Fratboy Journalism

October 23, 2005 6:37 PM

"This entire genre of editorials are so embarassing: the guy who won't stand for it anymore and finally tells it like it is, which inevitably means high-fiving his readers and foaming with vitriolic bigotry.... I propose the name 'Fratboy Journalism.' "
posted by namespan to etiquette/policy at 6:37 PM (62 comments total)

As I said in the thread, ori nails it so hard he splits whole damn board. There are some somewhat saving remarks within it, but this editorial was far more worthy of B-grade talk radio than metafilter.

Fratboy Journalism indeed.
posted by namespan at 6:38 PM on October 23, 2005

There are some somewhat saving remarks within it

And I mean within the discussion. Not within the editorial, which is essentially diarrhea.
posted by namespan at 6:40 PM on October 23, 2005

My supreme being tells me that this will not end well.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:43 PM on October 23, 2005

"... I thought the inevitable firestorm itself was important to observe."
posted by jessamyn at 6:44 PM on October 23, 2005

Right on, high five dude! :D
posted by Josh Zhixel at 6:46 PM on October 23, 2005

Bah. I support the editorial, because it is an emotional release and says honest things. It simply isn't FPP material any more than Landover Baptist.
posted by Citizen Premier at 6:46 PM on October 23, 2005

Yes, a sub-par FPP designed to cause another religious flamefest really needs a MeTa post just in case anyone misses out on it. I liked the bit where I point out that it was posted to cause an argument and he says "Who knows? I sure don't, and I'm the one who wrote it!"

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
JHARRIS?
posted by longbaugh at 6:47 PM on October 23, 2005

As I said in the thread, ori nails it so hard he splits whole damn board.

What does that even mean? It sounds vaguely misogynistic.
posted by delmoi at 6:53 PM on October 23, 2005

Hmm... I can't seem to post.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on October 23, 2005

I was going to contribute to that thread, but ori summed it up so well that there was nothing more I could really add. What is fascinating about "fratboy journalism" is that "telling it like it is" just happens to be exactly like repeating a polemic full of a bunch of cliched slogans that you've heard 1000 times before.
posted by deanc at 6:54 PM on October 23, 2005

Okay, nevermind. My post simply wasn't apearing. I had gotten a CF error a bit ago.
posted by delmoi at 6:55 PM on October 23, 2005

"... I thought the inevitable firestorm itself was important to observe."

Maybe JHarris should have found an antill to poke tonight instead.

Like I said, I understand fully that there are some good comments in that thread -- surprisingly good, considering that the editorial seems designed to produce more heat that light.

What I want fully understood is that doesn't change the fact it was a crap post, and JHarris oughta be rapped on the knuckles for taking the time to post this instead of finding something actually thoughtful. The world has no shortage of people who've decided that they have no need to be civil or reasonable to other human beings anymore, and the editorial in question serves that purpose quite nicely.
posted by namespan at 6:55 PM on October 23, 2005

if that editorial is an example of "scientific, rational" thought, then i'm a flying monkey ... what good was 5000 years of civilization to produce that?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:59 PM on October 23, 2005

Honestly, my first reaction to the OpEd was "Hells Yeah!" Then I caught myself and realized it was an inarticulate rant that I just happened to agree with in broad strokes.

Feels kind of crappy to catch yourself getting caught up in something like that. Didn't comment at all because of it.
posted by brundlefly at 7:04 PM on October 23, 2005

'Huffington' is one of those keywords that if I see it in a post, I skip on by.
posted by my sock puppet account at 7:04 PM on October 23, 2005

Ori's comment was one of those that is so damn right and true it makes you click on his user name to see what else he has written.
posted by LarryC at 7:15 PM on October 23, 2005

The only relevance of the Huffington Post is that it finally dragged David Mamet online. Too bad. His disdain for the internet and refusal to participate was something I admired, because he was right. He finally comes online, and it's for that.
posted by cribcage at 7:21 PM on October 23, 2005

nb god doesn't exist baptism is rape tia
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:25 PM on October 23, 2005

The best thing to come out of that thread was the lesser known Ark built by Moses.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:48 PM on October 23, 2005

