Join 3,441 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

what warrants a rude response like this?
November 3, 2005 6:10 PM   Subscribe

Newbie etiquette question: I thought this was a pretty cool post about a topic on which I was I poorly informed [Cyprus, Varosha]. For future reference, what about a post like that warrants a response like this? Is there a backstory? Why so personal?
posted by highsignal to Etiquette/Policy at 6:10 PM (168 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

Oh yes. Oh yes there's a backstory.
posted by loquax at 6:12 PM on November 3, 2005


Because a lot of people (by which I mean, one, or maybe more than one) think jenleigh posts what they consider blatantly conservative garbage, followed by a "just sayin', is all", and then gets angry when people call her on it. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I thought cloudscratcher's further explanation of matteo's point was kind of useful, actually.
posted by hototogisu at 6:14 PM on November 3, 2005


Well, maybe that, plus the fact that matteo hates jenleigh. Maybe even more that Asparagirl and Krrrlson these days. That's why it was personal. And no, it wasn't very nice.
posted by loquax at 6:17 PM on November 3, 2005


Well, I always thought my above description is partly how it got started, but I don't think I was paying much attention that month...
posted by hototogisu at 6:19 PM on November 3, 2005


In dissenting, be more like couldscratcher and less like matteo. It's valid to point out when bias and intentions are there but readily apparent, doing it in such a crass manner makes a position look purely emotional.
posted by geoff. at 6:23 PM on November 3, 2005


jenleigh sucks, and matteo is hard to understand. That's the backstory.
posted by interrobang at 6:23 PM on November 3, 2005


but not readily apparent -- as in the article at first glance does not look like a neo-conservative subversive material.
posted by geoff. at 6:24 PM on November 3, 2005


Oh I'm sure that's why matteo acts the way he does, but it doesn't excuse it. I think he called me a torture-loving arab-hater (or something along those lines) in the last few days too.

And what geoff. said, in spades.
posted by loquax at 6:25 PM on November 3, 2005


Regardless of her dubious political positions, I've never seen jenleigh sound angry or preachy or condescending until seriously provoked. On the other hand, matteo responds with some of the nastier, most personal & unhelpful feedback I've seen on the site, and without a lot of provocation. But it almost seems no one notices or comments on it. Not a bad deal -- any tips on how the rest of us can get away with that with impunity, matteo? Sorry to single you out ;)

I didn't know much about Totten til this comment yet the concept of predictable political hackery being strewn across an FPP is, well...not exactly news. On a near-daily basis there are posts harboring transparent agendas and often playing loose with the facts — so, why do some proceed without an arguement while some are immediately derailed?

I guess regardless of who Jenleigh sourced, the photographs themselves were interesting, especially for those of us unfamiliar with what we were seeing. Can they not be appreciated without a lot of noise over who took them and who posted them?
posted by highsignal at 6:30 PM on November 3, 2005


I thought it was a good post. Only by Metafilter standards is Jenleigh a conservative! And if you skip comments that lack capitalization, you miss a lot of garbage.
posted by LarryC at 6:30 PM on November 3, 2005


Again, sorry if it seems like I'm 'calling you out', matteo. There just seems to be a relationship between politics & popularity around here that's confusing to watch if you're not yet totally familiar with the players.
posted by highsignal at 6:34 PM on November 3, 2005


But it almost seems no one notices or comments on it

Most people here agree with him ideologically, however many people have commented negatively on his style and negativity, especially lately, in my opinion. I don't mind him myself, I ignore his rude comments and appreciate his excellent posts. He's kind of like Hama7 that way...
posted by loquax at 6:34 PM on November 3, 2005


matteo hates jenleigh. Maybe even more that Asparagirl and Krrrlson these days.

Must be. Because for what it's worth, matteo's suddenly started hanging around my blog several months ago, peppering every other entry with 100%-non-snarky comments about "keep up the good work!" and "go A-girl!" and good discussion of the merits of various James Bond choices. Plus, he sent me and my husband some very sweet Rosh Hashanna, Yom Kippur, and even Sukkot (!) e-mail greetings lately, which was very kind and rather unexpected.

So I think whatever bitchy back-and-forth political sniping we had going on in many many threads here a year or two ago has mostly turned into appreciation of each other's tastes in good movies.

See? We can all be friends!
posted by Asparagirl at 6:34 PM on November 3, 2005


What bothers many is what they see as jenleigh's astounding disingenuity when called on things like this (I think the rabidly ideological and irrationally framed photographs of war protesters post from a few months ago comes to mind immediately). That "what? Just sayin'" gets really old, really fast.
posted by hototogisu at 6:40 PM on November 3, 2005


Ah, a jenleigh post. We hardly need to click it to know what it says, now, do we.

Precisely. Low-intensity right-wing sneak trolling. Standard jenleigh fare.

posted by puke & cry at 6:47 PM on November 3, 2005


What bothers many is what they see as jenleigh's astounding disingenuity when called on things like this (I think the rabidly ideological and irrationally framed photographs of war protesters post from a few months ago comes to mind immediately). That "what? Just sayin'" gets really old, really fast.

That makes perfect sense — disingenuity sucks.

But why is that more notable than someone who comments on the site daily in a way that is aggressive, personal, belittling and otherwise antithetical to the nature of the site?

In short — why so mean-spirited?
posted by highsignal at 6:49 PM on November 3, 2005


that's what matteo does.
posted by puke & cry at 8:14 PM on November 3, 2005


it's his calling card, after all.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:23 PM on November 3, 2005


I don't know what matteo is going on about in the aforementioned thread. Frankly it's the first jenleigh post I've seen that isn't actually of the "Bush rules, hippies suck" variety, and I thought it was quite interesting.
posted by clevershark at 8:46 PM on November 3, 2005


jenleigh's posts have been EXTRAORDINARILY inflammatory in the past, though not exclusively so. conservative, yes, but largely it's the "look at how terrible people in other countries are" aspect that gets to folks around here.

matteo went through a fairly long period of time where he was considered a troll by some, just an asshole by others, and rabidly liberal by yet others. then he chilled out, and was largely considered a decent all around guy and poster for a while. he seems to be returning to his old self, though. for now, I suspect that he's (intentionally or otherwise) riding on the good feelings afforded him by that last period of decency. Right now a lot of folks are thinking either "huh. he's acting pretty mean today. must be a bad day," or "fuck. it's matteo prime again. i don't have the energy for this." one of these days he will no doubt be the center of a flamewar when people stop hoping this is temporary.

either that or this is temporary, and it'll ride itself out.
posted by shmegegge at 8:47 PM on November 3, 2005


As much as it pains me to come down on jenleigh's side - everyone "sneak trolls" unless we attach some kind of disclaimer addressing our political ideologies and affiliations to each post.

"In posting this article about a new humanoid skeleton found in Mali, I must declare that I accept the hypothesis of evolution and have, in the past, criticized creationists."

"In posting this link to the new Apple iShave, I must declare that I have owned a Mac for 8 years and don't really like PCs."

Everything we post is a product of our interests, right? In some people, this is more evident than others. When I saw jenleighs post, my thoughts immediately turned to her political views, but I can hardly blame her. It's what she's into, and beyond her biased commentary, it was interesting material.
posted by Jimbob at 8:48 PM on November 3, 2005


(I guess what I'm saying is...give people the benefit of the doubt. People change. Defining people purely by their politics for every single post is never smart.)
posted by Jimbob at 8:51 PM on November 3, 2005


I just see jenleigh doing what everyone else is doing with their posts. And if matteo, at any given moment, decides that you're one of the bad guys, politically, then by his ethical calculus he's entitled to be as aggressive and vicious as he likes at that moment. Your next encounter may differ.

