Jimmy Carter censure?

May 24, 2006 4:28 PM

Is this rotten.com?
posted by dios to Etiquette/Policy at 4:28 PM (193 comments total)

I know people have strong views on certain topics. But this website isn't ogrish.com or whatever. And I'm pretty sure it isn't necessary or appreciated for a person to dump into a thread a photo of a dead person that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the post just for the shock value and to grind an axe.
posted by dios at 4:29 PM on May 24, 2006

jesus, that insomnia guy is fucking broken record. And posting inline dead iraqs is bad. Bad, bad, bad.
posted by puke & cry at 4:34 PM on May 24, 2006

Posting dead pics is awful. Ban time.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 4:34 PM on May 24, 2006

Dios, why don't you let someone else call these sorts of things out once in a while? Even if you're being spot-on and completely politically neutral, you don't help the matter because your own mythos will overshadow the actual issue at hand. It's not a good sign that as soon as I saw your name attached to this MeTa, I rolled my eyes and said "Jeez, yet another Dios callout".

As for the topic at hand, I somewhat agree, the image used wasn't really necessary and does come off as being mostly for shock value. I say this while agreeing with insomnia_lj's overall point, however.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 4:38 PM on May 24, 2006

Livejournalism 101: How to get banned from a popular online community.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:41 PM on May 24, 2006

alt-f
posted by edgeways at 4:41 PM on May 24, 2006

Eh. I wish as fervently as anyone else that insomnia_lj would get a new hobby, but this isn't really an overwhelmingly graphic photo; there's been worse posted here.

[checks image]

Except he's inlining an image from what sure looks like it's not his server. Now that's ban-worthy.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:43 PM on May 24, 2006

I remember this thread before it hit 200 , it was much better then.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:48 PM on May 24, 2006

Dios, why don't you let someone else call these sorts of things out once in a while?

Yeah, like that monju_bosatsu guy. He'd be a good choice for deputy.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:50 PM on May 24, 2006

He's a fucker^*, ban him.

^*Note: Poster in question may or may not actually be a fucker.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:53 PM on May 24, 2006

I've had enough of that guy. Back to livejournalism for you.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:03 PM on May 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

I've had enough of that guy. Back to livejournalism for you.
and dios gets rid of another person he doesn't like.

heckuva job, browniematt.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 PM on May 24, 2006

dios doesn't care about livejournalists
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:11 PM on May 24, 2006

Man, dios isn't even trying to act like a well-rounded human being any more--no lawn-chair dads, no askme questions indicative of a real life, just out-n-out contempt for anyone who doesn't share his normative view of mefi.

Well played, sir. I knew the kinder, gentler dios was just a charade. Welcome back.
posted by bardic at 5:12 PM on May 24, 2006

I've had enough of that guy. Back to livejournalism for you.
and dios gets rid of another person he doesn't like.

oh fuck that. You don't think insomnia had it coming at all?
posted by puke & cry at 5:14 PM on May 24, 2006

God forbid Dios be right EVAR
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:15 PM on May 24, 2006

Research log
Weds. May 24
Evening

Subjects continue to respond to "dios" stimulus. Substance of complaint apparent non-issue. Frothing becoming a problem—must order more towlettes for cleanup.

Also: livejournalism meme apparently still reproducing, but looking moderately tired. Will monitor.
posted by cortex at 5:18 PM on May 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

and dios gets rid of another person he doesn't like.

Please. insomnia_lj has been brought into metatalk almost as many times as dios and has been given many fewer, if any, timeouts. He doesn't have an email address that reliably works and so attempts to try to contact him and work out some of the "why are you in metatalk all the time?" issues don't go anywhere. There's a short list of posters here whose FPPs reliably cause train wrecks and he is one of them. dios' opinion of insomnia_lj has nothing to do with anything.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:22 PM on May 24, 2006

You couldn't just remove the image from the comment? I understand insomnia_lj could be a bit of broken record, it just seems fairly cheesy to throw him out on his ear for an offense of that nature. On a technical level, I see how this keeps in line with the lack of editing in comments - and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

As the entire administrative workload is shouldered by two people and there is no way for the community at large to quantify the purveyors of static - so be it. I don't expect pie charts with every banning, although it would be very entertaining.