It was a pretty terrible "rant," to be honest, but I always like to see the most religious members of MeFi pretend like they don't believe in the same god as Pat Robertson.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:52 PM on October 23, 2005

optimus, that's what really annoys me about these threads ... you're tossing around gross generalizations that show a genuine ignorance of the history and diversity of christianity ...

but you can keep setting up your little tin demon and kick it around some more if it makes you feel better
posted by pyramid termite at 8:10 PM on October 23, 2005

I appreciate the thumbs-up (and the fact no one pointed out the subject/verb disagreement) but GOOD LORD don't go through my history of oft ill-thought remarks made under the assurance of anonymity! /hides.
posted by ori at 8:11 PM on October 23, 2005

That thread was painful to read.
It's hard listening to people argue about religion because, at the heart of it, there's really no good reason for it and no good reason against it. We just wind up having the same weak discussion that we've been having since middle school.

Religion and spirituality are really very personal things. Nobody should be asked to defend their religion or reasons for believing and nobody should foist their beliefs on someone else. For that matter, nobody should be asked to defend their atheism or agnosticism nor should they foist their (dis)beliefs on someone else.

Because, really, it doesn't matter if God exists or not or if the Earth is only 5,000 years old UNTIL somebody starts requiring others to believe these things. If my neighbor thinks that his dog created him out of dust bunnies and cheerios and has provided him with a moral code of conduct that must be strictly adhered to, that's just fine. Really, it is. If that's what gets him through the day and as long as he's not knocking my door down to tell me about it, I couldn't care less. If my other neighbor has devoted his existence to empirically proving that God does not exist, will not exist, and has never existed, that's also quite allright with me. If his work gives him a reason to be a decent, productive, contributing member of society and as long as he doesn't need to harm me to prove his theories, he's A-OK in my book.

It's the sort of thing that neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. So why not just leave it well alone? The "article" says, "It's the year 2005. Let's start acting like it." Wouldn't shutting the fuck up about it, on both sides of the issue, be a good place to start?
posted by Jon-o at 8:18 PM on October 23, 2005

The best thing to come out of that thread was the lesser known Ark built by Moses.

Agreed!
posted by sbutler at 8:19 PM on October 23, 2005

"As I said in the thread, ori nails it so hard he splits whole damn board."

What does that even mean? It sounds vaguely misogynistic.

Not into woodworking, eh delmoi?
posted by stet at 8:23 PM on October 23, 2005

you're tossing around gross generalizations that show a genuine ignorance of the history and diversity of christianity ...

I've read the Bible from cover to cover well over a dozen times; I also studied it rather extensively in college. When Buford and Betty Christian make the effort to read Russell and Flew, then we can talk about my gross generalizations and tin demons.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:25 PM on October 23, 2005

ps: Mr. Cenk Uygur seems to have taken the "drunk-guy-at-the-party-totally-just-realizing-this-shit" position on religion. Fratboy Journalism indeed. What's next? "Dude, communism would have been, like, totally sweet but the Russians kind of, like, didn't do a good job, y'know. Like, have you read the Communist Manifesto, dude? I'd totally lend you the Cliffs Notes but I just spilled my bong water on them." Is that going to be our "political" post next week?

Like we needed a whole FPP that consisted entirely of a few well traveled paragraphs of poorly worded, garbled, unresearched, pointless, non-controversy, Hot Topic brand teenage angst "atheism." Please. Uygur is spewing the drivel that occured to us some time between 4th and 8th grade. At least we've developed our positions on the subject since then.
posted by Jon-o at 8:35 PM on October 23, 2005

...then we can talk about my gross generalizations and tin demons.

...the vast, vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims are bloodthirsty madmen, irrational fucking dimwits, and immoral, greedy hypocrites...

No generalizations here... you're free to go, sir.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:38 PM on October 23, 2005

stet: I initially thought he meant 'board' as in 'web-board' i.e. metafilter itself. That made little sense.

Also, board is an anagram of broad.
posted by delmoi at 8:38 PM on October 23, 2005

The best thing to come out of that thread was the lesser known Ark built by Moses.