On preview: what shmegegge said.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:56 PM on November 3, 2005


highsignal: oh, I don't think it's more notable at all. But that's the backstory, and it seems to be quite a bit more than LarryC's interpretation--it's not just being conservative, it's being partisan and inflammatory and flatly claiming innocence, almost every time. Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on the jenleigh issue, but it does often seem like "Moslems on the Brain", and not really in a good way. It's also just the flipside of a lot of the stuff here anyway...
posted by hototogisu at 9:11 PM on November 3, 2005


I just want to apologize for polluting jl's original thread. I should have "taken it to mt" sooner (not sure about my initial seagull swoop -- that one liner was in fact a comment on the fpp itself and thus more apropos).

Hopefully matt will have the new site architecture working soon. It'd be cool to have a 3D threading system with AJAX Web2.0 where derails can extend out into fractalesque Euclidian infinity and be navigated VRML-like.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:30 PM on November 3, 2005


matteo responds with some of the nastier, most personal & unhelpful feedback I've seen on the site, and without a lot of provocation.

That's matteo, not really a surprise. If matteo were conservative there'd be a couple of members calling him on it, but he's not. So those members are silent. Again, not a surprise.

it's not just being conservative, it's being partisan and inflammatory and flatly claiming innocence, almost every time.

On metafilter? We're calling jenleigh out for being partisan? Here's hoping that was a bit of comedy on your part.
posted by justgary at 9:31 PM on November 3, 2005


It's also just the flipside of a lot of the stuff here anyway...

That's why I'm surprised a minority poster gets so much flack. For every one jenleigh post, there are a half-dozen egregious posts about Bush wearing a wire, choking on a pretzel, resembling a primate or controlling the weather. The "flipside" doesn't draw much attention. And it doesn't sound like bad posts are the problem. Nor is repetitive subject matter. It sounds like a popularity contest.

It's like the same people who complain of minority treatment in the real world don't hesitate to use a safe, virtual community like MeFi to shame & vilify their political opponents in the same manner they claim to abhor. It's disappointing that, given the opportunity to respect the minority/underdog's viewpoint, many choose to shout them down and attack them personally.

I've never seen you acknowledge much fault matteo, but I know you're reading this so I'll ask again for good measure:

Why so mean-spirited?
posted by highsignal at 9:32 PM on November 3, 2005


I guess you missed the part where I said it was just the flip side of a good deal of what's posted here all the time. I'll just assume that was an accident.
posted by hototogisu at 9:33 PM on November 3, 2005


Heywood Mogroot writes "It'd be cool to have a 3D threading system with AJAX Web2.0 where derails can extend out into fractalesque Euclidian infinity and be navigated VRML-like."

...or one could go the other way and have built-in blacklisting, which would avoid a lot of those unpleasantries.
posted by clevershark at 9:34 PM on November 3, 2005


Besides, why would matteo want to call out egregious posts from "his side"? We have justgary and SeizeTheDay for that...
posted by hototogisu at 9:34 PM on November 3, 2005


If matteo were conservative there'd be a couple of members calling him on it, but he's not. So those members are silent

Call matteo on what on his only post in the Cyprus thread in question?

I see:

1) An assertion that jenleigh had a single-link post to Totten
2) who is an employee of TCS
3) (which is a Republican astroturfing operation)
4) and is a Malkin and Instapundit "darling"
5) An assertion that jenleigh's post is Yet Another fpp about "the brown people's many shortcomings".
6) "(and a nice spit in the EU face to boot)"
7) he doesn't mind the "islamophobia" at this point
8) he has a problem with jenleigh's hypocrisy in tagging the post as "photography" rather than the political post that matteo (and I) think it is.
9) matteo further asserts that at least "PeePee" (ParisParimus) et al are not pretending to be apolitical in their posts to mf.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:55 PM on November 3, 2005


LOL, this isn't the first jenleigh link to Totten:

"Portland journalist Michael Totten...".

chyeah right.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:38 PM on November 3, 2005


>>"...and you're exactly the kind of insufferable prick who has all but killed my enjoyment of this site in the last year.
posted by jenleigh at 4:18 PM PST on November 3 [!]"


matteo maybe you should leave this site okay? you are upsetting jenleigh okay enough is enough and you are a heartless bastard with an insufferable prick.
posted by naxosaxur at 11:02 PM on November 3, 2005


"Low-intensity right-wing sneak trolling. Standard jenleigh fare."

As opposed to the "high-intensity left-wing blatant trolling. Standard MeFi fare."

Oops, no no, I mean the emporor's clothes look just fine!
posted by mischief at 11:12 PM on November 3, 2005


No small amount of that high-intensity stuff gets deleted, and nearly always called out, here or in the thread, so what's your point? I can't remember the last "liberal" post and thread that weren't contentious--where's the free pass?

I'd give jenleigh the benefit of the doubt--maybe they are just a bunch of swell pictures--but others don't feel like it, and have done a swell job explaining why (notably that her posts are like this *a lot*). I can only imagine what grown-ups think of all of this.
posted by hototogisu at 11:20 PM on November 3, 2005


No small amount of that high-intensity stuff stays up without comment, except by the righties in thread.

Your comment is much like those saying CNN does not have a liberal bias. You can't see it because you are too wrapped up in it. No one here would argue that Fox News has a conservative bias, but try to make that point on a conservative website and you would be answered with "whatchutalkinbout?" That's why I watch both CNN and Fox News, cuz I know that somewhere in between lies the truth.

Maybe jenleigh's post on Cyprus DID have a conservative bias, or more likely, this one FPP was the result of finding something interesting on one of her favorite websites which just happens to have a conservative slant.
posted by mischief at 11:29 PM on November 3, 2005


A lot of the crap conservative posts only get slagged by liberals--they aren't doing anything differently than the conservatives, there's just more of them. The behavior is the same on both sides...again, where's the free pass? Anyway, we did this argument not that long ago, no need to rehash it again.
posted by hototogisu at 11:38 PM on November 3, 2005


But the post has a lot of comments. What's the problem here?
posted by gsb at 11:38 PM on November 3, 2005


Your comment is much like those saying CNN does not have a liberal bias.

They loved 9/11 and the two Gulf Wars, though, and were waving the flag like nobody's business throughout. Good for ratings — which is CNN's real "bias", frankly.
posted by Rothko at 11:41 PM on November 3, 2005


"where's the free pass?" : I don't exactly know what you mean by this. The free pass is awarded to those posts that survive Matt's and Jessamyn's axe.
posted by mischief at 11:41 PM on November 3, 2005


others don't feel like it, and have done a swell job explaining why (notably that her posts are like this *a lot*)

??

I mostly just saw matteo/heywood referring to the source/Totten (not the actual content) and janleigh's other posts (not the actual fpp in question). Both seemed much more wrapped up in knocking janleigh than in critiquing the content of the post.
posted by Stauf at 11:42 PM on November 3, 2005


I'd give jenleigh the benefit of the doubt

Why does she need the benefit of any doubt? Why does anyone? It's not like this is congress and we're dealing with conflicts of interest. Anybody can post whatever they like here, out of any motivation, or for any reason. That's the beauty of this place. Of course, it's only fair that said posts can be attacked and criticized. But why get personal or nasty? If someone else had posted the link, would it have raised an eyebrow? If not, then all those comments did was to try very hard to spoil the thread and pollute any discussion of the link. It's a very effective way to generally discredit your opponent without addressing the merits of their argument. Next time matteo posts something about religious iconography, should jenleigh rush to point out his past condemnations of christianity?
posted by loquax at 11:44 PM on November 3, 2005


Hey, libs can be patriotic too!

If CNN followed Fox's lead, they would start an entertainment channel whose viewer demographic resembled the John Birch Society.
posted by mischief at 11:45 PM on November 3, 2005


Hey, libs can be patriotic too!

