professional with Doctors without Borders tending to prisoners, refugees, and other neglected people, is not a SJW. They would never call themselves one.
*(plus pronouns are plu/plus/pluself)
posted by Tanizaki at 6:57 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have not used the term "SJW" in this thread. However, I do use that term to make fun of the Tumbler user who suffers microgressions because plu* identifies with Pluto and was marginalized when Pluto was made a dwarf planet. It is very hurtful to plu that the Internet loves Neil deGrasse Tyson so much.
Someone who is actually doing the work of social justice, such as a medical professional with Doctors without Borders tending to prisoners, refugees, and other neglected people, is not a SJW. They would never call themselves one.
*(plus pronouns are plu/plus/pluself)
posted by Tanizaki at 6:57 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'll just note that I don't see anyone articulating just what it is they'd like to see happen to Ironmouth and corb
I don't have any particular beef with Ironmouth, because I don't spend a lot of time in threads where he is a particular problem, but I have been reading this thread, and I think people have been pretty clear about what they don't like about his posting style:
a) He has a monetary interest in changing the way topics are discussed, and he is not clear about this.*
b) He tends to post a lot of comments in quick succession.
c) Despite b), he apparently picks and chooses which arguments he responds to, frustrating people who are trying to respond to his points.
d) He has been accused of misrepresenting evidence.
Anyway, as I said, I am not all that familiar with his posting history, so I can't say whether I agree with them or not beyond the allegations are coming from at least some members whose opinions I respect, so I am inclined to imagine they are not made up. So, presumably, people would like Ironmouth to stop doing these things. I don't think anyone has given a step-by-step explanation of how they would want to do that, but it's not like their complaints aren't clear and well-bounded so that Ironmouth could try to address them were he so inclined.
* I have some issues with this argument, since I think a lot of posters speak from professional experience without necessarily being super-clear about their professional/monetary interest in the topic, and I'm not entirely clear that it's as big an issue as people are making it, although I gather Ironmouth is particularly egregious about it.
Anyway, it seems to me that people are laying out these kinds of suggestions, just not in a convenient one-stop way.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:03 AM on December 7, 2014
I don't have any particular beef with Ironmouth, because I don't spend a lot of time in threads where he is a particular problem, but I have been reading this thread, and I think people have been pretty clear about what they don't like about his posting style:
a) He has a monetary interest in changing the way topics are discussed, and he is not clear about this.*
b) He tends to post a lot of comments in quick succession.
c) Despite b), he apparently picks and chooses which arguments he responds to, frustrating people who are trying to respond to his points.
d) He has been accused of misrepresenting evidence.
Anyway, as I said, I am not all that familiar with his posting history, so I can't say whether I agree with them or not beyond the allegations are coming from at least some members whose opinions I respect, so I am inclined to imagine they are not made up. So, presumably, people would like Ironmouth to stop doing these things. I don't think anyone has given a step-by-step explanation of how they would want to do that, but it's not like their complaints aren't clear and well-bounded so that Ironmouth could try to address them were he so inclined.
* I have some issues with this argument, since I think a lot of posters speak from professional experience without necessarily being super-clear about their professional/monetary interest in the topic, and I'm not entirely clear that it's as big an issue as people are making it, although I gather Ironmouth is particularly egregious about it.
Anyway, it seems to me that people are laying out these kinds of suggestions, just not in a convenient one-stop way.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:03 AM on December 7, 2014
I agree, GenjiandProust, that a monetary conflict of interest is not a significant issue with Ironmouth's participation, and I am someone especially sensitive to conflict of interest, have written CoI policies, etc. Using expertise to influence discourse isn't a conflict of interest and no direct profit chain can be drawn here. I might feel differently if his profile said "Accused of Police Brutality? Call 877-IRONMOUTH" but as far as I know, that isn't happening.
As for SJW, that really doesn't bother me. It's in the same category as when people on Facebook use terms like "libs" or "Democrat" as an adjective or "moonbat" or whatever - it's silly. It tells you more about the conceptual world of the speaker than anything else. It's like, I get that you think I'm supposed to be offended by that, but there's nothing substantive or constructive about it, so you just sound like a kid on the playground trying to pick a fight by making your name rhyme with a nonsense word, or something.
posted by Miko at 7:13 AM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
As for SJW, that really doesn't bother me. It's in the same category as when people on Facebook use terms like "libs" or "Democrat" as an adjective or "moonbat" or whatever - it's silly. It tells you more about the conceptual world of the speaker than anything else. It's like, I get that you think I'm supposed to be offended by that, but there's nothing substantive or constructive about it, so you just sound like a kid on the playground trying to pick a fight by making your name rhyme with a nonsense word, or something.
posted by Miko at 7:13 AM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
Tell me, aryma, do you really think that I lack self-awareness to the degree that I would believe that the road to moderator status is paved with arguments, sometimes quite heated, with other members? I've got a very full and rewarding life, thank you very much, one that certainly doesn't need additional work responsibilities, and I take seriously any charge that I'm commenting here for any reason other than a sincere desire to discuss and better understand the issues raised throughout this MeTa. Or did you just mean that as a way to demean my contributions here without bothering to engage with them on the merits?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Tell me, aryma, do you really think that I lack self-awareness to the degree that I would believe that the road to moderator status is paved with arguments, sometimes quite heated, with other members? I've got a very full and rewarding life, thank you very much, one that certainly doesn't need additional work responsibilities, and I take seriously any charge that I'm commenting here for any reason other than a sincere desire to discuss and better understand the issues raised throughout this MeTa. Or did you just mean that as a way to demean my contributions here without bothering to engage with them on the merits?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:16 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
So I think I have the "right" to note and object to someone regularly making threads all about their contrarianism or ideological axe-grinding.
The one making the threads all about their contrarianism is not the person who posted one comment. It's the large number of people who post near-identical snarky comments over and over. To continue the drum circle analogy, it's not so much the neighbors having a drum circle as it is one neighbor playing a drum at a fairly quiet volume, and a bunch of other neighbors screaming "SHUT THAT FUCKING DRUM UP!" at top volume for hours after the drum stopped.
If I were in charge of the site (there but for the grace of god go I) I would simply disallow her from commenting about slavery, the civil war, or pretty much anything involving race
And in the end, it's simply about telling a person of color that she is not to talk about race.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:46 AM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
The one making the threads all about their contrarianism is not the person who posted one comment. It's the large number of people who post near-identical snarky comments over and over. To continue the drum circle analogy, it's not so much the neighbors having a drum circle as it is one neighbor playing a drum at a fairly quiet volume, and a bunch of other neighbors screaming "SHUT THAT FUCKING DRUM UP!" at top volume for hours after the drum stopped.
If I were in charge of the site (there but for the grace of god go I) I would simply disallow her from commenting about slavery, the civil war, or pretty much anything involving race
And in the end, it's simply about telling a person of color that she is not to talk about race.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:46 AM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
brassy superiority rhetoric of feckless fecal fear mongering, Miko, tonycpsu, ipsifendus and emptythought, for example. is tolerated by the mods - I guess it's because the gray is the place for pile-ons.
HAHHAHAHAAAHAHAAAH oh God, if you think the mods are on my side in a general sense you really really haven't been paying attention.
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
This is even funnier. It is not possible to calculate how little I would be interested in being a moderator--here or anywhere--without inventing a whole new branch of mathematics.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:38 AM on December 7, 2014
HAHHAHAHAAAHAHAAAH oh God, if you think the mods are on my side in a general sense you really really haven't been paying attention.
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
This is even funnier. It is not possible to calculate how little I would be interested in being a moderator--here or anywhere--without inventing a whole new branch of mathematics.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:38 AM on December 7, 2014
I wonder why the brassy superiority rhetoric of feckless fecal fear mongering, Miko, tonycpsu, ipsifendus and emptythought, for example. is tolerated by the mods - I guess it's because the gray is the place for pile-ons.
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
You haven't been reading MetaFilter long enough to have encountered any of corb's questionable comments about racism, but you feel you have enough sense of people's commenting history to be comfortable describing these people this way, in a comment that began by complaining about how they were rude, fighty, belligerant, bossy, arrogant, aggressive, disparaging, and openly hostile just a sentence earlier? Wow.
posted by Lexica at 10:40 AM on December 7, 2014 [20 favorites]
Is there a contest going on to be the next moderator? fffm, in particular, and tonycpsu both seem to be trying out for a moderator button.
You haven't been reading MetaFilter long enough to have encountered any of corb's questionable comments about racism, but you feel you have enough sense of people's commenting history to be comfortable describing these people this way, in a comment that began by complaining about how they were rude, fighty, belligerant, bossy, arrogant, aggressive, disparaging, and openly hostile just a sentence earlier? Wow.
posted by Lexica at 10:40 AM on December 7, 2014 [20 favorites]
"There ain't any answer. There aint going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer."
Gertrude Stein.
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
Gertrude Stein.
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
> I don't have any particular beef with Ironmouth, because I don't spend a lot of time in threads where he is a particular problem, but I have been reading this thread, and I think people have been pretty clear about what they don't like about his posting style:
Related comment.
posted by homunculus at 11:43 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Related comment.
posted by homunculus at 11:43 AM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
"And in the end, it's simply about telling a person of color that she is not to talk about race."
I feel soiled just by being in the vicinity of your exploitative opportunism. It's a thing you do, but it never stops being breathtakingly ugly.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:45 AM on December 7, 2014 [28 favorites]
I feel soiled just by being in the vicinity of your exploitative opportunism. It's a thing you do, but it never stops being breathtakingly ugly.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:45 AM on December 7, 2014 [28 favorites]
The one making the threads all about their contrarianism is not the person who posted one comment.
As has been noted multiple times in this MeTa, with examples, "one comment" and then the deluge of snark is not the situation we're talking about here, and it's disingenuous to frame it that way.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:56 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
As has been noted multiple times in this MeTa, with examples, "one comment" and then the deluge of snark is not the situation we're talking about here, and it's disingenuous to frame it that way.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:56 AM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Based on what went down with three blind mice, I get the distinct impression you don't have to be one of the "bad" members to get dogpiled and harangued endlessly. My understanding is that tbm was generally a member in good standing whose participation on most subjects was constructive and welcome but the individual had some weird minority view on some political topic and it became so untenable for them to participate, they chose to take the blame for the whole thing and politely leave. This sounds like a recipe for things like evaporative cooling to happen here. Since there are paychecks that depend on the success of this forum, including matt's, I sincerely hope the mods recognize that is not a good thing. But I will drop it now.
Lexica, I have zero problem with my pony request being denied. I said that upthread. My point had nothing to do with "my pony request was denied." It had to do with the fact that I was in no way stomping around and bitching about the mods being meanies to me. I was solely looking for assistance in trying to better fit in and that didn't make much difference in how I was treated. From the get go, I was open about the fact that I have a serious medical condition. My condition became more stable last summer. A few weeks after it stabilized, I got more than one memail containing condescending pats on the head for finally making good comments of late and praising me for finally "trying harder." In other words, my efforts to explain that I sometimes cannot get it right due to pain, fever and general medical duress have been completely ignored by people who are hellbent on framing me like a problem child who merely was not actually trying. (For the record: Now that I am generally in less pain, etc, it takes a helluva lot LESS effort to keep my feet out of my mouth. So, if anything, I am "trying" less hard.)
That was such a slap in the face and it gives the impression that no matter what I do, it will never be good enough, I will continue to be framed like a problem child. I can be perfect, it won't be good enough, I will still get crapped on and treated contemptously. And that doesn't sound to me personally like good policy for community building. It is a community I care about and value, so I would rather give my perspective in hopes of helping make it an even betterer place than it is currently.
posted by Michele in California at 1:45 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Lexica, I have zero problem with my pony request being denied. I said that upthread. My point had nothing to do with "my pony request was denied." It had to do with the fact that I was in no way stomping around and bitching about the mods being meanies to me. I was solely looking for assistance in trying to better fit in and that didn't make much difference in how I was treated. From the get go, I was open about the fact that I have a serious medical condition. My condition became more stable last summer. A few weeks after it stabilized, I got more than one memail containing condescending pats on the head for finally making good comments of late and praising me for finally "trying harder." In other words, my efforts to explain that I sometimes cannot get it right due to pain, fever and general medical duress have been completely ignored by people who are hellbent on framing me like a problem child who merely was not actually trying. (For the record: Now that I am generally in less pain, etc, it takes a helluva lot LESS effort to keep my feet out of my mouth. So, if anything, I am "trying" less hard.)
That was such a slap in the face and it gives the impression that no matter what I do, it will never be good enough, I will continue to be framed like a problem child. I can be perfect, it won't be good enough, I will still get crapped on and treated contemptously. And that doesn't sound to me personally like good policy for community building. It is a community I care about and value, so I would rather give my perspective in hopes of helping make it an even betterer place than it is currently.
posted by Michele in California at 1:45 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
My understanding is that tbm was generally a member in good standing
Isn't it amazing how two people can read the same comments and come to wildly different conclusions?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:09 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
Isn't it amazing how two people can read the same comments and come to wildly different conclusions?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:09 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
I do use that term to make fun of the Tumbler user who suffers microgressions because plu* identifies with Pluto and was marginalized when Pluto was made a dwarf planet.
Don't talk bad about Çarşı, man.
posted by asterix at 2:10 PM on December 7, 2014
Don't talk bad about Çarşı, man.
posted by asterix at 2:10 PM on December 7, 2014
...I was solely looking for assistance in trying to better fit in and that didn't make much difference in how I was treated....
...my efforts to explain that I sometimes cannot get it right due to pain, fever and general medical duress have been completely ignored by people who are hellbent on framing me like a problem child who merely was not actually trying....
...That was such a slap in the face and it gives the impression that no matter what I do, it will never be good enough, I will continue to be framed like a problem child....
I don't know that I or anyone will ever convince you of this, but you have a seriously warped perspective that leads to 'people are mistreating me and I can't understand why.'
I can be perfect, it won't be good enough, I will still get crapped on and treated contemptously.
And this is how that skewed perspective hurts you. It doesn't hurt anyone else, and this mistreatment you think is coming from other people, all the time, is actually more about how you see things, all the time.
Just throwing that out there. I'm not going to put any more effort into it than that, because it will only lead to your feeling like I'm mistreating you.
¯\(°_o)/¯
posted by mudpuppie at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
...my efforts to explain that I sometimes cannot get it right due to pain, fever and general medical duress have been completely ignored by people who are hellbent on framing me like a problem child who merely was not actually trying....
...That was such a slap in the face and it gives the impression that no matter what I do, it will never be good enough, I will continue to be framed like a problem child....
I don't know that I or anyone will ever convince you of this, but you have a seriously warped perspective that leads to 'people are mistreating me and I can't understand why.'
I can be perfect, it won't be good enough, I will still get crapped on and treated contemptously.
And this is how that skewed perspective hurts you. It doesn't hurt anyone else, and this mistreatment you think is coming from other people, all the time, is actually more about how you see things, all the time.
Just throwing that out there. I'm not going to put any more effort into it than that, because it will only lead to your feeling like I'm mistreating you.
¯\(°_o)/¯
posted by mudpuppie at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
people don't engage the actual problem as they see it (her ideas)
I disagree with this analysis. The ideas aren't an unspoken secret of any kind and people have engaged them so thoroughly they've been accused of "piling on" and "personal attack" when they do. I've tried to talk at length in this thread about how I personally have engaged the ideas only to find there is no responsive engagement in return, and it's that that makes the interactions unfruitful. So, for me, this isn't an accurate read of the central problem.
posted by Miko at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
I disagree with this analysis. The ideas aren't an unspoken secret of any kind and people have engaged them so thoroughly they've been accused of "piling on" and "personal attack" when they do. I've tried to talk at length in this thread about how I personally have engaged the ideas only to find there is no responsive engagement in return, and it's that that makes the interactions unfruitful. So, for me, this isn't an accurate read of the central problem.
posted by Miko at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
My condition became more stable last summer. A few weeks after it stabilized, I got more than one memail containing condescending pats on the head for finally making good comments of late and praising me for finally "trying harder."
It wasn't an attempt at a pat on the head, it was an attempt to acknowledge that stuff had improved. I did not mean to condescend by suggesting you were trying harder, I was just attributing the improvement to what it usually comes from when we work with a user over time. No offense at all was intended; I apologize for making you feel condescended to. I was just glad stuff was generally going better on the site for/with you.
Beyond that, though, I understand and appreciate that you have medical stuff you deal with, but I am not your medical caregiver and am not at all privy, nor should I be expected to be, to the details of how you are doing medically or how it is impacting your interactions with the site. I can and do sympathize at a personal level, but at a site level what I have to deal with is your behavior on the site, not the personal circumstances driving it, because onsite behavior is all everybody has to work with here where we are the words we put into threads.
That was an email exchange where you asserted that the mods think you're a bad person, which I assured you and assure you again here we do not; just now you've asserted that we're trying to frame you as a problem child, which we're absolutely not. What we would like as an outcome for you more than anything here is for you to feel comfortable on the site and get along without remark, and we have put a bunch of effort into trying to work with you and meet you halfway to that end. Some of that has gone better over time, which is great, but you continue to do this thing where you assert we're out to get you while also stating misapprehensions about the site, leaving us in this impossible position where we either just completely give your mistaken assertions about us and the site a pass with tacit approval or respond substantially to the problems with those assertions and thereby apparently underscore for you the idea that we're gunning for you rather than literally just doing our jobs.
It's a feedback loop that really sucks for both parties and I would like to not keep going through it with you, but I don't know how to convince you to accept that we're generally trying to work with you, not against you, if it's something you are unwilling to acknowledge or accept. I cannot change your mind about this, but I also cannot give your mistaken impression of our actual motivations and intentions and actions a thumbs up. You are incorrect about how we feel about you but telling you that seems only to feed into your belief about it. I don't know how to square this circle with you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:42 PM on December 7, 2014 [26 favorites]
It wasn't an attempt at a pat on the head, it was an attempt to acknowledge that stuff had improved. I did not mean to condescend by suggesting you were trying harder, I was just attributing the improvement to what it usually comes from when we work with a user over time. No offense at all was intended; I apologize for making you feel condescended to. I was just glad stuff was generally going better on the site for/with you.
Beyond that, though, I understand and appreciate that you have medical stuff you deal with, but I am not your medical caregiver and am not at all privy, nor should I be expected to be, to the details of how you are doing medically or how it is impacting your interactions with the site. I can and do sympathize at a personal level, but at a site level what I have to deal with is your behavior on the site, not the personal circumstances driving it, because onsite behavior is all everybody has to work with here where we are the words we put into threads.
That was an email exchange where you asserted that the mods think you're a bad person, which I assured you and assure you again here we do not; just now you've asserted that we're trying to frame you as a problem child, which we're absolutely not. What we would like as an outcome for you more than anything here is for you to feel comfortable on the site and get along without remark, and we have put a bunch of effort into trying to work with you and meet you halfway to that end. Some of that has gone better over time, which is great, but you continue to do this thing where you assert we're out to get you while also stating misapprehensions about the site, leaving us in this impossible position where we either just completely give your mistaken assertions about us and the site a pass with tacit approval or respond substantially to the problems with those assertions and thereby apparently underscore for you the idea that we're gunning for you rather than literally just doing our jobs.
It's a feedback loop that really sucks for both parties and I would like to not keep going through it with you, but I don't know how to convince you to accept that we're generally trying to work with you, not against you, if it's something you are unwilling to acknowledge or accept. I cannot change your mind about this, but I also cannot give your mistaken impression of our actual motivations and intentions and actions a thumbs up. You are incorrect about how we feel about you but telling you that seems only to feed into your belief about it. I don't know how to square this circle with you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:42 PM on December 7, 2014 [26 favorites]
...my efforts to explain that I sometimes cannot get it right due to pain, fever and general medical duress have been completely ignored by people who are hellbent on framing me like a problem child who merely was not actually trying....
Most of us comment without constantly bringing up our mental/medical issues or using them as excuses. I really am sorry that you have had such a rough time but if I was beset by pain and fever my interactions with this site would have been limited to askme or not at all. You rarely provide a simple answer. Every response you provide is tangled up in perceived slights against you. If you keep finding yourself in the same situation over and over again...
As for your "i can be perfect" comment, that makes no sense at all to me.
posted by futz at 2:45 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Most of us comment without constantly bringing up our mental/medical issues or using them as excuses. I really am sorry that you have had such a rough time but if I was beset by pain and fever my interactions with this site would have been limited to askme or not at all. You rarely provide a simple answer. Every response you provide is tangled up in perceived slights against you. If you keep finding yourself in the same situation over and over again...
As for your "i can be perfect" comment, that makes no sense at all to me.
posted by futz at 2:45 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is not wending ell. I know some threads go all pear-shaped and then recover, but this might be a good time to ask if we haven't reached the point of diminishing returns (as much as I enjoy watching melodrama from a safe distance).
posted by uosuaq at 2:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 2:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
cortex, I was in no way thinking of anything you had done or anything the mods have done. It was members who wrote me via memail. I imagine they had good intentions. One of them impressed me with how he handled it when I was somewhat taken aback, though I imagine he is unaware of that and I don't know how to sort that with him. (My recollection is that your statement was public and I actually appreciated that you did that, quite a bit.)
I have said repeatedly that I appreciate how the mods deal with me in specific. I don't know how to more clearly separate out my point here that a) I feel okay with how things are going for me personally but I sympathize with how hard this can be for people who have ended up behind the 8 ball and b) I wish we could look at how to reshape the community a bit to take some of the burden off of those folks. It does not have to be all on them.
I agree with uosuaq, perhaps this is no longer productive for the community.
posted by Michele in California at 3:02 PM on December 7, 2014
I have said repeatedly that I appreciate how the mods deal with me in specific. I don't know how to more clearly separate out my point here that a) I feel okay with how things are going for me personally but I sympathize with how hard this can be for people who have ended up behind the 8 ball and b) I wish we could look at how to reshape the community a bit to take some of the burden off of those folks. It does not have to be all on them.
I agree with uosuaq, perhaps this is no longer productive for the community.
posted by Michele in California at 3:02 PM on December 7, 2014
The next best thing is for people to vociferously disagree with corb when it's seriously important and let shit go already when it's not (her participation in gun threads, for example).
That's roughly what we have, though, isn't it? In my experience, the amount of in-thread GRAR roughly corresponds with how much the comment in question clashes with community expectations. The closer you get to opinions that violate the guidelines (racism, sexism, etc.) or are perceived as espousing such, the more blowback you get. If you're safely away from those, and you're just in "outlier opinion" territory, things get much better, though there are still problems from time to time. This has led to a higher bar (in terms of post deletion and comment moderation) placed on discussions in the infamous "topics MeFi doesn't do well" category. These aren't verboten topics, but there's a recognition that the user base is such that those topics will turn fighty very quickly.
The problem, as I see it, is that the OP of this MeTa, and the group of folks who are coming down on the side of those who keep ending up drawing negative attention to their comments, seem to want a change in behavior on the part of those who respond to comments that go against these norms, which of course given the asymmetry involved would have to be enforced by a change in in how these disputes are moderated.
Of course, the mods have already given various versions of "we're doing the best we can, we don't always get it right, we assign blame to both parties, and we still would like it if the people at the center of pile-ons would exercise discretion even as we also implore others to stop getting drawn into them", both in this MeTa and in prior MeTas. (That's a paraphrase, of course, but I think it's a fair one.) The status quo bias benefits the majority of the community that expect folks to operate within the norms that have been established and enforced by the site staff up to this point, so it's up to those who want a change to justify that change.
If, as I think most of us expect at this point, this MeTa flames out without any official change in the enforcement of site guidelines, the only progress we can possibly make here is for the two sides to understand more about where the other side is coming from, and speaking only for myself, I believe I've made progress on that. I've also found Miko's words above about understanding and accepting the fact that people come to the community with different conversational goals to be very persuasive and enlightening, and am now much more appreciative of the fact that that there's a certain quixotic aspect to taking a position on one side or another of these disputes when they boil over. I'm resolving now to try to do a better job differentiating the giants from the windmills, and to spend more time on the former and less on the latter.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:22 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's roughly what we have, though, isn't it? In my experience, the amount of in-thread GRAR roughly corresponds with how much the comment in question clashes with community expectations. The closer you get to opinions that violate the guidelines (racism, sexism, etc.) or are perceived as espousing such, the more blowback you get. If you're safely away from those, and you're just in "outlier opinion" territory, things get much better, though there are still problems from time to time. This has led to a higher bar (in terms of post deletion and comment moderation) placed on discussions in the infamous "topics MeFi doesn't do well" category. These aren't verboten topics, but there's a recognition that the user base is such that those topics will turn fighty very quickly.
The problem, as I see it, is that the OP of this MeTa, and the group of folks who are coming down on the side of those who keep ending up drawing negative attention to their comments, seem to want a change in behavior on the part of those who respond to comments that go against these norms, which of course given the asymmetry involved would have to be enforced by a change in in how these disputes are moderated.
Of course, the mods have already given various versions of "we're doing the best we can, we don't always get it right, we assign blame to both parties, and we still would like it if the people at the center of pile-ons would exercise discretion even as we also implore others to stop getting drawn into them", both in this MeTa and in prior MeTas. (That's a paraphrase, of course, but I think it's a fair one.) The status quo bias benefits the majority of the community that expect folks to operate within the norms that have been established and enforced by the site staff up to this point, so it's up to those who want a change to justify that change.
If, as I think most of us expect at this point, this MeTa flames out without any official change in the enforcement of site guidelines, the only progress we can possibly make here is for the two sides to understand more about where the other side is coming from, and speaking only for myself, I believe I've made progress on that. I've also found Miko's words above about understanding and accepting the fact that people come to the community with different conversational goals to be very persuasive and enlightening, and am now much more appreciative of the fact that that there's a certain quixotic aspect to taking a position on one side or another of these disputes when they boil over. I'm resolving now to try to do a better job differentiating the giants from the windmills, and to spend more time on the former and less on the latter.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:22 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
ThatFuzzyBastard: And in the end, it's simply about telling a person of color that she is not to talk about race.
Various existing expressions of outrage at this dirty pool statement aside, i'm actually feeling a moment of relation with corb here in that no, you can't assume everyone who is agreeing with the idea that in certain situations she should "sit down" or whatever exaggerated description would go along with that existing statement is white.
I for one at least, am not. I'm in that awkward zone where no one can figure out where the fuck i'm from and people ask me that constantly.
If this is really all you extracted from the post you replied to, i don't know how i can help you. It's a pretty fighty, disingenuous takeaway from that post though.
anotherpanacea: I don't think there's much support for that, because I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
To get a twofer on mildly outrageous posts, yes, i'm perfectly fine with that.
There are a number of situations in which this is not a bad thing. And most of them are situations that this at the very least skirts the edges of if not just is. Because the fact of the matter is, a lot of situations that we're talking about here involve the posts in question basically disagreeing with the premise of the discussion that was going on so far, or saying something to the effect of "i know everyone is talking about cats, but what we can't really talk about that in good conscience without mentioning dogs". And those are generally the mild ones. There's plenty of examples where in an already somewhat fraught discussion it takes it do "but how can you support cats when they mauled this baby?" out of nowhere with no basis in reality.
We've already decided i guess, that that's not trolling. I was ok with that being the consensus. What i can't really accept is that it's "just" being a contrarian. There's elements of devils advocate, sea lioning, and just a general "i think the conversation should be about this and i'm going to launch a cruise missile" to it.
So yea, i'm perfectly fine with higher standards. If you want to come in to a room where people are talking about cats, or the treatment of cats and talk about how a lot of those cats are terrible, or what about dogs then i think you should have to pass a pretty high bar and phrase your engagement very eloquently. Because the chances of just dropping a bomb and posting something that dominates and redirects the existing discussion is high. And really, a lot of these posts in the context of the threads they showed up in are pretty outrageous to me.
posted by emptythought at 3:48 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
Various existing expressions of outrage at this dirty pool statement aside, i'm actually feeling a moment of relation with corb here in that no, you can't assume everyone who is agreeing with the idea that in certain situations she should "sit down" or whatever exaggerated description would go along with that existing statement is white.
I for one at least, am not. I'm in that awkward zone where no one can figure out where the fuck i'm from and people ask me that constantly.
If this is really all you extracted from the post you replied to, i don't know how i can help you. It's a pretty fighty, disingenuous takeaway from that post though.
anotherpanacea: I don't think there's much support for that, because I get the sense that everyone is comfortable with higher standards for contrarians.
To get a twofer on mildly outrageous posts, yes, i'm perfectly fine with that.
There are a number of situations in which this is not a bad thing. And most of them are situations that this at the very least skirts the edges of if not just is. Because the fact of the matter is, a lot of situations that we're talking about here involve the posts in question basically disagreeing with the premise of the discussion that was going on so far, or saying something to the effect of "i know everyone is talking about cats, but what we can't really talk about that in good conscience without mentioning dogs". And those are generally the mild ones. There's plenty of examples where in an already somewhat fraught discussion it takes it do "but how can you support cats when they mauled this baby?" out of nowhere with no basis in reality.
We've already decided i guess, that that's not trolling. I was ok with that being the consensus. What i can't really accept is that it's "just" being a contrarian. There's elements of devils advocate, sea lioning, and just a general "i think the conversation should be about this and i'm going to launch a cruise missile" to it.
So yea, i'm perfectly fine with higher standards. If you want to come in to a room where people are talking about cats, or the treatment of cats and talk about how a lot of those cats are terrible, or what about dogs then i think you should have to pass a pretty high bar and phrase your engagement very eloquently. Because the chances of just dropping a bomb and posting something that dominates and redirects the existing discussion is high. And really, a lot of these posts in the context of the threads they showed up in are pretty outrageous to me.
posted by emptythought at 3:48 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
have backed yourselves into a rhetorical corner where you're trying to make the way she participates here the problem.