There's a short list of posters here whose FPPs reliably cause train wrecks and he is one of them.

I do hope that applies as rigorously to comments, considering there are those among us who have made quite a habit of derailing the posts of others. /cough, sputter
posted by prostyle at 5:41 PM on May 24, 2006

it just seems fairly cheesy to throw him out on his ear for an offense of that nature.

I've given him multiple warnings that his ax-grinding was getting old and I've given him many chances to turn it around. Posting a big fat inline photo of a dead child is totally fucking tasteless. I know war is fucked up, but anti-abortion people show me photos of dead fetuses all the time and I have no respect for them as they have no respect for civility and conversation. They don't want to talk about the difficult issues involved. Neither does insominia_lj, posting graphic photos of dead kids like we're supposed to be able to do something about it.

Fuck him. He's banned. I've had enough of his shit. He can gleefully keep reposting the identical shit to his livejournal and stop abusing mefi as his personal soapbox broadcasting network.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:51 PM on May 24, 2006 [3 favorites]

About damn time.
posted by cribcage at 6:03 PM on May 24, 2006

administrator please hope protect me!
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:13 PM on May 24, 2006

I understand insomnia_lj could be a bit of broken record

One imagines a truly broken record might stop at some point. Thanks for the laugh though. Amberglow, feel free to make a point at anytime.
posted by yerfatma at 6:22 PM on May 24, 2006

Seriously, remember last time? The summary quotes thing? That was a clusterfuck.

On a someone related note, I'd like to hook amberglow and dios up. Something whimsical, maybe "Parent Trap" style. You know they'd get along like James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
posted by boo_radley at 6:23 PM on May 24, 2006

and dios gets rid of another person he doesn't like.

heckuva job, browniematt.

If they deserve it, who cares who brings it up?

Give the guy the little respect he deserves.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 6:37 PM on May 24, 2006

*gives dios the little respect he deserves*

huh?

*takes it back and gives it to mathowie, who actually deserves it*
posted by rollbiz at 7:03 PM on May 24, 2006

jessamyn : "why are you in metatalk all the time?"

You send out e-mails for this? Uh...I'm here for the flameouts. I swear.
posted by graventy at 7:20 PM on May 24, 2006

True, insomnia has been a one-trick pony, but it's quite the pony and I can understand the passion and the drive, although I think he overguilds the lily and by so doing, often sabotages his own posts or points. But he has been here for quite a long time and is part of the color and personality of the place, imo. I hate to see longterm members permanently banned unless they are really destructive or malevolent. I wouldn't use those adjectives for him.

If opinions matter, I would vote for an extended timeout rather than a permaban. On the other hand, if annoying and tasteless is bannable, I have several other nominations.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:21 PM on May 24, 2006

Seconded and agreed.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:24 PM on May 24, 2006

overguilds the lily

So that's what that picture was...
posted by Krrrlson at 8:17 PM on May 24, 2006

Good riddance.

As for the folks jumping on dios for a righteous call-out while excusing insomnia's hobbyhorseshit behavior... damn, do you guys realize you'd fit right in with that White House crowd y'all hate so much?

They're big on the whole ad hominem, attack the messenger, protect-their-cronies-no-matter-how-ludicrous-it-makes-them-look thing, too.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:21 PM on May 24, 2006

DIOS HATERS OF AMERICA ROLLCALL

Bardic...CHECK

Amberglow...CHECK

prostyle...CHECK

repeat ad nauseam........

stfu already
posted by Dreamghost at 8:25 PM on May 24, 2006

Well, Dreamghost, dios is hardly in a position to be making callouts, either. He could afford to stfu already, too.
posted by mediareport at 8:37 PM on May 24, 2006