Nope. Fox News said so.
posted by Rothko at 11:47 PM on November 3, 2005


heheh
posted by mischief at 11:52 PM on November 3, 2005


mischief--I'm fading fast here, and am not particularly coherent on my best of days, so let me try again:

(this is one way of looking at it, anyway): the liberal bias of mefi exists only in that there are many liberals here. If there were more conservative posts, I think we would find that they are treated the same was as many of the liberal posts: some are agreed with all around, some are slagged, and some develop into cleardawn-sized clusterfucks (a more recent example). I guess another way of saying it is that our conservatives and liberals are all assholes to the "other side", we just have more of one than the other.

That we don't have as many blatantly conservative posts (often by the same few people) means we don't really have a good selection of the treatment of conservative posts...especially when the ones seem to be predominantly of the "bad" variety (that said, no small number of liberals here consistently thank jenleigh for her posts...of the two most recent examples of her work, one absolutely warranted the pile-on it got, and this current one may or may not...

(and to answer stauf)...with respect to this one, it depends on whether she's being willfully disingenuous about the source of the photos. As per cloudscratcher's explanation, the content is neutral, but the framing most certainly isn't. So if you're just one, like me, to say "sweet pictures", then the post is just fine...but if you start extrapolating the content into political and cultural spheres, then you have to start thinking about the website that is hosting the photos, and it seems a bit more insidious, especially if you choose to view it in light of jenleigh's record.

I'm not saying I agree with any of the criticism, but this is how I'm understanding their rationale...

and now, back to writing a paper on a sprawling, modernist Japanese book. sigh

on preview, loquax, I suppose by benefit of the doubt I mean doing just what you said--take the post at face-value and leave it at that. But then again, a post on iconography isn't going to readily have connections to current politics and actual *people are dying for this*-style urgency. The example doesn't really seem relevant.
posted by hototogisu at 11:59 PM on November 3, 2005


Also, I should maybe point out that I've said nothing against matteo because I don't think anything needs to be said. Or maybe there are a whole bunch of people who are just fine with his vitriol, and would waffle on the condemnation end of things if pressed. I dunno.
posted by hototogisu at 12:04 AM on November 4, 2005


"if you start extrapolating the content into political and cultural spheres"

I think this extrapolating is what those of us defending the post find most incredible. Why attack the messenger for the message when the message is so bland? Of course, the messenger's usual fare may be of a particular type, but this one is not.

This is like Army Special Forces shooting the North Vietnamese ambassador for telling an American General that it rained last Thursday in Tibet.
posted by mischief at 12:05 AM on November 4, 2005


If not, then all those comments did was to try very hard to spoil the thread and pollute any discussion of the link. It's a very effective way to generally discredit your opponent without addressing the merits of their argument.

What argument? That's was the point of my initial post/snark into the comments. This appeared to me to be Yet Another jenleigh IssueFilter slam on muslims/America's Enemies.

I admit waving Totten in front of me is something of a red cape.

The question, for me, to the extent I care (not much), is whether jenleigh is just serving as an automatic repeater vector of this quasi-agitprop stuff or more of an active agent in its dissemination.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:05 AM on November 4, 2005


Of course, the messenger's usual fare may be of a particular type, but this one is not.

"For 31 years Varosha has been uninhabited. Turkey ought to be ashamed of itself. Since the military won’t let me take pictures, I imagine that on some level they are ashamed – or at least a bit embarrassed – by what they have done and are doing. They did not want you to see this."
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:07 AM on November 4, 2005


Or maybe there are a whole bunch of people who are just fine with [matteo's] vitriol

what vitriol? Calling Paris "Pee Pee"?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:08 AM on November 4, 2005


...but it did rain last Thursday in Tibet!

when the message is so bland--that's the rub...the response doesn't seem all that loony when you point out the things Heywood Mogroot and cloudscratcher did--it isn't necessarily so bland. It isn't necessarily of a different type, and the question is, well, HM says it much better than me just above this...
posted by hototogisu at 12:09 AM on November 4, 2005


Actually yeah, it isn't really that bad in this thread. I was thinking more in general terms, and had forgotten what he actually wrote this time around.
posted by hototogisu at 12:10 AM on November 4, 2005


Heywood, you excerpted that from the link, not from jenleigh's post. Look, I know I'm crazy, that's why my doctor prescribed Geodon. Take it from me, Heywood, you need to see a shrink.
posted by mischief at 12:18 AM on November 4, 2005


I'm not really sure how that one paragraph at the end of that page makes the whole fpp so bad that the thread had to be hijacked via mostly irrelevant whining about janleigh the poster.

This appeared to me to be Yet Another jenleigh IssueFilter slam on muslims/America's Enemies.

If that was a "slam" then I'm afraid I might need to adjust my sensitivity meter. Of all the fpp's to use to callout janleigh's "IssueFilter" why choose this one?
posted by Stauf at 12:29 AM on November 4, 2005


*hugs matteo*
posted by scarabic at 12:59 AM on November 4, 2005


Of all the fpp's to use to callout janleigh's "IssueFilter" why choose this one?

"What does Varosha have to do with 'the necons'?"
posted by jenleigh at 2:22 PM PST on November 3 [!]

"Varosha, 'Islamaphobia', NeoCons and 'brown people' have nothing to do with the post no matter how much you're project"
posted by jenleigh at 3:33 PM PST on November 3 [!]

"I think your analysis speaks to some fairly serious paranoia"
posted by jenleigh at 4:18 PM PST on November 3 [!]

jenleigh's "IssueFilter? Moi?" position is I guess a POV-dependent issue. matteo did a fine job connecting the neocon dots for us. fwiw, I went off on this Michael Totten fpp before even following the link, I sorta just knew that Totten's slam on the Turks that I excerpted above was present, and that would motivate jenleigh to edge over to metafilter bookmark to share the neocon love with us.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:22 AM on November 4, 2005


I'm not really sure how that one paragraph at the end of that page makes the whole fpp so bad that the thread had to be hijacked via mostly irrelevant whining about janleigh the poster.

btw, I was perfectly happy leaving my initial seagull deposit and moving on. I only came back to support matteo after jenleigh's "paranoia" charge. Like I said, I should have come to the gray sooner and let the discussion of Cyprus continue without the meta-post noise. Apologies.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:32 AM on November 4, 2005


Heywood, why do you denigrate yourself and call it meta-noise? It's perfectly within the context of the post, its history and its meaning. If all posts were about how great the link is, without any kind of criticism, it would be incredibly boring.

And actually, on the charge of paranoia, jenleigh may honestly believe she's not an Islamophobe, or the rest of the insinuations she identifies. It's possible to delude one's self, and it's possible to project one's own paranoia onto someone else. It's a shame, because crap buzzsaw articles do not foster any kind of reasonable discussion about some countries with large Muslim populations. In fact, it alienates and atomises groups. [paranoia] Some people think that's intentional [paranoia].
posted by gsb at 3:26 AM on November 4, 2005


why do you denigrate yourself and call it meta-noise?

I'm a do-unto-others-etc. guy, and my big-ass post of jenleigh's greatest hits didn't belong smack-dab in the middle of the discussion on the Turkish occupation zone of Cyprus. It's respectful to take meta-arguments out of the thread into metatalk, and talking about jenleigh's history is definitely a meta-argument.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:25 AM on November 4, 2005


See? We can all be friends!

He needs to be able to say he has Jewish friends.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:35 AM on November 4, 2005


because otherwise ParisParamus will hide behind his car with a sniper rifle
posted by selfnoise at 5:45 AM on November 4, 2005


Your comment is much like those saying CNN does not have a liberal bias. You can't see it because you are too wrapped up in it.

Holy shit, I'm glad you settled that one for us. So is that an actual Cassandra complex you got there or just a run-of-the-mill superiority one?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:16 AM on November 4, 2005


but it does often seem like "Moslems on the Brain", and not really in a good way. It's also just the flipside of a lot of the stuff here anyway...

I'm not really getting anyone's points, re: repetitive subject matter. y2karl posts about torture about every two weeks. Amberglow posts about gay issues about every three. Digaman makes a near-weekly post about the Bush admin. Who's taken them to task for their subject matter? Who's implied they're 'obsessed' or have 'Gays on the Brain'?