I won't speak for Miko, but I will say on my own behalf that I'm in no such corner, because I've never contended that it has to be one or the other. There are some opinions you can express in any way you like but should be grounds for instant deletion, and there are other opinions that, if you are very careful to sticking to the reality we all share instead of engaging in hypotheticals and assuming things that go against known facts, you can express and defend in ways that won't create the same kind of dynamics that result in MeTas like this one.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:52 PM on December 7, 2014 [7 favorites]
I won't speak for Miko, but I will say on my own behalf that I'm in no such corner, because I've never contended that it has to be one or the other. There are some opinions you can express in any way you like but should be grounds for instant deletion, and there are other opinions that, if you are very careful to sticking to the reality we all share instead of engaging in hypotheticals and assuming things that go against known facts, you can express and defend in ways that won't create the same kind of dynamics that result in MeTas like this one.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:52 PM on December 7, 2014 [7 favorites]
From my perspective, it's obvious that you find her ideas abhorrent but for some reason you (and tonycpsu and a few others) have backed yourselves into a rhetorical corner where you're trying to make the way she participates here the problem
I agree very strongly with this statement. There are a number of users, several of whom have been active participants in this thread for that matter, who engage with the site in a way I would consider detrimental to polite, illuminating discussion (overly aggressive, insulting, condescending, snarky, hostile, etc.), but don't get raked over the coals with nearly the same frequency as corb does, and she rarely displays these tendencies. corb isn't a "problem" user because she interacts with the site poorly, she is a problem user because her viewpoints on a number of topics (not at all limited to race in my view) are seriously offensive. I think it is better to just be upfront about that rather than pretend there is some idealized way she could have better expressed, for example, the trans bathroom panic viewpoint or "the state killing a few innocent folks here or there is a worthwhile trade off for them getting a lot of the bad guys too" death penalty position that would have left people satisfied with her participation.
posted by The Gooch at 4:58 PM on December 7, 2014 [12 favorites]
I agree very strongly with this statement. There are a number of users, several of whom have been active participants in this thread for that matter, who engage with the site in a way I would consider detrimental to polite, illuminating discussion (overly aggressive, insulting, condescending, snarky, hostile, etc.), but don't get raked over the coals with nearly the same frequency as corb does, and she rarely displays these tendencies. corb isn't a "problem" user because she interacts with the site poorly, she is a problem user because her viewpoints on a number of topics (not at all limited to race in my view) are seriously offensive. I think it is better to just be upfront about that rather than pretend there is some idealized way she could have better expressed, for example, the trans bathroom panic viewpoint or "the state killing a few innocent folks here or there is a worthwhile trade off for them getting a lot of the bad guys too" death penalty position that would have left people satisfied with her participation.
posted by The Gooch at 4:58 PM on December 7, 2014 [12 favorites]
getting no responsive engagement is sort of a hazard of talking to strangers on the internet,
Elsewhere it may be, but it's not something I think is the norm after 10 years here. At the same time, in this very thread is where I sort of accepted that yes, it's like that here, too. There's not enough shared purpose to actually engage. What's been confusing has been dealing with a posture that says "I want to engage, you just don't like my opinions" without actually being willing to really engage. Which is what I call "bad faith." Which is a legitimate thing to not like.
I don't feel in a corner because I don't feel I have to choose between the two options. I can have both "I don't like your opinions" on the one hand, and "I find your argumentation style creates a negative dynamic" on the other, at the same time.
It's possible tp have abhorrent opinions and a sincere engagement style. I have, in fact "engaged" (who else is beginning to hate that word?) with people whose opinions I find abhorrrent here too many times to count, and felt it worthwhile enough. Or you can have abhorrent opinion and an insincere engagement style, which is something I think happens sometimes and maybe in this case. In this specific user case, I've tended to take on the abhorrent opinions in the content threads, but here in the MeTa I'm more concened with the discussion style which is much more about the way people interact on the site than about any point of view in particular. The issues are separable and I'm definitely not substituting talking about one for talking about the other. I can talk about both, but only one is my subject right now. I hope this distinction is clear, because it's real for me.
So then, style aside, let's talk about abohorrent opinions. I don't like the opinions but, up to a point, it's okay for them to exist as opinions on the site. Abhorrence happens. But opinions can be abhorrent only up to a point at which they become hate speech, when the line about dealing with them is a lot brighter. Up until that point, I'm pretty much okay with dealing with them as discussion points, but (now as of this thread) only when there is some progress to be made in discussing them. I can also see maybe making them meta-issues to talk about if I think they're defining site culture in a negative way - the way sexism at one point was - but I'm not talking about issues of race in this thread at all. They aren't mainstream site issues in the way sexism are, they're still outlier opinions that I don't think are influencing site culture at large. So for me, they may actually be less of a concern than engagement style. I've pretty much confined myself to talking about intent, engagement, sincerity, and good faith because I believe those really are the root of an ongoing problem. And if it seems like that's causing an "undue amount of vitriol" for something that's about rhetoric, I can only repeat that I pretty much try to take other people seriously and listen to what they say, so for me it is bloody irritating when someone is kind of just playing with you. It means something to me, and so when you wonder about my motives, just think of my motives are really wanting the discussion on this site to be thoughtful and interesting and to open up new ground and for it not to be just another internet sandpit.
posted by Miko at 5:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Elsewhere it may be, but it's not something I think is the norm after 10 years here. At the same time, in this very thread is where I sort of accepted that yes, it's like that here, too. There's not enough shared purpose to actually engage. What's been confusing has been dealing with a posture that says "I want to engage, you just don't like my opinions" without actually being willing to really engage. Which is what I call "bad faith." Which is a legitimate thing to not like.
I don't feel in a corner because I don't feel I have to choose between the two options. I can have both "I don't like your opinions" on the one hand, and "I find your argumentation style creates a negative dynamic" on the other, at the same time.
It's possible tp have abhorrent opinions and a sincere engagement style. I have, in fact "engaged" (who else is beginning to hate that word?) with people whose opinions I find abhorrrent here too many times to count, and felt it worthwhile enough. Or you can have abhorrent opinion and an insincere engagement style, which is something I think happens sometimes and maybe in this case. In this specific user case, I've tended to take on the abhorrent opinions in the content threads, but here in the MeTa I'm more concened with the discussion style which is much more about the way people interact on the site than about any point of view in particular. The issues are separable and I'm definitely not substituting talking about one for talking about the other. I can talk about both, but only one is my subject right now. I hope this distinction is clear, because it's real for me.
So then, style aside, let's talk about abohorrent opinions. I don't like the opinions but, up to a point, it's okay for them to exist as opinions on the site. Abhorrence happens. But opinions can be abhorrent only up to a point at which they become hate speech, when the line about dealing with them is a lot brighter. Up until that point, I'm pretty much okay with dealing with them as discussion points, but (now as of this thread) only when there is some progress to be made in discussing them. I can also see maybe making them meta-issues to talk about if I think they're defining site culture in a negative way - the way sexism at one point was - but I'm not talking about issues of race in this thread at all. They aren't mainstream site issues in the way sexism are, they're still outlier opinions that I don't think are influencing site culture at large. So for me, they may actually be less of a concern than engagement style. I've pretty much confined myself to talking about intent, engagement, sincerity, and good faith because I believe those really are the root of an ongoing problem. And if it seems like that's causing an "undue amount of vitriol" for something that's about rhetoric, I can only repeat that I pretty much try to take other people seriously and listen to what they say, so for me it is bloody irritating when someone is kind of just playing with you. It means something to me, and so when you wonder about my motives, just think of my motives are really wanting the discussion on this site to be thoughtful and interesting and to open up new ground and for it not to be just another internet sandpit.
posted by Miko at 5:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
(sorry to tag-team myself) Rereading over the last few comments since I started writing my last one, yes: it looks like some people think racism is the more serious issue and some think discussion approach is more serious. I happen to think the latter, some might think I'm hiding something and really care about the former, but I assure you I'm being totally open about my take on this in this thread. If you're looking at me and saying "she's hiding her anger about the racism under a veneer of talking about interaction," I can say that's wrong. I care about both. We can have both. We can talk about the racism when we talk about the racism (I missed that thread while away, I guess), but today I'm truly looking at how the style prevents us coming to an understanding that lets site discussion move along even when someone with a racist opinion is participating.
posted by Miko at 5:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 5:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think it is better to just be upfront about that rather than pretend there is some idealized way she could have better expressed..."the state killing a few innocent folks here or there is a worthwhile trade off for them getting a lot of the bad guys too" death penalty position that would have left people satisfied with her participation.
There was nothing wrong with her death penalty comments and it's the clearest example of how part of the problem with corb is people aggressively using bad faith readings of her comments to frame her as an asshole and pile on her over and Over and OVER.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [7 favorites]
There was nothing wrong with her death penalty comments and it's the clearest example of how part of the problem with corb is people aggressively using bad faith readings of her comments to frame her as an asshole and pile on her over and Over and OVER.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [7 favorites]
Thanks, Drinky Die, that death penalty thread - assuming it's this one - is actually a good one to use as an example of the distinction I make. Her participation in that thread was basically fine. She listened to others, responded to arguments, dealt with their evidence (mostly), and her stance was reasonable and clearly articulated, a utilitarian argument that's not that unfamiliar - Trolley Problem basically. The position she held in the end is one most of her interlocutors find abhorrent, as do I, but she participated in the discussion fully, doesn't seem to have made many denials of fact or gotten out on any super shaky limbs, and the thread didn't seem to melt down. It's an example of a thread with an opinion I find abhorrent, but nothing about the participation was problematic, as far as I can tell not having been around for it. The argumentation was in good faith. People argued back and she argued with them in sincerity and supported her reasoning with the evidence of her own moral code. In that narrowly defined way it was unexceptionable, and that's what I'd like to see as the general goal.
posted by Miko at 5:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Miko at 5:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
Ironically, the thread which is being used as an example of a high point of corb's participation where she argued an outlying position in good faith is the same one more than a few Mefites used to single-handedly blame her for causing scody to close her account.
posted by The Gooch at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by The Gooch at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Hey, i am having a bbq this weekend and I'd love to introduce you all to my kkk friend. He's a lovely, tone appropriate dude who just can't abide with history or facts. Please pass the beans and don't raise a stink.
Fuck that.
posted by futz at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2014
Fuck that.
posted by futz at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2014
I do think that she was on fairly solid ground up until the point that she asserted that some dead innocents were justifiable as long as they weren't dead innocents she cared about, but I'm not really liking the idea that someone's "moral code" can insulate them from the implications of state-sanctioned killing, particularly the execution of innocents, by assuming that their own loved ones, guilty or innocent, would not ever be subject to the killing. That, I think, rises to the level of an indefensible and invalid argument, one that would be similar to deflecting concerns about abortion in the case of rape by saying that you'd never allow a loved one to be raped. It's a first principle that assumes an omnipotent ability to change reality in order to provide a convenient trap door for evading the question of what you'd do if you were on the wrong end of the policy you're advocating.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:41 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:41 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Hey, i am having a bbq this weekend and I'd love to introduce you all to my kkk friend. He's a lovely, tone appropriate dude who just can't abide with history or facts. Please pass the beans and don't raise a stink.
Fuck that.
Sounds like someone needs a hug. Come on guys bring it in.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:47 PM on December 7, 2014
Fuck that.
Sounds like someone needs a hug. Come on guys bring it in.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:47 PM on December 7, 2014
Yes that is a great example of what the intentional bad faith reading of her comments looked like, thanks Tony.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think wandering in the direction of Klan analogies is gonna help any of this go better.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:52 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:52 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's a totally crappy point of view, I agree - like I said, "abohorrent," but I still see her being there, owning up to the argument, and accepting the consequences of the argument as presented. I admit I gave it a quick cursory read, but that is at least participating in a non-disingenous way. The argument isn't invalid.
posted by Miko at 6:53 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by Miko at 6:53 PM on December 7, 2014
Do you think imprisoning people for murder is okay? But sometimes people are innocent and you find that justifiable anyway? Wow, you're a fucking monster who doesn't care about innocents. What if it was your family member being jailed possibly unjustly? You would fight against that? Wow, why are you demanding we bend reality for you and apply different law? You are an abhorrent monster. Get off our site.
Look, I understand finding the death penalty cruel and distasteful, I do too! But that was no excuse for the bullshit logic used to justify the aggressive and ridiculous response to corb in that thread and the times it has come up again in the grey.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
Look, I understand finding the death penalty cruel and distasteful, I do too! But that was no excuse for the bullshit logic used to justify the aggressive and ridiculous response to corb in that thread and the times it has come up again in the grey.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
owning up to the argument
I don't see any part where she owns up to the fact that the state could take a loved one's life and there could be nothing she could do about it. I see a whole lot of "well I would do this to keep that from happening" but no acknowledgement that the policy would have to apply to everyone.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:57 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't see any part where she owns up to the fact that the state could take a loved one's life and there could be nothing she could do about it. I see a whole lot of "well I would do this to keep that from happening" but no acknowledgement that the policy would have to apply to everyone.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:57 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Do you think imprisoning people for murder is okay? But sometimes people are innocent and you find that justifiable anyway? Wow, you're a fucking monster who doesn't care about innocents. What if it was your family member being jailed possibly unjustly? You would fight against that? Wow, why are you demanding we bend reality for you and apply different law? You are an abhorrent monster. Get off our site.
Speaking of intentionally bad faith readings... yikes.
posted by palomar at 7:02 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
Speaking of intentionally bad faith readings... yikes.
posted by palomar at 7:02 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's the logic that was used to portray corb as a monster on this issue.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Do you think imprisoning people for murder is okay?
People can be released from prison if their innocence is later discovered, but they can't be released from urns or coffins.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 PM on December 7, 2014
People can be released from prison if their innocence is later discovered, but they can't be released from urns or coffins.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 PM on December 7, 2014
It's the logic that was used to portray corb as a monster on this issue.
Nope! You're twisting and bending reality SO HARD, dude.
posted by palomar at 7:05 PM on December 7, 2014
Nope! You're twisting and bending reality SO HARD, dude.
posted by palomar at 7:05 PM on December 7, 2014
People can be released from prison if their innocence is later discovered, but they can't be released from urns or coffins.
People get off death row, and innocent people die in prison on life terms. It's a very long process and appeals do usually work if innocence can be proven, but that is actually irrelevant to the point that supporting punishments for crimes with the knowledge that some innocents may suffer is not a monstrous position. It is baked into every single punishment. If you think the death penalty is appropriate, it is not shocking that the possibility of an innocent dying is involved. Every singe death penalty supporter (A strong majority of Americans.) knows that.
Nope! You're twisting and bending reality SO HARD, dude.
I am afraid not. Do you want me to get the quotes for you? It's kind of a waste of my time because the arguments I'm bringing up are the arguments that have already been cited in this thread. Her crimes in the thread were supporting the death penalty despite the certainty of some innocents dying and opposing it in the hypothetical case of a family member.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
People get off death row, and innocent people die in prison on life terms. It's a very long process and appeals do usually work if innocence can be proven, but that is actually irrelevant to the point that supporting punishments for crimes with the knowledge that some innocents may suffer is not a monstrous position. It is baked into every single punishment. If you think the death penalty is appropriate, it is not shocking that the possibility of an innocent dying is involved. Every singe death penalty supporter (A strong majority of Americans.) knows that.
Nope! You're twisting and bending reality SO HARD, dude.
I am afraid not. Do you want me to get the quotes for you? It's kind of a waste of my time because the arguments I'm bringing up are the arguments that have already been cited in this thread. Her crimes in the thread were supporting the death penalty despite the certainty of some innocents dying and opposing it in the hypothetical case of a family member.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Every singe death penalty supporter knows that.
And those who grapple with those consequences and acknowledge them are perfectly justified in holding that opinion. Dodging them with hypotheticals is where I draw the line. You're free to draw it elsewhere, but my concern is not by any means a bad faith interpretation, it's simply reading the words as written.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
And those who grapple with those consequences and acknowledge them are perfectly justified in holding that opinion. Dodging them with hypotheticals is where I draw the line. You're free to draw it elsewhere, but my concern is not by any means a bad faith interpretation, it's simply reading the words as written.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Get off our site.
Yeah, nobody said that.
There was a clash where people said "I think this point of view is hideous," which to me is fine, and there was some interesting conversation, like the Thomas Hobbes thing and the hypothetical cases. People pushed her, which is fine, but I am not quite seeing the dance of distraction and deflection in this one. Again, I could need a slower read to take it all in and give it a think. It's not a great thread, and I hope it's obvious to those that know me that the point of view itself is everything I think vile, but I think it gives a better example of good faith participation than a lot of other examples involving the same user. But maybe it's as Teflon as eveything else and I'm not seeing it as much because I wasn't n the midst of it. That's possile.
What I'm trying to stand up for is the idea that we can handle lousy, reprehensible, ill-formed ideas - we have a system for that: talk them out and if they're ultimately too extreme/hatey for the site, counsel, delete, and/or ban - but what we can't handle well is people who are just messing with other users and not really intending to have an honest, goodwill-based exchange. If the game is to say inflammatory things and then take shelter from the consequences by saying "oh look, everyone's mad at me, it must be because they are intolerant and the mods are biased," then that's a shitty game and not a reflection of goodwill and honesty. If we can handle the opinions, then we can handle them, and their blowback, but users ideally will be responsible for their opinions and make a good-faith effort to participate in conversation.And maybe some users just plain fall short of that ideal.
posted by Miko at 7:15 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, nobody said that.
There was a clash where people said "I think this point of view is hideous," which to me is fine, and there was some interesting conversation, like the Thomas Hobbes thing and the hypothetical cases. People pushed her, which is fine, but I am not quite seeing the dance of distraction and deflection in this one. Again, I could need a slower read to take it all in and give it a think. It's not a great thread, and I hope it's obvious to those that know me that the point of view itself is everything I think vile, but I think it gives a better example of good faith participation than a lot of other examples involving the same user. But maybe it's as Teflon as eveything else and I'm not seeing it as much because I wasn't n the midst of it. That's possile.
What I'm trying to stand up for is the idea that we can handle lousy, reprehensible, ill-formed ideas - we have a system for that: talk them out and if they're ultimately too extreme/hatey for the site, counsel, delete, and/or ban - but what we can't handle well is people who are just messing with other users and not really intending to have an honest, goodwill-based exchange. If the game is to say inflammatory things and then take shelter from the consequences by saying "oh look, everyone's mad at me, it must be because they are intolerant and the mods are biased," then that's a shitty game and not a reflection of goodwill and honesty. If we can handle the opinions, then we can handle them, and their blowback, but users ideally will be responsible for their opinions and make a good-faith effort to participate in conversation.And maybe some users just plain fall short of that ideal.
posted by Miko at 7:15 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Dodging them with hypotheticals is where I draw the line.
I don't know what you mean by this.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on December 7, 2014
I don't know what you mean by this.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on December 7, 2014
No, Drinky Die, I just want you to quit making things up.
posted by palomar at 7:17 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by palomar at 7:17 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Okay, your "Nuh uh!" is noted.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
For context, scody's exchange with corb in that thread starts with corb's comment here, and later went uninterrupted from scody's comment here to when she got fed up here. She returned one last time after corb made this comment to reply with one last comment of her own, and then disabled her account.
posted by homunculus at 7:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 7:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't know what you mean by this.
I'm talking about the bit beginning with this comment and continuing through the next few, where the hypothetical "capital punishment hits home" scenario is hand-waved away with hypotheticals about not letting harm come to a loved one.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm talking about the bit beginning with this comment and continuing through the next few, where the hypothetical "capital punishment hits home" scenario is hand-waved away with hypotheticals about not letting harm come to a loved one.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:24 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
There is some range of opinion that is not allowed on this site. The moderators are the recourse for comments that express opinions in that range.
The go-to phrase is FIAMO--Flag It And Move On--notFIAPO--Flag It and Pile On.
If corb (or Ironmouth, or whoever) is saying things you think shouldn't be said here, then go to the mods. If they agree, they'll handle it. If they disagree, you're shit outta luck. Them's the breaks.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:27 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
The go-to phrase is FIAMO--Flag It And Move On--notFIAPO--Flag It and Pile On.
If corb (or Ironmouth, or whoever) is saying things you think shouldn't be said here, then go to the mods. If they agree, they'll handle it. If they disagree, you're shit outta luck. Them's the breaks.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:27 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
Of course, the former hypothetical is clearly not hypothetical to the people who actually do get executed, while the latter hypothetical simply prevents one from having to acknowledge that good intentions don't prevent loved ones from being executed.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:27 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 7:27 PM on December 7, 2014
If corb (or Ironmouth, or whoever) is saying things you think shouldn't be said here, then go to the mods. If they agree, they'll handle it. If they disagree, you're shit outta luck. Them's the breaks.
I said this above in response to someone else, but what you've described is the status quo, which wasn't good enough for the poster of this MeTa, nor many of those siding with the folks who often end up at the center of the pile-ons. If the status quo of FIAMO and let the mods do what they've done up to this point is good enough for you, it's certainly good enough for me.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
I said this above in response to someone else, but what you've described is the status quo, which wasn't good enough for the poster of this MeTa, nor many of those siding with the folks who often end up at the center of the pile-ons. If the status quo of FIAMO and let the mods do what they've done up to this point is good enough for you, it's certainly good enough for me.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
tonycpsu, I agree with your position on the death penalty, but I feel like your last few comments have been re-litigating the original death penalty thread on the blue and arguing that corb's comments there should have been deleted because you disagree with her views.
posted by posyblue at 7:31 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by posyblue at 7:31 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Nope. The status quo is FIAPO, by which people pile on all over opinions they don't like, badgering the person who made those comments, often across multiple threads, multiple months, even multiple years. This thread is asking the mods to be more vigilant and proactive about that kind of pile-on.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:32 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:32 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
tonycpsu, I agree with your position on the death penalty, but I feel like your last few comments have been re-litigating the original death penalty thread on the blue and arguing that corb's comments there should have been deleted because you disagree with her views.
Re-litigating yes, arguing that they should have been deleted, no.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 PM on December 7, 2014
Re-litigating yes, arguing that they should have been deleted, no.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 PM on December 7, 2014
I'm talking about the bit beginning with this comment and continuing through the next few, where the hypothetical "capital punishment hits home" scenario is hand-waved away with hypotheticals about not letting harm come to a loved one.
That's not a hypothetical response, it's what families of the accused generally do, support their loved ones to whatever extent they can manage. Tearful Mom crying for her son and calling him a good kid in court completely regardless of what he did and the evidence against him is practically a cliche. You can't be unaware of it. It isn't commentary on the law, which is why I pointed to life in prison as an alternative. It doesn't matter what the punishment is, people will support their loved ones. Attempting to frame her as someone who thinks her family should be above the law is absurd. It was then, it is now. She acknowledged the law could lead to some unjust results when asked. She said what she would do if her own family faced the situation when asked. She did not wave anything away, she simply refused to capitulate to a bad faith personalization of the debate that took the trolley problem and added, "But what if your family was on the track?"
posted by Drinky Die at 7:35 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's not a hypothetical response, it's what families of the accused generally do, support their loved ones to whatever extent they can manage. Tearful Mom crying for her son and calling him a good kid in court completely regardless of what he did and the evidence against him is practically a cliche. You can't be unaware of it. It isn't commentary on the law, which is why I pointed to life in prison as an alternative. It doesn't matter what the punishment is, people will support their loved ones. Attempting to frame her as someone who thinks her family should be above the law is absurd. It was then, it is now. She acknowledged the law could lead to some unjust results when asked. She said what she would do if her own family faced the situation when asked. She did not wave anything away, she simply refused to capitulate to a bad faith personalization of the debate that took the trolley problem and added, "But what if your family was on the track?"
posted by Drinky Die at 7:35 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sure it's hypothetical, but her position is she'd do everything in her power to help a murderer [or child abuser, or rapist, or whatever] in her family evade justice. Whether or not it would actually work, I think that she makes it clear where she's coming from. I don't disagree with scody's assessment of the moral qualities of that stance, but I actually can't fault corb here for not dealing with evidence or arguments. She's just being an extremely self-centered individual whose moral code is "me and those I know before everyone else," which is totally internally consistent, even if reprehensible.
Yeah, status quo is good for me too. What I'm tired of is "poor persecuted me" threads. Have these opinions if you must. Play games if you must. But stay in the guidelines, or don't complain when you cross them and you get chided or penalized for it. That's the deal.
On preview:
people pile on all over opinions they don't like
So what? That's the price of speech, man. Not everyone's going to like what you say, and if you're such a courageous individual to buck the prevailing view, you can expect pushback. I've certainly had plenty of chances to experience that in life . I don't get applause for everything I say, either, and I don't think there should be any special protection beyond what we have now when an opinion draws fire. If a person's opinion has wider merit and is well supported and persuasive and consistent, it may take hold and grow and the community may change as a result, or at least respect it as a minority view that has legitimacy. If it's crap, probably not. But ultimately, I'd just like it to be something the person actually means instead of some kind of performance.
posted by Miko at 7:37 PM on December 7, 2014 [15 favorites]
Yeah, status quo is good for me too. What I'm tired of is "poor persecuted me" threads. Have these opinions if you must. Play games if you must. But stay in the guidelines, or don't complain when you cross them and you get chided or penalized for it. That's the deal.
On preview:
people pile on all over opinions they don't like
So what? That's the price of speech, man. Not everyone's going to like what you say, and if you're such a courageous individual to buck the prevailing view, you can expect pushback. I've certainly had plenty of chances to experience that in life . I don't get applause for everything I say, either, and I don't think there should be any special protection beyond what we have now when an opinion draws fire. If a person's opinion has wider merit and is well supported and persuasive and consistent, it may take hold and grow and the community may change as a result, or at least respect it as a minority view that has legitimacy. If it's crap, probably not. But ultimately, I'd just like it to be something the person actually means instead of some kind of performance.
posted by Miko at 7:37 PM on December 7, 2014 [15 favorites]
It's not bad faith to demand an answer to whether your suggested policy would apply to people you care about, but we're at a "falsify bad faith" impasse once again, so I'll leave you to it.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:38 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 7:38 PM on December 7, 2014
It's not bad faith to demand an answer to whether your suggested policy would apply to people you care about
I get what you're saying, but thing is, she has an answer for that. It's just a dead-end portion of her argument. My read was that of course it would apply in theory but that she would fight it tooth and nail. And certainly there are stories of people who try to do this. The position seems to be just "whatever for the rest of you - I am concerned with no systemic issue as the entire system is corrupt - I will do as I need to if this happens to me." It's not bad faith as I read it; it seems like her sincere position. Like, she seems to recognize that of course it will happen to other people who love their children just as much, but who weight moral questions differently, but that's no concern of hers and so they deserve the results of the choices they make if they are such fools as to handle it within the system. At least that is what I understand from my read.
posted by Miko at 7:42 PM on December 7, 2014
I get what you're saying, but thing is, she has an answer for that. It's just a dead-end portion of her argument. My read was that of course it would apply in theory but that she would fight it tooth and nail. And certainly there are stories of people who try to do this. The position seems to be just "whatever for the rest of you - I am concerned with no systemic issue as the entire system is corrupt - I will do as I need to if this happens to me." It's not bad faith as I read it; it seems like her sincere position. Like, she seems to recognize that of course it will happen to other people who love their children just as much, but who weight moral questions differently, but that's no concern of hers and so they deserve the results of the choices they make if they are such fools as to handle it within the system. At least that is what I understand from my read.
posted by Miko at 7:42 PM on December 7, 2014
But what if?
(Ignoring the actual scenerio)...but if...?
(Contrary to all the known facts at the time...) but what if...
(And in spite of agreeing with the known facts...) basically fuck you. My blood is so thick that I'd rather drown in it myself to protect my offspring than view a situation with a critical eye.
But what if a deaf bear has a gun? What if the gun has empathy?
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
(Ignoring the actual scenerio)...but if...?
(Contrary to all the known facts at the time...) but what if...
(And in spite of agreeing with the known facts...) basically fuck you. My blood is so thick that I'd rather drown in it myself to protect my offspring than view a situation with a critical eye.
But what if a deaf bear has a gun? What if the gun has empathy?
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on December 7, 2014 [3 favorites]
What if you, who are so sure of your position, are wrong? Or, better yet, what if we're not talking about unequivocal rights and wrongs but ranges of uncertainty and subjectivity wherein multiple positions can be defensibly held? And what if we don't share a background or value system? What if we'll never agree no matter how many times you say "fuck you"? Because that's how life works in matters of conscience and morality.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
basically fuck you
It's not a non-answer, at least. Just not one many people like and which obviously doesn't scale.
posted by Miko at 7:49 PM on December 7, 2014
It's not a non-answer, at least. Just not one many people like and which obviously doesn't scale.
posted by Miko at 7:49 PM on December 7, 2014
It's not bad faith to demand an answer to whether your suggested policy would apply to people you care about
She answered it, she said she would not find the law any less unjust but that she would still fight the execution of a loved one by any means necessary.
What would you do if you faced the trolley problem but on one track was a loved loved one and on the other was five strangers? Maybe you are the cold utilitarian and you let your loved one die. But you do at least understand how adding a loved one has fundamentally changed the question at hand? It's no longer do you let one person die or let five people die, it's an emotional appeal to your bond with a loved one.
Many people support the death penalty because they think it saves lives by deterring crime. You can emotionally short circuit someone by pointing to a loved one, but your persuasion will be convincing them to accept a path where they believe more people will die. corb is not the type to be manipulated like that and she handled the manipulative hypothetical as well as someone could. I think her only mistake was even engaging with it at all instead of just saying, "That would be an extremely unlikely thing to happen so I'm not going to answer it."
posted by Drinky Die at 7:58 PM on December 7, 2014 [16 favorites]
She answered it, she said she would not find the law any less unjust but that she would still fight the execution of a loved one by any means necessary.