That was classic. It almost redeemed the embarrassment of having the link on MeFi in the first place.

Almost.

(I will now try and use the term "fratboy journalism" in casual conversation at least three times this week).
posted by gd779 at 8:44 PM on October 23, 2005

The only thing 'embarrasing' about that FPP is that it is a single-link op-ed. As for the "CJM trinity are assholes" sentinment, no problems there.
posted by mischief at 8:51 PM on October 23, 2005

I've read the Bible from cover to cover well over a dozen times; I also studied it rather extensively in college.

then there's no excuse for such bad argumentation ... you know better

let's call that article for what it was ... a troll ... and be done with it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:24 PM on October 23, 2005

Honestly, my first reaction to the OpEd was "Hells Yeah!" Then I caught myself and realized it was an inarticulate rant that I just happened to agree with in broad strokes.

Feels kind of crappy to catch yourself getting caught up in something like that. Didn't comment at all because of it.

I agreed--initially. But then I was happy that someone said it. Broad strokes or not.
posted by sourwookie at 9:42 PM on October 23, 2005

Also, board is an anagram of broad.

'Strap-on' is just the reverse of 'no-parts'. Tell your friends!
posted by cortex at 9:50 PM on October 23, 2005

No generalizations here... you're free to go, sir.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:38 PM PST on October 23

Buford and Betty are quick readers, it seems.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:08 PM on October 23, 2005

wow do I love that image, thanks dmd!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:42 PM on October 23, 2005

"As I said in the thread, ori nails it so hard he splits whole damn board."

What does that even mean? It sounds vaguely misogynistic.
posted by delmoi at 6:53 PM PST on October 23

That was board, not broad!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:11 PM on October 23, 2005

d-oh! I now see you already saw what was "vaguely" about it.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:12 PM on October 23, 2005

Optimus, I can't speak for your character or knowledge, but no amount of reading and studying the bible can make a comment comparing Pat Robertson to all christians reasonable. It makes me think that you specifically studied the bible looking for amunition against christians or something, which is essentially like reading every other word of the OED and claiming to have a complete mental lexicon of English.

If you're actually knowledgable about the bible and christian faith (mind you, I'm agnostic), then you're aware of the fact that Robertson's actions betray his total lack of belief in a God. If he really believed in christ's teachings, he wouldn't demand 700 dollars from believers to be prayed into heaven. And he wouldn't call for assassinations and accidents to happen to supreme court judges. The man is a fraud, not a prototypical christian.

[/derail]
posted by shmegegge at 11:26 PM on October 23, 2005

I've read the Bible from cover to cover well over a dozen times; I also studied it rather extensively in college.

Wow! I guess this means that I should believe whatever my religious neighbor says since he has a doctorate in divinity and has also read the Bible numerous times. But geez, I have also read the Bible numerous times and minored in Religion in college and I disagree with him on lots of issues. And now you have a third point of view. Your criteria makes it awful hard to know who is absolutely right on these issues. Darn!

And I'm an athiest to boot!
posted by Falconetti at 11:26 PM on October 23, 2005

Thank you, blue_beetle.
posted by gsb at 1:04 AM on October 24, 2005

I think the worth of the original FPP was that religion, as well as the current administration, is a subject that can't be critisized. And without the option for dialog nothing can improve if, and when, it goes bad. I think it is an important issue that we gloss over way too quickly because it's just not right to comment on someone's spiritual beliefs, unless of course they are the "enemy's". Sure it was a rant, but I was personally glad to see someone rant on a subject that is at least as important or at the heart of a lot of issues that are affecting me and the world at large. Religion has seemingly (to me at least) been co-opted by those who would take advantage of the necessity for faith and subvert it for personal/political gain. I see a lot of rose colored glasses when looking at the world's reaction to corruption, war, and financial gain by organizations or groups espousing dogma. But we can't talk about that, 'cause it's just not right to question people's spiritual beliefs. When will the cycle end? How will people begin to see the man behind the curtain? The FPP rant was, to me, speaking to this problem and I haven't heard it talked about in any fashion as publicly in a long time.