It sounds like Jenleigh is seeing a portion of Muslim society she feels is damaging to world peace. Karl sounds like he's seeing a portion of military culture threatening world peace. They're both valid points, and neither deserves the disrespect folks like matteo dish out.

Again, this sounds a lot more like a popularity contest than an issue of posting standards. You cannot criticize the posting of a biased political site without serious hypocrisy because it happens daily [Crooks & Liars, Rude Pundit, Kos, AmericaBlog and so forth].

Matteo: you going to be joining us?
posted by highsignal at 6:36 AM on November 4, 2005


Sounds as though Troutfishing as "Christians on the Brain" again.

Hate Crime!!
posted by dhoyt at 6:39 AM on November 4, 2005


"This appeared to me to be Yet Another jenleigh IssueFilter slam on muslims/America's Enemies."
And you're wrong.
This entire argument is based on ad hominem reasoning. Because Totten is a noted propogandist, ergo everything he does is propoganda? No. And Turkey DOES have a lot to be ashamed of, and restricting photographs DOES imply an institutional shame.
Or, to put it another way, every now and then conservatives are right about things and a knee-jerk defense of the "brown people" is just as retarded as a knee-jerk condemnation. Both you and Matteo saw red for whatever reasons and contributed more steaming turds to the discourse. Now stop pretending that those steaming turds don't stink. You've already owned up to the fact that your objections should have been in MeTa, now move to the point where you could have objections or add further context without attacking her at all. And, y'know what? That might have actually changed her mind instead of putting her on the defense against your demogogery.
posted by klangklangston at 6:48 AM on November 4, 2005


Blimey, and there was me thinking it was a link to some interesting photographs.
posted by jack_mo at 6:49 AM on November 4, 2005


*airkisses jenleigh, votes anarchist, hands out lefty leaflets*

I would respectfully suggest that males not address females as "darling" or any other patronizing and sexist term when they are communicating in a disagreement. Thank you.
posted by peacay at 7:22 AM on November 4, 2005


more likely, this one FPP was the result of finding something interesting on one of her favorite websites which just happens to have a conservative slant.

I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but: what mischief said. Yes, jenleigh is conservative (which automatically makes her a target for certain of our more vicious lefties), so it makes sense she hangs out on conservative sites and is likely to find stuff there. What's she supposed to do, go and find a site with the same pictures but less likely to call down the wrath of matteo? Wouldn't work: matteo will piss on her and her threads no matter what he does. I know you're fond of him, naxo, but matteo is being an insufferable prick these days, and it seems to be impossible to get him to realize it or care about it; what bothers me is not so much that (I just skim his comments, make a face, and move on) as the fact that there are so many enablers around here who pat him on the back and hold his coat no matter how nasty he gets. "*hugs matteo*," indeed. He doesn't need your hugs, pal; he thrives on partisan warfare. Don't worry, he'll be dropping in to spew vitriol any minute now.
posted by languagehat at 7:29 AM on November 4, 2005


Er, that should be "no matter what she does." I don't normally correct typos, but that one's a real comprehension-killer.
posted by languagehat at 7:30 AM on November 4, 2005


>>Matteo: you going to be joining us?

Hey guys listen: okay i just got an im from matteo and he asked me to let you guys know that he really needs you to cut him some slack. its really upsetting him that you are being so mean and it is hurting his feelings. i mean, metafilter is his entire life he has nothing else and only your e-friendship so lay off okay? also you really dont want to piss off matteo because he'll fuck you up. i once saw him break a popsicle stick in twain with a single karate chop. he took tae kwon do for only one month, but he was so good that he challenged his sensei to a fight and he kicked his ass and now he owns the entire dojo and is a martial arts master.
posted by naxosaxur at 7:40 AM on November 4, 2005


1) Shit in a thread

2) Cower

3) Sit back & smirk while a MeTa thread ensues

4) Cower

5) Have an unfunny enabler friend post in your absence

6) Profit
posted by dhoyt at 8:00 AM on November 4, 2005


omg you are so astute! cookies for dhoyt!
posted by naxosaxur at 8:09 AM on November 4, 2005


LH hit the nail on the head here, and I think you know it. And the only (limp) response you can muster is bad jokes. Which is better than what matteo has offered, which is cowering silence.
posted by dhoyt at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2005


yeah, dhoyt seemed to miss the boat, there.

on a more serious note:

liberal bias on cnn? This is the same CNN that did nothing but report on Clinton's scandal for 2 years, right? thought so.

they're a news organization. they sling mud and follow scandal. it's what they do. republicans like to call "liberal bias" every time anyone says anything about them because it reframes the debate away from analysis of the facts. it's what they do.

Mefi has a lot of liberals. expect there to be a lot of liberal posts here, and lot of disagreement with conservative viewpoints, therefore. But the site isn't designed to be liberal and the moderation of it doesn't discourage conservatives. What do you want, all the liberals here to lay down and agree with you just to make shit seem "balanced?" that's exactly the kind of bullshit party line that has destroyed political discourse in this country and has especially ruined journalism.
posted by shmegegge at 8:31 AM on November 4, 2005 [1 favorite]


Wait, he's cowering and sitting back and smirking? At the same time?

MeTa thread ensues;
Unfunny enabler friends
Post in your absence.

posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:31 AM on November 4, 2005


The list was chronlogical, you wag!
posted by dhoyt at 8:33 AM on November 4, 2005


I didn't read the thread in question for health reasons--my health. I have come to the conclusion after having read some of her posts that she a) raises my blood pressure and b) makes my sphincter spasm. Therefore I happily passed this post by and went on to other things.

I would highly recommend bypassing her threads to others who may have the same reaction as I. You'll stay a lot healthier that way. We may miss an absolutely fabulous post by not reading anything written by her (Doubtful, but still possible,) but ya know--I'm willing to chance it.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2005


The list was chronlogical, you wag!

Oops, my mistake. Isn't there supposed to be a "???" before the "Profit" though?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:41 AM on November 4, 2005


I dunno. Matteo are you profiting?


*tumbleweed*

I didn't read the thread in question for health reasons--my health. I have come to the conclusion after having read some of her posts that she a) raises my blood pressure and b) makes my sphincter spasm. Therefore I happily passed this post by and went on to other things.

I would highly recommend bypassing her threads to others who may have the same reaction as I. You'll stay a lot healthier that way. We may miss an absolutely fabulous post by not reading anything written by her (Doubtful, but still possible,) but ya know--I'm willing to chance it.


That's right. Cover the ears. Cover the eyes. Shut the windows. Keep the neighbors away. Their ideas which contradict our own are only going to cause problems. Trying to understand them is a waste. Best to shut them out altogether, and go...back...to sleep....
posted by dhoyt at 8:46 AM on November 4, 2005


I read naxosaxur's comment as making fun of matteo. She's serious??
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:12 AM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt, your sphincter is spasming again...
posted by hototogisu at 9:17 AM on November 4, 2005


What languagehat said.

I would be very interested in a psychological analysis of matteo. He posts incredibly interesting threads every once in a while. Then he goes and behaves like the most worthless poster on the site offering nothing else but insults, noise and hate. Does he make the interesting posts so that he can get away with behaving like that in other threads? To be able to say, "Look I contributed"? Or is the matteo in his posts the real one and the behavior in threads is just the work of a very bored troll? I understand and appreciate the matteo who posts interesting threads; I do not understand why the other matteo is allowed to continually behave like he does. No matter how passionate you are about your pet issues, you shouldn't just insult and spew hate to those that disagree.
posted by dios at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2005


now that's pretty goddamn funny.
posted by hototogisu at 9:40 AM on November 4, 2005


Did you have a point hototogisu? Or did you really find humor in that rather droll comment of mine?
posted by dios at 9:53 AM on November 4, 2005


That comment is hardly droll, and rather incongruous to boot. So yeah, it is kind of funny.
posted by hototogisu at 9:58 AM on November 4, 2005


Again, do you have a point? Are you suggesting that it is not an accurate description of matteo? Are you trying to make some point about me? Make yourself clear.
posted by dios at 9:59 AM on November 4, 2005


matteo and Heywood are perfectly justified in their remarks. Whether this specific post qualifies as neocon propaganda against Muslims doesn't really matter. jenleigh has a reputation and that reputation taints every post and comment she makes. It's perfectly sensible for to look at the post in question, consider all the factors such as the poster, the site, and the subject matter, and come to the conclusion that it's a political attack against Turkey (and the EU). jenleigh's shocked attitude and charges of paranoia are disingenious. Anybody here could connect the dots and arrive at the same conclusions as matteo.