What would you do if you faced the trolley problem but on one track was a loved loved one and on the other was five strangers? Maybe you are the cold utilitarian and you let your loved one die. But you do at least understand how adding a loved one has fundamentally changed the question at hand? It's no longer do you let one person die or let five people die, it's an emotional appeal to your bond with a loved one.
Many people support the death penalty because they think it saves lives by deterring crime. You can emotionally short circuit someone by pointing to a loved one, but your persuasion will be convincing them to accept a path where they believe more people will die. corb is not the type to be manipulated like that and she handled the manipulative hypothetical as well as someone could. I think her only mistake was even engaging with it at all instead of just saying, "That would be an extremely unlikely thing to happen so I'm not going to answer it."
posted by Drinky Die at 7:58 PM on December 7, 2014 [16 favorites]
It is an easy out, I grant you, in that it's lazy and induces no grappling with consequences. If it happened anyway, though, the person taking this position would either be successful in helping their criminal relative evade justice and as a result end up living on the lam, faking an identity, leaving the country, constantly worrying about victim vengeance, etc., or be unsuccessful and super salty about it and watch their family member fry anyway while hating every moment and railing against state power in their case only. These predictable consequences, though, don't bear on how they frame the problem. In essence, the position is basically acquiescing to these two possibilities being the inevitable consequences of self-centered action, so I see them as granted in this argument, not as a sticking point or evasive strategy. To me, the person taking this view is saying "I'm willing to accept these as potential results of my position."
posted by Miko at 8:26 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by Miko at 8:26 PM on December 7, 2014
It's lazy, but so is the hypothetical it was a response to to begin with. It assumes innocence is known for sure which isn't usually going to be the case in a death penalty conviction. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an assumed "And I would get away with the jailbreak cleanly," in corb's head at the time, but I can't be certain on that. It's a Kobayashi Maru hypothetical if you believe the death penalty saves lives, I wouldn't really blame corb for using the Kirk solution and cheating it a bit.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:50 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:50 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sure, it doesn't matter what was in her head, my point is that she accepted both possible outcomes by accepting one.
In the end this is kind of an academic point. The thread is not a great exemplar of the bad-faith argument style, it's just a thread in which she voiced an opinion that the majority find unconscionable.
I don't want to have to conclude that the squeaky wheels are actually correct when they say "oh, look, the outliers are being unfairly persecuted for their opinions, " which is why I am trying to arrive at some plan like (a) go ahead, have your opinion, but stop complaining and looking for policy cover when people push you on it, and (b) if you're going to keep contributing, then please earnestly participate in discussing it as if you actually care without resorting to evasive strategies aimed at achieving some result other than a good, interesting, enlightening discussion for everyone.
I know, pipe dream.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
In the end this is kind of an academic point. The thread is not a great exemplar of the bad-faith argument style, it's just a thread in which she voiced an opinion that the majority find unconscionable.
I don't want to have to conclude that the squeaky wheels are actually correct when they say "oh, look, the outliers are being unfairly persecuted for their opinions, " which is why I am trying to arrive at some plan like (a) go ahead, have your opinion, but stop complaining and looking for policy cover when people push you on it, and (b) if you're going to keep contributing, then please earnestly participate in discussing it as if you actually care without resorting to evasive strategies aimed at achieving some result other than a good, interesting, enlightening discussion for everyone.
I know, pipe dream.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
(The hypothetical discussion also involved guilty family later, just for clarification.)
posted by Drinky Die at 9:05 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 9:05 PM on December 7, 2014
It's lazy, but so is the hypothetical it was a response to to begin with
It's not "lazy" to ask someone to imagine themselves in a position that real people have found (still find) themselves in, or at least it is no more lazy than solving the hypothetical with a postulated Rambo-scenario that is vanishingly unlikely. Corb talks a lot about the value of empathy, and I believe that she is sincere, but I do also believe that she recurrently experiences a blind spot when it comes to extending that empathy to the powerless. It is not bullying or piling-on to point that out.
posted by kagredon at 9:11 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
It's not "lazy" to ask someone to imagine themselves in a position that real people have found (still find) themselves in, or at least it is no more lazy than solving the hypothetical with a postulated Rambo-scenario that is vanishingly unlikely. Corb talks a lot about the value of empathy, and I believe that she is sincere, but I do also believe that she recurrently experiences a blind spot when it comes to extending that empathy to the powerless. It is not bullying or piling-on to point that out.
posted by kagredon at 9:11 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
She says in the thread that she doesn't believe we live in a moral system, and there is no hope for making a moral system. Therefore, the immoral application of the death penalty is inevitable, which then allows for her saying she would do anything to get her family out of it, including shrugging off sending innocent people to death row. She's pretty clear that she would never turn family over to the police even if the law is just. Even if she knows they're guilty. It's not a hypothetical "my family member was innocent" set up. It' s a "even if they're guilty, no, never, but I still am in favor of the death penalty." There's a profound disconnect there that just gasts my flabber.
posted by rtha at 9:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:13 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
Oh, one more thing and then I'll shut my big mouth for the night. One other fun part of the thread was when after she didn't back down when challengers demanded she defend her position on the death penalty in terms of a hypothetical where her family members are killed she was challenged to defend her position on evading justice in light of her personal oath as a soldier. She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
The level of personalization of the debate she encountered in that thread is not good for Metafilter conversation, especially on really charged topics.
It's not "lazy" to ask someone to imagine themselves in a position that real people have found (still find) themselves in
"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
I think this is a bad debate question for a host of reasons. Others disagree. Good night, y'all.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 PM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
The level of personalization of the debate she encountered in that thread is not good for Metafilter conversation, especially on really charged topics.
It's not "lazy" to ask someone to imagine themselves in a position that real people have found (still find) themselves in
"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
I think this is a bad debate question for a host of reasons. Others disagree. Good night, y'all.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 PM on December 7, 2014 [10 favorites]
There's a profound disconnect there that just gasts my flabber.
Have you tried detoxing your flabber?
posted by futz at 9:21 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
Have you tried detoxing your flabber?
posted by futz at 9:21 PM on December 7, 2014 [2 favorites]
I pretty much agree with all of Drinky Die's analysis of that discussion.
I really enjoy corb's contributions here because even though I usually disagree with her point of view, I like how honest she is about the ramifications of her opinions. Like you can try reductio ad absurdum on her, and it goes nowhere because she's perfectly fine with accepting the absurdum if it's the logical outcome of her moral presuppositions. I find she's consistent, at least, and pretty unfailingly polite, and (contra Miko's conclusions here) pretty interested in hearing and trying to understand opposing points of view. So to me that's kind of the opposite of bad faith arguing.
Also, corb doesn't seem to have any expectation that she can hold the views she does and escape pushback, nor that she could (hypothetically) act on some of them without possible life-or-death consequences. She has said there are beliefs she would act on even though it would likely get her shot. She has said (in the DP thread specifically) she would act on her beliefs with regard to love-of-family even if she had to kill herself afterwards because of the cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure that viewpoint could be described simplistically as selfish. It seems more like... extreme pragmatism, maybe? More amoral in my opinion than immoral. But at any rate, it's not like she doesn't understand the complexities.
(corb, sorry for analyzing you as if you're not here. Just thought I'd weigh in with another opinion given that you have apparently stepped away from responding in this thread--which, all things considered, is probably a wise choice.)
posted by torticat at 9:23 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
I really enjoy corb's contributions here because even though I usually disagree with her point of view, I like how honest she is about the ramifications of her opinions. Like you can try reductio ad absurdum on her, and it goes nowhere because she's perfectly fine with accepting the absurdum if it's the logical outcome of her moral presuppositions. I find she's consistent, at least, and pretty unfailingly polite, and (contra Miko's conclusions here) pretty interested in hearing and trying to understand opposing points of view. So to me that's kind of the opposite of bad faith arguing.
Also, corb doesn't seem to have any expectation that she can hold the views she does and escape pushback, nor that she could (hypothetically) act on some of them without possible life-or-death consequences. She has said there are beliefs she would act on even though it would likely get her shot. She has said (in the DP thread specifically) she would act on her beliefs with regard to love-of-family even if she had to kill herself afterwards because of the cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure that viewpoint could be described simplistically as selfish. It seems more like... extreme pragmatism, maybe? More amoral in my opinion than immoral. But at any rate, it's not like she doesn't understand the complexities.
(corb, sorry for analyzing you as if you're not here. Just thought I'd weigh in with another opinion given that you have apparently stepped away from responding in this thread--which, all things considered, is probably a wise choice.)
posted by torticat at 9:23 PM on December 7, 2014 [11 favorites]
Have you tried detoxing your flabber?
A nice brown liquor seems to do the trick.
posted by rtha at 9:28 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
A nice brown liquor seems to do the trick.
posted by rtha at 9:28 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
Fernet Branca, then?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:29 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:29 PM on December 7, 2014
My flabber is gasted too because it's awful, and she routinely says things that are hard to believe anyone says out loud, but for her it is not a disconnect because if your worldview is entirely self-centered in that way, this is all consistent. Lots of people make themselves the exception to the rules they want for the broader society. This is one of the beefs I have with anti-abortion people who vote to change restrictions for the masses under the law but have no problem slipping a grand under the table to a local doctor when it's their kid, or advocate for harsh drug penalties but call powerhouse lawyers when they're the ones caught with too many narcotics and no prescription. Same idea.
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
I see no problem with that if you've brought up your soldier identity as a source of authority. Challenge away.
It's really interesting to me how some people see her as interested in learning about other positions where I see that as more of a plausible-deniability posture. I can't say that I see "learning" as part of the multi-year arc here. Again, I can only conclude that this is me and my perception, and only use it to determine my own actions where she pops up. Maybe it's because I've seen that sort of thing done well in life and know it's possible.
It's really kind of crazy that one person's behavior has the power to obsess so many, isn't it? I would just like to find a way for that to end. I probably should just bail out of this whole discussion, which is only proving that polarizing person is polarizing, I think.
posted by Miko at 9:34 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
I see no problem with that if you've brought up your soldier identity as a source of authority. Challenge away.
It's really interesting to me how some people see her as interested in learning about other positions where I see that as more of a plausible-deniability posture. I can't say that I see "learning" as part of the multi-year arc here. Again, I can only conclude that this is me and my perception, and only use it to determine my own actions where she pops up. Maybe it's because I've seen that sort of thing done well in life and know it's possible.
It's really kind of crazy that one person's behavior has the power to obsess so many, isn't it? I would just like to find a way for that to end. I probably should just bail out of this whole discussion, which is only proving that polarizing person is polarizing, I think.
posted by Miko at 9:34 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's really kind of crazy that one person's behavior has the power to obsess so many
Hear, hear.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:36 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
Hear, hear.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:36 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
I agree, Drinky Die, it really sucks to have one's military service questioned because of a comment on the internet.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
I agree, Drinky Die, it really sucks to have one's military service questioned because of a comment on the internet.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Well, living in San Francisco, Fernet's not hard to come by (though I prefer it as an ingredient and not the main attraction). Bourbon or Islay are my main vices.
posted by rtha at 9:39 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by rtha at 9:39 PM on December 7, 2014
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
This is a dishonest characterization of Eyebrows McGee's comment for reasons I've already detailed.
This has turned into a rehash of a previous blue thread that was already pretty extensively rehashed in a previous grey thread. I don't know what's left to get out of it, tbh.
posted by kagredon at 9:41 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is a dishonest characterization of Eyebrows McGee's comment for reasons I've already detailed.
This has turned into a rehash of a previous blue thread that was already pretty extensively rehashed in a previous grey thread. I don't know what's left to get out of it, tbh.
posted by kagredon at 9:41 PM on December 7, 2014 [6 favorites]
I would just like to find a way for that to end.
Stop joining pile-ons. Move on, maybe.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:55 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
Stop joining pile-ons. Move on, maybe.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:55 PM on December 7, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's really kind of crazy that one person's behavior has the power to obsess so many
Hear, hear.
posted by Joseph Gurl
An occasional comment or two might warrant a side eye. But that is not the case here imo. It is the constant predictable barrage of comments insisting that we consider the plight of the accused. The victim rarely gets the same consideration from corb. At this point it has become a Trope. There is no nuance to be had when she enters a thread. Same as it ever was.
posted by futz at 9:58 PM on December 7, 2014
Hear, hear.
posted by Joseph Gurl
An occasional comment or two might warrant a side eye. But that is not the case here imo. It is the constant predictable barrage of comments insisting that we consider the plight of the accused. The victim rarely gets the same consideration from corb. At this point it has become a Trope. There is no nuance to be had when she enters a thread. Same as it ever was.
posted by futz at 9:58 PM on December 7, 2014
Life is full of challenges.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:59 PM on December 7, 2014
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:59 PM on December 7, 2014
Hear hear.
Just don't expect to waltz into the umpteenth post and not expect to be challenged. Goes both ways.
posted by futz at 10:07 PM on December 7, 2014
Just don't expect to waltz into the umpteenth post and not expect to be challenged. Goes both ways.
posted by futz at 10:07 PM on December 7, 2014
Futz, your contributions to this thread consist of a joke, a "why are we doing this?", a KKK comparison that cortex rightly chided you for, a delightful "fuck you," and another joke. That's not a challenge, that's noise.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:19 PM on December 7, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wish people complaining about corb would offer a solution or, if trying ton eat corb banned, would just come out in the open about wanting to ban corb and exactly why that should happen. I also think that if corb is doing something on the site that is against the guidelines or unacceptable, the mods should let her know specifically what that behavior is. I'd like it spelled out myself.
I really would like to have the mods weigh in here on what they think the best course of action would be--banning Corb from certain threads, as suggested upthread, or the commenters engaging with corb to FIAMO instead of piling on, or an other action entirely?
To me, the second option feels like it has been the one the mods always advocate for, and so having so many comments in this thread saying corb is the problem bothers me.
There's been quite a lot of remarks made by people along the lines of corb said X, and she put up hypothetical y, and then said racist thing z, and we can't let that stand and now we have to engage with her, and it's a pattern and it's a problem because corb is making the thread all about her.
But If x, y, z is a pattern of corb's and you know it and you think it is a problem, why are you engaging with corb? That is not your only choice, and putting that all on corb ignores your own part in the continuing pattern.
If Z is racist, that's clearly against site guidelines. Flag it, and move on! It will be deleted. No one has to take the brave stance of being the sole voice to condemn racism as a bad thing because otherwise other people will think it is okay. We KNOW racism is bad, and it is already against site giidelines, anyway, right? FIAMO!
If hypothetical Ys are a problem for you, then you have a choice of responding or not responding, flagging them, or asking the mods if they think Y warrants action. What you choose to do is up to you. I would point out that in that death penalty thread, a lot of hypotheticals were made not just by corb but to her, about her family and what she would do. So if the mods decide to make that kind of hypothetical argument against site guidelines, those should also be disallowed.
And finally comes x, which is corb having an opinion you can't stand. tonycspu, you seem to feel like corb needs to apologize to you personally because she favors the death penalty and you don't. I'm sorry, but I think you are way out of line, and need to be willing to move on when a thread has long since closed but someone will not come around to your way of thinking, instead of rehashing that old thread here the way you have done. Unless the mods ferl that supporting the death penalty is an offensive enough position to get corb banned, which I don't think they do?
posted by misha at 11:44 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
I really would like to have the mods weigh in here on what they think the best course of action would be--banning Corb from certain threads, as suggested upthread, or the commenters engaging with corb to FIAMO instead of piling on, or an other action entirely?
To me, the second option feels like it has been the one the mods always advocate for, and so having so many comments in this thread saying corb is the problem bothers me.
There's been quite a lot of remarks made by people along the lines of corb said X, and she put up hypothetical y, and then said racist thing z, and we can't let that stand and now we have to engage with her, and it's a pattern and it's a problem because corb is making the thread all about her.
But If x, y, z is a pattern of corb's and you know it and you think it is a problem, why are you engaging with corb? That is not your only choice, and putting that all on corb ignores your own part in the continuing pattern.
If Z is racist, that's clearly against site guidelines. Flag it, and move on! It will be deleted. No one has to take the brave stance of being the sole voice to condemn racism as a bad thing because otherwise other people will think it is okay. We KNOW racism is bad, and it is already against site giidelines, anyway, right? FIAMO!
If hypothetical Ys are a problem for you, then you have a choice of responding or not responding, flagging them, or asking the mods if they think Y warrants action. What you choose to do is up to you. I would point out that in that death penalty thread, a lot of hypotheticals were made not just by corb but to her, about her family and what she would do. So if the mods decide to make that kind of hypothetical argument against site guidelines, those should also be disallowed.
And finally comes x, which is corb having an opinion you can't stand. tonycspu, you seem to feel like corb needs to apologize to you personally because she favors the death penalty and you don't. I'm sorry, but I think you are way out of line, and need to be willing to move on when a thread has long since closed but someone will not come around to your way of thinking, instead of rehashing that old thread here the way you have done. Unless the mods ferl that supporting the death penalty is an offensive enough position to get corb banned, which I don't think they do?
posted by misha at 11:44 PM on December 7, 2014 [5 favorites]
Just tagging on that I would be really happy if we could get an agreement that if the mods make a statement on whether corb should be banned from certain thread subjects or from the site or any other action taken, that those complaining about corb will accept that ruling. If corb is banned for racism or just from threads about the death penalty or whatever, then that complaint is gone, of course.
But if the mods decide that corb should not be banned or sanctioned in some way, then can we agree to refrain from rehashing old threads and using them against corb in the future, or making snide remarks about corb's past, and allow her to actually move forward without trying to sabotage that?
posted by misha at 11:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
But if the mods decide that corb should not be banned or sanctioned in some way, then can we agree to refrain from rehashing old threads and using them against corb in the future, or making snide remarks about corb's past, and allow her to actually move forward without trying to sabotage that?
posted by misha at 11:51 PM on December 7, 2014 [4 favorites]
> Stop joining pile-ons. Move on, maybe.
You say "turn the other cheek," but I hear "don't put up a fight." As if these so-called pile-ons happen because certain people enjoy controlling rather than maintaining a discussion.
No, those kinds of people selectively and persistently create petty arguments out of the mountains of honest effort that becomes eroded by frustration. That's on the occasion they actually engage the substance of another user's response, of course. Otherwise, they seem to have a pattern of inflammatory, dismissive, "+1" insincere comments that don't address anything and serve little purpose other than fanning flames.
Sometimes they complain about favorites, and lo, when ye turneth favorites on, you might find that they tend to "bookmark" the more inflammatory comments defending the Accused rather than any of the thoughtful responses from the Accusers. I suspect this is part of where the request for the Hivemind's Most Wanted List comes from.
So, let's not pretend "flagging it and moving on" is supposed to be some kind of all-powerful solution when it would be so much easier if people would stop dropping shit-mines for everyone else to flag.
As an aside, I'm honestly surprised people can continue to complain about being silenced when we have a 1200 comment thread (and who knows how many organizational resources like the moderators' attention) dedicated to a handful of such marginalized voices.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 11:54 PM on December 7, 2014 [9 favorites]
You say "turn the other cheek," but I hear "don't put up a fight." As if these so-called pile-ons happen because certain people enjoy controlling rather than maintaining a discussion.
No, those kinds of people selectively and persistently create petty arguments out of the mountains of honest effort that becomes eroded by frustration. That's on the occasion they actually engage the substance of another user's response, of course. Otherwise, they seem to have a pattern of inflammatory, dismissive, "+1" insincere comments that don't address anything and serve little purpose other than fanning flames.
Sometimes they complain about favorites, and lo, when ye turneth favorites on, you might find that they tend to "bookmark" the more inflammatory comments defending the Accused rather than any of the thoughtful responses from the Accusers. I suspect this is part of where the request for the Hivemind's Most Wanted List comes from.
So, let's not pretend "flagging it and moving on" is supposed to be some kind of all-powerful solution when it would be so much easier if people would stop dropping shit-mines for everyone else to flag.
As an aside, I'm honestly surprised people can continue to complain about being silenced when we have a 1200 comment thread (and who knows how many organizational resources like the moderators' attention) dedicated to a handful of such marginalized voices.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 11:54 PM on December 7, 2014 [9 favorites]
I mean fucking seriously. You aren't silenced; you're goddamned celebrities here.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 12:02 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 12:02 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
You say "turn the other cheek"
No, I'm saying: Stop using your status to gang up on people who say things you don't like. Your efforts have done little to convince your target of your point of view, and a fair number of us are tired of your unceasing attempts to re-educate people you haven't shown much ability to re-educate. After you've said your piece, if you haven't convinced corb or Ironmouth or whomever of your different viewpoint, move on. Leave them alone. Especially when they aren't participating in the ongoing thread. Your behavior comes off as the real problem, otherwise, and explains why we have to have tiresome threads like this that run 1200+ comments.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
No, I'm saying: Stop using your status to gang up on people who say things you don't like. Your efforts have done little to convince your target of your point of view, and a fair number of us are tired of your unceasing attempts to re-educate people you haven't shown much ability to re-educate. After you've said your piece, if you haven't convinced corb or Ironmouth or whomever of your different viewpoint, move on. Leave them alone. Especially when they aren't participating in the ongoing thread. Your behavior comes off as the real problem, otherwise, and explains why we have to have tiresome threads like this that run 1200+ comments.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
No status is required to "gang up" on any of these people; they're just unpopular, nay infamous. It's likely they'll never be convinced of a different viewpoint, so your advice to leave them alone translates to letting children run roughshod if they throw enough tantrums. It's a lot like terrorism in that respect, and requires an equally difficult and measured solution. Gliding over the other assumptions you just made, I'll say this:
What makes you an asshole is not realizing there are more important things than being an asshole.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 12:32 AM on December 8, 2014
What makes you an asshole is not realizing there are more important things than being an asshole.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 12:32 AM on December 8, 2014
It's a lot like terrorism in that respect
It's like a 9/11 drum circle. I'm going to go gnaw off my leg, now, thanks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's like a 9/11 drum circle. I'm going to go gnaw off my leg, now, thanks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
No status is required to "gang up" on any of these people
Except for majority status.
And "leave them alone" is not the only alternative to relentless piling on.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:46 AM on December 8, 2014
Except for majority status.
And "leave them alone" is not the only alternative to relentless piling on.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:46 AM on December 8, 2014
she routinely says things that are hard to believe anyone says out loud
LOL. Yeah. But, you know, the upside of that is that at times she expresses things that are valid observations about the human condition, but most people are too afraid (here, I mean, not in the general public discourse) or not honest enough actually to say them out loud.
Examples:
1) her observations about racist cops or confederate soldiers being a product of their culture are fair enough, and a vexing aspect of historical study as we do want to judge prominent historical figures by modern standards. Jefferson and Lincoln are examples of people who changed history largely for the better (I include Jefferson there even with regard to African Americans because his thinking about human rights and self-determination was used retrospectively by abolitionists)--yet their thinking and writing and the compromises they made were definitely problematic, some aspects of them repugnant, by today's standards.
Yet when corb makes arguments to this effect*, she is invariably treated as if she is defending the warped cultures that give rise to injustice and/or absolving the individual actors of responsibility.
*I know some of her arguments have been more inflammatory than what I'm saying here. But if people could engage with the kernel of truth in her arguments while challenging the rest, rather than leaping to attribute the worst possible motives to her, I think discussion could be more productive.
2) Her absolutism about love and defense of family: well, that's complicated, but as I think Drinky Die said upthread, it's hardly without precedent in real-life situations. And in all honesty a lot of us who are parents might genuinely find our principles challenged if the lives or freedom of our own children were at stake. corb is unusual, maybe, in her willingness to say up front that she'd throw everything over to protect her child. But I honestly don't consider it "vile" to be honest about that while holding conflicting beliefs about the death penalty (and I oppose the DP). Humans are contradictory. Metafilter ought to be able to handle that; certainly, we shouldn't vilify someone who seems to have made her peace with her own internal contradictions.
I can't say that I see "learning" as part of the multi-year arc here.
And that's not a requirement for participation on Metafilter, and it's kind of condescending to suggest it should be. I bet corb's learned a ton of stuff from MeFi. That it hasn't fundamentally changed her world view, well, so what. She brings a lot of intelligence and a unique perspective to the site. If you scan through her comment history, the problematic/inflammatory stuff is really dwarfed by the number of interesting, useful comments.
For the vast majority of people who comment on MeFi, there is no observable arc of learning going on. I think most of us who read regularly ARE learning; but it's not necessarily reflected in our comment history. And most of us don't have the constant spotlight on us, or the expectation for capitulation, that corb does.
Finally, I didn't say I see "learning" as something reflected in corb's comments, but rather an interest in hearing and understanding opposing viewpoints. If that's how a person interacts with Metafilter, and they do it courteously and within the guidelines, that should be perfectly acceptable.
posted by torticat at 12:55 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
LOL. Yeah. But, you know, the upside of that is that at times she expresses things that are valid observations about the human condition, but most people are too afraid (here, I mean, not in the general public discourse) or not honest enough actually to say them out loud.
Examples:
1) her observations about racist cops or confederate soldiers being a product of their culture are fair enough, and a vexing aspect of historical study as we do want to judge prominent historical figures by modern standards. Jefferson and Lincoln are examples of people who changed history largely for the better (I include Jefferson there even with regard to African Americans because his thinking about human rights and self-determination was used retrospectively by abolitionists)--yet their thinking and writing and the compromises they made were definitely problematic, some aspects of them repugnant, by today's standards.
Yet when corb makes arguments to this effect*, she is invariably treated as if she is defending the warped cultures that give rise to injustice and/or absolving the individual actors of responsibility.
*I know some of her arguments have been more inflammatory than what I'm saying here. But if people could engage with the kernel of truth in her arguments while challenging the rest, rather than leaping to attribute the worst possible motives to her, I think discussion could be more productive.
2) Her absolutism about love and defense of family: well, that's complicated, but as I think Drinky Die said upthread, it's hardly without precedent in real-life situations. And in all honesty a lot of us who are parents might genuinely find our principles challenged if the lives or freedom of our own children were at stake. corb is unusual, maybe, in her willingness to say up front that she'd throw everything over to protect her child. But I honestly don't consider it "vile" to be honest about that while holding conflicting beliefs about the death penalty (and I oppose the DP). Humans are contradictory. Metafilter ought to be able to handle that; certainly, we shouldn't vilify someone who seems to have made her peace with her own internal contradictions.
I can't say that I see "learning" as part of the multi-year arc here.
And that's not a requirement for participation on Metafilter, and it's kind of condescending to suggest it should be. I bet corb's learned a ton of stuff from MeFi. That it hasn't fundamentally changed her world view, well, so what. She brings a lot of intelligence and a unique perspective to the site. If you scan through her comment history, the problematic/inflammatory stuff is really dwarfed by the number of interesting, useful comments.
For the vast majority of people who comment on MeFi, there is no observable arc of learning going on. I think most of us who read regularly ARE learning; but it's not necessarily reflected in our comment history. And most of us don't have the constant spotlight on us, or the expectation for capitulation, that corb does.
Finally, I didn't say I see "learning" as something reflected in corb's comments, but rather an interest in hearing and understanding opposing viewpoints. If that's how a person interacts with Metafilter, and they do it courteously and within the guidelines, that should be perfectly acceptable.
posted by torticat at 12:55 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
And that's not a requirement for participation on Metafilter, and it's kind of condescending to suggest it should be.
Let me amend that, since you never said it should be a requirement for participation on Metafilter, Miko. I'm sorry about that.
It is not a requirement for participation that is judged to be in good faith. People can value the community here and the (generally) high level of discussion without having their fundamental beliefs changed by it. I do believe it's condescending to suggest a libertarian ought to be making some visible "progress," or else should reconsider their approach to discussions on Metafilter.
posted by torticat at 2:24 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Let me amend that, since you never said it should be a requirement for participation on Metafilter, Miko. I'm sorry about that.
It is not a requirement for participation that is judged to be in good faith. People can value the community here and the (generally) high level of discussion without having their fundamental beliefs changed by it. I do believe it's condescending to suggest a libertarian ought to be making some visible "progress," or else should reconsider their approach to discussions on Metafilter.
posted by torticat at 2:24 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
misha: I wish people complaining about corb would offer a solution
I'd like to remind you that this thread was started by someone who complained specifically about the treatment of corb (and others), and not by someone who was complaining about corb.
This puts the burden to 'offer a solution' squarely on those complaining about corb's treatment, and not on those complaining about corb.
As I see it, several of those who've complained about corb in this discussion are simply defending the status quo. Count me among them.
posted by syzygy at 3:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
I'd like to remind you that this thread was started by someone who complained specifically about the treatment of corb (and others), and not by someone who was complaining about corb.
This puts the burden to 'offer a solution' squarely on those complaining about corb's treatment, and not on those complaining about corb.
As I see it, several of those who've complained about corb in this discussion are simply defending the status quo. Count me among them.
posted by syzygy at 3:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
a solution has been offered - quit piling on to people just because you can
that it's not been accepted simply means to me that people don't want a solution
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
that it's not been accepted simply means to me that people don't want a solution
posted by pyramid termite at 3:51 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
Joseph Gurl: There is some range of opinion that is not allowed on this site. The moderators are the recourse for comments that express opinions in that range.
And what about comments that express opinions not in that range? If {poster} makes a comment that I and several others disagree with, but that we don't think rises to the level of a site violation, and I and the several others who disagree with the comment respond to perceived factual or logical deficiencies contained in the comment, is this piling on? Are you suggesting that people need to simply stop pointing out (perceived) factual and logical deficiencies in comments on the blue? Just FIAMO, and if the mods don't delete it, tough shit?
The go-to phrase is FIAMO--Flag It And Move On--notFIAPO--Flag It and Pile On.
If corb (or Ironmouth, or whoever) is saying things you think shouldn't be said here, then go to the mods. If they agree, they'll handle it. If they disagree, you're shit outta luck. Them's the breaks.