/end my rant
posted by qwip at 2:23 AM on October 24, 2005

qwip : "The FPP rant was, to me, speaking to this problem and I haven't heard it talked about in any fashion as publicly in a long time."

Then you haven't been reading enough MeFi. As languagehat points out, this discussion (about the nonexistence of God) doesn't happen in the MainStream Media much, but it happens at MeFi all the time. It was like somebody had made a front page post out of a comment by Decani.
posted by Bugbread at 3:15 AM on October 24, 2005

I am aware of MeFi discussions, but having it spoken to another audience, especially in the frank tone it was is only a good thing in my opinion. The fact that Mefites mentally masturbate about this all the time is of no matter. I may be off base to think that Huffington speaks to an audience of more then just the folks here. I just think it is premature to discount the validity of the argument because Mefi is tired of hearing it.

And to wit, my issue isn't really with the existence or non-existence of God. Rather the fact that we are living in a society that is mentored by religions that don't even allow dissent. By anyone - especially non-believers.
posted by qwip at 4:21 AM on October 24, 2005

qwip : "I just think it is premature to discount the validity of the argument because Mefi is tired of hearing it."

Sorry, that may have come off wrong by me, then. I wasn't discounting it's validity as an argument, but discounting its value as a MeFi post. It may be very valuable and unusual for the general public, but we aren't exactly, as you point out, the general public.
posted by Bugbread at 4:48 AM on October 24, 2005

Buford and Betty are quick readers, it seems.

Translation: I have nothing to say to back up the asinine statements I made, so I will continue to insinuate that everyone with a different opinion is ignorant.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:38 AM on October 24, 2005

JHarris:
Because it is one side of an important, relevant argument, because it speaks plainly and forcefully of important matters, and because I thought the inevitable firestorm itself was important to observe.

I would think a good post would present more than just one side of an important, relevant argument. Also, I fail to see how observing another religious flamewar on MetaFilter is important.
posted by sciurus at 6:20 AM on October 24, 2005

" I may be off base to think that Huffington speaks to an audience of more then just the folks here."
Yeah, pretty much off-base. Huffington Post is crap, and one of the best ways to make sure that something on the internet will only be read by 50 people is to post it there.

Optymus: "When Buford and Betty Christian make the effort to read Russell and Flew, then we can talk about my gross generalizations and tin demons."
No, let's talk about 'em now, Cletus. I've got Why I'm Not A Christian chilling in my bathroom right now, and have studied the Bible. I've also read Tillich and the usual gang of Augustine and Aquinus. And I can say honestly that most of the Christians I know can say the same thing (though I, myself, am not a Christian). Perhaps it's because I live in a university town, but believe it or not, you slack-jawed pig fucker, your atheism does not mean that you're smarter or more sophisticated or superior to people who do believe in God. And trotting out the "Buford" brush just means that you come across as another douchebag who discovered Nietzsche in high school and decided that there was no God and that Bauhaus was the best band ever. Now shut the fuck up about it, because you've demonstrated over and over that you have nothing of any merit to add on the issue. We've all seen the cliched rantings of self-inflated Atheists before, and when I see them again I'll hope they're in the form of Russell's cogent and incisive arguments, rather than your inarticulate frothing. You've read him, and yet cannot seem to grasp what makes him worth reading and you worth ignoring.

JHarris: If you're reading this, this was one of the shittiest possible FPPs to make. If you want to troll somewhere, try the Stormfront boards. At least they'll give you the screaming apoplexy that you seemed to want from us. Otherwise, sit the fuck down until you understand how to post quality to the front page.
posted by klangklangston at 6:28 AM on October 24, 2005

Krrrlson, my points is that quite a few of the atheists and agnostics I know, including myself, have read the holy books of the major religions, while most fundamentalist Christians and just-regular-folks-who-consider-themselves-Christian have made no effort to broaden their minds from a philosophical standpoint.

I make broad generalizations about Christianity and Christians despite the fact that I know a few who are kind and honest because those few good ones I know do not make up for the insanity that the others peddle.

It would be one thing if Christians were well versed on other religious traditions, including and especially those tradtions from which Christianity borrows heavily, as well as reasonable critiques of their own theology. The crime is that there are an awful lot of Christians who haven't even read the Bible; that is utter madness.