But, matteo, I really wish you'd tone it down. You're rapidly approaching the nofundy-post-ironic-tragedy areas. It really wouldn't kill you to strike a more civil tone, would it? And regardless of her politics, jenleigh is a valuable contributor to the blue. Her posts are always thought-provoking and topical. Would you really rather she be like PP? That's stupid. You can attack jenleigh's ideas and beliefs without attacking her. Again, I love your comments and posts for the most part, but please tone it down.
posted by nixerman at 10:03 AM on November 4, 2005


Whether this specific post qualifies as neocon propaganda against Muslims doesn't really matter. jenleigh has a reputation and that reputation taints every post and comment she makes.

That's one of the most disgusting things I've read on MeFi.
posted by languagehat at 10:28 AM on November 4, 2005


That's one of the most disgusting things I've read on MeFi.

Agreed. Wow.
posted by loquax at 10:32 AM on November 4, 2005


That's right. Cover the ears. Cover the eyes. Shut the windows. Keep the neighbors away. Their ideas which contradict our own are only going to cause problems. Trying to understand them is a waste. Best to shut them out altogether, and go...back...to sleep....
posted by dhoyt


Don't be such a dolt, dhoyt. One doesn't have to continue to read articles by columnists whom one finds foolish. One need not watch a television program week after week when one finds it tedious. And I am sure as hell not just shutting the windows and keeping the neighbors away when I opt not to read threads by someone whom I find both tedious and foolish.

Life is just way too short for that.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:33 AM on November 4, 2005


Has someone emailed matteo to alert him of this thread?
posted by hall of robots at 10:35 AM on November 4, 2005


matteo and Heywood are perfectly justified in their remarks. Whether this specific post qualifies as neocon propaganda against Muslims doesn't really matter.

Well I'd say it certainly matters as both matteo and Heywood's "remarks" were rudely thrown into "this specific post" (the issue which seems to be the topic of this metatalk post). I don't think that's perfectly justified.

jenleigh has a reputation and that reputation taints every post and comment she makes.

Is it really necessary to see (and comment on) this "taint" every time she makes a post or comment. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I'd much rather a post be judged on its own merits than on someone's reputation or "taint."
posted by Stauf at 10:38 AM on November 4, 2005


That's one of the most disgusting things I've read on MeFi.

Really? Disgusting because it's true, right? nixerman didn't say he thought it was a good thing, just that the perception exists, and I think he's right.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2005


Stauf, is that really what I said? You're naive, not idealistic. Ut would be one thing if jenleigh's reputation were the only factor here, but it's clearly not. The author of the article she linked to and the subject matter are also important. These factors, combined with jenleigh's reputation, makes it possible to see the post as a political post. If somebody else had made the post then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion and, more likely, matteo and Heywood's comments would've been different. But somebody else didn't make it, jenleigh made it. Again, all factors considered, matteo and Heywood didn't do anything wrong though I wish matteo would effect a more civil tone.

As for jenleigh's reputation, it's a good one. I look forward to her posts and have encouraged her to post more in the past. She just shouldn't act so surprised when people point out her conservative bias.
posted by nixerman at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2005


Has someone emailed matteo to alert him of this thread?

a very polite Republican did. the original poster tried to alert me with his/her telepathy powers, I guess, but failed. anyway:

oh Lordy.

well, first of all, thanks to all my enablers (you've been blacklisted now! I am so sorry for that) for the kind words. thanks especially to my Favorite Republican Ever and my personal candidate for Governor of California (very little foreign policy involved in the job, after all), Asparagirl -- I'm just sorry that you outed our bipartisan Platonic friendship, now the Capulets will be, ahem, royally pissed.

I really had to re-read my original comment. sadly, it seems that, as others have pointed out in the blue and here, jleigh's post was indeed a one-link post to a GOP-funded blogger, and her posting history speaks for itself -- she has very clear political stances, good for her. as she demonstrated further in the thread, she also seems to lack the realism (or the good faith) to acknowledge her bias -- would you guys buy it if I said I'm a huge Bush fan and supporter? or if, say, amberglow said it? or karl? seriously? you wouldn't call us out on that? hhmm, thought so.

I don't have much to add, I basically skimmed this callout here and there. the original poster here in MeTa, so eager to get a response, would be best advised to email those he drags to MeTa if he's really that eager to get a response -- I confess I don't monitor the entire site 24/7. hell, not even its owner does.

and anyway, being thin-skinned as jenleig pretends to be does not go well with calling people "unsufferable pricks", "without balls", etc. -- if you like to call people names, losing the victim act looks like a good option. ParisParamus is a good example of that, he likes to hurl abuse but he can also take it -- that I respect in him/her. but do whatever you like, jenleigh.

I guess I comment in 1 jenleigh thread in, what, 5 or 10? I usually skip her posts (they're not that interesting to me, I actually knew about Cyprus thing because I used to read the foreign affairs section of the newspapers before 9-11, I am weird like that, but it's hardly relevant here).

you just cannot link to Totten and Turkey and call it "photography". want me to link to a Kos-recyckled post about Fahrenheit 9-11 and tag it "cinema"? would that be OK? really?

now if you'll excuse me, I have to post something to the front page, go to my dojo to kick some Facha ass, and then me and my unsufferable prick will be leaving for a weekend of hawt gay sex in North Korea with scarabic and a few of my other enablers -- communist sex feels so good, you guys should try it -- we sing old Partisan songs, naked, proudly wearing Uncle Joe Stalin condoms.

sorry for the long post. I just lack the willpower to answer each attack, but I get the thrust of your tumescent, throbbing love anyway. thanks all.


Don't worry, he'll be dropping in to spew vitriol any minute now.
...
That's one of the most disgusting things I've read on MeFi.


all posted by the same scold? ah, l'ironia.
posted by matteo at 10:57 AM on November 4, 2005 [1 favorite]


Nice dodge.
posted by dhoyt at 11:11 AM on November 4, 2005


nice oldsmobile.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2005


nice ass.
posted by rocketman at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2005


Nice schwartz.
posted by selfnoise at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2005


Again, all factors considered, matteo and Heywood didn't do anything wrong

That's where I disagree I guess. They basically shat in the thread. Just because there are "factors" such as jenleigh's repution and whatnot doesn't mean people can't use some good judgment when commenting in a thread. If they really wanted to talk about their beef with jenleigh and her post(s), it should have been taken to meta. Heywood admits he "went off" on the fpp before even following the link. How is that ok?

[It] would be one thing if jenleigh's reputation were the only factor here, but it's clearly not.
...
If somebody else had made the post then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion and, more likely, matteo and Heywood's comments would've been different.