No, them's not the breaks. That's not what FIAMO is all about. We're not to argue about whether a specific comment in a discussion on the blue is in violation of site guidelines, at least not in the discussion, itself. We can either flag the comment, contact the mods directly about it, or bring it up for discussion on the gray.
But I don't think that means that if I flag a comment as a potential violation of site guidelines, that I'm automatically forbidden to address what I perceive as factual or logical deficiencies contained in that comment. I've never heard a mod suggest that if the mods refuse to delete a comment that someone has flagged or otherwise asked them to delete, that the person who requested the comment's deletion is then forbidden to address the content of the comment.
---
As an aside, I'd like to thank you for finally offering some constructive advice for a change (in this discussion), rather than simply doing your part to ratchet up the level of snark and incivility by piling on vague and often acerbic complaints. It's struck me as ironic that you have seemed to argue for more respectful behavior on the site in a manner that, to me, often seems anything but respectful.
posted by syzygy at 4:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
And what about comments that express opinions not in that range? If {poster} makes a comment that I and several others disagree with, but that we don't think rises to the level of a site violation, and I and the several others who disagree with the comment respond to perceived factual or logical deficiencies contained in the comment, is this piling on? Are you suggesting that people need to simply stop pointing out (perceived) factual and logical deficiencies in comments on the blue? Just FIAMO, and if the mods don't delete it, tough shit?
The go-to phrase is FIAMO--Flag It And Move On--notFIAPO--Flag It and Pile On.
If corb (or Ironmouth, or whoever) is saying things you think shouldn't be said here, then go to the mods. If they agree, they'll handle it. If they disagree, you're shit outta luck. Them's the breaks.
No, them's not the breaks. That's not what FIAMO is all about. We're not to argue about whether a specific comment in a discussion on the blue is in violation of site guidelines, at least not in the discussion, itself. We can either flag the comment, contact the mods directly about it, or bring it up for discussion on the gray.
But I don't think that means that if I flag a comment as a potential violation of site guidelines, that I'm automatically forbidden to address what I perceive as factual or logical deficiencies contained in that comment. I've never heard a mod suggest that if the mods refuse to delete a comment that someone has flagged or otherwise asked them to delete, that the person who requested the comment's deletion is then forbidden to address the content of the comment.
---
As an aside, I'd like to thank you for finally offering some constructive advice for a change (in this discussion), rather than simply doing your part to ratchet up the level of snark and incivility by piling on vague and often acerbic complaints. It's struck me as ironic that you have seemed to argue for more respectful behavior on the site in a manner that, to me, often seems anything but respectful.
posted by syzygy at 4:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
pyramid termite: quit piling on to people just because you can
I disagree with the premise. I certainly don't think that solution applies to my behavior, at least, and I think we've discussed, in detail, reasons why some people who are often seen by others as being victims of 'piling on' sometimes share at least partial responsibility for some of the responses they get.
posted by syzygy at 4:19 AM on December 8, 2014
I disagree with the premise. I certainly don't think that solution applies to my behavior, at least, and I think we've discussed, in detail, reasons why some people who are often seen by others as being victims of 'piling on' sometimes share at least partial responsibility for some of the responses they get.
posted by syzygy at 4:19 AM on December 8, 2014
I disagree with the premise.
in a thread where people have dredged up old postings and threads and then proceeded to actually reargue them even if the original controversial poster isn't participating anymore, the premise stands as proven
posted by pyramid termite at 4:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
in a thread where people have dredged up old postings and threads and then proceeded to actually reargue them even if the original controversial poster isn't participating anymore, the premise stands as proven
posted by pyramid termite at 4:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
I disagree 100%. Context is important, and the context is that the thread was opened with criticisms of the (perceived) way mods and some posters respond to some other specific posters, a handful of whom were specifically singled out in the opening post.
As such, I don't think that bringing up those specific posters' history in order to provide background and historical context to the discussion proves your premise, in the slightest.
posted by syzygy at 4:36 AM on December 8, 2014
As such, I don't think that bringing up those specific posters' history in order to provide background and historical context to the discussion proves your premise, in the slightest.
posted by syzygy at 4:36 AM on December 8, 2014
but that's not all that happened - after providing background and historical context, they then proceed to have another argument over the same controversy
it's sheer obsession with being "right" against someone who's no longer even arguing
posted by pyramid termite at 4:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
it's sheer obsession with being "right" against someone who's no longer even arguing
posted by pyramid termite at 4:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
'Comes a time when you settle down', as Neil Young so eloquently sang.
posted by h00py at 4:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by h00py at 4:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
pyramide termite: after providing background and historical context, they then proceed to have another argument over the same controversy
And I suppose they were having that argument with themselves?
posted by syzygy at 4:53 AM on December 8, 2014
And I suppose they were having that argument with themselves?
posted by syzygy at 4:53 AM on December 8, 2014
If Z is racist, that's clearly against site guidelines. Flag it, and move on! It will be deleted.
At the risk of sinking into a racism-is-pervasive vs. racism-only-refers-to-the-most-egregious semantic argument, it seems worth pointing out that this is simply untrue. There are certain sorts of racist comments that are against site guidelines, but espousing a belief that is informed by racist worldview assumptions (for example) doesn't in itself cross that line.
(Also, it sure would be weird if the contrarian position here were to flip around and suggest that Ah, we shouldn't be discussing other posters' racist beliefs because the mods should be censoring those beliefs in the first place.)
posted by nobody at 4:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
At the risk of sinking into a racism-is-pervasive vs. racism-only-refers-to-the-most-egregious semantic argument, it seems worth pointing out that this is simply untrue. There are certain sorts of racist comments that are against site guidelines, but espousing a belief that is informed by racist worldview assumptions (for example) doesn't in itself cross that line.
(Also, it sure would be weird if the contrarian position here were to flip around and suggest that Ah, we shouldn't be discussing other posters' racist beliefs because the mods should be censoring those beliefs in the first place.)
posted by nobody at 4:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
yes, they were having it with themselves - the proof is in this thread, please read it
posted by pyramid termite at 4:57 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 4:57 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I've read every comment in this thread. I don't see anything wrong with bringing posters' history into a discussion about how those posters are treated, and I don't see anything wrong with others disagreeing about what the history that was brought into the discussion means, and how and whether, if at all, it's germane to the discussion.
Again, I disagree with your premise and will leave it at that.
posted by syzygy at 5:01 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Again, I disagree with your premise and will leave it at that.
posted by syzygy at 5:01 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think the problem from a moderation point of view in terms of a moderator-enforced solution is that assuming that there were even a general consensus that we should eliminate instances of many people responding to a single unpopular viewpoint or comment, and ignoring the fact that we do not actually have the staff to read every comment in every contentious topic thread and actively manage or "curate" comments so that only X% of responses to a particular poster were allowed, I can't envision how would that be organized in a way that wasn't entirely arbitrary or creating a discussion paradigm that is completely different from how the site is conceived and operates.
I can't see us deleting all comments responding to a flashpoint opinion or argument after, say, three dissenting comments. We can't demand that everyone who disagrees with a comment and wants to debate the point gather together and assign one or two people to present those arguments.
In theory, we could ask people to stop responding to a given user, but this isn't very realistic beyond the occasional nudges when we ask people to maybe drop the hyperfocus on one aspect of the debate that is overwhelming the entire discussion.
Nobody on either side would be grateful or satisfied with us demanding that further comments just ignore [Specific User], and deleting all further responses to them but not deleting their further comments would be a crazy mess, so we are left with trying to manage things as lightly as possible while attempting to steer things away from another tedious, angry rehash of the same old fights. Sometimes we ask the person who has become the focus of the whole discussion to step back once they've made their point several times, and ask that others let it go and open up the discussion beyond fighting with this one person.
Sometimes we make the ever-popular "read the room" request. Specifically, in high-emotion threads when something awful has happened, maybe the best time to offer your contrary argument is not at the height of emotional reaction, but a bit later, when people start drilling down into more analytical responses and examinations.
But we would hope that people responding can also read the room in a different way and see if their dissenting idea has already been offered by several others, and perhaps move the conversation forward in a way that doesn't continue to focus on that one person: or in other words, the also ever-popular self-policing idea.
And to depart a bit from the very specific here and ramble a bit, I'll also say that in terms of the atmosphere surrounding these threads and general internet climate and influences, we've been discussing quite a bit on the moderation side lately how the current pervasive clickbait environment of $outrage-of-the-day$ that proliferates on so many popular sites combined with twitter/facebook-style fast-and-furious howls of fury reactions are priming people to a) come to the site pre-outraged and ready to vent about whatever is being bruited on social media, whether it is serious questions of civil, social and political importance, or something about some celebrity's butt, or some spat between a couple of bloggers (etc.), and b) is sort of relentlessly molding expectations of how to discuss difficult topics toward shorter, angrier outbursts of condemnation via the constant twitter model, for example, and how c) this is doesn't scale well on Metafilter both for reasons of practicality, such as moderation level and staffing and site architecture (unthreaded discussion, for example), as well as just how it relates to our basic raison d'être, which is geared to more conversational participation rather than quickfire constant short venting or absolutist comments.
I'm not saying this is entirely the heart of the pile-on problem, because we've always had problems with that issue, but it is a difference of scale and intensity, and especially in the case of some topics or certain types of threads, we seem to be bumping up against issues wherein people would like to have Mefi as the place for mostly civil, thoughtful discussion, but also to be able to use the site more as a rapid fire social media-style or live-blogging utility that is geared toward a very different purpose and range of expression – or, in some instances people expect this to be a space that is more like an explicitly protected safe harbor in terms of the sexism, racism etc. that is so hard to avoid on social media, and all these often conflicting expectations exist against a backdrop of the additional expectation of being able to support unlimited comments (again engendered by what people are accustomed to on twitter, facebook, or even reddit) – so where we might once have had tens of comments in a given thread we now have tens of comments by each of many single users, and hundreds or thousands of comments overall in some threads, which just on its own creates some serious challenges to discussion and barriers to participation, and certainly magnifies the pile-on and/or take-on-all-comers effect.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:47 AM on December 8, 2014 [23 favorites]
I can't see us deleting all comments responding to a flashpoint opinion or argument after, say, three dissenting comments. We can't demand that everyone who disagrees with a comment and wants to debate the point gather together and assign one or two people to present those arguments.
In theory, we could ask people to stop responding to a given user, but this isn't very realistic beyond the occasional nudges when we ask people to maybe drop the hyperfocus on one aspect of the debate that is overwhelming the entire discussion.
Nobody on either side would be grateful or satisfied with us demanding that further comments just ignore [Specific User], and deleting all further responses to them but not deleting their further comments would be a crazy mess, so we are left with trying to manage things as lightly as possible while attempting to steer things away from another tedious, angry rehash of the same old fights. Sometimes we ask the person who has become the focus of the whole discussion to step back once they've made their point several times, and ask that others let it go and open up the discussion beyond fighting with this one person.
Sometimes we make the ever-popular "read the room" request. Specifically, in high-emotion threads when something awful has happened, maybe the best time to offer your contrary argument is not at the height of emotional reaction, but a bit later, when people start drilling down into more analytical responses and examinations.
But we would hope that people responding can also read the room in a different way and see if their dissenting idea has already been offered by several others, and perhaps move the conversation forward in a way that doesn't continue to focus on that one person: or in other words, the also ever-popular self-policing idea.
And to depart a bit from the very specific here and ramble a bit, I'll also say that in terms of the atmosphere surrounding these threads and general internet climate and influences, we've been discussing quite a bit on the moderation side lately how the current pervasive clickbait environment of $outrage-of-the-day$ that proliferates on so many popular sites combined with twitter/facebook-style fast-and-furious howls of fury reactions are priming people to a) come to the site pre-outraged and ready to vent about whatever is being bruited on social media, whether it is serious questions of civil, social and political importance, or something about some celebrity's butt, or some spat between a couple of bloggers (etc.), and b) is sort of relentlessly molding expectations of how to discuss difficult topics toward shorter, angrier outbursts of condemnation via the constant twitter model, for example, and how c) this is doesn't scale well on Metafilter both for reasons of practicality, such as moderation level and staffing and site architecture (unthreaded discussion, for example), as well as just how it relates to our basic raison d'être, which is geared to more conversational participation rather than quickfire constant short venting or absolutist comments.
I'm not saying this is entirely the heart of the pile-on problem, because we've always had problems with that issue, but it is a difference of scale and intensity, and especially in the case of some topics or certain types of threads, we seem to be bumping up against issues wherein people would like to have Mefi as the place for mostly civil, thoughtful discussion, but also to be able to use the site more as a rapid fire social media-style or live-blogging utility that is geared toward a very different purpose and range of expression – or, in some instances people expect this to be a space that is more like an explicitly protected safe harbor in terms of the sexism, racism etc. that is so hard to avoid on social media, and all these often conflicting expectations exist against a backdrop of the additional expectation of being able to support unlimited comments (again engendered by what people are accustomed to on twitter, facebook, or even reddit) – so where we might once have had tens of comments in a given thread we now have tens of comments by each of many single users, and hundreds or thousands of comments overall in some threads, which just on its own creates some serious challenges to discussion and barriers to participation, and certainly magnifies the pile-on and/or take-on-all-comers effect.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:47 AM on December 8, 2014 [23 favorites]
I'm glad for that penultimate paragraph, taz, because I do think using MetaFilter as a vent for bursts of outrage is not the best use for the website, and yet there is that level of creep into the way things are dealt with here. I'd even go so far as to say one of the culprits would be the rise of smart devices, which are generally too unwieldy for anything but a shorter comment in the heat of the moment and therefore encourages exactly that 'quickfire short venting of absolutist comments' that works against what the site is trying to be.
If I was boss, I'd have banned corb after the Trayvon Martin threads, or maybe the Maggie Thatcher threads, or half a dozen other examples I can think of. But I would be an angry god, banning all over the place, and it is not my website, nor do I think my opinion really holds any weight in the area of banning. It might be my personal preference, but it's not my call.
However, since answers have been asked for, If I had to choose just one topic for corb not to contribute in, it would be anything to do with guns. I feel that more than any other topic, anything to do with guns is where she spends the most time being factually incorrect and strawmanning any arguments she disagrees with. She's not the only pro-gun person here, so I hardly feel like (roughly) her point of view would be silenced. But some of the worst aspects of her participation are all on display in those threads and have no sign of improving.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:35 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
If I was boss, I'd have banned corb after the Trayvon Martin threads, or maybe the Maggie Thatcher threads, or half a dozen other examples I can think of. But I would be an angry god, banning all over the place, and it is not my website, nor do I think my opinion really holds any weight in the area of banning. It might be my personal preference, but it's not my call.
However, since answers have been asked for, If I had to choose just one topic for corb not to contribute in, it would be anything to do with guns. I feel that more than any other topic, anything to do with guns is where she spends the most time being factually incorrect and strawmanning any arguments she disagrees with. She's not the only pro-gun person here, so I hardly feel like (roughly) her point of view would be silenced. But some of the worst aspects of her participation are all on display in those threads and have no sign of improving.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:35 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
But I would be an angry god, banning all over the place, and it is not my website, nor do I think my opinion really holds any weight in the area of banning. It might be my personal preference, but it's not my call.
Remember, Metafilter killfiles exist. If you wish a particular user gone, you can simply ban them -- and even any comment that mentions them, if you want -- from your personal Metafilter existence.
posted by shivohum at 6:44 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Remember, Metafilter killfiles exist. If you wish a particular user gone, you can simply ban them -- and even any comment that mentions them, if you want -- from your personal Metafilter existence.
posted by shivohum at 6:44 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
gadge emeritus, would you mind linking or memailing me those comments? I have a bit of (professional) interest in how gun debates go badly, but I don't generally participate in such threads.
It'd also give me some better context for people's criticisms of corb. A lot of people have asked for her to be banned, so there's at least some policy outcome desired here. But I don't find her participation in the death penalty thread, for instance, to rise to the level that others claim. Even the interactions with scody look odd to me because scody is awesome but really comes off looking bad to me in that exchange, especially her last "I'm coming back to call you a bunch of names" comment.
To my mind, nothing corb said seems to warrant that, even though I disagree with her. And while scody says she would not turn in her relatives, other commenters say they would. So it's not clear why scody takes the comment about not understanding that impulse personally, except in the sense that she's committed a good part of her life to activism in this area and feels that it's in important ways "about" her. (I think it's Dune where the mother responds to a perceived slight by saying she displayed a general garment and you claim it is cut to your fit?) Corb's repugnance at turning in one's family gets lots of criticisms from all sides, but weirdly the criticism is inconsistent: some say do it, and get rid of the death penalty; others say don't do it and get rid of the death penalty. It's odd that the only unacceptable position seems to be don't do and keep the death penalty.
If I were corb and had to face that kind of excoriation, I wouldn't stick around, which is what I meant way up above by saying she's someone I often disagree with but otherwise think of as a charitable interpreter. My Facebook feed is made up of basically only people who agree with me and people who disagree with me because I'm not radical enough. It's nice to read people, occasionally, who disagree with me from a different perspective, since that's basically the majority of 'Murica and those are the hearts and minds that need to be won. I guess on some level I want corb around because I think that if there was a way to persuade her, then there's a way to persuade our fellow citizens. And if there isn't a way to persuade her, maybe we should give up on our fellow citizens (who aren't generally nearly as charitable as corb.)
But like I said, if we're going to have the "ban corb" discussion, I do think it's warranted to link to some of the comments where she really says something beyond the pale. (And of course, these comments were the ones allowed to stand: I understand that her most egregious comments may have been deleted. If that's the case it's okay to say so, too.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:59 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
It'd also give me some better context for people's criticisms of corb. A lot of people have asked for her to be banned, so there's at least some policy outcome desired here. But I don't find her participation in the death penalty thread, for instance, to rise to the level that others claim. Even the interactions with scody look odd to me because scody is awesome but really comes off looking bad to me in that exchange, especially her last "I'm coming back to call you a bunch of names" comment.
To my mind, nothing corb said seems to warrant that, even though I disagree with her. And while scody says she would not turn in her relatives, other commenters say they would. So it's not clear why scody takes the comment about not understanding that impulse personally, except in the sense that she's committed a good part of her life to activism in this area and feels that it's in important ways "about" her. (I think it's Dune where the mother responds to a perceived slight by saying she displayed a general garment and you claim it is cut to your fit?) Corb's repugnance at turning in one's family gets lots of criticisms from all sides, but weirdly the criticism is inconsistent: some say do it, and get rid of the death penalty; others say don't do it and get rid of the death penalty. It's odd that the only unacceptable position seems to be don't do and keep the death penalty.
If I were corb and had to face that kind of excoriation, I wouldn't stick around, which is what I meant way up above by saying she's someone I often disagree with but otherwise think of as a charitable interpreter. My Facebook feed is made up of basically only people who agree with me and people who disagree with me because I'm not radical enough. It's nice to read people, occasionally, who disagree with me from a different perspective, since that's basically the majority of 'Murica and those are the hearts and minds that need to be won. I guess on some level I want corb around because I think that if there was a way to persuade her, then there's a way to persuade our fellow citizens. And if there isn't a way to persuade her, maybe we should give up on our fellow citizens (who aren't generally nearly as charitable as corb.)
But like I said, if we're going to have the "ban corb" discussion, I do think it's warranted to link to some of the comments where she really says something beyond the pale. (And of course, these comments were the ones allowed to stand: I understand that her most egregious comments may have been deleted. If that's the case it's okay to say so, too.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:59 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't think that any sort of "ban anyone" discussion should be happening based solely on past comments. Retroactively deciding that what someone did months ago now means they are no longer allowed to participate is not reasonable. Factoring it into one's opinion of a poster, fine, but not banning, even from any one particular topic.
This discussion is feeling plain old vindictive at this point.
posted by jaguar at 7:11 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
This discussion is feeling plain old vindictive at this point.
posted by jaguar at 7:11 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
It would help a lot if it weren't de facto policy to allow fighty comments to be the last word as long as they're in line with popular opinion and then delete any subsequent response from the person being piled onto.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:24 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:24 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
It's also excruciatingly boring. There's more than three people on Metafilter who are annoying, let's branch out a bit, shall we? Refute, flag, move the fuck on. Calling for bans is churlish. Hone your arguing skills with a nice pithy rejoinder and unless they are threatening to override everything that is good about this site then back off and save your rhetoric for the next annoying person who comes along. There is no shortage of annoying people in the world and you are never going to be free of them. How you respond is completely up to you. Asking for them never to exist is pointless and a certain way to become irritable and unforgiving.
posted by h00py at 7:25 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by h00py at 7:25 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
I must have missed the ban corb movement. I certainly don't think banning her is the answer. She is a valuable contributor on AskMe, whatever I may think of her political opinions and how she chooses to discuss them.
It's also in bad taste to talk about it as if we have some sort of vote on it, which we certainly do not and should not.
posted by winna at 7:27 AM on December 8, 2014 [16 favorites]
It's also in bad taste to talk about it as if we have some sort of vote on it, which we certainly do not and should not.
posted by winna at 7:27 AM on December 8, 2014 [16 favorites]
If I had to choose just one topic for corb not to contribute in, it would be anything to do with guns. I feel that more than any other topic, anything to do with guns is where she spends the most time being factually incorrect and strawmanning any arguments she disagrees with.
Meh. Corb's gun posts frustrate me, as a lefty gun-owner, because I find them to be the standard NRA party line that seems like it picked an outcome - no restrictions of any sort ever - and filled in all the other bits as necessary to support that. But I don't recall factual incorrectness, just sort of spirited chases about to wherever she's dragged the goalposts off to between missives. She's cordial about it all, though, and I think there's value in that voice that represents so much of the population being heard here.
Should she or others find a reasonable point where they say "this clearly is the point where there's a fundamental disagreement that will never be settled," absolutely. But if fundamental disagreements or even an inability to recognize them in one's self are disqualifying elements then there's plenty of other people who need a lookin at.
I can't see that it's so hard for people, when the gun restriction issue crops up, to say hey, we get it - you think there's no limit that's worth it. If it's a derail then people can try to play nice and the mods will demand it. I see shittier and more rude behavior that that upstream here, to my mind.
posted by phearlez at 7:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Meh. Corb's gun posts frustrate me, as a lefty gun-owner, because I find them to be the standard NRA party line that seems like it picked an outcome - no restrictions of any sort ever - and filled in all the other bits as necessary to support that. But I don't recall factual incorrectness, just sort of spirited chases about to wherever she's dragged the goalposts off to between missives. She's cordial about it all, though, and I think there's value in that voice that represents so much of the population being heard here.
Should she or others find a reasonable point where they say "this clearly is the point where there's a fundamental disagreement that will never be settled," absolutely. But if fundamental disagreements or even an inability to recognize them in one's self are disqualifying elements then there's plenty of other people who need a lookin at.
I can't see that it's so hard for people, when the gun restriction issue crops up, to say hey, we get it - you think there's no limit that's worth it. If it's a derail then people can try to play nice and the mods will demand it. I see shittier and more rude behavior that that upstream here, to my mind.
posted by phearlez at 7:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
It would help a lot if it weren't de facto policy to allow fighty comments to be the last word as long as they're in line with popular opinion and then delete any subsequent response from the person being piled onto.
That is not de facto policy. That is how it plays out sometimes, and sometimes the opposite arrangement, and sometimes an exchange gets cut off at the moment of inception. I can understand if you are bothered that someone else got the last word recently with you but your experience there does not generalize to all instances of exchanges that get cut off by mods and just about the only actually universal thing about such cutting-off events is that as mods we generally hear complaints from the folks who got cut off. Which is understandable because nobody likes being cut off, but it's not an ideological process.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
That is not de facto policy. That is how it plays out sometimes, and sometimes the opposite arrangement, and sometimes an exchange gets cut off at the moment of inception. I can understand if you are bothered that someone else got the last word recently with you but your experience there does not generalize to all instances of exchanges that get cut off by mods and just about the only actually universal thing about such cutting-off events is that as mods we generally hear complaints from the folks who got cut off. Which is understandable because nobody likes being cut off, but it's not an ideological process.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:41 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
It might be nice if folks took a moment to Cmd-F/Ctrl-F for "ban", "banned", and other variants in this MeTa, and note that not a single person has put forth the notion that anyone should be banned. gadge's statement was that he/she would have banned corb if it was his/her site, which it clearly isn't. Other uses of the word have been in the "I'm shocked that problem users haven't been banned already" sense (e.g. Sys Rq early in the thread), or Miko later on simply mentioning that banning is part of the moderator toolbox when things get out of hand, but the more recent incarnations of it aren't coming from anyone who's said anyone should be banned.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
It would help a lot if it weren't de facto policy to allow fighty comments to be the last word as long as they're in line with popular opinion and then delete any subsequent response from the person being piled onto.
Yes, I noticed versions of this happening yesterday in the UVA campus rape thread and it is really annoying.
posted by socks are for puppets at 7:44 AM on December 8, 2014
Yes, I noticed versions of this happening yesterday in the UVA campus rape thread and it is really annoying.
posted by socks are for puppets at 7:44 AM on December 8, 2014
Also workable: growing up to an emotional age past 9 and not seething with anger if Your Side isn't the one with the Last Word.
posted by phearlez at 7:45 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 7:45 AM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
Wait, what? I was one of the folks who flagged the fighty derail in the campus rape thread last night, and I don't see any evidence of anyone spiking the ball. The whole thing was pruned, and after cortex's "cool it" warning, things became more focused on the topic and less focused on the back-and-forth between a couple of users.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:53 AM on December 8, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 7:53 AM on December 8, 2014
Yes, I noticed versions of this happening yesterday in the UVA campus rape thread and it is really annoying.
What do you feel you noticed, exactly? I was working all day yesterday and deleted a few things and left a couple notes in there. Specifically:
I left two notes in the UVA thread yesterday, one after the deletion of several back-and-forth comments between two users who were getting into something more like a personal spat than a discussion and the other after deleting nothing from the exchange that needed to stop. In both cases, the last person to have a comment standing before the note was someone arguing the case that the rape victim was fabricating the sexual assault. Both notes were general requests to cool it.
I also deleted three other comments as one-offs, all for being basically just name-calling; two were targeted at folks arguing that the victim was fabricating the sexual assault, one was a targeted at people arguing for believing that assault happened.
Where, in all that, does the abetting of popular last-word comments come in?
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
What do you feel you noticed, exactly? I was working all day yesterday and deleted a few things and left a couple notes in there. Specifically:
I left two notes in the UVA thread yesterday, one after the deletion of several back-and-forth comments between two users who were getting into something more like a personal spat than a discussion and the other after deleting nothing from the exchange that needed to stop. In both cases, the last person to have a comment standing before the note was someone arguing the case that the rape victim was fabricating the sexual assault. Both notes were general requests to cool it.
I also deleted three other comments as one-offs, all for being basically just name-calling; two were targeted at folks arguing that the victim was fabricating the sexual assault, one was a targeted at people arguing for believing that assault happened.
Where, in all that, does the abetting of popular last-word comments come in?
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can understand if you are bothered that someone else got the last word recently with you
Last word? In my case, the user who posted the drive-by in that thread had literally no other participation in the thread until a couple of days later. That explicitly breaks the guidelines, and it wasn't deleted.
The issue I was actually talking about, however, was the fact that flame wars usually get pared back to the last popular opinion that isn't a straight-up "fuck you" instead of being removed in their entirety.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:05 AM on December 8, 2014
Last word? In my case, the user who posted the drive-by in that thread had literally no other participation in the thread until a couple of days later. That explicitly breaks the guidelines, and it wasn't deleted.
The issue I was actually talking about, however, was the fact that flame wars usually get pared back to the last popular opinion that isn't a straight-up "fuck you" instead of being removed in their entirety.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:05 AM on December 8, 2014
Could you maybe link to the specific comment(s) you're talking about so we have something to go on here?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:11 AM on December 8, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 8:11 AM on December 8, 2014
Last word? In my case, the user who posted the drive-by in that thread had literally no other participation in the thread until a couple of days later. That explicitly breaks the guidelines, and it wasn't deleted.
No, it does not. Their comment wasn't high art and I totally understand you being annoyed by it, but someone being taken aback by someone else's comment isn't itself a violation of the guidelines. You then digging back into a tangent that you'd already broached was distracting and unnecessary in an already difficult thread, which is why I removed your followups as well as at least one followup response to you.
The issue I was actually talking about, however, was the fact that flame wars usually get pared back to the last popular opinion that isn't a straight-up "fuck you" instead of being removed in their entirety.
And I am telling you, as one of the people who actually sees the deleted comments and leaves the notes, that it actually plays out according to the specific situation, not according to a popular-side-wins rubric. The de facto policy you are asserting exists does not exist. The very specific recent example someone else just brought to agree with your assertion is, itself, an example of if anything the opposite phenomenon.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:14 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, it does not. Their comment wasn't high art and I totally understand you being annoyed by it, but someone being taken aback by someone else's comment isn't itself a violation of the guidelines. You then digging back into a tangent that you'd already broached was distracting and unnecessary in an already difficult thread, which is why I removed your followups as well as at least one followup response to you.
The issue I was actually talking about, however, was the fact that flame wars usually get pared back to the last popular opinion that isn't a straight-up "fuck you" instead of being removed in their entirety.
And I am telling you, as one of the people who actually sees the deleted comments and leaves the notes, that it actually plays out according to the specific situation, not according to a popular-side-wins rubric. The de facto policy you are asserting exists does not exist. The very specific recent example someone else just brought to agree with your assertion is, itself, an example of if anything the opposite phenomenon.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:14 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Could you maybe link to the specific comment(s) you're talking about so we have something to go on here?
Here you go.
You then digging back into a tangent that you'd already broached was distracting and unnecessary
I'm not the one who dug back into that tangent. The comment linked above is the one that did that, after three hours of nobody talking about it. And yet it gets to stay despite being nearly completely devoid of content.
There's a pattern.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:28 AM on December 8, 2014
Here you go.
You then digging back into a tangent that you'd already broached was distracting and unnecessary
I'm not the one who dug back into that tangent. The comment linked above is the one that did that, after three hours of nobody talking about it. And yet it gets to stay despite being nearly completely devoid of content.
There's a pattern.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:28 AM on December 8, 2014
I wish people complaining about corb would offer a solution or, if trying ton eat corb banned, would just come out in the open about wanting to ban corb and exactly why that should happen.
Here's my plan of action:
1. When this kind of user's comments appear to be baiting, non-serious, non-earnest, or repetitive, treat them as noise and resist the temptation to respond.
2. When the comments are inaccurate or misleading, respond only in order to add a more supported view to the wider record.
3. In site management [beyond my control], do not offer any special protection to the user when they feel "challenged," "piled on," or open MeTas to complain their are being singled out. Let them deal with the results of their interactions.
I also little sympathy for these users running for the petticoats if and when they are conversing earnestly and people respond earnestly. It's these threads, actually, seeking some support from site ideals to put a wall of separation between their words and other users' reactions that I think are the biggest problem, not even the repellent-to-many comments that cause the reaction.
Basically, I'm happy to do my part to avoid these shitfests now that I have developed some understanding of why they happen. They are not fun. At the same time, I can't control anyone else and think that people should be able to push, challenge, and respond if they think it's going to be productive. I continue to think "piling on " is a shallow way of characterizing earnest response that happens to be asymmetrical in number. I don't think we need any special policies for dealing with that situation beyond an occasional mod "cool it, we've seen this show before", we just need good-faith engagement and the smartest possible individual choices.
The "just flag it" solution is inadequate. I say this because, as we see here, people are saying "I don't really see any problematic comments." A pattern of insincere behavior is something only visible in the aggregate. You can flag a comment if the content is repugnant, but because of corb's use of politeness, there is rarely an egregious example of, say, a racial slur or name-calling, and you end up with a disagreement of opinion which I think is pretty much mostly fine if, and this is a big if, we can collectively learn to treat it differently. Even if I'm wrong that a lot of what corb may be doing in political threads is a sort of a performance or game, if I think about it that way it will help me avoid wading into the muck.
posted by Miko at 8:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [18 favorites]
Here's my plan of action:
1. When this kind of user's comments appear to be baiting, non-serious, non-earnest, or repetitive, treat them as noise and resist the temptation to respond.
2. When the comments are inaccurate or misleading, respond only in order to add a more supported view to the wider record.
3. In site management [beyond my control], do not offer any special protection to the user when they feel "challenged," "piled on," or open MeTas to complain their are being singled out. Let them deal with the results of their interactions.
I also little sympathy for these users running for the petticoats if and when they are conversing earnestly and people respond earnestly. It's these threads, actually, seeking some support from site ideals to put a wall of separation between their words and other users' reactions that I think are the biggest problem, not even the repellent-to-many comments that cause the reaction.
Basically, I'm happy to do my part to avoid these shitfests now that I have developed some understanding of why they happen. They are not fun. At the same time, I can't control anyone else and think that people should be able to push, challenge, and respond if they think it's going to be productive. I continue to think "piling on " is a shallow way of characterizing earnest response that happens to be asymmetrical in number. I don't think we need any special policies for dealing with that situation beyond an occasional mod "cool it, we've seen this show before", we just need good-faith engagement and the smartest possible individual choices.
The "just flag it" solution is inadequate. I say this because, as we see here, people are saying "I don't really see any problematic comments." A pattern of insincere behavior is something only visible in the aggregate. You can flag a comment if the content is repugnant, but because of corb's use of politeness, there is rarely an egregious example of, say, a racial slur or name-calling, and you end up with a disagreement of opinion which I think is pretty much mostly fine if, and this is a big if, we can collectively learn to treat it differently. Even if I'm wrong that a lot of what corb may be doing in political threads is a sort of a performance or game, if I think about it that way it will help me avoid wading into the muck.
posted by Miko at 8:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [18 favorites]
It might be nice if folks took a moment to Cmd-F/Ctrl-F for "ban", "banned", and other variants in this MeTa, and note that not a single person has put forth the notion that anyone should be banned.
The comment literally before mine starts talking about how people need to start bringing in evidence of past transgressions if we're going to talk about banning corb. My comment was a request that we not do that. Gadge emeritus also said that he would ban her from gun threads, which then got picked up as a discussion point by phearlez.
posted by jaguar at 8:29 AM on December 8, 2014
The comment literally before mine starts talking about how people need to start bringing in evidence of past transgressions if we're going to talk about banning corb. My comment was a request that we not do that. Gadge emeritus also said that he would ban her from gun threads, which then got picked up as a discussion point by phearlez.
posted by jaguar at 8:29 AM on December 8, 2014
The comment literally before mine starts talking about how people need to start bringing in evidence of past transgressions if we're going to talk about banning corb
That was anotherpanacea responding to gadge, who, again, didn't actually put forth a recommendation or suggestion to ban, just as me saying "if I were in charge of MetaFilter, I would put images of schnauzer puppies on the front page" is not a recommendation or suggestion that images of schnauzer puppies actually be put on the front page.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:34 AM on December 8, 2014
That was anotherpanacea responding to gadge, who, again, didn't actually put forth a recommendation or suggestion to ban, just as me saying "if I were in charge of MetaFilter, I would put images of schnauzer puppies on the front page" is not a recommendation or suggestion that images of schnauzer puppies actually be put on the front page.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:34 AM on December 8, 2014
What do you feel you noticed, exactly?
I am referring to two deleted comments by jfuller. One was a response to ChuraChura's comment, which addressed him specifically and was allowed to stand. To be clear, I don't think ChuraChura's comment was particularly fighty, but I do think that jfuller is entitled to respond (in an non-fighty way).
However, obviously I am not privy to all the deleted comments so I may have missed a longer exchange between the two.
posted by socks are for puppets at 8:35 AM on December 8, 2014
I am referring to two deleted comments by jfuller. One was a response to ChuraChura's comment, which addressed him specifically and was allowed to stand. To be clear, I don't think ChuraChura's comment was particularly fighty, but I do think that jfuller is entitled to respond (in an non-fighty way).
However, obviously I am not privy to all the deleted comments so I may have missed a longer exchange between the two.
posted by socks are for puppets at 8:35 AM on December 8, 2014
Saying, "Hey, let's not go there" is generally a more effective request before something picks up steam.
posted by jaguar at 8:39 AM on December 8, 2014
posted by jaguar at 8:39 AM on December 8, 2014
I kinda feel like if there were a massive groundswell of support for such a thing, it would have come up in the first 1200 comments or so, but I see where you're coming from.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on December 8, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on December 8, 2014
someone arguing the case that the rape victim was fabricating the sexual assault.
Rather loaded summary there. If anything 'someone' was arguing that don't know what happened, which we don't. But I'm even sure both people were arguing that. (We're talking about the comments above this note and this one?)
someone being taken aback by someone else's comment isn't itself a violation of the guidelines.
It really should be if it's pure noise. "What the actual fuck." is not discourse.
posted by 0 at 8:48 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Rather loaded summary there. If anything 'someone' was arguing that don't know what happened, which we don't. But I'm even sure both people were arguing that. (We're talking about the comments above this note and this one?)
someone being taken aback by someone else's comment isn't itself a violation of the guidelines.
It really should be if it's pure noise. "What the actual fuck." is not discourse.
posted by 0 at 8:48 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
It really should be if it's pure noise. "What the actual fuck." is not discourse.
Perhaps cortex or whoever else is on duty could tell us how many flags 256's "What the actual fuck" got?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on December 8, 2014
Perhaps cortex or whoever else is on duty could tell us how many flags 256's "What the actual fuck" got?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on December 8, 2014
cortex:I have been told by the mods in so many words that post X I flagged as breaking the guidelines would not be deleted because it had been favorited, so obviously it didn't offend enough people.
And I am telling you, as one of the people who actually sees the deleted comments and leaves the notes, that it actually plays out according to the specific situation, not according to a popular-side-wins rubric. The de facto policy you are asserting exists does not exist.
That completely contradicts your claim, and asserts a de facto policy of accepting rule-breaking when it supports a popular opinion.
This comment, jokingly advocating genital mutilation and torture, was one of those that the mods defended to me as "acceptable because it supports a popular opinion."
Replace "Kevin" with "Kerry", and "nads" with "ovaries" or "tits", and tell me that this comment would have survived 2 minutes without deletion.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:52 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
It might be nice if folks took a moment to Cmd-F/Ctrl-F for "ban", "banned", and other variants in this MeTa, and note that not a single person has put forth the notion that anyone should be banned.
Sure, I understand that. You might also do a search for your username, though, and see how much you continued to push the point that you thought corb's viewpoint was unacceptable. Unacceptable to whom, you or the site?
If it is just to you, then as JosephGurl said, them's the breaks and you need to let it go already.
If it is unacceptable to the site, then why bring that up and continue to hammer it so hard unless you think something on the site should change? This thread is about piling on, and given that corb has not replied in dozens of comments, that seems relevant here. The OP thinks pile-ons should stop, and the guidelines already say not to focus on other people.
Are you saying that when you find someone's opinions objectionable, that person deserves to be piled on? And that the pile on should just go on indefinitely? Or until the mods step in? Or until the person leaves the thread? And apparently even after that to carry on into MetaTalk? If so, I disagree, and obviously others here do as well.
If you don't want corb banned, then what has to happen for you--and let's extend that out to the general you now, to include anyone arguing in favor of pile-ons--to stop piling on, one after the other, once she has said something you don't like? When do you feel it is too much, if ever?
Let's say she doesn't want to deserve that piling on. What does she have to do to avoid being piled onto? Does she have to stop saying what she thinks entirely (that's the same as a ban, isn't it?), apologize to you for disagreeing in the first place, accept your points of view without reservation, openly state how right you are and how wrong she was or what?
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the people defending the right to pile on to answer that question.
posted by misha at 8:54 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sure, I understand that. You might also do a search for your username, though, and see how much you continued to push the point that you thought corb's viewpoint was unacceptable. Unacceptable to whom, you or the site?
If it is just to you, then as JosephGurl said, them's the breaks and you need to let it go already.
If it is unacceptable to the site, then why bring that up and continue to hammer it so hard unless you think something on the site should change? This thread is about piling on, and given that corb has not replied in dozens of comments, that seems relevant here. The OP thinks pile-ons should stop, and the guidelines already say not to focus on other people.
Are you saying that when you find someone's opinions objectionable, that person deserves to be piled on? And that the pile on should just go on indefinitely? Or until the mods step in? Or until the person leaves the thread? And apparently even after that to carry on into MetaTalk? If so, I disagree, and obviously others here do as well.
If you don't want corb banned, then what has to happen for you--and let's extend that out to the general you now, to include anyone arguing in favor of pile-ons--to stop piling on, one after the other, once she has said something you don't like? When do you feel it is too much, if ever?
Let's say she doesn't want to deserve that piling on. What does she have to do to avoid being piled onto? Does she have to stop saying what she thinks entirely (that's the same as a ban, isn't it?), apologize to you for disagreeing in the first place, accept your points of view without reservation, openly state how right you are and how wrong she was or what?
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the people defending the right to pile on to answer that question.
posted by misha at 8:54 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sure, I understand that. You might also do a search for your username, though, and see how much you continued to push the point that you thought corb's viewpoint was unacceptable. Unacceptable to whom, you or the site?
Why would I ever believe that my own comments are somehow illustrative of anything other than my own viewpoints?
If it is just to you, then as JosephGurl said, them's the breaks and you need to let it go already.
Let go of what? Gurl and others are the people advocating a change to the moderators' posture toward people who are perceived as piling on. I'm within my rights to offer my opinion on that proposed change, and I have done so, in some cases, pointing to patterns of behavior that show culpability on the part of those whose initial comments led to the pile on.
Are you saying that when you find someone's opinions objectionable, that person deserves to be piled on? And that the pile on should just go on indefinitely? Or until the mods step in? Or until the person leaves the thread? And apparently even after that to carry on into MetaTalk? If so, I disagree, and obviously others here do as well.
In some cases, they deserve it. In some cases, people take liberties and go too far (myself included.) In many of those cases, the comments that go too far get yanked. In some cases, they don't get yanked, and the mods have acknowledged they miss some.
If you don't want corb banned, then what has to happen for you--and let's extend that out to the general you now, to include anyone arguing in favor of pile-ons--to stop piling on, one after the other, once she has said something you don't like? When do you feel it is too much, if ever?
I actually do take great care to respond to her and other foks with a unique perspective other than "you're wrong." I work very hard to dig up cites, show my work, etc. I think that's all I'm required to do -- as long as my take on things is unique, it's not a pile-on. You may disagree, and think my contribution is the same as someone else, in which case you're right to flag my contributions.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the people defending the right to pile on to answer that question.
And I, for one, am not asking for a right to pile on, only a right to have my voice heard as long as it's valuable to the discussion. My cogent comment may be your pile-on, and that's why we have flags. Articulate a specific way (c.f. taz's note from a couple of hours ago) on how you'd prefer these conflicts be resolved.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Why would I ever believe that my own comments are somehow illustrative of anything other than my own viewpoints?
If it is just to you, then as JosephGurl said, them's the breaks and you need to let it go already.
Let go of what? Gurl and others are the people advocating a change to the moderators' posture toward people who are perceived as piling on. I'm within my rights to offer my opinion on that proposed change, and I have done so, in some cases, pointing to patterns of behavior that show culpability on the part of those whose initial comments led to the pile on.
Are you saying that when you find someone's opinions objectionable, that person deserves to be piled on? And that the pile on should just go on indefinitely? Or until the mods step in? Or until the person leaves the thread? And apparently even after that to carry on into MetaTalk? If so, I disagree, and obviously others here do as well.
In some cases, they deserve it. In some cases, people take liberties and go too far (myself included.) In many of those cases, the comments that go too far get yanked. In some cases, they don't get yanked, and the mods have acknowledged they miss some.
If you don't want corb banned, then what has to happen for you--and let's extend that out to the general you now, to include anyone arguing in favor of pile-ons--to stop piling on, one after the other, once she has said something you don't like? When do you feel it is too much, if ever?
I actually do take great care to respond to her and other foks with a unique perspective other than "you're wrong." I work very hard to dig up cites, show my work, etc. I think that's all I'm required to do -- as long as my take on things is unique, it's not a pile-on. You may disagree, and think my contribution is the same as someone else, in which case you're right to flag my contributions.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the people defending the right to pile on to answer that question.
And I, for one, am not asking for a right to pile on, only a right to have my voice heard as long as it's valuable to the discussion. My cogent comment may be your pile-on, and that's why we have flags. Articulate a specific way (c.f. taz's note from a couple of hours ago) on how you'd prefer these conflicts be resolved.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I am referring to two deleted comments by jfuller.
The second deleted comment is reproduced below. Whether or not I agree with jfuller, he is expressing a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone, fffm comes back with a fighty comment, as he tends to do, and then both comments get scrapped instead of just the one that is escalating the tone.
Again, it's totally possible that I am missing a longer exchange of deleted comments. But either way, I would disagree with cortex's characterization that jfuller got the last word in the exchange with ChuraChura or fffm. If those are even the exchanges he is referring to? It's hard to know.
*******
> This Wikipedia article on Sabrina Erdely sprang up literally overnight. It's toned down a little
> form, which was pretty much a pure attack peice, but it's still pretty gross.
In one respect it may be giving her an unearned pass because it doesn't appear to mention the questions about her Rolling Stone piece of Sept. 15 2011 (about a claimed multi-day imprisonment and serial rape of an alterboy by Catholic priests) which is like a template for her UVa story.
Rolling Stone's archives are walled off but there's a copy on Erdely's own website. If it gets taken down for unusual interest I already snagged a copy which I will put out there somewhere and post a link.
> We have a moral and ethical duty to believe someone who says they have been assaulted,
> because they virtually always have.
We have moral and ethical duty to take their accusation seriously and respond to it. If we just believe there's no reason to bother with any of that judge and jury business, just go straight to the lynching tree.
posted by jfuller at 4:47 PM on December 7 [+] [!]
We have moral and ethical duty to take their accusation seriously and respond to it.
Which means believing them. I don't think I said that means we should scrap the justice system (perhaps you could show where I or anyone else said that), and your conflation of lynching--a racist act designed entirely to terrorize people of colour--with believing sexual assault victims is disgusting horseshit.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:51 PM on December 7 [+]
posted by socks are for puppets at 9:06 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
The second deleted comment is reproduced below. Whether or not I agree with jfuller, he is expressing a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone, fffm comes back with a fighty comment, as he tends to do, and then both comments get scrapped instead of just the one that is escalating the tone.
Again, it's totally possible that I am missing a longer exchange of deleted comments. But either way, I would disagree with cortex's characterization that jfuller got the last word in the exchange with ChuraChura or fffm. If those are even the exchanges he is referring to? It's hard to know.
*******
> This Wikipedia article on Sabrina Erdely sprang up literally overnight. It's toned down a little
> form, which was pretty much a pure attack peice, but it's still pretty gross.
In one respect it may be giving her an unearned pass because it doesn't appear to mention the questions about her Rolling Stone piece of Sept. 15 2011 (about a claimed multi-day imprisonment and serial rape of an alterboy by Catholic priests) which is like a template for her UVa story.
Rolling Stone's archives are walled off but there's a copy on Erdely's own website. If it gets taken down for unusual interest I already snagged a copy which I will put out there somewhere and post a link.
> We have a moral and ethical duty to believe someone who says they have been assaulted,
> because they virtually always have.
We have moral and ethical duty to take their accusation seriously and respond to it. If we just believe there's no reason to bother with any of that judge and jury business, just go straight to the lynching tree.
posted by jfuller at 4:47 PM on December 7 [+] [!]
We have moral and ethical duty to take their accusation seriously and respond to it.
Which means believing them. I don't think I said that means we should scrap the justice system (perhaps you could show where I or anyone else said that), and your conflation of lynching--a racist act designed entirely to terrorize people of colour--with believing sexual assault victims is disgusting horseshit.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:51 PM on December 7 [+]
posted by socks are for puppets at 9:06 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone
just go straight to the lynching tree.
uhhhhh
posted by kagredon at 9:07 AM on December 8, 2014 [13 favorites]
just go straight to the lynching tree.
uhhhhh
posted by kagredon at 9:07 AM on December 8, 2014 [13 favorites]
Man I dunno but reproducing deleted comments never does anything for me but confirm that the mods have a hellish job which they do remarkably well.
posted by winna at 9:08 AM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by winna at 9:08 AM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
I have been told by the mods in so many words that post X I flagged as breaking the guidelines would not be deleted because it had been favorited, so obviously it didn't offend enough people.
When, and in what context? Moderation policy has been pretty explicitly that something being favorited is not a defense against deletion if it needs deleting: I have deleted stuff with a lot of favorites on it on occasion.
This comment, jokingly advocating genital mutilation and torture, was one of those that the mods defended to me as "acceptable because it supports a popular opinion."
Again, you're gonna have to help me out here with the actual exchange. I don't have anything from you in the contact form from around when that comment went up; if you had a direct mefimail/email conversation with another mod about it, I'm not privy to it, but if it was something in a metatalk thread I can go take a look if you point me to it.
On other occasions, you have written to the contact form to complain about comments you found objectionable, which has sometimes led to a deletion after the fact (on one occasion also about joking groin violence it had not been flagged at all, and we deleted it after the fact when you wrote to us) and sometimes to an explanation that the comment while not unproblematic wasn't also something the mod on duty felt like the balance of the whole thing, at the time and in the context, fell toward deletion. In the correspondence I've looked through, "no, because it's popular" doesn't come up in any form; in one case Matt specifically sympathizes with the weirdness of a problematic comment having a bunch of favorites on it as a result of good argument + crappy zinger.
We are never, ever gonna claim that moderation is perfect, or that we don't miss things; as mods we don't even agree with each other at all times about what should and shouldn't be deleted. We certainly don't claim or expect that we'll ever have a moderation policy that makes everyone happy or feels fair and just to all involved. But there are yards and yards between that and e.g. "we don't delete popular stuff" or "popular opinions get the last word".
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
When, and in what context? Moderation policy has been pretty explicitly that something being favorited is not a defense against deletion if it needs deleting: I have deleted stuff with a lot of favorites on it on occasion.
This comment, jokingly advocating genital mutilation and torture, was one of those that the mods defended to me as "acceptable because it supports a popular opinion."
Again, you're gonna have to help me out here with the actual exchange. I don't have anything from you in the contact form from around when that comment went up; if you had a direct mefimail/email conversation with another mod about it, I'm not privy to it, but if it was something in a metatalk thread I can go take a look if you point me to it.
On other occasions, you have written to the contact form to complain about comments you found objectionable, which has sometimes led to a deletion after the fact (on one occasion also about joking groin violence it had not been flagged at all, and we deleted it after the fact when you wrote to us) and sometimes to an explanation that the comment while not unproblematic wasn't also something the mod on duty felt like the balance of the whole thing, at the time and in the context, fell toward deletion. In the correspondence I've looked through, "no, because it's popular" doesn't come up in any form; in one case Matt specifically sympathizes with the weirdness of a problematic comment having a bunch of favorites on it as a result of good argument + crappy zinger.
We are never, ever gonna claim that moderation is perfect, or that we don't miss things; as mods we don't even agree with each other at all times about what should and shouldn't be deleted. We certainly don't claim or expect that we'll ever have a moderation policy that makes everyone happy or feels fair and just to all involved. But there are yards and yards between that and e.g. "we don't delete popular stuff" or "popular opinions get the last word".
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
socks are for puppets: jfuller ... is expressing a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone
...
jfuller: go straight to the lynching tree.
For crying out loud. If that's what you consider to be "expressing a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone", I don't know what to say...
posted by syzygy at 9:10 AM on December 8, 2014 [12 favorites]
...
jfuller: go straight to the lynching tree.
For crying out loud. If that's what you consider to be "expressing a fairly mainstream view in a reasonable tone", I don't know what to say...
posted by syzygy at 9:10 AM on December 8, 2014 [12 favorites]
You may add me to the "pile-on" in that I don't think you can invoke lynching and call it a reasonable tone, particularly when you're talking about publishing an article that never names a perpetrator. You're certainly right that, till that point, it seemed like a reasonable comment. But finishing your eloquent summation with a quick squirt of piss tends to change the whole tenor of a thing.
posted by phearlez at 9:19 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 9:19 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
A question to the mods regarding socks are for puppets:
Assuming that's someone's sock puppet account, is it considered OK to use use such an account purely to shield one's "real" identity in a contentious MetaTalk discussion? I sure thought that kind of behavior was specifically not allowed.
posted by syzygy at 9:21 AM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
Assuming that's someone's sock puppet account, is it considered OK to use use such an account purely to shield one's "real" identity in a contentious MetaTalk discussion? I sure thought that kind of behavior was specifically not allowed.
posted by syzygy at 9:21 AM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
I think permitting that sort of sock puppet turned out very poorly in the TERF thread, and it doesn't seem like a great idea here, either.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:31 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
gadge's statement was that he/she would have banned corb if it was his/her site, which it clearly isn't.
I think you're cheating quite a bit with your "Ctrl-F" comment, and it's weird because I don't expect that from you. "If I were king, I would do X." is in almost every case a good translation of "The King should do X." The few exceptions aren't really relevant here: i.e. if I were King I would execute my sister's murderers, but I'm glad I'm not. A lot of people have said, "If I were a mod, I would not allow corb to post/be a user here/discuss race/guns/the criminal justice system/whatever" and then mentioned that they were not a mod and that their advice was unlikely to be heeded. But unless that's *just* cheap talk, then it's a call for action from a position the speaker does not occupy.
When I say: "If I were the President, I would sign an executive order halting 1033 military-to-police procurement. But of course that'll never happen." I don't just mean, "Haha! Wouldn't it be crazy if our police were armed differently than the most powerful military in the world!?!? Silly hippies." I mean: yeah, that's what the President should do, but he's too weak or too out of touch or too indifferent.
This is exactly how community policing works: we discuss our shared norms and when we're not authorized to act, we ask those so-authorized to act for us. Those requests don't have to take the form of imperatives like "Please ban X" because that's not how conversational implicature works and it's not very rhetorically effective.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:33 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think you're cheating quite a bit with your "Ctrl-F" comment, and it's weird because I don't expect that from you. "If I were king, I would do X." is in almost every case a good translation of "The King should do X." The few exceptions aren't really relevant here: i.e. if I were King I would execute my sister's murderers, but I'm glad I'm not. A lot of people have said, "If I were a mod, I would not allow corb to post/be a user here/discuss race/guns/the criminal justice system/whatever" and then mentioned that they were not a mod and that their advice was unlikely to be heeded. But unless that's *just* cheap talk, then it's a call for action from a position the speaker does not occupy.
When I say: "If I were the President, I would sign an executive order halting 1033 military-to-police procurement. But of course that'll never happen." I don't just mean, "Haha! Wouldn't it be crazy if our police were armed differently than the most powerful military in the world!?!? Silly hippies." I mean: yeah, that's what the President should do, but he's too weak or too out of touch or too indifferent.
This is exactly how community policing works: we discuss our shared norms and when we're not authorized to act, we ask those so-authorized to act for us. Those requests don't have to take the form of imperatives like "Please ban X" because that's not how conversational implicature works and it's not very rhetorically effective.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:33 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I thought the issue with medium blue stocking was that they were pretty clearly using a sock to get away with shit that they knew full well wouldn't fly coming from anyone (which is a shade different than "I'd rather not bring my main account into a contentious Metatalk") and lied to the mods about it to boot. I've sort of got mixed feelings about socks in Metas, but AFAIK it's still permitted and socks are for puppets hasn't been posting anything that's an abuse of that privilege.
posted by kagredon at 9:38 AM on December 8, 2014
posted by kagredon at 9:38 AM on December 8, 2014
The medium blue stocking situation is absolutely not one we're going to permit to repeat if it's at all possible to prevent it, and is not what's happening here. That said, using a sockpuppet to separate your MetaTalk-related moderation opinions from your day-to-day account is not, in fact, an acceptable use. I'm not quite sure if that's the intent here or not, but I am pursuing that now.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
It's an indication of how toxic things are here that we are now pulling out all the stops to make sure we silence people whose words we don't want to hear and whose ideas we do not want to consider.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:04 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are you referring to people objecting to others using multiple accounts to post? I don't see how requiring people to only use one account for "serious" posting is silencing them.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:16 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:16 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I suspect at this point you'd be capable of finding a pattern in the dryer's lint trap to be a sign of how bad things are on Metafilter.
posted by phearlez at 10:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 10:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
Who is this 'we' that you are talking about?
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:17 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
(I suspect it's a sensitive topic for a lungful of dragon because a lungful of dragon is a brand new day account?)
posted by nobody at 10:21 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by nobody at 10:21 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
But unless that's *just* cheap talk [...] when we're not authorized to act, we ask those so-authorized to act for us
I'll let gadge speak for himself, but responding only to your claim that I'm being evasive, I read these bits:
But again, maybe your interpretation is more at it, in which case that represents exactly one user's wish. No longer a straw man, the pushback against the idea to ban is now, dare I say it, a pile on? {/hamburger}
posted by tonycpsu at 10:26 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'll let gadge speak for himself, but responding only to your claim that I'm being evasive, I read these bits:
If I was boss, [...] But I would be an angry god, banning all over the place, and it is not my website, nor do I think my opinion really holds any weight in the area of banning. It might be my personal preference, but it's not my call.as a rather explicit admission that it is, in fact, cheap talk. In particular, I read the "I would be an angry god banning all over the place" as an acknowledgement that it would get out of hand quickly, and probably isn't the best policy, even if it would feel good to bring down the banhammer.
But again, maybe your interpretation is more at it, in which case that represents exactly one user's wish. No longer a straw man, the pushback against the idea to ban is now, dare I say it, a pile on? {/hamburger}
posted by tonycpsu at 10:26 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
(I suspect it's a sensitive topic for a lungful of dragon because a lungful of dragon is a brand new day account?)
No, my account is someone who chose to leave the site for a while and then try this place again. It's a sensitive topic because bullying sucks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
No, my account is someone who chose to leave the site for a while and then try this place again. It's a sensitive topic because bullying sucks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
(I suspect it's a sensitive topic for a lungful of dragon because a lungful of dragon is a brand new day account?)
well, that was real classy, wasn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
well, that was real classy, wasn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:29 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
well, that was real classy, wasn't it?
They are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pay them no mind.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
They are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pay them no mind.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
make sure we silence people whose words we don't want to hear and whose ideas we do not want to consider
I'm pretty sure my stance has been the opposite of that.
posted by Miko at 10:34 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
I'm pretty sure my stance has been the opposite of that.
posted by Miko at 10:34 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
*sheds a tear for the pitiful silenced all my life brigade*
posted by syzygy at 10:36 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by syzygy at 10:36 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, my account is someone who chose to leave the site for a while and then try this place again. It's a sensitive topic because bullying sucks.
Hey, I was genuinely curious. And I deleted "or a sockpuppet" to avoid being accused of calling for a witchhunt, but I can deal with being called declassé and/or barrel-scraping.
In any case, when did "bullying" start getting ascribed to such a wide variety of barely related behaviors anyway? Am I experiencing a bit of confirmation bias, or has there been a big uptick in the last year or so?
posted by nobody at 10:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Hey, I was genuinely curious. And I deleted "or a sockpuppet" to avoid being accused of calling for a witchhunt, but I can deal with being called declassé and/or barrel-scraping.
In any case, when did "bullying" start getting ascribed to such a wide variety of barely related behaviors anyway? Am I experiencing a bit of confirmation bias, or has there been a big uptick in the last year or so?
posted by nobody at 10:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, my account is someone who chose to leave the site for a while and then try this place again.
If you're choosing specifically not to identify with your prior accounts, that is indeed a Brand New Day account. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's an accurate description. I don't think anybody who is reading Metatalk regularly is under an illusion that you're not a returned long-time user, and I don't get the impression that you expect them to be.
So it's your call whether or not to identify with your previous accounts, and we've left that alone because that's how we try to approach starting-over stuff with new accounts, but one of the things that comes with that is the idea that a new notionally-anonymous account won't be used to return to the same old patterns of behavior and arguments/grievances that characterized the old one, and that's not something that you have been doing a very good job of at all.
It's really frustrating to see you doing this sort of have-cake-and-eat-it thing with a new account but the same old beefs, and it is seeming increasingly like a flat-out rejection of the Brand New Day expectations rather than you just having a little trouble walking that line. You need to find some way to sort this out better.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [13 favorites]
If you're choosing specifically not to identify with your prior accounts, that is indeed a Brand New Day account. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's an accurate description. I don't think anybody who is reading Metatalk regularly is under an illusion that you're not a returned long-time user, and I don't get the impression that you expect them to be.
So it's your call whether or not to identify with your previous accounts, and we've left that alone because that's how we try to approach starting-over stuff with new accounts, but one of the things that comes with that is the idea that a new notionally-anonymous account won't be used to return to the same old patterns of behavior and arguments/grievances that characterized the old one, and that's not something that you have been doing a very good job of at all.
It's really frustrating to see you doing this sort of have-cake-and-eat-it thing with a new account but the same old beefs, and it is seeming increasingly like a flat-out rejection of the Brand New Day expectations rather than you just having a little trouble walking that line. You need to find some way to sort this out better.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:39 AM on December 8, 2014 [13 favorites]
Yeah, lungful, I'm certainly not demanding that you disclose your previous account name, but I can tell you that I'm thinking "That new user seems to have already built up a bunch of bad feelings about how this place operates. It's probably someone coming back here under a new name." Hope you can find a more enjoyable way to participate.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:46 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:46 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
did it ever occur to anyone that this subject would have been better approached privately?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
In part it's because anti-bullying campaigns are a social trend (at least in the US). The social sciences seem to have just discovered it about a decade ago and there's been a tide of legislation and efforts to make anti-bullying education a standard part of school curricula. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have as a social focus - as an educator I'm certainly pretty much behind it and see that it links to LGBT issues, suicide prevention, social justice - but I also think it may be a little over-applied. Disagreement isn't always bullying, even when it's asymmetrical.
posted by Miko at 10:52 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 10:52 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
did it ever occur to anyone that this subject would have been better approached privately?
NO
GRAR
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:53 AM on December 8, 2014
NO
GRAR
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:53 AM on December 8, 2014
did it ever occur to anyone that this subject would have been better approached privately?
I don't think nobody was intending to out lungful of dragon, I doubt anyone here was operating under the impression that LOD was just a new user who had a preternatural knowledge of old grudges and fights in Meta and if LOD had really wanted to say "No, I'm not" to nobody's question, that would've been that.
posted by kagredon at 10:55 AM on December 8, 2014
I don't think nobody was intending to out lungful of dragon, I doubt anyone here was operating under the impression that LOD was just a new user who had a preternatural knowledge of old grudges and fights in Meta and if LOD had really wanted to say "No, I'm not" to nobody's question, that would've been that.
posted by kagredon at 10:55 AM on December 8, 2014
Hope you can find a more enjoyable way to participate.
Despite the culture of targeting unpopular users for abuse, I actually like it here and would simply like that pattern of behavior to stop, however much that opinion may be displeasing or offensive to hear.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Despite the culture of targeting unpopular users for abuse, I actually like it here and would simply like that pattern of behavior to stop, however much that opinion may be displeasing or offensive to hear.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Where do you draw the line between "responding to their points of view" and "targeting"? How do you distinguish these two behaviors?
posted by Miko at 11:01 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by Miko at 11:01 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
And thus Team Silenced All My Lives was born.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Where do you draw the line between "responding to their points of view" and "targeting"? How do you distinguish these two behaviors?
While I'm sure we could find plenty of ambiguous cases, there's no shortage of lulzy potshots that amount to little more than "Look at this asshole! Amirite?"
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:08 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
While I'm sure we could find plenty of ambiguous cases, there's no shortage of lulzy potshots that amount to little more than "Look at this asshole! Amirite?"
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:08 AM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
Excuse me but here's my 5 dollars again
My new account won't be the same still
I got the anti-Corb in the browser bullying at me again
Yeah I can flag that
Been saved again by the preview box
I got lotsa things to say you know
But pileons happen
Yes I know what you think of me
You never shut up
Yeah I can read that
But what if I'm a snowflake
In these comments of yours
With my name dragged through it
Hey I so so so care
Cause sometimes
I mean all the times
I hear my voice
And it's been jived
Silenced all these lives
posted by phearlez at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
My new account won't be the same still
I got the anti-Corb in the browser bullying at me again
Yeah I can flag that
Been saved again by the preview box
I got lotsa things to say you know
But pileons happen
Yes I know what you think of me
You never shut up
Yeah I can read that
But what if I'm a snowflake
In these comments of yours
With my name dragged through it
Hey I so so so care
Cause sometimes
I mean all the times
I hear my voice
And it's been jived
Silenced all these lives
posted by phearlez at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
How do you distinguish these two behaviors?
Probably when the snappy lulz get pulled out of the deck. Then it is more clear that discussion is not really the goal.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Probably when the snappy lulz get pulled out of the deck. Then it is more clear that discussion is not really the goal.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 AM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Y Kant Tori Flag It And Move On
posted by tonycpsu at 11:14 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:14 AM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
While I'm sure we could find plenty of ambiguous cases, there's no shortage of lulzy potshots that amount to little more than "Look at this asshole! Amirite?"
Let's agree that lulzy potshots are noise and are very far from the line between "targeting" and "substantive engagement with disagreement." Can you now say more about the line you identify between those two things?
posted by Miko at 11:40 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Let's agree that lulzy potshots are noise and are very far from the line between "targeting" and "substantive engagement with disagreement." Can you now say more about the line you identify between those two things?
posted by Miko at 11:40 AM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
If Y Kant Tori Read was a metafilter comment it would have been memoryholed. More like Y Kant Tori Delete It And Pretend It Never Happened.
posted by phearlez at 11:53 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by phearlez at 11:53 AM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Tabling your first assumption, that line probably got crossed many, many hundreds of comments ago, after the people you were talking at decided to stop participating in the "discussion".
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:55 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:55 AM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
The noise is mainly what bothers me, although I think holding the other person's statements in the worst possible light, paraphrasing what they've said in an uncharitably reductive way, and reading things unsaid into what a person has written based on previous conflicts you've had with them, or assuming you can predict what they're going to say next and responding to their imagined future argument, are to me some of the worst offenses in what might otherwise seem like substantive engagement. But that kind of stuff can be more subjective, whereas the lulzy potshots more or less advertise themselves as such.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
I've been reading this thread with interest (albeit distracted interest) for a while, and it's definitely... interesting. One of the core challenges for any idea-oriented or discourse-oriented community (online or off) is the balance between "safe space" and "sparring space."
In a safe space, there are certain things that everyone either implicitly or explicitly understands are Not Okay to question. The purpose of the community is to provide a respite and a gathering place for people who share that particular perspective or experience or whatnot. While the topic may be discussed and even sometimes questioned, there's an understanding that everyone is on the same "side" and the exploration of those questions is a secondary goal. The plus side of safe spaces is clear: people who feel beaten down, or frustrated, or abused, or triggered by certain things can find respite and connect with others who are, well, "safe" regarding certain issues. They don't have to worry that someone is going to jump on them about this particular hot button, they don't have to be on the defensive, they can just relax and connect and discuss.
In a sparring space, every idea is, or should be, fair game. Anarchists can argue with neoreactionaries and utilitarians can tangle with Mormons and debates about the likelihood of a rape accusation being false are no more or less offensive than arguing that Reagan helped the poor or Hitler was a humanitarian. The plus side of sparring spaces is that you can learn an awful lot about your own ideas and arguments from having to defend them. You can also discover what the strong version of someone else's perspectives look like, rather than the straw man. Sometimes, shockingly, this leads to changed minds.
Few communities are entirely one or the other. A "Safe Space" is not inherently devoid of disagreement or thoughtful, intelligent discussion—It's just assumed that the comfort of the community members around certain subjects is more important than the abstract ideal of free debate. And a "sparring space" is rarely a cold, logical free-fire zone. Members of the community often police informal "untouchable" topics or draw lines in the sand when it's felt that the community would suffer for it. But in general, it's assumed that the spirit of "anything goes" debate reigns supreme, and anyone who can't step back and treat any issue as an abstract topic shouldn't be there.
The biggest problems in many communities come when behavior that is appropriate or expected in one space collides with the other. Silencing someone who's exploring a thought exercise because you don't like the implications of their idea is a shit thing to do… in a sparring space. And elbowing into someone's account of past trauma to discuss FBI statistics on false reports is a shit thing to do… in a safe space.
While there are certainly people who could be described as "trolls" or "troublemakers," a lot of the most heated discussion in this thread seems to revolve around the uncomfortable middle ground. Corb, for example, is consistently polite, articulate, and reasonable in the way that she tackles various issues. But due to the makeup of the site, she's consistently the only one in many threads who has or is willing to articulate certain views. Those who view the site as a "safe space" for certain perspectives might regard her persistent country views as a hurtful ongoing attack on community spirit. Those who view the site as a "sparring space" view the lopsided levels of disagreement with her as a pileon — an attack on the spirit of open discussion.
I don't know whether there's a good solution to this problem, other than to recognize the challenge. Negotiating the middle space is hard, and unless there is a magical 50/50 balance of opinions on every issue, it is inevitable that there will be pile-ons sometimes. I'm glad that corb (for example) is here, even though I disagree with her a lot. On the other hand, I'm glad that I can talk about my experiences as a former religious believer without others telling me that I need to repent and turn back to Jesus.
posted by verb at 11:58 AM on December 8, 2014 [15 favorites]
In a safe space, there are certain things that everyone either implicitly or explicitly understands are Not Okay to question. The purpose of the community is to provide a respite and a gathering place for people who share that particular perspective or experience or whatnot. While the topic may be discussed and even sometimes questioned, there's an understanding that everyone is on the same "side" and the exploration of those questions is a secondary goal. The plus side of safe spaces is clear: people who feel beaten down, or frustrated, or abused, or triggered by certain things can find respite and connect with others who are, well, "safe" regarding certain issues. They don't have to worry that someone is going to jump on them about this particular hot button, they don't have to be on the defensive, they can just relax and connect and discuss.
In a sparring space, every idea is, or should be, fair game. Anarchists can argue with neoreactionaries and utilitarians can tangle with Mormons and debates about the likelihood of a rape accusation being false are no more or less offensive than arguing that Reagan helped the poor or Hitler was a humanitarian. The plus side of sparring spaces is that you can learn an awful lot about your own ideas and arguments from having to defend them. You can also discover what the strong version of someone else's perspectives look like, rather than the straw man. Sometimes, shockingly, this leads to changed minds.
Few communities are entirely one or the other. A "Safe Space" is not inherently devoid of disagreement or thoughtful, intelligent discussion—It's just assumed that the comfort of the community members around certain subjects is more important than the abstract ideal of free debate. And a "sparring space" is rarely a cold, logical free-fire zone. Members of the community often police informal "untouchable" topics or draw lines in the sand when it's felt that the community would suffer for it. But in general, it's assumed that the spirit of "anything goes" debate reigns supreme, and anyone who can't step back and treat any issue as an abstract topic shouldn't be there.
The biggest problems in many communities come when behavior that is appropriate or expected in one space collides with the other. Silencing someone who's exploring a thought exercise because you don't like the implications of their idea is a shit thing to do… in a sparring space. And elbowing into someone's account of past trauma to discuss FBI statistics on false reports is a shit thing to do… in a safe space.
While there are certainly people who could be described as "trolls" or "troublemakers," a lot of the most heated discussion in this thread seems to revolve around the uncomfortable middle ground. Corb, for example, is consistently polite, articulate, and reasonable in the way that she tackles various issues. But due to the makeup of the site, she's consistently the only one in many threads who has or is willing to articulate certain views. Those who view the site as a "safe space" for certain perspectives might regard her persistent country views as a hurtful ongoing attack on community spirit. Those who view the site as a "sparring space" view the lopsided levels of disagreement with her as a pileon — an attack on the spirit of open discussion.
I don't know whether there's a good solution to this problem, other than to recognize the challenge. Negotiating the middle space is hard, and unless there is a magical 50/50 balance of opinions on every issue, it is inevitable that there will be pile-ons sometimes. I'm glad that corb (for example) is here, even though I disagree with her a lot. On the other hand, I'm glad that I can talk about my experiences as a former religious believer without others telling me that I need to repent and turn back to Jesus.
posted by verb at 11:58 AM on December 8, 2014 [15 favorites]
Let's agree that lulzy potshots are noise and are very far from the line between "targeting" and "substantive engagement with disagreement." Can you now say more about the line you identify between those two things?
It's fine to say: "I don't know exactly where the line is, but most of what we're seeing here is way on the lulzy potshot side of things." If the mods went through and cut everything that wasn't substantive engagement, Metafilter would be a very different site.
Because lulzy potshots are tolerated when they appropriately read the room, and flagged, harangued, and often deleted when they don't, I think there end up being a lot more bad lulzy potshots on the Metafilter Majority side than on the other side. I do think it's largely a product of moderation and community selection, but I'm often embarrassed to see so many people taking my side of an argument and doing it so badly. I also think it's an unavoidable byproduct of things that make Metafilter great, although it'd be nice if more people would respond to the folks who agree with them but in the most thoughtless and insubstantial way and tell them to up their game.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
It's fine to say: "I don't know exactly where the line is, but most of what we're seeing here is way on the lulzy potshot side of things." If the mods went through and cut everything that wasn't substantive engagement, Metafilter would be a very different site.
Because lulzy potshots are tolerated when they appropriately read the room, and flagged, harangued, and often deleted when they don't, I think there end up being a lot more bad lulzy potshots on the Metafilter Majority side than on the other side. I do think it's largely a product of moderation and community selection, but I'm often embarrassed to see so many people taking my side of an argument and doing it so badly. I also think it's an unavoidable byproduct of things that make Metafilter great, although it'd be nice if more people would respond to the folks who agree with them but in the most thoughtless and insubstantial way and tell them to up their game.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
I love your framing, verb, but I actually view MetaFilter as a sparring space and that's why I think lopsided disagreement is fine. Those two things seem to go together for me. I think as a site, through long drawn-out discussion, we've agreed to adjust the dial on certain issues that affect more than one person and are about defining site culture (religion, sexism), but other than those minimal platforms, it doesn't make for much of a 'safe space' and I wouldn't want it to.
posted by Miko at 12:06 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 12:06 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I haven't experienced the lulzy potshots to be a big problem, so that may be something I'm just not as sensitive to. I can get behind more deletion of lulzy potshots coming from any side in the discussion when things get testy. That might be something worth flagging as 'noise' more often regardless of who is doing it.
What I'm concerned about is people calling serious and contentious discussion "targeting" when it's an earnest debate. But maybe that's not what people are talking about if the main concern is lulz. Maybe we can hel tweak the dial on lulz by flagging them more often.
posted by Miko at 12:09 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
What I'm concerned about is people calling serious and contentious discussion "targeting" when it's an earnest debate. But maybe that's not what people are talking about if the main concern is lulz. Maybe we can hel tweak the dial on lulz by flagging them more often.
posted by Miko at 12:09 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
that represents exactly one user's wish
Well, that was just the most recent example. There's also this, and a lot of other people who walk right up to that line without actually calling for anything. I mean, I get that *you* don't want her banned, which is fine, but people have been talking about corb in this thread for three whole days since her last comment. That's... a lot, and it seems unwarranted, unless there are some real humdingers of comments I've missed.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Well, that was just the most recent example. There's also this, and a lot of other people who walk right up to that line without actually calling for anything. I mean, I get that *you* don't want her banned, which is fine, but people have been talking about corb in this thread for three whole days since her last comment. That's... a lot, and it seems unwarranted, unless there are some real humdingers of comments I've missed.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
> Where do you draw the line between "responding to their points of view" and "targeting"? How do you distinguish these two behaviors?
There's a difference between responding to someone's comment with 'I think you're wrong because X, Y and Z' and 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die'. I think if you think there's any possibility that a comment you disagree with was made in good faith, you should at least try to aim for the first kind of response. If a comment or the fact that a commenter exists on the website makes you so angry that something like the latter is all you can manage as response, you should probably just flag it or contact the mods.
posted by nangar at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
There's a difference between responding to someone's comment with 'I think you're wrong because X, Y and Z' and 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die'. I think if you think there's any possibility that a comment you disagree with was made in good faith, you should at least try to aim for the first kind of response. If a comment or the fact that a commenter exists on the website makes you so angry that something like the latter is all you can manage as response, you should probably just flag it or contact the mods.
posted by nangar at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I didn't participate in the death penalty discussions that have been rehashed here. But while reading the discussion here, I couldn't help but think that corb is former military. One saying in the military is that "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." The saying means "In military training, some folks will die. You aren't going to prepare for war without a few folks dying in the process."
I can see that paralleling what has been said above about corb taking the position that she is pro-death penalty and can accept that a few innocents will die. It looks to me like a pragmatic position rather than an idealistic position. The military also has the saying "Sometimes, a 90% solution now is better than a 100% solution later." Since your own life and the life of your coworkers and national security are on the line, military members have to make their peace with some rather callous-sounding standards and rubrics.
I am not saying she is morally right to be pro-death penalty. I am just saying that her position looks to me (based on this third hand rehashing) like it is perfectly consistent with the sorts of ideas military members are inculcated with. There are reasons they are inculcated with those ideas.
posted by Michele in California at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I can see that paralleling what has been said above about corb taking the position that she is pro-death penalty and can accept that a few innocents will die. It looks to me like a pragmatic position rather than an idealistic position. The military also has the saying "Sometimes, a 90% solution now is better than a 100% solution later." Since your own life and the life of your coworkers and national security are on the line, military members have to make their peace with some rather callous-sounding standards and rubrics.
I am not saying she is morally right to be pro-death penalty. I am just saying that her position looks to me (based on this third hand rehashing) like it is perfectly consistent with the sorts of ideas military members are inculcated with. There are reasons they are inculcated with those ideas.
posted by Michele in California at 12:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I love your framing, verb, but I actually view MetaFilter as a sparring space and that's why I think lopsided disagreement is fine. Those two things seem to go together for me. I think as a site, through long drawn-out discussion, we've agreed to adjust the dial on certain issues that affect more than one person and are about defining site culture (religion, sexism), but other than those minimal platforms, it doesn't make for much of a 'safe space' and I wouldn't want it to.To clarify, I'm not arguing that Metafilter is one or the other; rather that I see many of these conflicts existing at the overlap of differing expectations for the site. I think almost everyone I know on the site values aspects of both in Metafilter.
(Also, I referred in my earlier post to Corb's "country" views. Please take that as the autocomplete fail that it was—my typo'd version of contrary apparently didn't pass muster, and the result was regrettably only noticed after the edit window had passed...)
posted by verb at 12:13 PM on December 8, 2014
nangar: There's a difference between responding to someone's comment with 'I think you're wrong because X, Y and Z' and 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die'.
The recent uptick in statements similar to 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die', toward which the mods seem to be turning a blind eye, has really been bugging me too.
posted by syzygy at 12:18 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
The recent uptick in statements similar to 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die', toward which the mods seem to be turning a blind eye, has really been bugging me too.
posted by syzygy at 12:18 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
verb: I doubt corb would have a problem with "country views", either. She's stated on multiple occasions that her opinions have more in common with rural American thought than with urban American thought (paraphrasing).
I also don't think that corb is always reasonable (or polite beyond a thin veneer) in the way she tackles various issues. I think she has a propensity to jump into conversations and make numerous objectively incorrect (and often simultaneously controversial / inflammatory) statements with the sort of apparent certainty usually reserved (at least by the reasonable and truly polite) for things of which one is absolutely sure.
That is, she'll come in, say the sky is black with 100% certainty, as though it's a fact everyone should accept, only to have several others bring in the evidence that shows, without a doubt that the sky is blue.
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
That's just not behavior that I consider to be reasonable or polite, honestly.
posted by syzygy at 12:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
I also don't think that corb is always reasonable (or polite beyond a thin veneer) in the way she tackles various issues. I think she has a propensity to jump into conversations and make numerous objectively incorrect (and often simultaneously controversial / inflammatory) statements with the sort of apparent certainty usually reserved (at least by the reasonable and truly polite) for things of which one is absolutely sure.
That is, she'll come in, say the sky is black with 100% certainty, as though it's a fact everyone should accept, only to have several others bring in the evidence that shows, without a doubt that the sky is blue.
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
That's just not behavior that I consider to be reasonable or polite, honestly.
posted by syzygy at 12:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
'I think you're wrong because X, Y and Z' and 'stupid inbred, racist, misogynist, homophobic pieces of shit like you deserve to die'.
No one said anything even remotely like that, so I think that is unhelpful.
I think if you think there's any possibility that a comment you disagree with was made in good faith, you should at least try to aim for the first kind of response.
...if you're going to respond at all, sure. After a few go-rounds of that, though, some other approach might be warranted. Where I've landed is that the appearance of good faith isn't always actual good faith, so not responding is fine too. I can certainly agree that strings of invectives against a person (as distinct from their views) are not a good way to respond.
posted by Miko at 12:29 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
No one said anything even remotely like that, so I think that is unhelpful.
I think if you think there's any possibility that a comment you disagree with was made in good faith, you should at least try to aim for the first kind of response.
...if you're going to respond at all, sure. After a few go-rounds of that, though, some other approach might be warranted. Where I've landed is that the appearance of good faith isn't always actual good faith, so not responding is fine too. I can certainly agree that strings of invectives against a person (as distinct from their views) are not a good way to respond.
posted by Miko at 12:29 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
I agree, Drinky Die, it really sucks to have one's military service questioned because of a comment on the internet.
I think that is a shitty comment that highlights one of the problems corb has, she sometimes speaks for large groups she is a part of (Rural folks, military folks, gun owners) as if they all hold the same views as her. A lot of them probably do, but I don't think it's always quite as many as she thinks. She also sometimes gets a bit hyperfocused on their concerns and has difficulty accepting the importance of alternative perspectives, like that of urban dwellers.
That said, I don't think that is directly questioning the military bona fides of an individual she knows to be military in the same way as she was personally questioned in the DP thread. So, not a good comment, but for different reasons.
-
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
This is a dishonest characterization of Eyebrows McGee's comment for reasons I've already detailed.
I'm not sure I am understanding your defense there very well. She does question if corb is a liar or an oathbreaker, as I said, it's right in your quote.
Then you say this: She was pointing out a contradiction in your own words. It's dishonest to call it "clearly a personal attack" while not taking responsibility for having introduced the whole concept of honor into the thread to begin with, with this bit of nastiness:
And then you quote a comment corb made in REPLY to E McGee asking her if she was a liar or an oathbreaker.
Your meta comment.
Eyebrows McGee at 12:35 AM on September 10
corb at 12:10 PM on September 10
So either I am supremely confused about what you were saying or you got this entirely backwards.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:39 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think that is a shitty comment that highlights one of the problems corb has, she sometimes speaks for large groups she is a part of (Rural folks, military folks, gun owners) as if they all hold the same views as her. A lot of them probably do, but I don't think it's always quite as many as she thinks. She also sometimes gets a bit hyperfocused on their concerns and has difficulty accepting the importance of alternative perspectives, like that of urban dwellers.
That said, I don't think that is directly questioning the military bona fides of an individual she knows to be military in the same way as she was personally questioned in the DP thread. So, not a good comment, but for different reasons.
-
She was challenged on if she even was a soldier and if she was a liar.
This is a dishonest characterization of Eyebrows McGee's comment for reasons I've already detailed.
I'm not sure I am understanding your defense there very well. She does question if corb is a liar or an oathbreaker, as I said, it's right in your quote.
Then you say this: She was pointing out a contradiction in your own words. It's dishonest to call it "clearly a personal attack" while not taking responsibility for having introduced the whole concept of honor into the thread to begin with, with this bit of nastiness:
And then you quote a comment corb made in REPLY to E McGee asking her if she was a liar or an oathbreaker.
Your meta comment.
Eyebrows McGee at 12:35 AM on September 10
corb at 12:10 PM on September 10
So either I am supremely confused about what you were saying or you got this entirely backwards.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:39 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
No one said anything even remotely like that, so I think that is unhelpful.
People say things pretty close to that, and have for a long time. Maybe they don't hit the trifecta of ableism, death wishes, and vulgarity, but there are a lot of comments taking potshots that use those techniques. scody's personal attack on corb here captures what I take to be a pretty common practice (it calls her a sociopath among a long list of other things, after having spent much of the thread calling her other names) as is this comment from our current thread that analogizes corb to the KKK.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:40 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
People say things pretty close to that, and have for a long time. Maybe they don't hit the trifecta of ableism, death wishes, and vulgarity, but there are a lot of comments taking potshots that use those techniques. scody's personal attack on corb here captures what I take to be a pretty common practice (it calls her a sociopath among a long list of other things, after having spent much of the thread calling her other names) as is this comment from our current thread that analogizes corb to the KKK.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:40 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
lulzy potshots more or less advertise themselves as such
I don't really think that this is nearly as clear as it might seem — and I think different readings of the tone of the in-thread humor is one of the underlying reasons that people have such different perceptions of what a "pile-on" is or when/whether they're happening here. There are a lot of jokey comments even just recently in this thread that can potentially be seen as harmless mood-lightening banter, friendly to all, or as attempts to land a deniable blow under the guise of that kind of good humor, or as out-and-out mockery or teasing or satire of another person's views or words. (Myself, I think there are some pretty clear examples of each one of these here, and I also think that all three are things I want MeFi to continue to feature when they're not executed so badly that they really poison/derail the discussion.) It's very tricky to adjudicate what's a "potshot" and what isn't, in practice — I suspect people here actually disagree about it very substantially — and I'm not at all comfortable with the pro-earnestness turn this discussion is taking. There are lots of non-earnest things that I value about MeFi, and I really don't want the only approved uses of the site to narrow to either a debate club or a personal-story-sharing group.
using a sockpuppet to separate your MetaTalk-related moderation opinions from your day-to-day account is not, in fact, an acceptable use
Why not? Whether or not you or I agree with them, it seems clear that there are some people who believe there are quite intimidating gang-pile social dynamics around here. Why shouldn't they be able to talk about that here, without fearing that their main account will be stigmatized for it everywhere else? That doesn't seem like the same thing at all as permitting sockpuppets to carry on a grudge.
posted by RogerB at 12:42 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't really think that this is nearly as clear as it might seem — and I think different readings of the tone of the in-thread humor is one of the underlying reasons that people have such different perceptions of what a "pile-on" is or when/whether they're happening here. There are a lot of jokey comments even just recently in this thread that can potentially be seen as harmless mood-lightening banter, friendly to all, or as attempts to land a deniable blow under the guise of that kind of good humor, or as out-and-out mockery or teasing or satire of another person's views or words. (Myself, I think there are some pretty clear examples of each one of these here, and I also think that all three are things I want MeFi to continue to feature when they're not executed so badly that they really poison/derail the discussion.) It's very tricky to adjudicate what's a "potshot" and what isn't, in practice — I suspect people here actually disagree about it very substantially — and I'm not at all comfortable with the pro-earnestness turn this discussion is taking. There are lots of non-earnest things that I value about MeFi, and I really don't want the only approved uses of the site to narrow to either a debate club or a personal-story-sharing group.
using a sockpuppet to separate your MetaTalk-related moderation opinions from your day-to-day account is not, in fact, an acceptable use
Why not? Whether or not you or I agree with them, it seems clear that there are some people who believe there are quite intimidating gang-pile social dynamics around here. Why shouldn't they be able to talk about that here, without fearing that their main account will be stigmatized for it everywhere else? That doesn't seem like the same thing at all as permitting sockpuppets to carry on a grudge.
posted by RogerB at 12:42 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
scody's comment is pretty angry (though she doesn't call her a sociopath. she calls the behavior "virtually indistinguishable from sociopathy"). Setting aside whether I agree with scody, I can agree that those kinds of comments aren't what we most want from the site.
posted by Miko at 12:45 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by Miko at 12:45 PM on December 8, 2014
Why shouldn't they be able to talk about that here, without fearing that their main account will be stigmatized for it everywhere else?
People are welcome to discuss moderation issues in private with us if they're not comfortable discussing them in public. Participating in the low-moderation, airing-of-grievances part of the site under the shield of anonymity is not going to encourage civility or improve the discourse at all. Sockpuppets are only allowed in very limited contexts where your internet presence and your private life intersect - otherwise, on the site, you are who you are.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
People are welcome to discuss moderation issues in private with us if they're not comfortable discussing them in public. Participating in the low-moderation, airing-of-grievances part of the site under the shield of anonymity is not going to encourage civility or improve the discourse at all. Sockpuppets are only allowed in very limited contexts where your internet presence and your private life intersect - otherwise, on the site, you are who you are.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
It's very tricky to adjudicate what's a "potshot" and what isn't, in practice
Sure, it can be. Which is why my preferred solution for this isn't for the mods to go search-and-destroy on potshots. I'd rather people ask themselves "hey, am I just slam-dunking some schmuck who's already got 75% of the commenters in this thread against them?" and maybe find some other way to make a funny if the answer is yes.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:53 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sure, it can be. Which is why my preferred solution for this isn't for the mods to go search-and-destroy on potshots. I'd rather people ask themselves "hey, am I just slam-dunking some schmuck who's already got 75% of the commenters in this thread against them?" and maybe find some other way to make a funny if the answer is yes.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:53 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
IAmBroom: This comment, jokingly advocating genital mutilation and torture, was one of those that the mods defended to me as "acceptable because it supports a popular opinion."cortex, I am dead wrong.
I am misremembering the responses in that thread as a conversation with the mods. My apologies, mods.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:56 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
Although I'll note that the mods did let that comment (and a followon agreeing with it) stand after I flagged both.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:56 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by IAmBroom at 12:56 PM on December 8, 2014
though she doesn't call her a sociopath. she calls the behavior "virtually indistinguishable from sociopathy"
This is virtually indistinguishable from special pleading. If I had just gotten done calling you all those other things, I think you'd see little to reason to find the "virtually indistinguishable" to be a real amelioration.
those kinds of comments aren't what we most want from the site.
The key, though, is that they're more often allowed to stand when they appropriately read the room.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:58 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is virtually indistinguishable from special pleading. If I had just gotten done calling you all those other things, I think you'd see little to reason to find the "virtually indistinguishable" to be a real amelioration.
those kinds of comments aren't what we most want from the site.
The key, though, is that they're more often allowed to stand when they appropriately read the room.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:58 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
That is, she'll come in, say the sky is black with 100% certainty, as though it's a fact everyone should accept, only to have several others bring in the evidence that shows, without a doubt that the sky is blue.
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
That's just not behavior that I consider to be reasonable or polite, honestly.
posted by syzygy at 2:27 PM on December 8
Herein lies a problem. To be frank, I haven't a clue about corb's specific arguments or to what you are referring, but I am very familiar with the type of argument you are making as it has been made hundreds of times over the more than a decade I have been around here. And based on that historical precedent, I am familiar how often this argument is made not about truly objective things but about subjective opinions.
Surely it would be unreasonable and impolite to come appear in a thread and vocally insist on an objectively false premise. But this argument is so often made not about things that are "objectively false." Rather, "objectively false" is used when the more appropriate term is "localized subjective consensus." There is no equivalence between "localized subjective consensus" and "objectively false". And if a person is only stating a premise that is inconsistent with a localized subjective consensus, then we should not call that unreasonable or impolite.
That way lies a tyranny of consensus. Things for which reasonable people can and do disagree (more broadly in society) are treated as inarguable by some here. On such things, it is an act of sheer hubris or tyranny to think "others can prove" the interlocutor "wrong" or should expect that the interlocutor "admit they made an error."
When one treats one's own opinion as inarguably and objectively correct, one feels deeply the need to correct others who depart from that. It's a human trait. However, if one allows for the premise that one may be wrong or that one's opinion is just one's own and that others have a right to disagree, then we eliminate the need to show that There is Someone Wrong on the Internet.
If corb comes in and says in her opinion guns are good (or whatever her so objectionable opinion is) why is it necessary that someone "prove her wrong"? If you wish to engage the argument on its own merits, then do so politely and in good faith. If you think it is so wrong that you don't wish to even acknowledge it, then ignore it. If it is racist/sexist/whatever, flag it and move on and trust the moderators do their job. Don't be snide, rude, or cause a fight with someone you know you will end up disagreeing with, because that is behavior I trust we all should agree is not reasonable or polite (and one I strongly submit would not be done in person if we were all around a table).
If we instead say "I get to belittle those I disagree with" and respond in any way except good faith (or bad faith), then you end up with pile-ons. Pile-ons beget either (1) the subject person responding to all comers, often in the same tone of the pile-oners thereby derailing conversation into being about the subject person; or (2) the subject person does not respond to all comers (or leaves), and people start to complain that the person is a troll or not acting in good faith because not everyone's response was addressed or the subject didn't admit they were wrong. In other words, the only two options are both equally ugly and unbecoming.
Unfortunately, this is the route we do go. The complete boorish behavior of people who cannot tolerate disagreement results in such a mess the moderators only feasible fix is apparently to tell the subject person to not cause the reaction. And that's a shame and discredit to a website that is about discussion.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on December 8, 2014 [21 favorites]
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
That's just not behavior that I consider to be reasonable or polite, honestly.
posted by syzygy at 2:27 PM on December 8
Herein lies a problem. To be frank, I haven't a clue about corb's specific arguments or to what you are referring, but I am very familiar with the type of argument you are making as it has been made hundreds of times over the more than a decade I have been around here. And based on that historical precedent, I am familiar how often this argument is made not about truly objective things but about subjective opinions.
Surely it would be unreasonable and impolite to come appear in a thread and vocally insist on an objectively false premise. But this argument is so often made not about things that are "objectively false." Rather, "objectively false" is used when the more appropriate term is "localized subjective consensus." There is no equivalence between "localized subjective consensus" and "objectively false". And if a person is only stating a premise that is inconsistent with a localized subjective consensus, then we should not call that unreasonable or impolite.
That way lies a tyranny of consensus. Things for which reasonable people can and do disagree (more broadly in society) are treated as inarguable by some here. On such things, it is an act of sheer hubris or tyranny to think "others can prove" the interlocutor "wrong" or should expect that the interlocutor "admit they made an error."
When one treats one's own opinion as inarguably and objectively correct, one feels deeply the need to correct others who depart from that. It's a human trait. However, if one allows for the premise that one may be wrong or that one's opinion is just one's own and that others have a right to disagree, then we eliminate the need to show that There is Someone Wrong on the Internet.
If corb comes in and says in her opinion guns are good (or whatever her so objectionable opinion is) why is it necessary that someone "prove her wrong"? If you wish to engage the argument on its own merits, then do so politely and in good faith. If you think it is so wrong that you don't wish to even acknowledge it, then ignore it. If it is racist/sexist/whatever, flag it and move on and trust the moderators do their job. Don't be snide, rude, or cause a fight with someone you know you will end up disagreeing with, because that is behavior I trust we all should agree is not reasonable or polite (and one I strongly submit would not be done in person if we were all around a table).
If we instead say "I get to belittle those I disagree with" and respond in any way except good faith (or bad faith), then you end up with pile-ons. Pile-ons beget either (1) the subject person responding to all comers, often in the same tone of the pile-oners thereby derailing conversation into being about the subject person; or (2) the subject person does not respond to all comers (or leaves), and people start to complain that the person is a troll or not acting in good faith because not everyone's response was addressed or the subject didn't admit they were wrong. In other words, the only two options are both equally ugly and unbecoming.
Unfortunately, this is the route we do go. The complete boorish behavior of people who cannot tolerate disagreement results in such a mess the moderators only feasible fix is apparently to tell the subject person to not cause the reaction. And that's a shame and discredit to a website that is about discussion.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on December 8, 2014 [21 favorites]
I think there end up being a lot more bad lulzy potshots on the Metafilter Majority side than on the other side
I dunno, there's a bunch of behaviors that kind of fall under the same "conversation-stopping" umbrella. If the lulzy potshot is a "Majority" version, then drive-by potstirring is the "Minority" version, and is, if anything, more toxic.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
I dunno, there's a bunch of behaviors that kind of fall under the same "conversation-stopping" umbrella. If the lulzy potshot is a "Majority" version, then drive-by potstirring is the "Minority" version, and is, if anything, more toxic.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:12 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
dios: Herein lies a problem.
Nope, I'm talking about objective facts, not matters of opinion or interpretation.
To be frank, I haven't a clue about corb's specific arguments or to what you are referring
Herein lies a problem...
posted by syzygy at 1:14 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Nope, I'm talking about objective facts, not matters of opinion or interpretation.
To be frank, I haven't a clue about corb's specific arguments or to what you are referring
Herein lies a problem...
posted by syzygy at 1:14 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Therein was a great chance to provide an actual example.
posted by 0 at 1:16 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by 0 at 1:16 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Therein was a great chance to provide an actual example.
Except others are saying we need to stop doing that because bullying.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:17 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Except others are saying we need to stop doing that because bullying.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:17 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
That is, she'll come in, say the sky is black with 100% certainty, as though it's a fact everyone should accept, only to have several others bring in the evidence that shows, without a doubt that the sky is blue.
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
The fun part with this example of objective fact is that depending on the location and time the from which the observation is done, the sky is very often black!
posted by Drinky Die at 1:24 PM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
And when others have proven that the sky is blue, she usually moves on to the next argument without ever having admitted that she made an error in declaring with absolute certainty that it was black.
The fun part with this example of objective fact is that depending on the location and time the from which the observation is done, the sky is very often black!
posted by Drinky Die at 1:24 PM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
Nope, I'm talking about objective facts, not matters of opinion or interpretation.
Please send me a private message of an example of this pattern of voicing things that are "objectively wrong" and "not matter of opinion or interpretation." I find that claim dubious, but I am prepared to say that I am wrong (and have done so many times here).
posted by dios at 1:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Please send me a private message of an example of this pattern of voicing things that are "objectively wrong" and "not matter of opinion or interpretation." I find that claim dubious, but I am prepared to say that I am wrong (and have done so many times here).
posted by dios at 1:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think the bullying part is the never letting up of the pile-on pressure, whether you use examples or not.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:28 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:28 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
Except others are saying we need to stop doing that because bullying.
Well, yes, the best thing for both you and syzygy to do is drop the corb issue altogether. But if you are going to claim "numerous objectively incorrect" examples, please provide one or two by the second or third time you've brought it up.
Note that, to me, causes for the Civil War is not a debate nearly as settled as the color of the sky*. But if you wish to count that as number one, be my guest.
* On preview, true that, Drinky.
Peloton, you wouldn't be a BND by any chance, eh?
posted by 0 at 1:29 PM on December 8, 2014
Well, yes, the best thing for both you and syzygy to do is drop the corb issue altogether. But if you are going to claim "numerous objectively incorrect" examples, please provide one or two by the second or third time you've brought it up.
Note that, to me, causes for the Civil War is not a debate nearly as settled as the color of the sky*. But if you wish to count that as number one, be my guest.
* On preview, true that, Drinky.
Peloton, you wouldn't be a BND by any chance, eh?
posted by 0 at 1:29 PM on December 8, 2014
most of scody's comments
I think there are only three particularly personal comments. scody calls corb's arguments "immoral and indefensible" then contemptible and then calls corb herself preening, etc. It's not most of her comments, at all: it's the back-and-forth section. I think scody takes something personal that wasn't aimed at her: others in that thread are saying the things that corb is responding to. But that's just speculation about her motives, not really relevant.
I should also say that it's possible that corb has some sort of really egregious comment in that thread that was deleted; the whole point is that such comments are more likely to be deleted than similar comments made by scody. But with the record we have, it looks like scody gets very passionate about a matter of longterm activism, and when corb gives fairly boring reasons to disagree (the same ones that motivate the majority of the American populace) scody is the one that gets increasingly belligerent. Yet her belligerence stands.
Well-spoken belligerence very often stands, on Metafilter. There are a lot of posters who are particularly good at lulzy potshot addenda, so that they end an otherwise reasonable post with lots of cool things and facts with a totally asshole potshot. The comment survives because of the substance, but the poison still gets where it's headed.
I say this as someone who has done this a few times, myself. I'm just pointing out that it works, and preserves Metafilter Majority lulzy potshots but not generally the minority ones.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:30 PM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
I think there are only three particularly personal comments. scody calls corb's arguments "immoral and indefensible" then contemptible and then calls corb herself preening, etc. It's not most of her comments, at all: it's the back-and-forth section. I think scody takes something personal that wasn't aimed at her: others in that thread are saying the things that corb is responding to. But that's just speculation about her motives, not really relevant.
I should also say that it's possible that corb has some sort of really egregious comment in that thread that was deleted; the whole point is that such comments are more likely to be deleted than similar comments made by scody. But with the record we have, it looks like scody gets very passionate about a matter of longterm activism, and when corb gives fairly boring reasons to disagree (the same ones that motivate the majority of the American populace) scody is the one that gets increasingly belligerent. Yet her belligerence stands.
Well-spoken belligerence very often stands, on Metafilter. There are a lot of posters who are particularly good at lulzy potshot addenda, so that they end an otherwise reasonable post with lots of cool things and facts with a totally asshole potshot. The comment survives because of the substance, but the poison still gets where it's headed.
I say this as someone who has done this a few times, myself. I'm just pointing out that it works, and preserves Metafilter Majority lulzy potshots but not generally the minority ones.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:30 PM on December 8, 2014 [7 favorites]
I guess you missed the thing that set scody off, which was corb's blithe little dig that she's obviously the only one who cares about her family and none of the rest of us do.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:32 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:32 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
You know what, actually, forget about that. I'm removing this thread from my recent activity.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:34 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:34 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Well, yes, the best thing for both you and syzygy to do is drop the corb issue altogether.
I did, and was speaking more generally. My only participation anywhere in the neighborhood of her specific case since saying I was backing away last night has been to correct what I believe to be errors in how my own position was being interpreted, not to get dragged into the weeds of the specific arguments. But now that you've asked me to stop talking about the sea lions, here we are talking sea lions.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:35 PM on December 8, 2014
I did, and was speaking more generally. My only participation anywhere in the neighborhood of her specific case since saying I was backing away last night has been to correct what I believe to be errors in how my own position was being interpreted, not to get dragged into the weeds of the specific arguments. But now that you've asked me to stop talking about the sea lions, here we are talking sea lions.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:35 PM on December 8, 2014
I guess you missed the thing that set scody off, which was corb's blithe little dig that she's obviously the only one who cares about her family and none of the rest of us do.
-
Do you think corb might have been set off by the suggestion that she had a fundamental lack of empathy for everybody BUT her family?
-
Do you think corb might have been set off by the suggestion that she had a fundamental lack of empathy for everybody BUT her family?
I suppose I just don't get the concept of "If you would save your family from it, you don't believe in it,"posted by Drinky Die at 1:37 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
And I don't get the concept of how you would save a loved one from being executed for a crime they didn't commit while still appearing to be absolutely unconcerned about anyone who is not your family member being executed for a crime they did not commit. That is, you are fine with innocent people being put to death up until the point you know and care about them yourself. It is impossible for me to compute that, because it seems predicated on such a fundamental lack of empathy for all other human beings outside your immediate circle (which necessarily manifests as an exceptionally a high tolerance, if not outright disregard, for the suffering of others) that I find entirely immoral and indefensible.
posted by scody at 8:12 PM on September 9 [5 favorites +] [!]
I...don't understand you, and I say that with all sincerity. I can't conceive of turning a loved one over to the police, even if they were guilty, except under very, very few circumstances. I do not understand how you can. I'm not going to say anything about your empathy, because I really don't know what that says about you or why you would feel that way. I know that it would seem to me heartless, but I have faith that you believe yourself to be a compassionate person and I have no reason to suspect that you are not, but I just really can't grok it. I could say it seems "immoral and indefensible", but I'm going to assume that you have a good reason, and just ask why it works that way for you.
But for me, it's not about whether my family member is innocent or guilty - I would defend them equally as much in both circumstances. You just don't betray your familiy members. It's a fundamental core moral for me.
posted by corb at 8:16 PM on September 9 [+] [!]
I am misremembering the responses in that thread as a conversation with the mods. My apologies, mods.
It's okay, it happens.
Although I'll note that the mods did let that comment (and a followon agreeing with it) stand after I flagged both.
Yep, and if you want my personal opinion I think they're pretty borderline at best and if it was me right this instant with that thread developing I'd nix 'em. But borderline is borderline and stuff plays out a little bit probabilistically in practice. Mainly I guess I want to underscore that failure to delete isn't the same thing as active approval; there's plenty of stuff that I think is not good that also doesn't end up getting actually deleted.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:44 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's okay, it happens.
Although I'll note that the mods did let that comment (and a followon agreeing with it) stand after I flagged both.
Yep, and if you want my personal opinion I think they're pretty borderline at best and if it was me right this instant with that thread developing I'd nix 'em. But borderline is borderline and stuff plays out a little bit probabilistically in practice. Mainly I guess I want to underscore that failure to delete isn't the same thing as active approval; there's plenty of stuff that I think is not good that also doesn't end up getting actually deleted.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:44 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
corb's blithe little dig that she's obviously the only one who cares about her family and none of the rest of us do.
She doesn't say that, especially not the "none of the rest of us do." She says she doesn't understand why anyone would value law over family. Which is pretty standard prioritization: it's in Confucius, for instance. You remonstrate with your family members but you always prefer them to others. (I myself have much weaker family preferences, but I also wouldn't turn in a family member unless I thought they presented a future danger and not just a history of wrongdoing. And even then: would we who say we would do so have the strength? A hated sibling, maybe, but what about a beloved son or daughter?)
I think you said earlier that you were trying to be a better participant on Metafilter, fffm. I do not think that I see much evidence of that, at least in this thread. My brief experiences of you are that you are very quick to go very negative, that you do not respond to reasons and evidence, and that you expect to be treated much better than you treat others.
I've seen a bunch of the comments you post before they get deleted, which makes me wonder what kind of deeply disturbing stuff corb may have posted that earned her the enmity she receives. It's clear that there's a real unrest but no one seems willing to link to particular comments, so I'm thinking that they may have been deleted. That's the only thing that would explain the pattern of misquotation and innuendo that has taken the place of actual links.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:59 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
She doesn't say that, especially not the "none of the rest of us do." She says she doesn't understand why anyone would value law over family. Which is pretty standard prioritization: it's in Confucius, for instance. You remonstrate with your family members but you always prefer them to others. (I myself have much weaker family preferences, but I also wouldn't turn in a family member unless I thought they presented a future danger and not just a history of wrongdoing. And even then: would we who say we would do so have the strength? A hated sibling, maybe, but what about a beloved son or daughter?)
I think you said earlier that you were trying to be a better participant on Metafilter, fffm. I do not think that I see much evidence of that, at least in this thread. My brief experiences of you are that you are very quick to go very negative, that you do not respond to reasons and evidence, and that you expect to be treated much better than you treat others.
I've seen a bunch of the comments you post before they get deleted, which makes me wonder what kind of deeply disturbing stuff corb may have posted that earned her the enmity she receives. It's clear that there's a real unrest but no one seems willing to link to particular comments, so I'm thinking that they may have been deleted. That's the only thing that would explain the pattern of misquotation and innuendo that has taken the place of actual links.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:59 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'll supply examples tomorrow *he writes while lying in bed*
posted by syzygy at 2:24 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by syzygy at 2:24 PM on December 8, 2014
I guess you missed the thing that set scody off, which was corb's blithe little dig that she's obviously the only one who cares about her family and none of the rest of us do.
She doesn't say that, especially not the "none of the rest of us do."
She said "And that is as repugnant to me as apparently keeping faith with the ones you love is to the lot of you." It was an absurd accusation which would have been better ignored, but that was what scody was reacting to in her last comment.
posted by homunculus at 2:52 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
She doesn't say that, especially not the "none of the rest of us do."
She said "And that is as repugnant to me as apparently keeping faith with the ones you love is to the lot of you." It was an absurd accusation which would have been better ignored, but that was what scody was reacting to in her last comment.
posted by homunculus at 2:52 PM on December 8, 2014 [9 favorites]
> I think that is a shitty comment that highlights one of the problems corb has, she sometimes speaks for large groups she is a part of (Rural folks, military folks, gun owners) as if they all hold the same views as her. A lot of them probably do, but I don't think it's always quite as many as she thinks. She also sometimes gets a bit hyperfocused on their concerns and has difficulty accepting the importance of alternative perspectives, like that of urban dwellers.
Drinky Die, corb's Hispanic, lives in New York City, and doesn't own a gun (though she's a libertarian and supports second amendment rights). The only thing you said about corb in your comment that's actually true is that she's a former member of the US military; the rest of it is BS you made up for rhetorical purposes. (I disagree with a lot of her political positions too, but she has no reason to lie about where she lives, her ethnicity, or where she grew up.)
This is something that really bugs me about the way discourse works on MetaFilter. People, like you, just make up alleged "facts" about other commenters' biographies and backgrounds, and then base their entire commentary on whatever the other person said on made up bullshit about their background and stereotypes about people from their alleged background. What is it that makes it so hard for people like you and so many other MeFites to just honestly explain why you disagree with other people's comments? Why is this so difficult? Why do you need to make up shit like this?
(Over in the latest Ferguson thread where corb has supposedly been spouting non-stop racist bullcrap, corb has commented about how racist Staten Island, where Eric Garner was killed, is based on her own experience as a non-white person living there, but we'll pretend she didn't say that because we all know she's a white white redneck who lives in the rural South somewhere. She also said that there are issues with institutional racism in the US criminal justice system and policing that need to be addressed. This led to minor pile-on.)
posted by nangar at 3:11 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Drinky Die, corb's Hispanic, lives in New York City, and doesn't own a gun (though she's a libertarian and supports second amendment rights). The only thing you said about corb in your comment that's actually true is that she's a former member of the US military; the rest of it is BS you made up for rhetorical purposes. (I disagree with a lot of her political positions too, but she has no reason to lie about where she lives, her ethnicity, or where she grew up.)
This is something that really bugs me about the way discourse works on MetaFilter. People, like you, just make up alleged "facts" about other commenters' biographies and backgrounds, and then base their entire commentary on whatever the other person said on made up bullshit about their background and stereotypes about people from their alleged background. What is it that makes it so hard for people like you and so many other MeFites to just honestly explain why you disagree with other people's comments? Why is this so difficult? Why do you need to make up shit like this?
(Over in the latest Ferguson thread where corb has supposedly been spouting non-stop racist bullcrap, corb has commented about how racist Staten Island, where Eric Garner was killed, is based on her own experience as a non-white person living there, but we'll pretend she didn't say that because we all know she's a white white redneck who lives in the rural South somewhere. She also said that there are issues with institutional racism in the US criminal justice system and policing that need to be addressed. This led to minor pile-on.)
posted by nangar at 3:11 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Woah woah woah, damn. Has this really become a "ban corb entirely" thing? I'm not signing that petition.
All i really wanted to see was quicker intervention when she starts making shit up out of whole cloth with no evidence, or starts in with weird hypotheticals. I don't even think she should be banned from specific discussions, just WAY less tolerance for "mike brown choked a woman!" type crap.
Misha: then can we agree to refrain from rehashing old threads and using them against corb in the future, or making snide remarks about corb's past, and allow her to actually move forward without trying to sabotage that?
I would be fully willing to pretend that nothing corb ever posted before this thread existed.
Because i know i would have a solid list of new examples by new years.
Bringing up past behavior is not the problem here, because no matter where you draw the line, you'll have plenty of examples very quickly.
posted by emptythought at 3:13 PM on December 8, 2014
All i really wanted to see was quicker intervention when she starts making shit up out of whole cloth with no evidence, or starts in with weird hypotheticals. I don't even think she should be banned from specific discussions, just WAY less tolerance for "mike brown choked a woman!" type crap.
Misha: then can we agree to refrain from rehashing old threads and using them against corb in the future, or making snide remarks about corb's past, and allow her to actually move forward without trying to sabotage that?
I would be fully willing to pretend that nothing corb ever posted before this thread existed.
Because i know i would have a solid list of new examples by new years.
Bringing up past behavior is not the problem here, because no matter where you draw the line, you'll have plenty of examples very quickly.
posted by emptythought at 3:13 PM on December 8, 2014
Over in the latest Ferguson thread where corb has supposedly been spouting non-stop racist bullcrap, corb has commented about how racist Staten Island, where Eric Garner was killed, is based on her own experience as a non-white person living there, but we'll pretend she didn't say that because we all know she's a white white redneck who lives in the rural South somewhere.
What does this add? Can you provide some examples of people making stupid assumptions like that?
I think we've already pretty well steamrolled the idea that just because someone isn't white doesn't mean they can't have shitty opinions about things. And i'm NOT talking about her post detailing her own experiences, but her other general interaction with the ferguson thread and other similar recent threads.
posted by emptythought at 3:17 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
What does this add? Can you provide some examples of people making stupid assumptions like that?
I think we've already pretty well steamrolled the idea that just because someone isn't white doesn't mean they can't have shitty opinions about things. And i'm NOT talking about her post detailing her own experiences, but her other general interaction with the ferguson thread and other similar recent threads.
posted by emptythought at 3:17 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Drinky Die, corb's Hispanic, lives in New York City, and doesn't own a gun (though she's a libertarian and supports second amendment rights). The only thing you said about corb in your comment that's actually true is that she's a former member of the US military; the rest of it is BS you made up for rhetorical purposes. (I disagree with a lot of her political positions too, but she has no reason to lie about where she lives, her ethnicity, or where she grew up.)
Err, well I think if you look at my comments in this thread you will come to the conclusion this was an honest mistake. I would amend my comment to say something more along the lines of, "Groups she understands and sympathizes with like..."
I did not say anything about ethnicity.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:18 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Err, well I think if you look at my comments in this thread you will come to the conclusion this was an honest mistake. I would amend my comment to say something more along the lines of, "Groups she understands and sympathizes with like..."
I did not say anything about ethnicity.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:18 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Cortex: "Mainly I guess I want to underscore that failure to delete isn't the same thing as active approval; there's plenty of stuff that I think is not good that also doesn't end up getting actually deleted."
Can this be clarified further? If I wander into a thread cold, and do my best to "read the room", it's likely that seeing a fighty comment, followed by a mod interaction of "A few comments deleted, let's not be personally attacking others, thanks" - may lead me to perceive that the fighty comment is okay with the mods, and, therefore, actively approved. I understand it's a bit of a gray area, but if it's evident that mods are seeing and screening problematic comments, and yet a problematic comment is still there, it can be perceived that the bad comment is okay with Management.
I think if that happens, there needs to be a bit of something in the comments that says why that fighty comment is allowed to stand and others are not.
posted by disclaimer at 3:33 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Can this be clarified further? If I wander into a thread cold, and do my best to "read the room", it's likely that seeing a fighty comment, followed by a mod interaction of "A few comments deleted, let's not be personally attacking others, thanks" - may lead me to perceive that the fighty comment is okay with the mods, and, therefore, actively approved. I understand it's a bit of a gray area, but if it's evident that mods are seeing and screening problematic comments, and yet a problematic comment is still there, it can be perceived that the bad comment is okay with Management.
I think if that happens, there needs to be a bit of something in the comments that says why that fighty comment is allowed to stand and others are not.
posted by disclaimer at 3:33 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, to defend Drinky Die, while corb may not belong to those groups, she frequently speaks as if she has special insight into their beliefs (especially the rural/gun owner stuff). Maybe his phrasing was a tad sloppy (whose isn't at the bottom of a longboat MeTa squabblefest?) but to my recollection he's basically right that she often asserts that she understands e.g. rural or gun-owner motivations in a way that the rest of us supposedly do not.
As I see it, several of those who've complained about corb in this discussion are simply defending the status quo. Count me among them.
I agree with this. I think a lot of people are talking past each other in this twilight of the thread because we've lost sight of the beginning. Some people seem to think that people are arguing that corb should be banned or that the policy around her comments should change or something, but I don't think that's generally the case (maybe a couple people offered thoughts but that hasn't been the focus). Rather, this thread started as a callout of supposedly biased moderation and a request for a change in the way they moderate the pile-on dynamic, and I think most of the people talking about the dynamic around corb's comments here at the bottom are speaking in defense of the status quo, not arguing for further changes.
Cheers to the mods, by the way, for being so gracious about accusations of bias. I can't even imagine how much I'd hate life if there was a 1000+ comment MetaTalk thread every time somebody thought I didn't do my job perfectly.
posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
As I see it, several of those who've complained about corb in this discussion are simply defending the status quo. Count me among them.
I agree with this. I think a lot of people are talking past each other in this twilight of the thread because we've lost sight of the beginning. Some people seem to think that people are arguing that corb should be banned or that the policy around her comments should change or something, but I don't think that's generally the case (maybe a couple people offered thoughts but that hasn't been the focus). Rather, this thread started as a callout of supposedly biased moderation and a request for a change in the way they moderate the pile-on dynamic, and I think most of the people talking about the dynamic around corb's comments here at the bottom are speaking in defense of the status quo, not arguing for further changes.
Cheers to the mods, by the way, for being so gracious about accusations of bias. I can't even imagine how much I'd hate life if there was a 1000+ comment MetaTalk thread every time somebody thought I didn't do my job perfectly.
posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
I understand it's a bit of a gray area, but if it's evident that mods are seeing and screening problematic comments, and yet a problematic comment is still there, it can be perceived that the bad comment is okay with Management.
We don't really have total control over what people reading a thread cold perceive, and can't unless we make the core goal of moderation to aggressively manage perceptions rather than to just try and keep threads more or less not melting down, which I don't think anybody really wants.
Proportionally speaking, almost none of what gets posted on Metafilter gets deleted. We're talking small single digit percentage, on a quiet day for deletions probably more like a fraction of a digit. If the idea is that all of that that isn't deleted can be perceived to be explicitly, actively approved by the mods, so be it: it's an incorrect perception, and not one I think most folks who have been here for a while or read metatalk actively would hold, but we can't stop it from being perceived and we'd be fools to try.
I think if that happens, there needs to be a bit of something in the comments that says why that fighty comment is allowed to stand and others are not.
This would be a significant expansion of the editorial/curatorial presence of mod commentary in threads, and would do a lot more to set an expectation that without an explicit disclaimer every single problematic thing on the site is something the mods are actively in support of; we'd have to sort through every comment on the site looking for stuff that's at all problematic and leave "[hey, we're not deleting this comment but it kind of sucks]" everywhere to avoid the more actively justified perception that failure to explicitly disclaim in any case was approval.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:45 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
We don't really have total control over what people reading a thread cold perceive, and can't unless we make the core goal of moderation to aggressively manage perceptions rather than to just try and keep threads more or less not melting down, which I don't think anybody really wants.
Proportionally speaking, almost none of what gets posted on Metafilter gets deleted. We're talking small single digit percentage, on a quiet day for deletions probably more like a fraction of a digit. If the idea is that all of that that isn't deleted can be perceived to be explicitly, actively approved by the mods, so be it: it's an incorrect perception, and not one I think most folks who have been here for a while or read metatalk actively would hold, but we can't stop it from being perceived and we'd be fools to try.