So yeah: I'm a little tired of being judged by every wasteful, amoral, selfish megachurch-attending Christian who thinks that the story of the camel going through the eye of a needle is a reference to some ancient gate or whatever cop-out they've deluded themselves into this week.

I also think that other than his belief in forced conversion and the Hell doctrine, the character of Jesus was a pretty cool one and that we should strive to live by his example, yet those who claim to do just that are most concerned with increasing tax cuts for corporations,ending welfare programs, and starting horrific, bloody wars.

The rant was weak, but it seems to me that he was just blowing off some steam. So was I. Better that than bombing civilians, shooting abortion doctors, and blaming gays for hurricanes.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:38 AM on October 24, 2005

Yeah, pretty much off-base. Huffington Post is crap, and one of the best ways to make sure that something on the internet will only be read by 50 people is to post it there.

Perhaps, but if this emotional debate is any indication, the "rant" will travel far and wide soon enough. Now, will it spread in a way that encourages frank discussion, or will it end up resorting to name calling. You decide(d).
posted by qwip at 7:01 AM on October 24, 2005

Better that than bombing civilians, shooting abortion doctors, and blaming gays for hurricanes.

If you think these categories represent the majority of Christians, best to stay in the Jesus-free bunker until the Atheist Rapture comes.
posted by yerfatma at 7:56 AM on October 24, 2005

I think the worth of the original FPP was that religion, as well as the current administration, is a subject that can't be critisized.

Then what the fuck have we been doing on this site for the past five years, having a succession of tea parties?
posted by darukaru at 8:04 AM on October 24, 2005

I miss rothko and dios.
posted by horsewithnoname at 8:12 AM on October 24, 2005

klangklangston wins.
posted by shmegegge at 8:19 AM on October 24, 2005

bombing civilians, shooting abortion doctors, and blaming gays for hurricanes.

ah, yes. the everyday ho-hum activities of the typical Christian next door. ok, i gotta run, pick up the kids from soccer practice, burn some heretics, and get milk.
posted by quonsar at 8:42 AM on October 24, 2005

Milk is murder.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:10 AM on October 24, 2005

"religion, as well as the current administration, is a subject that can't be critisized"

Total bologna. Not even just the "well, it's done all the time here on MeFi" argument. It's done all the time, everywhere.

I hate the Bush administration as much as the next guy. I think they're one of the worst things that's happened to the country. I wonder about the intelligence levels of people who voted for him. I trembled in rage at the sheer audacious idiocy of people who tried to absolve Bush of responsibility from the FEMA / Homeland Security blunders. I fully agree there's a serious problem in here somewhere, and I think you could make a good argument that misplaced religious faith is currently a real component of it, and if you were really smart, you might be able to actually come up with a political strategy or two based on an actual understanding of people who have religious faith.

And you know, periodically, you actually find people having those conversations. And *frequently* you find people discussing relative merits of faith, evidences or lack thereof, how religious figures appear in the historical record -- hell, you see a good bit of that in the mainstream media -- but more important than that, people talk about it all the time. And that's one of the most disengenuous things about this article. Pretending this is an elephant in the living room or a gorilla in the corner. Bullshit. But it fits in nicely with the rhetorical form that ori so accurately recognized.
posted by namespan at 11:39 AM on October 24, 2005

And that's one of the most disengenuous things about this article. Pretending this is an elephant in the living room or a gorilla in the corner. Bullshit.

That's where I disagree. I think it is disingenuous to say that the US is actually having this discussion on on a national level. Sure, there are religious debates all the time, but the topic of religion keeping people who believe in a untenable position where self critique is impossible, isn't happening. And remember, I am speaking to a national dialog, not intellectuals matching wits. If you think there is a national debate on this that is actually being debated (not shouted down) then please, tell me where it is happening.

And to further my point, it is the same with the political atmosphere. Denounce the current administration and you are a "Liberal" and unpatriotic. That's ludicrous. The most patriotic position you can take in a democracy is being liberal minded. But that is heresy in the US. Just like being liberal minded was heresy under the Taliban. Same issue different players. So, if you can't talk about the "900lb gorilla" because your argument will be discounted immediately as someone who doesn't understand "faith", then you aren't really having a debate.