Clearly, then, jenleigh's reputation seems to be, if not the only factor, by far the primary factor. I'm just a bit repulsed by what I see as a knee-jerk reaction to the post.
posted by Stauf at 11:51 AM on November 4, 2005


here's the weird thing:

matteo was a little snarky in that thread, but this callout seemed to me to be mostly asking for clarification of the comment, since it didn't make any sense to him/her, being slightly ignorant of these 2 posters' history. Also to ask why matteo is so infrequently called out, either in MeTa or in MeFi.

what followed was part decent conversation and part "pick your mefite" pile-on.

the weird thing in all of this is that matteo's response seems to be one of the more reasonable comments in this thread. No doubt jenleigh could come in here and say something simlar and then she, too, would be one of the more reasonable comments in this thread.

deserving special mention (in my opinion) is matteo's and nixerman's take on languagehat. languagehat who, and I know I'm not alone in believing this, is normally a reasonable and non-inflammatory member, has been caught attacking 2 people in this thread while in the very act of criticising people for unjust attacks. wtf?
posted by shmegegge at 12:03 PM on November 4, 2005


I would respectfully suggest that males not address females as "darling"

? Totten is not female.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:03 PM on November 4, 2005


because your single-link post links to Totten, a TechCentralStation (ie, a proven Republican astroturfing Internet operation) employee and Michelle malkin and Instapundit darling?

Sooooo tempted to comment on matteo's single source post to the Guardian on a "seemingly unrelated topic". It's a proven anti-Bush Internet operation. They link to a whole host of lefty blogs.

I won't though, because the post is interesting despite the source's or poster's political beliefs on other topics.
posted by loquax at 12:15 PM on November 4, 2005


"...matteo's response seems to be one of the more reasonable comments in this thread."

I strongly disagree.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:20 PM on November 4, 2005


Thread summary:
loquax           interrobang
LarryC           hotogisu
Asparagirl       shmegegge
puke & cry       naxosaur
Kwantsar         gsb
justgary         Rothko
mischief         Heywood
Stauf            scarabic
Krrrlson         XQUZ
dhoyt            leftcoastbob
klangklang       nixerman
languagehat      If I had
dios
so much for Mf's "leftist" slant.

for completeness, who I considered neutrals in this discussion:
E.B.
Jimbob
geoff.
highsignal
jack_mo
peacay
Armitage
hall of robots
rocketman
selfnoise
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:23 PM on November 4, 2005


I think more than some of the people you characterize as being "against" matteo would bristle at being called "rightist".
posted by loquax at 12:25 PM on November 4, 2005


I voted for Thulsa Doom. He promised to make them all drown in lakes of blood.

Languagehat doesn't come off as right wing so much as not a shrill idiot-wing. But whatever.

On preview: what loquax said.
posted by selfnoise at 12:27 PM on November 4, 2005


I think more than some of the people you characterize as being "against" matteo would bristle at being called "rightist".
posted by loquax at 12:25 PM PST on November 4 [!]


Indeed.
/unsure of whether or not I was just labeled a rightist simply because of my response to the situation
posted by Stauf at 12:32 PM on November 4, 2005


I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why matteo's contribution to the original mf thread wasn't "very nice", "crass", etc. In context it was addressing a point that the fpp had made in her thread:

"What does Varosha have to do with 'the necons'?"

(and riffed from there).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:33 PM on November 4, 2005


would bristle at being called "rightist".

I wasn't calling anybody rightist. I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column, though.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:37 PM on November 4, 2005


I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why matteo's contribution to the original mf thread wasn't "very nice", "crass", etc. In context it was addressing a point that the fpp had made in her thread:

Because he didn't address what it had to do with the neo-cons? Because he popped in, insulted the source, patronized the poster, and popped out? Because he contributed nothing of value to the conversation after he accused someone of being a hypocrite, hating brown people and "not having balls"?

I wasn't calling anybody rightist.

Now who's being disingenuous? Kidding. Sort of.
posted by loquax at 12:41 PM on November 4, 2005


I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column, though.

Well here's one. Heywood, I have much admired your postings in several history threads, but this thread is not your best moment.
posted by LarryC at 12:42 PM on November 4, 2005


I wasn't calling anybody rightist. I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column, though.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:37 PM PST on November 4

Okay thanks for the uninformed assumption then.
posted by Stauf at 12:44 PM on November 4, 2005


Because he didn't address what it had to do with the neo-cons?

He explained who Totten was to jenleigh, who had apparently forgotten since the last time it was explained to her when she last described Totten as a "Portland journalist" in a fpp.

Because he popped in

He popped in to address a question the poster asked (to me).

insulted the source
How so?

patronized the poster
how so?

and popped out?
Don't see what matteo needed to add once cloudscratcher added his amplication to matteo's original points wrt Totten.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:46 PM on November 4, 2005


LarryC, fwiw, my list above was an off-the-cuff analysis of which side of the 'echo-chamber' the poster was coming from.

Certain mefi members lay out the charge that metafilter is a leftie echochamber or what-have-you, and I felt this thread was an interesting empirical test of that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:49 PM on November 4, 2005


I wasn't calling anybody rightist. I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column, though.
posted by Heywood Mogroot


So who are all those people in the right column? And who are we echoing in this chamber.

Damn. I'm so confused.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:53 PM on November 4, 2005


Heywood, but you infer people's politics on the basis of how they evaluate this particular comment from matteo...and you agree with him? Makes sense.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:57 PM on November 4, 2005


I was not referring to "politics", just who was adding to the echo-chamber effect, who attempting to lessen it, and who was offering neutral contributions.

echo-chamber may be the wrong word, but I was looking at content of the contribution not ideology.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:03 PM on November 4, 2005


insulted the source
How so?

patronized the poster
how so?


I think it's patronizing and insulting to accuse someone of hating brown people and being cowardly in general, and especially when it's the only comment you make in a thread.

I don't think he should be banned or anything, don't get me wrong, I just don't get why you don't understand that others would think that kind of thing is not very productive, regardless of politics or perceived provocation.

So what if I made a similar comment about matteo's post today, as I mentioned above?

echo-chamber may be the wrong word

So you're saying that if you disapproved of matteo's contribution, you're part of an echo-chamber?
posted by loquax at 1:05 PM on November 4, 2005


Heywood: you catalogued all of jenleigh's posts and then made a little list of who falls on what side of the political aisle?

GET. A. GIRLFRIEND.
posted by dhoyt at 1:07 PM on November 4, 2005 [1 favorite]


to accuse someone of hating brown people

where does matteo do this?

and being cowardly in general

I think the charge that jenleigh is a "stealth" / passive-aggressive (for lack of a better word) conservative poster has some support, which is why I went to the trouble of distilling her fpp contributions to mefi over this year.

So you're saying that if you disapproved of matteo's contribution, you're part of an echo-chamber?

No, that you were not part of the oft-alleged "lefty echo chamber". My "what side of the echo-chamber" above was unnecessarily imprecise, since there is of course no such thing as a "righty echo chamber" on mefi.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:14 PM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt: what can I say, I like collecting evidence to support an argument. You'll see this OC in many of my posts, cf. the recent ANWR thread.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:15 PM on November 4, 2005


where does matteo do this?

Dude, now you're just being silly. If you like "collecting evidence", enjoy this, too:

because, again, your post is about the brown people's many shortcomings (with a nice spit in the EU face to boot)?


See also: every post in the history of MeFi where someone has criticized radical Islam.

The noise about "brown people" is to matteo what "Defenders of All Things Dubya" is to nofundy.

Blather.
posted by dhoyt at 1:22 PM on November 4, 2005


The freakish thing about this is that it's actually Heywood's girlfriend posting with his account...
posted by hototogisu at 1:22 PM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt: how is posting about brown people's shortcomings equated to "hating" them?

I think really Islamic people have plenty of shortcomings, more than most cultures. I don't hate them though.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:27 PM on November 4, 2005


I thought this was a pretty cool Metatalk post, but why does it warrant responses like that? Is there a backstory?

I believe this shows we need a MetaMetatalk website for discussions about Metatalk posts.
posted by jasper411 at 1:30 PM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt: how is posting about brown people's shortcomings equated to "hating" them?