Y'know, I think I read this site alot and all... but keeping the details of all this ireelevant drama straight -- y'all gotta go outside and, I dunno, pet a dog or something. Fuck.
posted by docgonzo at 8:48 PM on May 24, 2006

If dios can play his game of working the ref in order to shape the conversation in favor of his views, those of us (add me to the list) who see what he's doing & are bothered by it should be allowed to push back.
posted by scalefree at 8:50 PM on May 24, 2006

If dios can play his game of working the ref in order to shape the conversation in favor of his views

The liberal bias strikes again. Good god does your comment sound downright fucking obnoxious, condescending, and presumptuous. Care to back up your claim with a pattern of evidence, or are the rare occasions when Matt and dios agree enough to call the entire game fixed?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:53 PM on May 24, 2006

thank fucking god.

for those who think insomnia's constant discussion of one particular topic is the problem, please understand that it's not that. it's the fact that he derails other conversations to be about that topic, and that he gets juvenile and insulting about that topic, and he uses metafilter to draw attention to his livejournal about that topic, and he refuses to have reasonable discussions about that topic, and... let's just say that it's not what he's talking about, or how often, but just how abusively he talks about it. abusive to the site and other users.
posted by shmegegge at 8:54 PM on May 24, 2006

oh, and leave dios alone on this. christ you people get tiresome. he made a good point, said his piece and brought his issue to the proper forum.
posted by shmegegge at 8:54 PM on May 24, 2006

Mediareport...CHECK
posted by Dreamghost at 8:55 PM on May 24, 2006

...I hate to see longterm members permanently banned unless they are really destructive or malevolent. I wouldn't use those adjectives for him.

If opinions matter, I would vote for an extended timeout rather than a permaban. On the other hand, if annoying and tasteless is bannable, I have several other nominations.

I am in agreement with madamejujujive.
posted by y2karl at 9:11 PM on May 24, 2006

If opinions matter...

Stop there.

Fuck him. He's banned. I've had enough of his shit.

There's your answer. And I agree. Fuck him. He's like the liberal dios except 3x worse and 1/3 as smart.
posted by puke & cry at 9:18 PM on May 24, 2006

Fuck him. He's banned. I've had enough of his shit. He can gleefully keep reposting the identical shit to his livejournal and stop abusing mefi as his personal soapbox broadcasting network.
posted by mathowie

I am in agreement with mathowie. Good call.

I keep telling myself I should create a *REAL* blog and mirror it to LJ, but I can't be bothered... at least not yet.

No better time than the present.
posted by justgary at 9:22 PM on May 24, 2006

shmegegge: You left out the gratuitous name-dropping and self-aggrantizement, which, to me, is the most obnoxious bit.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:45 PM on May 24, 2006

s/aggrantizement/aggrandizement/g
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:46 PM on May 24, 2006

Looks like Matt is so off insomnia_lj's friends list.
posted by Zozo at 9:57 PM on May 24, 2006

I would like to once more draw attention to my favourite insomnia_lj comment, sadly, for the last time:

I wish that those person responsible could be punished more severely. What would be the right punishment, though? Something horribly embarassing and traumatic. A forced medically monitored enema in front of everyone in the entire student body who dares to witness, perhaps, where the person punished is forced to stand upright with no chance for relief except by shitting themselves? (Sounds awful, sure, but it would be safer than my initial idea of using a broomstick.)

Classy dude! Just couldn't get his views on bizarre sexual torture straight...
posted by loquax at 9:58 PM on May 24, 2006

One imagines a truly broken record might stop at some point. Thanks for the laugh though. Amberglow, feel free to make a point at anytime.

The term "broken record" refers to a scratch in a record that causes the needle to bounce back in the track, in theory it would never stop unless something happened to the record player itself. (like if the power got cut, or it got nocked over).
posted by delmoi at 10:04 PM on May 24, 2006

posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:32 PM on May 24, 2006

Waves lightsabre zzzzzzzzzzzzhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhzzzzzzzzhhhhhhhh
posted by Joeforking at 11:23 PM on May 24, 2006

Looks like a good call out and a pretty reasonable banning. Go figure.