Sure this guy was picking on religion, but religion has a lot to be picked on about. Deny that and you are denying the obvious. And that's what we do.
posted by qwip at 3:51 PM on October 24, 2005

qwip : "I think it is disingenuous to say that the US is actually having this discussion on on a national level....If you think there is a national debate on this that is actually being debated (not shouted down) then please, tell me where it is happening.

"And to further my point, it is the same with the political atmosphere."

I...I'm sorry? Do you not watch TV or read newspapers before elections? Every 3 years, the entire nation has a collective, massive debate of politics, of liberal versus conservative, of left vs. right (or centrist vs. right if you want to be severe), on every newspaper, in almost every magazine (except maybe TeenBeat and Better Homes and Gardens, and I'm only guessing there), on every TV station with a news programme, in restaurants, in street signs, in shouting protesters, on the radio, on the internet...About the only thing missing is massive morse code debates flashed from rooftop to rooftop. The debate lasts pretty much an entire year, and then turns out into a million minidebates for the next three years, with occasional tides, before starting all over again. If politics is a subject that is not nationally debated, then what subject is or ever has been?!

(Unless by "shouted down", you didn't mean "a debate isn't a debate if one position just gets shouted down", but "a debate isn't a debate if either side just shouts down their opponents", in which case I'll agree that America has no national debates in politics, religion, or anything else, and nothing in my history books has indicated that it ever has had a debate since the country was founded)
posted by Bugbread at 4:04 PM on October 24, 2005

Looking at the amount of comments (8 of out the first 60) made by the OP in the post, it looks like JHarris needs to put more filter in his MF experience.

Also: he ended one remark with "nyaah". That's grounds for banning, yes? No? No.
posted by hugsnkisses at 4:56 PM on October 24, 2005

bugbread, I think we are talking in cross purposes. From re-reading your comments, I think that you are speaking to the fact that we debate, discuss and wallow in, religious and political discussion ad nauseam. You are taking my points to task for the blatant disregard for this obvious dialog. If that is what you are saying, then I see the disconnect. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there are people discussing issues related to religion and politics all the time.

What I am trying to say, and what I think you may be misinterpreting, is that there is this thing called "religion" and "patriotism" that can't be discussed reasonably because of the nature of the subject and the mindset of one of the groups debating. Sure politics were debated during the elections, but there was no real discourse to the fact that if you didn't follow the administration, you weren't a patriot. There was a lot of people debating this issue, but those that held it in the first place were deaf to dissension. Same with religion. Speak frankly about the absurdity of religious doctrine and you are cut out of any reasonable debate.

By attacking the foundation of a groups belief system, any discussion melts to emotional attacks very quickly. Because the taboo nature of these subjects, there is no real discussion happening because the basis for the discussion is off limits. If that's what you hear me saying and that is what you are taking me to task on, then I apologize as I can't make the connection.

I am reminded of McCarthy during his "Naming of names" period. If you debated the merits of his crusade, you were labeled a communist and quickly found yourself a pariah in the community. Try debating the basis for Christianity in the bible belt. Try debating the motivation for war in Iraq just after 9/11. Sure people were/are talking about this all the time - especially on Meta. But there is no honest national dialog on the specious basis for religions in the world and there likely never will be. I think there should be. I think without open dialog about the worth and merits of religion it begins to fester and decay into a bureaucratic quagmire that invites corruption and abuses the initiated. But that's just me, apparently.
posted by qwip at 5:53 PM on October 24, 2005

I am reminded of McCarthy during his "Naming of names" period. If you debated the merits of his crusade, you were labeled a communist and quickly found yourself a pariah in the community. Try debating the basis for Christianity in the bible belt. Try debating the motivation for war in Iraq just after 9/11.

very true ... the names "liberal", "pacifist", "moonbat" and "socialist" get thrown around a lot ... and then the other side joins in with "fascist", "idiot", "redneck", and "buford and betty"

it's all pretty depressing
posted by pyramid termite at 8:56 PM on October 24, 2005