For someone really 'into collecting evidence' to prove his point, you don't seem to have mastered the basic search function. A cursory glance at jenleigh's posts:



about the evil murlims hordes, it's interesting to note how

And here, more Islamic savagery:

so the attacks are to blame also on teh murlims who don't actually bomb shit, too? cool, these dark people never seem to do anything right in your world -- damned if they bomb, damned if they condemn the bombing.



I'm cool with the fact that jenleigh likes to shit on Islam -- G-d knows if around we all have our favorite targets to defecate on. what's much, much lamer is her insistence that no, she doesn't despise Islam -- I mean, most of us are at least sincere in defining our point of views. bah.


ah, the deep, unintended irony in this self-congratulating silliness would be very funny -- if only it didn't have very bloody consequences on brown people who live in distant lands

And that's from the first handful of her posts.

I think the implication that she "despises/hates" the "savage Muslim hordes" is fairly explicit from matteo's posts, eh Heywood? There's a lot more evidence to collect by using the search function. Still insist on defending matteo?
posted by dhoyt at 1:40 PM on November 4, 2005


So you're saying that if you disapproved of matteo's contribution, you're part of an echo-chamber?

I think he's saying that he's part of the echo chamber, but he's finding it insufficiently echo-ey for his taste.
posted by boaz at 1:44 PM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt: I was talking about matteo's contribution to the thread in question. Where does matteo assert that jenleigh hates brown people?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:45 PM on November 4, 2005


but he's finding it insufficiently echo-ey for his taste.

Incorrect. It is sufficiently echoey, this time around. The point of the list was to analyze to what extent this thread was evidence of the putative mefi lefty slant we hear so much about from certain posters. So far, it appears that fair & balanced is holding up well.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:47 PM on November 4, 2005


now you can resume the 3-minute hate.

Don't forget that. There's the accusation of hate.

It's not the end of the world, it just poisons the well. Anyone disputing matteo's assesment is automatically a neocon arab hater. Would it kill him to elucidate on why he disapproves of the author and what it has to do with the topic posted?
posted by loquax at 1:48 PM on November 4, 2005


dhoyt: I was talking about matteo's contribution to the thread in question.

What don't you understand about:

"your post is about the brown people's many shortcomings (with a nice spit in the EU face to boot)?"

I'll go ahead & type this in all-caps in case you're still not getting it

MATTEO IS IMPLYING JENLEIGH HATES 'BROWN PEOPLE' JUST AS HE'S DONE IN NUMEROUS THREADS. STOP BEING WILLFULLY OBTUSE.
posted by dhoyt at 1:51 PM on November 4, 2005


There's the accusation of hate.

I introduced that allegation previously.

To clarify, I think matteo would agree with my original charge of jenleigh having a "hate Islamofascism" IssueFilter bias to her postings.

I do not equate "hating Islamofascism" with "hating brown people", and this feel your assertion that matteo accused jenleigh of "hating brown people" unsupported.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:54 PM on November 4, 2005


Would it kill him to elucidate on why he disapproves of the author and what it has to do with the topic posted?

Matteo came into the thread to address jenleigh's "neocons? what's the connection?" question. He did so, riffed a bit on jenleigh's obtuseness wrt this, and left.

My original contribution in the original thread was commenting on how this appeared to be Yet Another jenleigh point-the-finger-at-someone IssueFilter post. I suspect me and matteo share this appreciation of jenleigh's corpus.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2005


feel your assertion that matteo accused jenleigh of "hating brown people" unsupported.

Well, you may, but it is part of a pattern of behaviour for him, for what it's worth.
posted by loquax at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2005


The point of the list was to analyze to what extent this thread was evidence of the putative mefi lefty slant we hear so much blah blah blah

The mistake you're making is confusing 'lefty' with 'agrees with Heywood Mogroot'.
posted by boaz at 2:00 PM on November 4, 2005


Heywood, I once had a case go up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether "permanent" means "permanent." The Plaintiff's attorney argued that permanent in fact meant temporary. This story isn't directly related, but your argument in the last part of this thread reminded me of him.
posted by dios at 2:00 PM on November 4, 2005


loquax: you asserted:

"after he accused someone of being a hypocrite, hating brown people..."

in his single post in question. Do you stand by this?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:04 PM on November 4, 2005


Heywood, I once had a case go up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether "permanent" means "permanent." The Plaintiff's attorney argued that permanent in fact meant temporary. This story isn't directly related, but your argument in the last part of this thread reminded me of him.

Funny. in regards to Heywood I was about to comment:

"Ugh. You sound like a fuckin' lawyer."


No offense to real lawyers out there. It's just an expression.
posted by dhoyt at 2:05 PM on November 4, 2005


The mistake you're making is confusing 'lefty' with 'agrees with Heywood Mogroot'.

The original context was 'lefty slant' of mefi discussion, not just lefty. This thread is not particularly indicative of a strong lefty slant to mefi discussion, for future reference.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:06 PM on November 4, 2005


well, my billable hours to the lefty echo chamber is used up, gotta work. See yahs.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:09 PM on November 4, 2005


I just searched this thread for 'lefty slant' and 'leftist slant' and every occurrence of both (except me quoting you) was by you. I shall now obtusely deny over and over again that you were responding to anything written before that.

Just to start it off ... Nobody was talking about the 'lefty slant' of mefi before you jumped in, Heywood, so give it up. Really, no one.
posted by boaz at 2:22 PM on November 4, 2005


loquax: you asserted:

"after he accused someone of being a hypocrite, hating brown people..."

in his single post in question. Do you stand by this?


matteo: because, again, your post is about the brown people's many shortcomings

Brown people - Check.

matteo: see, I don't mind the Islamophobia at this point

For good measure, muslims - Check.

matteo: now you can resume the 3-minute hate.

Hatred - Check.

For what it's worth. Maybe I'm misunderstand, but I think it's pretty plain that matteo thinks jenleigh hates brown people and muslims, and said so. Especially since I've seen him say it many times in the past, to her and others. Again, I encourage matteo to say whatever he likes, I just don't think it's in the spirit of this website to do it the way that he does. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
posted by loquax at 2:54 PM on November 4, 2005


It's ok, loquax. Heywood realized he'd split enough hairs and planted enough red herrings for one afternoon, and, without a defensible or coherent point to be made, he bolted. To go 'collect more evidence', no doubt.
posted by dhoyt at 3:00 PM on November 4, 2005


languagehat ... has been caught attacking 2 people in this thread while in the very act of criticising people for unjust attacks

Obviously I don't think my attacks are unjust. I like matteo as a human being and a poster, but I despise his knee-jerk shitting in threads whenever they're posted by someone he doesn't like. Go read the quotes dhoyt provide up there and tell me with a straight face I'm being unfair to poor matteo.

And Heywood, you have no idea what my political views are. I simply don't like stereotyping, mobs, and the poisoning of debate. Funny how not jumping on every leftie bandwagon gets one labeled around here.
posted by languagehat at 3:01 PM on November 4, 2005


Oh, I might as well add that I don't like jenleigh's stereotyping of Muslims either, and I've said so before. That doesn't mean I approve of jumping into threads she posts and screaming that she's an evil fascist bitch. (Note: not an exact quote, but representative of attitude.)
posted by languagehat at 3:02 PM on November 4, 2005


It's ok, loquax. Heywood realized he'd split enough hairs and planted enough red herrings for one afternoon, and, without a defensible or coherent point to be made, he bolted. To go 'collect more evidence', no doubt.
posted by dhoyt at 3:00 PM PST on November 4


dhoyt, while I agree with most of what you said in this thread, I ask that you don't do this kind of thing. These kinds of statements are unncessary. Heywood seems more than willing to argue this point in perpetuity. We should assume that he didn't give up---it's quite clear he wasn't giving up after a dozen or so comments. We should assume that he did in fact have other things going on.

I ask you this out of my own sensitivity. I get this kind of argument all the time, and its both annoying and frustrating. I can spend hours and effort in a thread, and then I have to go, and people make comments like you made.