Did anyone else notice what a gorgeous day it was here in California? Jeez, just awesome.
posted by fenriq at 11:24 PM on May 24, 2006

Tonight on Metafilter Kabuki Theater: Has Insomnia_Lj's departure from the bushi become so severe that his han will be disolved? Will Dios act as Kogi Kaishakunin? Will Amberglow ascend in the Yagyu now that Retsudo is blind?
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 PM on May 24, 2006 [10 favorites]

klang: +fave
posted by NinjaTadpole at 1:45 AM on May 25, 2006

I am in agreement with madamejujujive.

I find that I am pretty much always in agreement with madamejujujive.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:25 AM on May 25, 2006

Klangklanston's comment has vindicated this thread.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:36 AM on May 25, 2006

it's Ten Little Indians! yay for Agatha Christie!

remember when dios had his little shitlist posted on his profile page? he's managed to take out an awful lot of these guys since then.

come on, dios, if you whine loud enough you may be able to convince matt to kick me out, too.
posted by matteo at 5:17 AM on May 25, 2006

As for the folks jumping on dios for a righteous call-out while excusing insomnia's hobbyhorseshit behavior... damn, do you guys realize you'd fit right in with that White House crowd y'all hate so much?
They're big on the whole ad hominem, attack the messenger, "protect their cronies no matter how ludicrous it makes them look" thing, too.

Yup. It's truly pathetic how unable people are to recognize their own hypocrisy.

you may be able to convince matt to kick me out, too.

Nobody can "convince" Matt to kick you out. Only you can do that, and when you make comments like that it looks like you're trying.
posted by languagehat at 5:32 AM on May 25, 2006

Then again, when administrators find themselves saying things like "[Problematic Person X] has been brought into metatalk almost as many times as [Problematic Person Y] and has been given many fewer, if any, timeouts," they should probably sit back and think long and hard about their love-on for timeouts instead of effective response, as compared and contrasted to simply recognizing that when someone's a problem, they don't stop being that by standing in the corner for (yet another, and another) bit.
posted by Drastic at 5:54 AM on May 25, 2006

the difference here, drastic, is that a lot of the members who get dragged into metatalk are just trying to express their opinion or understanding of something and then unfortunately get dragged into catfights and shitfests. the result is bad, but the initial intention is honest. insomnia came out swinging and always started the fight.
posted by shmegegge at 6:08 AM on May 25, 2006

DIOS HATERS OF AMERICA ROLLCALL

What? I really do appreciate him when he's not caustic, abrasive and downright detrimental to the conversation at hand. He is entirely knowledgeable and has made many eloquent and pointed posts that are entirely appropriate. We've e-mailed each other with quite a few lengthy missives, so spare me the drama if you will.

...for those who think insomnia's constant discussion of one particular topic is the problem, please understand that it's not that. it's the fact that he derails other conversations to be about that topic...

Oh, ok. Glad dios doesn't have a blog and copy his assertions verbatim from there, otherwise he'd be in the can as well. Considering the referenced thread contains a perfect example of his handiwork, it's ludicrous to suggest that considering this post in that light is simply prejudice against dios. It's really not that cut and dry, and has nothing to do with insomnia_lj as far as I'm concerned. It could have been anyone, and the circumstances would still be dubious. Derail as you please, but don't you dare post an offensive image in accompaniment. The standard has been set.
posted by prostyle at 6:16 AM on May 25, 2006

Derail as you please, but don't you dare post an offensive image in accompaniment.