I think if that happens, there needs to be a bit of something in the comments that says why that fighty comment is allowed to stand and others are not.
This would be a significant expansion of the editorial/curatorial presence of mod commentary in threads, and would do a lot more to set an expectation that without an explicit disclaimer every single problematic thing on the site is something the mods are actively in support of; we'd have to sort through every comment on the site looking for stuff that's at all problematic and leave "[hey, we're not deleting this comment but it kind of sucks]" everywhere to avoid the more actively justified perception that failure to explicitly disclaim in any case was approval.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:45 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
People, like you, just make up alleged "facts" about other commenters' biographies and backgrounds, and then base their entire commentary on whatever the other person said on made up bullshit about their background and stereotypes about people from their alleged background. What is it that makes it so hard for people like you and so many other MeFites to just honestly explain why you disagree with other people's comments? Why is this so difficult? Why do you need to make up shit like this?
I know i'm replying to the same post twice, but you could also totally apply this to corb. She's been called out more than once on whole-cloth making up stuff about rural gun owners, among other groups. In which someone who is from that area/background/etc steps forward and goes "hey, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you're just making up shit that sort of vaguely sounds good".
posted by emptythought at 3:45 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
I know i'm replying to the same post twice, but you could also totally apply this to corb. She's been called out more than once on whole-cloth making up stuff about rural gun owners, among other groups. In which someone who is from that area/background/etc steps forward and goes "hey, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you're just making up shit that sort of vaguely sounds good".
posted by emptythought at 3:45 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Let me just add, that it was my impression that corb had experience living in rural environments in the past. I don't know if she said that at some point or I just assumed that because military people often end up all over the place and she kind of talks like she has personal understanding of rural character. If she doesn't it makes some other interactions I've had with her weird, like not getting her to really acknowledge the polling data on rural people here. That's actually more off kilter to me if you don't have the personal connection than if you do.
Sorry for opening up a new front in the War on Corb, not my intention, lol. This is a minor issue that can be fixed just by being careful to make it clear you are speaking in generalities so people don't think you are trying to speak for them.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:53 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sorry for opening up a new front in the War on Corb, not my intention, lol. This is a minor issue that can be fixed just by being careful to make it clear you are speaking in generalities so people don't think you are trying to speak for them.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:53 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Drinky Die, you based your entire comment about corb's participation on the site on stuff about her background that you almost completely made up. This wasn't an honest mistake. You knew you were making it up you posted it.
I'm sick this style of argumentation on MetaFilter. I'm asking you and other MeFites to stop doing it.
posted by nangar at 4:07 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm sick this style of argumentation on MetaFilter. I'm asking you and other MeFites to stop doing it.
posted by nangar at 4:07 PM on December 8, 2014 [3 favorites]
I am not going to post it here, because I don't want to promote the corb show, but I personally had no trouble finding a comment by corb herself as to what her connection to rural America is and all that. And I really suck at finding things on metafilter, so I am of the opinion it probably isn't hard to dig up.
I am all for people being a little more careful about what they state about other members without bothering to verify the facts. It is one of the reasons I often use myself as an example: Any errors I make talking about myself are usually typos, memory slips or other really honest mistakes and not some weird "But I had some vague notion about who I thought this person was based on stuff I didn't really double check." When I do use others as the example, I usually try hard to err on the side of finding out what someone actually said somewhere on the site or clearly qualifying it ("as I understand it," "IIRC" etc). That opens one to plenty of hot water right there, without going so far as to make statements about another member as if they are statements of fact while doing no fact checking.
I'm older than I used to be. Those are some best practices learned from the school of open mouth and insert foot overly much, fwiw.
posted by Michele in California at 4:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am all for people being a little more careful about what they state about other members without bothering to verify the facts. It is one of the reasons I often use myself as an example: Any errors I make talking about myself are usually typos, memory slips or other really honest mistakes and not some weird "But I had some vague notion about who I thought this person was based on stuff I didn't really double check." When I do use others as the example, I usually try hard to err on the side of finding out what someone actually said somewhere on the site or clearly qualifying it ("as I understand it," "IIRC" etc). That opens one to plenty of hot water right there, without going so far as to make statements about another member as if they are statements of fact while doing no fact checking.
I'm older than I used to be. Those are some best practices learned from the school of open mouth and insert foot overly much, fwiw.
posted by Michele in California at 4:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
You knew you were making it up you posted it.
I'm sick of this style of argumentation on metafilter...you know the one where some mefites can read the minds of other mefites. I'm asking you and other MeFites to stop doing it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
I'm sick of this style of argumentation on metafilter...you know the one where some mefites can read the minds of other mefites. I'm asking you and other MeFites to stop doing it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [8 favorites]
I'm sick of this style of argumentation on metafilter... you know the one where you repeat the person's words to them, except, I dunno, more mockingly or condescendingly or something. I'm asking you to stop buggin'.
posted by box at 4:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 4:27 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm asking you to stop buggin'.
Request denied.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:37 PM on December 8, 2014
Request denied.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:37 PM on December 8, 2014
Okay, corb reached out to me on this and approved letting me add a clarification on this:
Nangar, I think you are right assumptions about others lives can be a problem that shows up on Metafilter. I have definitely done it in the past with assuming she was male and white when I first started noticing her posts. Part of what I appreciate about her participation is how much she challenges your assumptions both about her and the world. I was pretty sure I had read posts from her that said she had lived rurally and owned guns but given I had made poor assumptions about her in the past I didn't want to discount the possibility I was wrong when you challenged it. I definitely did not write my comment with full awareness of how much experience she has with urban living and not owning a gun, which I'm also pretty sure I read about in the past. So, it was sloppy and I didn't think it all the way through, but it was an honest mistake. We cool?
posted by Drinky Die at 4:38 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
But on my background - you're actually both right. I was in NYC and not a gun owner, but then I married a rural gun owner and moved out to WA. So both kind of pepper the site. What I'm trying to say is that you're not crazy or wrong for thinking the one.
-
Also I do now own a shotgun and a .380 pistol, not that I think you'll need that level of detail, but I'm sure I posted somewhere on the site about the changes. I wanted to own guns for a while, but NYC has strong laws against it and I'm relatively law-abiding overall. It's hard to remember gradual stuff you see, though. You can also add (if you want/think it's useful, I trust you) what is honestly the truth - that as a city-raised girl, I was an urban snob with the best of them, and getting to the military and meeting people from rural areas and living myself in more rural areas made me feel ashamed of how I'd treated them in the past and made me really want to get to know and understand where they were coming from, from a place of love. So in some ways my sympathy for them comes from the urgency of the convert.
Nangar, I think you are right assumptions about others lives can be a problem that shows up on Metafilter. I have definitely done it in the past with assuming she was male and white when I first started noticing her posts. Part of what I appreciate about her participation is how much she challenges your assumptions both about her and the world. I was pretty sure I had read posts from her that said she had lived rurally and owned guns but given I had made poor assumptions about her in the past I didn't want to discount the possibility I was wrong when you challenged it. I definitely did not write my comment with full awareness of how much experience she has with urban living and not owning a gun, which I'm also pretty sure I read about in the past. So, it was sloppy and I didn't think it all the way through, but it was an honest mistake. We cool?
posted by Drinky Die at 4:38 PM on December 8, 2014 [4 favorites]
Do hair splitters have a patron saint?
Boethius?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:40 PM on December 8, 2014
Boethius?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:40 PM on December 8, 2014
And, yeah, corb is so willing to represent the viewpoints of groups she doesn't actually belong to
Empathy, often undervalued here.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
Empathy, often undervalued here.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
Thank you Drinky Die and corb for correcting me.
I still think making assumptions about people is a bad thing, but, yeah, we're cool, and I'm sorry.
posted by nangar at 4:51 PM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
I still think making assumptions about people is a bad thing, but, yeah, we're cool, and I'm sorry.
posted by nangar at 4:51 PM on December 8, 2014 [10 favorites]
Do hair splitters have a patron saint?
mary magdalene?
or perhaps st paul, who is the patron saint of ir-rabat, malta, which is as close to a hare as i could find, although i'm not sure about the splitting
posted by pyramid termite at 5:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
mary magdalene?
or perhaps st paul, who is the patron saint of ir-rabat, malta, which is as close to a hare as i could find, although i'm not sure about the splitting
posted by pyramid termite at 5:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Divided God, Shai-Hulud-from-Leto-II, surely.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:04 PM on December 8, 2014 [5 favorites]
And, yeah, corb is so willing to represent the viewpoints of groups she doesn't actually belong to
Empathy, often undervalued here.
Well posing as some sort of translator of the great unwashed rural folkdom when plenty of us are here and can speak for ourselves isn't exactly empathetic, either.
posted by winna at 5:15 PM on December 8, 2014 [20 favorites]
Empathy, often undervalued here.
Well posing as some sort of translator of the great unwashed rural folkdom when plenty of us are here and can speak for ourselves isn't exactly empathetic, either.
posted by winna at 5:15 PM on December 8, 2014 [20 favorites]
Thanks for the clarification, cortex.
posted by disclaimer at 5:24 PM on December 8, 2014
posted by disclaimer at 5:24 PM on December 8, 2014
And, yeah, corb is so willing to represent the viewpoints of groups she doesn't actually belong to
I mean, she's hardly alone in this, though, and not everyone is in agreement about whether or not this is really a great rhetorical sin, as was recently discussed. I think that there are adjunct behaviors to this that are not so great--i.e., talking over/splaining to people who actually are in that group (as winna alludes to above), using it as cover to throw out grenades that one is unwilling/unable to defend, being coy about one's own stake in the conversation, etc., and that should be called out, but I don't think that saying "well, people i've spoken to who are x tend to feel y" is itself so bad, and I think that having to construct demographic profiles on people to assess the sincerity of their comments is not a good direction to take this.
posted by kagredon at 5:37 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
I mean, she's hardly alone in this, though, and not everyone is in agreement about whether or not this is really a great rhetorical sin, as was recently discussed. I think that there are adjunct behaviors to this that are not so great--i.e., talking over/splaining to people who actually are in that group (as winna alludes to above), using it as cover to throw out grenades that one is unwilling/unable to defend, being coy about one's own stake in the conversation, etc., and that should be called out, but I don't think that saying "well, people i've spoken to who are x tend to feel y" is itself so bad, and I think that having to construct demographic profiles on people to assess the sincerity of their comments is not a good direction to take this.
posted by kagredon at 5:37 PM on December 8, 2014 [6 favorites]
I say we split the difference and create a new moderator called "corbtex", maybe using AI and/or CGI.
Barring that, I *still* think it's time to wind things down.
posted by uosuaq at 6:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
Barring that, I *still* think it's time to wind things down.
posted by uosuaq at 6:02 PM on December 8, 2014 [1 favorite]
anotherpanacea: unless there are some real humdingers of comments I've missed
I think there are some more provocative ones, certainly. But I'm already going through old gun threads, so I'm not going to go further and find her other more egregious comments.
To my comment: the point was that I would ban her, but I would ban lots of things, and it's good that I'm not a mod. And as a non-mod and merely another user, my opinion is merely that, and not actionable, or even something that should happen.
But you'd better believe there'd be smitings if I were a god.
Now, gun arguments. Here (2, 3, 4) is a thread where she uses a lot of the 'some people say' technique, makes unsupported sweeping statements and even declares it's all really about class. Plus she linked to a particularly asinine webcomic that compared guns to cake. Here (2, 3, 4, 5) there's more of the huge, unsupported claims, generalisations, and the paranoia about 'they're coming to take our guns' which manages to rile up anyone who can count the number of restrictive gun laws versus permissive gun laws that have passed in the US. Here (2) is more in the realm of unchecked assumptions and grand exaggeration, but includes the idea of a former felon voting bloc, which has a sort of sweet absurdity to it.
Context is helpful, so checking out the threads as a whole helps. There's also more, and this pie-in-the-sky idea would also prevent participation in threads about shootings, like the Trayvon Martin threads (and really, reread a couple of those and see what a fun time they are), but the general trend is the same and shows no sign of changing.
Looking at some of them all in a row has also suggested another reason corb specifically can so trouble people. It's that usually what she says sounds polite and reasonable unless you know a bit about what she references or the assumptions she's making, in which case you realise she's turning her assumptions into facts and discussing 'how things are' when they're not actually like how she describes at all. And then she'll castigate people for not seeing the world the way she's describing. It's not a combination that encourages people to like what you have to say.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:22 PM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
I think there are some more provocative ones, certainly. But I'm already going through old gun threads, so I'm not going to go further and find her other more egregious comments.
To my comment: the point was that I would ban her, but I would ban lots of things, and it's good that I'm not a mod. And as a non-mod and merely another user, my opinion is merely that, and not actionable, or even something that should happen.
But you'd better believe there'd be smitings if I were a god.
Now, gun arguments. Here (2, 3, 4) is a thread where she uses a lot of the 'some people say' technique, makes unsupported sweeping statements and even declares it's all really about class. Plus she linked to a particularly asinine webcomic that compared guns to cake. Here (2, 3, 4, 5) there's more of the huge, unsupported claims, generalisations, and the paranoia about 'they're coming to take our guns' which manages to rile up anyone who can count the number of restrictive gun laws versus permissive gun laws that have passed in the US. Here (2) is more in the realm of unchecked assumptions and grand exaggeration, but includes the idea of a former felon voting bloc, which has a sort of sweet absurdity to it.
Context is helpful, so checking out the threads as a whole helps. There's also more, and this pie-in-the-sky idea would also prevent participation in threads about shootings, like the Trayvon Martin threads (and really, reread a couple of those and see what a fun time they are), but the general trend is the same and shows no sign of changing.
Looking at some of them all in a row has also suggested another reason corb specifically can so trouble people. It's that usually what she says sounds polite and reasonable unless you know a bit about what she references or the assumptions she's making, in which case you realise she's turning her assumptions into facts and discussing 'how things are' when they're not actually like how she describes at all. And then she'll castigate people for not seeing the world the way she's describing. It's not a combination that encourages people to like what you have to say.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:22 PM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
[...] maybe it would be more helpful if that perspective were addressed by people who had deeper familiarity with it.
I don't so much like to comment anymore. There are a lot of times I feel incited to but I tamp it down and move on. Even if corb doesn't exactly represent the views of certain groups, I think it's ok for her to bring those people up. Even if there are people representing those groups who have more authentic (however that is determined) views, if corb does not conform to those views it doesn't mean she is wrong necessarily - she might not get to speak for a group, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the others out of hand. It also doesn't impose an obligation on me to speak up. Sometimes it is nice to have someone willingly take the brunt of an argument on what is more or less my behalf. corb has done that sometimes, for better or worse, when I don't want to commit myself (and so avoid being the drive-by guy).
Now, gun arguments. Here (2, 3, 4)[...]
I think the first set of examples went into the weeds and tried to come back to a core point that was not indicated very well. The webcomic, in itself, is simplistic but not necessarily wrong. The second set of examples edge a bit close to 'they're gonna take our guns' but even if the seizure issue is overrated it isn't completely false. The third set - well, it's kind of like the others. I can find you plenty of people who will make the same statements, and they will not all have primary sources much less a strong command of the law as it's written. I see no problem here - it looks like opinion to me. Maybe because I know a bit more about the basic talking points than someone who hasn't encountered them? I don't care to debate them, though. I just think that if those are examples of the things that people should be banned for under your godship, metafilter will be very lonely.
posted by timfinnie at 7:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't so much like to comment anymore. There are a lot of times I feel incited to but I tamp it down and move on. Even if corb doesn't exactly represent the views of certain groups, I think it's ok for her to bring those people up. Even if there are people representing those groups who have more authentic (however that is determined) views, if corb does not conform to those views it doesn't mean she is wrong necessarily - she might not get to speak for a group, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the others out of hand. It also doesn't impose an obligation on me to speak up. Sometimes it is nice to have someone willingly take the brunt of an argument on what is more or less my behalf. corb has done that sometimes, for better or worse, when I don't want to commit myself (and so avoid being the drive-by guy).
Now, gun arguments. Here (2, 3, 4)[...]
I think the first set of examples went into the weeds and tried to come back to a core point that was not indicated very well. The webcomic, in itself, is simplistic but not necessarily wrong. The second set of examples edge a bit close to 'they're gonna take our guns' but even if the seizure issue is overrated it isn't completely false. The third set - well, it's kind of like the others. I can find you plenty of people who will make the same statements, and they will not all have primary sources much less a strong command of the law as it's written. I see no problem here - it looks like opinion to me. Maybe because I know a bit more about the basic talking points than someone who hasn't encountered them? I don't care to debate them, though. I just think that if those are examples of the things that people should be banned for under your godship, metafilter will be very lonely.
posted by timfinnie at 7:23 PM on December 8, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's that usually what she says sounds polite and reasonable unless you know a bit about what she references or the assumptions she's making, in which case you realise she's turning her assumptions into facts and discussing 'how things are' when they're not actually like how she describes at all. And then she'll castigate people for not seeing the world the way she's describing.
You just described over half of the users here; depending on the issues of course.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
You just described over half of the users here; depending on the issues of course.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:48 PM on December 8, 2014 [11 favorites]
One comment deleted. I think things are not really going to get back to any sort of productive discussion on site matters at this point, nor does the schmoopy seem to be coming at all, and I think rather than escalating tempers and digging in for a good long, even uglier fight (and more group examination of all the details of corb's personal life), let's call this thing a wrap.
If anyone has anything they'd like to add regarding moderation or site policy, I'll leave this open for a bit, but otherwise, I don't see this going anywhere good, and maybe we can manage to go into the holidays without a big gory meltdown flameout here.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:28 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
If anyone has anything they'd like to add regarding moderation or site policy, I'll leave this open for a bit, but otherwise, I don't see this going anywhere good, and maybe we can manage to go into the holidays without a big gory meltdown flameout here.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:28 AM on December 9, 2014 [2 favorites]
If anyone has anything they'd like to add regarding moderation or site policy
wooop woop booop boop
(drives tiny car around in increasingly concentric circles, honks horn, is metaphor for thread)
posted by kagredon at 2:01 AM on December 9, 2014
wooop woop booop boop
(drives tiny car around in increasingly concentric circles, honks horn, is metaphor for thread)
posted by kagredon at 2:01 AM on December 9, 2014
To wait until the "smoking gun" evidence is produced but not allow it to be rebutted is not particularly fair to corb.
Gadgets emeritus, I am not on the whole impressed with the deep evil of those comments. They seem to take on a particular perspective that I have seen a lot, and I don't think that silencing that voice is going to get you closer to a world where your policy preferences are enacted.
It's worth noting that the National Academies' most recent findings on guns and violence finds little definitive evidence on a number of crucial policy areas hotly contested by pro and anti gun advocates. I have colleagues who do work on cognitive bias, and they'll often use strong gun beliefs as one of their proxies for political disposition, because while there are a lot claims made, the best evidence is we just don't know some of the crucial questions yet. If the best meta-analysis is uncertain, and you're certain, then you're not arguing from evidence. So passion on the subject ends up creating lots of opportunities for "identity protective cognition" which is just motivated reasoning and skepticism that preserves core group beliefs. Corb is clearly doing that, there. But so are many of the respondents.
Thanks for the links. If that's as bad as it gets, then corb clearly doesn't deserve the way people treat her.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:36 AM on December 9, 2014 [8 favorites]
Gadgets emeritus, I am not on the whole impressed with the deep evil of those comments. They seem to take on a particular perspective that I have seen a lot, and I don't think that silencing that voice is going to get you closer to a world where your policy preferences are enacted.
It's worth noting that the National Academies' most recent findings on guns and violence finds little definitive evidence on a number of crucial policy areas hotly contested by pro and anti gun advocates. I have colleagues who do work on cognitive bias, and they'll often use strong gun beliefs as one of their proxies for political disposition, because while there are a lot claims made, the best evidence is we just don't know some of the crucial questions yet. If the best meta-analysis is uncertain, and you're certain, then you're not arguing from evidence. So passion on the subject ends up creating lots of opportunities for "identity protective cognition" which is just motivated reasoning and skepticism that preserves core group beliefs. Corb is clearly doing that, there. But so are many of the respondents.
Thanks for the links. If that's as bad as it gets, then corb clearly doesn't deserve the way people treat her.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:36 AM on December 9, 2014 [8 favorites]
did it ever occur to anyone that this subject would have been better approached privately?
No.
When a brand new account springs up and start the same sort of shit stirring in Meta that you'd normally associate with long time vinegar pisses like 0, it's natural and justified to ask that question out in public, because it sure as hell looked like a sock puppet account to me too, reading through the thread. Nobody not heavily invested in this place already wold've joined in so enthusiastically in the first real contentious meta since they joined.
In fact, there's also a case to be made for making la lungful of dragon's previous identity public, considering it seems to be used in exactly the way a brand new day account isn't supposed to be used. Either you're out annd open about who you used to be, or you start over, but you can't keep your old feuds without acknowledging who you were. Or engage in making a difficult Meta thread even more difficult by engaging in old grudges.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:43 AM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
No.
When a brand new account springs up and start the same sort of shit stirring in Meta that you'd normally associate with long time vinegar pisses like 0, it's natural and justified to ask that question out in public, because it sure as hell looked like a sock puppet account to me too, reading through the thread. Nobody not heavily invested in this place already wold've joined in so enthusiastically in the first real contentious meta since they joined.
In fact, there's also a case to be made for making la lungful of dragon's previous identity public, considering it seems to be used in exactly the way a brand new day account isn't supposed to be used. Either you're out annd open about who you used to be, or you start over, but you can't keep your old feuds without acknowledging who you were. Or engage in making a difficult Meta thread even more difficult by engaging in old grudges.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:43 AM on December 9, 2014 [4 favorites]
> let's call this thing a wrap.
Thank goodness and about time. Go for it.
posted by jfuller at 3:50 AM on December 9, 2014
Thank goodness and about time. Go for it.
posted by jfuller at 3:50 AM on December 9, 2014
Examples of previously-mentioned behavior:
This recent discussion on voter ID laws contains examples of that behavior.
I count at least two objectively false statements / implications that she made in that discussion.
1. The fact that this [weekend hours for free voter ID places] hasn't been pushed even once - A direct quote, although I moved the part in square brackets (also a verbatim quote) after the 'this' in order to clarify what 'this' refers to.
But it has: 1, 2, 3 - objectively false. Not a matter of opinion or interpretation.
corb only responded to the first linked comment, in what I would characterize as a clearly disingenuous attempt to move the goalposts. That is, she first told us that it was a 'fact' that no one had pushed for weekend hours at 'free voter ID places', and now she tells us she actually meant that:
if Democrats really care about easy access to state photo IDs for the poor, they would be pushing for them even in states where there are no voter ID laws, or before voter ID laws are proposed.
That's simply dishonest. What she said in her first comment cannot be reinterpreted to mean what she claims it meant in her response to muddgirl.
2. Student IDs cannot and should not be valid for voting, because Student IDs do not have to prove citizenship or even legal immigration status.
The clear implication here is that the only IDs that should be considered 'valid for voting' are those that prove citizenship and/or legal immigration status, and, thus, that IDs that are actually 'valid for voting' prove at least one of those things. Otherwise, her argument is meaningless - she must either be against all IDs that don't prove one or both of those things, or against none of them but to be against one type of ID that doesn't prove one or both of those things while not being just as against others that also don't prove one or both of those things is hypocritical and dishonest.
And, as we see, some IDs that don't prove residence or citizenship are considered valid for use at the polling place: 1, 2, 3 - that covers Texas and California, I believe, but I'd bet there are plenty of other states with photo ID voting laws that also allow some IDs that don't prove either citizenship or residence, while simultaneously disallowing others.
Again, corb simply moved on, never responding to any of those comments.
Here's the problem - this is simply indicative of the pattern of behavior I see her engage in too often for my tastes. She makes statements with a tone that implies that she is 100% certain that they're factually correct. When asked to provide sources in support of her claims, she rarely bothers to do so, and when her false or misleading claims are convincingly shown to be so, she either moves the goalposts or simply fails to respond, moving on to whatever wild hypotheticals she can brew up in support of her position.
As I said earlier, that's not the sort of behavior I consider to be reasonable or polite. I (and I imagine others like me) have seen it repeated far too many times over the years to simply give her the benefit of the doubt every time she wades into a new discussion.
To be clear, I am not advocating for her to be banned. I am simply explaining why I think that she shares a good deal of the responsibility for much (if not, perhaps, all) of the pushback she gets on this site.
Personally, I'm glad she's here, and I'm glad she makes these kinds of off-the-wall factually incorrect statements. There's usually at least one other person involved in the conversation who can point out the factual and logical deficiencies in the comments she makes, providing proof and sources for their arguments. It gives me (and others) a chance to hear the "other side's" mendacious talking points dissected and refuted, and it also chips away at corb's credibility, which, given her penchant for making statements she can't back up with external sources, is a positive thing, in my book.
posted by syzygy at 3:51 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
This recent discussion on voter ID laws contains examples of that behavior.
I count at least two objectively false statements / implications that she made in that discussion.
1. The fact that this [weekend hours for free voter ID places] hasn't been pushed even once - A direct quote, although I moved the part in square brackets (also a verbatim quote) after the 'this' in order to clarify what 'this' refers to.
But it has: 1, 2, 3 - objectively false. Not a matter of opinion or interpretation.
corb only responded to the first linked comment, in what I would characterize as a clearly disingenuous attempt to move the goalposts. That is, she first told us that it was a 'fact' that no one had pushed for weekend hours at 'free voter ID places', and now she tells us she actually meant that:
if Democrats really care about easy access to state photo IDs for the poor, they would be pushing for them even in states where there are no voter ID laws, or before voter ID laws are proposed.
That's simply dishonest. What she said in her first comment cannot be reinterpreted to mean what she claims it meant in her response to muddgirl.
2. Student IDs cannot and should not be valid for voting, because Student IDs do not have to prove citizenship or even legal immigration status.
The clear implication here is that the only IDs that should be considered 'valid for voting' are those that prove citizenship and/or legal immigration status, and, thus, that IDs that are actually 'valid for voting' prove at least one of those things. Otherwise, her argument is meaningless - she must either be against all IDs that don't prove one or both of those things, or against none of them but to be against one type of ID that doesn't prove one or both of those things while not being just as against others that also don't prove one or both of those things is hypocritical and dishonest.
And, as we see, some IDs that don't prove residence or citizenship are considered valid for use at the polling place: 1, 2, 3 - that covers Texas and California, I believe, but I'd bet there are plenty of other states with photo ID voting laws that also allow some IDs that don't prove either citizenship or residence, while simultaneously disallowing others.
Again, corb simply moved on, never responding to any of those comments.
Here's the problem - this is simply indicative of the pattern of behavior I see her engage in too often for my tastes. She makes statements with a tone that implies that she is 100% certain that they're factually correct. When asked to provide sources in support of her claims, she rarely bothers to do so, and when her false or misleading claims are convincingly shown to be so, she either moves the goalposts or simply fails to respond, moving on to whatever wild hypotheticals she can brew up in support of her position.
As I said earlier, that's not the sort of behavior I consider to be reasonable or polite. I (and I imagine others like me) have seen it repeated far too many times over the years to simply give her the benefit of the doubt every time she wades into a new discussion.
To be clear, I am not advocating for her to be banned. I am simply explaining why I think that she shares a good deal of the responsibility for much (if not, perhaps, all) of the pushback she gets on this site.
Personally, I'm glad she's here, and I'm glad she makes these kinds of off-the-wall factually incorrect statements. There's usually at least one other person involved in the conversation who can point out the factual and logical deficiencies in the comments she makes, providing proof and sources for their arguments. It gives me (and others) a chance to hear the "other side's" mendacious talking points dissected and refuted, and it also chips away at corb's credibility, which, given her penchant for making statements she can't back up with external sources, is a positive thing, in my book.
posted by syzygy at 3:51 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
anotherpanacea: I am not on the whole impressed with the deep evil of those comments.
I suggested a few comments. I also suggested a few threads, but because they're much longer and much denser I didn't do the deep dive for the comments there. Feel free to check them out; there's always the possibility that we simply disagree.
However, I never described them as deep evil, just factually incorrect and strawmanning, both of which I believe occur in the comments I pointed to. Nor did I say anything about policy preferences, just getting MetaFilter less annoying, even specifically pointing out there are other users who share a number of her pro-gun stances. So you seem to think I have a deeper agenda than merely MetaFilter.
AElfwine Evenstar: You just described over half of the users here; depending on the issues of course.
I wouldn't say half, but certainly a number of users. Funnily enough, it shits me from them, too.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:58 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
I suggested a few comments. I also suggested a few threads, but because they're much longer and much denser I didn't do the deep dive for the comments there. Feel free to check them out; there's always the possibility that we simply disagree.
However, I never described them as deep evil, just factually incorrect and strawmanning, both of which I believe occur in the comments I pointed to. Nor did I say anything about policy preferences, just getting MetaFilter less annoying, even specifically pointing out there are other users who share a number of her pro-gun stances. So you seem to think I have a deeper agenda than merely MetaFilter.
AElfwine Evenstar: You just described over half of the users here; depending on the issues of course.
I wouldn't say half, but certainly a number of users. Funnily enough, it shits me from them, too.
posted by gadge emeritus at 3:58 AM on December 9, 2014 [3 favorites]
Okay folks, I'm sorry if this feels like I'm letting someone have the last word, because that's not my intention, but this is completely out of hand with digging up old threads and comments to regurgitate and fight over again and again. Closing this up now. If anyone feels like we need to talk more about site policy and moderation regarding perceived pile-ons, maybe we can have a new post and thread a little later that focuses on that question sitewide rather than specific people.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:08 AM on December 9, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:08 AM on December 9, 2014 [17 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Umm, I went through all of them and only one really I would consider a personal attack. The others are kinda flippant remarks, but I don't see them rising or lowering to the level of a personal attack.
posted by FJT at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2014 [8 favorites]