People can't argue on Metafilter for their whole lives. We all have lives outside of it. When a person doesn't respond quickly or appears to leave, we should give that person the benefit of the doubt that they something to go do. We shouldn't snark and act as if we pulverized the person so bad they had to give up; or worse, that their final departure is somehow indicative that they were just trolling all along.
posted by dios at 3:37 PM on November 4, 2005


Well said.
posted by languagehat at 3:42 PM on November 4, 2005


You're right, dios. It was an assumption I made based on Heywood's slowly shrinking, unraveling arguement which I interpreted to be evident of needing an exit strategy. So when he suddenly left, I wasn't surprised, and attributed it to capitulation.

I respect his willingness to stick around and defend a point 100 times more than matteo's cowardly bluster.
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM on November 4, 2005


it's cowardly of matteo to not want to have a blowhard-off with you? i'd call that "sensible."
posted by Hat Maui at 4:28 PM on November 4, 2005


boaz:Nobody was talking about the 'lefty slant' of mefi before you jumped in, Heywood, so give it up.

Give what up? That this mt thread does not support the oft-heard assertion from various mefi members that mefi is a leftwing echo-chamber / circle-jerk?

loquax:but I think it's pretty plain that matteo thinks jenleigh hates brown people and muslims, and said so.

If it's plain, then show where he said in his post then.

Matteo is not responsible for what you think, he is responsible for what he says. As you are responsible for what you say.

Hatred - Check.

The "hate" in matteo's post (which was reptitive of my original post) was a rhetorical reference to Orwell's formalized "three minute [sic] hate", as defined here:

"Daily telescreen specials in which various elements of crimethink were packaged into a parade of horrible images and sounds, at which, the viewers were expected to boo, hiss, curse. and release any negative emotions upon. "

It is related to Michael Totten's status as a paid propagandist, and the linked post in question being (arguably) a low-grade form of neocon agit-prop vs. the Turks.

languagehat Funny how not jumping on every leftie bandwagon gets one labeled around here.

I also do not toe the lefty line here, eg. my response to the unfortunate tube shooting, pointing out that black people in the US do commit more, per-capita, crimes than the general population, and today's the ANWR stuff. My attempt with the list above was not a labelling exercise, but a meta comment offering evidence to disprove the oft-heard assertion that metafilter is a lefty echo-chamber-cum-circle-jerk (sorry). That's all. I try to respect all arguments, regardless of their originators, and try to leave yesterday's "history" betweeen me and posters at the door. My beef with jenleigh is the IssueFilter nature of the bulk of her posts, that's all. I have a similar beef with y2karl, but he (AFAIK) does not link to such propagandists as Totten so it's not such a big deal to me.

dios: thanks.

dhoyt my argument is simply:

1) jenleigh posted a Yet Another neocon IssueFilter fpp
2) I seagulled in and mildly offered my opinion on this
3) jenleigh came back with "neocon, moi?"
4) matteo connected the dots for her
5) jenleigh responded that matteo was paranoid
6) I came back with a big-ass list of jenleigh's neocon-related fpps from this year
7) (continuing to metafilter) people started calling matteo's reply to jenleigh out-of-line
8) I asked what was offensive about matteo's post
9) I havent gotten a good answer yet

plus I made a list of how metachat posters broke out on this discussion, the "sides", if you will, showing a good, healthy fair & balanced discussion, not the lefty echo-chamber certain mefi posters complain about from time to time.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:40 PM on November 4, 2005


I'm confused, so your goal here is to rebut some vaporous "assertion" by "various mefi members". Yet, you're the one who brought it up in this thread. Were you actively trying to derail this thread or just engaging in low-grade passive-aggressive trolling?
posted by boaz at 6:02 PM on November 4, 2005


Do you guys enjoy pissing in the wind? Jeeze... sit back and relish the fact that Mogroot is e-masturbating in here and not doing damage in the real world.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:12 PM on November 4, 2005


Were you actively trying to derail this thread

I'd say the derail is on your guys' end. I was just making an observation as to how the posters broke out on the issue in question; the responses it prompted were much more illuminating than the observation itself: 'you calling me a rightist?', 'who's being disingenuous? Kidding. Sort of.', 'GET. A. GIRLFRIEND.', 'he's finding it insufficiently echo-ey for his taste', etc etc.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:34 PM on November 4, 2005


Ah, so we derailed your derail; the nerve of us. Your density is approaching black hole level.
posted by boaz at 6:44 PM on November 4, 2005


If it's plain, then show where he said in his post then.

I don't know what to tell you. I think I did. You think I didn't. I don't think it really matters anyways. Let's leave it at this.
posted by loquax at 6:47 PM on November 4, 2005


Your density is approaching black hole level.

certainly the s/n here is flatlining. じゃ、また。
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:58 PM on November 4, 2005


Give what up? That this mt thread does not support the oft-heard assertion from various mefi members that mefi is a leftwing echo-chamber / circle-jerk?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

the responses it prompted were much more illuminating than the observation itself

Ha! Oh dear... are you kidding? "I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column" And you're surprised that people are a little annoyed at your labelling them for no apparent reason? Whatever.

(what boaz said)
posted by Stauf at 12:04 PM on November 5, 2005


Now that we have established how super it is to hate muslims, the next question is why dhoyt makes this call-out with his sockpuppet account. Classy guy, that.
posted by mr.marx at 12:45 PM on November 5, 2005


How do you know it's a dhoyt sockpuppet? Just curious.
posted by gsb at 4:43 PM on November 5, 2005


Are darren aka Karl of dhoyt and darren of highsignal two different people or one and the same person ? After reading the comments here, I am leaning towards the latter, myself. They seem to be writing the same sentences, expressing word for word the same opinions, asking the same rhetorical questions of the same person herein over and over.

But who knows ? Does even Matt know ? I should hope so.

Ah, well, with sockpuppets, one can have a pile on all by oneself. It takes the concept of circle jerk into the realm of auto-fellatio.
posted by y2karl at 8:23 PM on November 5, 2005


Mr. Marx & y2karl......let's have some analysis please. That's a pretty amazing call of sockpuppet. Without something tangible backing it up it sounds like vindictive straw dog territory.

Back it up.
posted by peacay at 11:56 PM on November 5, 2005


errr...that would be 'straw man' and mr. marx
posted by peacay at 12:01 AM on November 6, 2005


highsignal's account has barely been used. Suddenly, he becomes obsessed with matteo in this thread, makes a callout and demands matteo's response, echoed in similar language by dhoyt.

After looking at highsignal's blog, which hasn't been used all that much, one finds two names posting entireis. Darren and Jennifer Tidwell. dhoyt post his name as Karl Potente on his user page but in an AskMetaFilter thread, he posted an email addressed to a Darren Hoyt. Googling Darren Hoyt and Jennifer Tidwell leads to this. Note the first entry.

Now, note the Charlotte, VA location. highsignal lists a 22902 zipcode on his user page. dhoyt used to list a 22902 zipcode on his user page but for some reason, it has since been taken down.
All this is circumstantial evidence. which suggests that the possiblity exists that highsignal is dhoyt in sock puppet form.
posted by y2karl at 8:41 AM on November 6, 2005


I have no idea how I wound up in the rightist column. I will take that fact to mean that I'm actually more neutral politically where the callout in question is concerned.
posted by shmegegge at 12:45 PM on November 6, 2005


"I doubt there are any "leftists" in the left column, though."
And no true Scotsmen either.
But I thought the list meant that I was Nixerman's doppleganger. Which is OK, I guess. I hope he wears the same size pants.
posted by klangklangston at 2:07 PM on November 6, 2005


Wow, I'm SO lost. This is like walking into the middle of a nuclear physics conference where a round-table discussion is going on and panel members are arguing about the importance of mu-mesons.

Can someone please explain what the fuck is going on here?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:15 PM on November 15, 2005


« Older On any given week there's some...  |  Five dollars to post comments?... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments