Please keep your politics out of Ask Metafilter questions

September 2, 2005 10:08 AM

"Criminal incompetence is probably not an impeachable offense, but something has to be done about Bush." Please keep your politics out of Ask Metafilter questions. (And another.) It tends to attract the wrong kind of answers.
posted by smackfu to Etiquette/Policy at 10:08 AM (25 comments total)

I agree, both these posts should be deleted. There were real questions there, but terribly worded. The first one would have better asked, "What is the purpose of impeachment and what grounds will impeachment occur", and the second one as "Do political leaders traditionally give speeches in front of their backers or do they also/should they expect to give it in front of their critics too?" Those are much more productive.
posted by geoff. at 10:17 AM on September 2, 2005

I don't think anything is wrong with the second question.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2005

What geoff said.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2005

To elaborate, the second question isn't a question about whether political leaders traditionally give speeches in front of certain types of crowds, it's a specific question about the current president, and I don't see how it breaks the guidelines.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:27 AM on September 2, 2005

"Do political leaders traditionally give speeches in front of their backers or do they also/should they expect to give it in front of their critics too?"

I'd go a little farther and say that this question could be asked with specific reference to Bush without becoming partisan. "How does the current president compare to tradition?" or some such.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:27 AM on September 2, 2005

Fuck tha metapolice. This debacle is such an extraordinary fuckup that a short let up in the navel gazing in this situation is not going to hurt anything. Can you cut us some slack at least just for today?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:28 AM on September 2, 2005

i flagged that first one, myself. while i agree with PST that the second one is arguably a reasonable ask.me question, the first one (even reworded to a question about impeachment or just whether political pressure could cause a president to resign) is just a bad ask.me question. questions about impeachment generally could easily be answered with google or the world book encyclopedia and any question about what might cause the sitting president to quit is just bear-baiting. it's only going to produce chatfilter at best and vitriolfilter at worst.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:30 AM on September 2, 2005

If AskMe is meant to seek solutions to a legitimate problem, then the first question certainly qualifies.
posted by mischief at 10:30 AM on September 2, 2005

Right, right. Because as people down south are dying, starving, getting shot, getting raped, drowning, dehydrating, panicking, and otherwise devolving into a state of utter anarchy, the best and most productive way to utilize AskMeFi is to...impeach Bush.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:32 AM on September 2, 2005

There's a lot of anger everywhere today. Even on metachat. While I don't think the first question was appropriate, I also agree with IIHAA to some degree.

The second question was perfectly fine in theory... it was just laced with unnecessary political commentary.
posted by selfnoise at 10:33 AM on September 2, 2005

Smackfu, perhaps you should get your own mefi to moderate. You really want to shut down a lot of the talking, particularly those you disagree with. How about you lay off that for a bit?
posted by milovoo at 10:40 AM on September 2, 2005

But I do agree with them.
posted by smackfu at 10:52 AM on September 2, 2005

Right, right. Because as people down south are dying, starving, getting shot, getting raped, drowning, dehydrating, panicking, and otherwise devolving into a state of utter anarchy, the best and most productive way to utilize AskMeFi is to...impeach Bush.

Let's not forget that such things are happening all over the world, each and every day. Ask.Mefi rarely, if ever, focuses on the pressing need to help, say, starving Africans or those folks trampled in Iraq last week.

I understand that you're upset. We all are. The world can, and will, go on today.
posted by thanotopsis at 11:05 AM on September 2, 2005

I don't see anything wrong with either question.
posted by cillit bang at 11:07 AM on September 2, 2005

I hadn't noticed - you even answered one of the questions, and after reading some of the other responses, I will be very disappointed if either of those get removed.
posted by milovoo at 11:12 AM on September 2, 2005

I'm guessing that was directed at me. I meant reworded (as in delete the text and reword them without the political opinion). I think the answers are good for the most part but I believe most will agree that AskMetafilter is best to take am encyclopedic voice. Would you not agree that posts that put up blatantly partisan opinions invite blatantly partisan answers (which I tried to avoid)?

My main gripe isn't that I disagree with the questions being asked, I just think that taking such an offensive position dissuades those who disagree. I like to think if I would answer the question if the question were directly insulting my position as a good indicator of whether it's a "good" question. Would you be more apt to answer a question that went "Why are all the liberals going on about Bush and New Orleans?" or "What are the reasons for the current outrage against Bush?" I guess I'm from the school of thought that loaded questions beget loaded answers.
posted by geoff. at 11:30 AM on September 2, 2005

I hadn't seen the second example, but the first one came off as a rant in the form of a question. Not a good thing for AskMe.
posted by me3dia at 12:29 PM on September 2, 2005

If it's a Fuck Up, it's irresponsibly premature to be blaming the President. But, oh, wait, I forgot where I am. Nevermind.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:45 PM on September 2, 2005

I instead blame ParisParamus.
posted by xmutex at 12:59 PM on September 2, 2005

yep, both sucky posts that I strongly considered deleting, but I figured I'd catch hell for doing it and didn't.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:22 PM on September 2, 2005

So people can get away with posting crap, as long as they bitch loud enough?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:31 PM on September 2, 2005

Well, you and PP are still here, so yeah, apparently.

I kid because I love, seriously.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:17 PM on September 2, 2005

There's nothing wrong with either question. Both are valid queries from someone seeking information. They just happen to be about politics and they happen to refer to one particular politician in order (quite validly) to illustrate the reason for the question.

Stop whining about other people's questions, for pity's sake. If you don't like them, ignore them or flag them. Or respond there and give your opinion. But by Christ, this sad grey bitch page for anal retentive control freaks is the real problem with Metafilter, not controversial and provocative posts in the blue and green.
posted by Decani at 7:01 AM on September 3, 2005

But by Christ, this sad grey bitch page for anal retentive control freaks is the real problem with Metafilter

No, it's not. Because if it wasn't here, all the bitching would be happening on the blue and the green. By creating an easily ignored "bitch ghetto," MetaFilter has neatly sidestepped one of the major pitfalls of most online communities -- the perennial problem of commentary about the commentary overwhelming the actual commentary.
posted by kindall at 9:50 AM on September 3, 2005

I second the notion of the "bitch garden".
Some people come here to look at the links for a bit, play a flash game, and settle down into some serious, meaty arguementation.

Metafilter: Come for the pretty links and fun, stay for the bitch garden!
posted by Balisong at 12:38 PM on September 3, 2005