One can step around a derail—and folks should, more often—and thus spirit the derail off into obselecence in a few consecutive instances of self-control. An inlined picture stands out rather differently.
posted by cortex at 6:29 AM on May 25, 2006

I agree, cortex. I also agree with the administrative action taken. I just wished to express my views of the context we find ourselves in. I knew that thread would end up in in the grey, it was simply a matter of time. I did not expect it to be in this form - and that's not a product of bitterness or amusement, simply surprise.
posted by prostyle at 6:37 AM on May 25, 2006

For someone who is concerned about community, i_lj sure had a strange way of showing it.
posted by OmieWise at 6:37 AM on May 25, 2006

the difference here, drastic, is that a lot of the members who get dragged into metatalk are just trying to express their opinion or understanding of something and then unfortunately get dragged into catfights and shitfests. the result is bad, but the initial intention is honest. insomnia came out swinging and always started the fight.
I'd say he was just far less able to make the question of his intent in such kerfuffles debateable, but honestly, whether someone repeatedly trolls by intent or gosh-I-didn't-mean-to accidentally has never much mattered to me. I don't blame water for being wet, I just take measures to keep it away from my books, if you can dig it. But I'm not defending insomnia_livejournalist here--I'm saying that precisely the right call was made, and that it's pleasantly surprising that it was. As a mostly-lurking trainwreck audience member (they're entertaining), I was expecting him to get the usual response--another timeout.

I'm saying that timeouts are a bad call, and should happen a maximum of once for any user--because issuing them repeatedly is merely delaying the inevitable.
posted by Drastic at 6:43 AM on May 25, 2006

I hope you all get banned.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:49 AM on May 25, 2006

Y'know, it's fairly de rigueur for people to be told to stfu and/or "eat a bag of cocks" when they make a metatalk post, even when it's an obvious case e.g., i_lj posting a picture of a corpse, me calling out a single-link newsfilter thingie, or even making an innocuous assertion about how the admins operate, pony requests, etc. Indeed, some of the Dios Defence Force members in this very thread have been known to champion the delightful, devil-may-care approach taken to whiners in Meta as an unspoken good with regards to "community policing."

So when le dieu decides to bitch and moan, we're supposed to bend over backwards to spare his delicate sensibilities? Spare me.

Hypocrites indeed.
posted by bardic at 6:55 AM on May 25, 2006

Good call.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:59 AM on May 25, 2006

"Y'know, it's fairly de rigueur for people to be told to stfu and/or 'eat a bag of cocks' when they make a metatalk post, even when it's an obvious case..."

No it's not. With obvious cases, the poster is generally not harassed by more than one or two people, if that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:02 AM on May 25, 2006

Shorter bardic: Sure, dios was right this time, but why should I let that stop me from being an asshole?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:05 AM on May 25, 2006

monju_bosatsu: Exactly. But the difference is I've never held myself up as a model for how other members should act. I've never constantly screeched about the "shrillness" of mefi cuz, ya know, I kind of like this place, warts and all. I've never made it a habit to tell other people how they should contribute to and engage with this place.

But I forgot, you're a model citizen. Please continue to enlighten us with your sweetness and light. I'll look forward to your heated defenses of the next n00b who asks a dumb question in Meta--indeed, I expect it.
posted by bardic at 7:10 AM on May 25, 2006

I never claimed to be a "model citizen," but I do try not to be an asshole. You might think that the tendency to engage in "delightful, devil-may-care" attacks on MeTa posters regardless of the content of their post is an endearing feature of the community, but I suspect you're in the minority.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:19 AM on May 25, 2006

I'm just glad someone's looking out for my precious fragile porcelain sensibilities.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:21 AM on May 25, 2006

I'm saying that timeouts are a bad call, and should happen a maximum of once for any user--because issuing them repeatedly is merely delaying the inevitable.

fair enough.
posted by shmegegge at 7:25 AM on May 25, 2006

You might think that the tendency to engage in "delightful, devil-may-care" attacks on MeTa posters regardless of the content of their post is an endearing feature of the community, but I suspect you're in the minority.

i agree. snark when deserved is something i've come to expect and enjoy around here. but the grudge matches and petty character assault is something that, to my recollection, has been largely and justly considered bad form... except, of course, for the people who just love to pile on dios.
posted by shmegegge at 7:28 AM on May 25, 2006

I swear, sometimes the response to dios in MetaTalk threads make me want to fly to America, spend years becoming a citizen there for the sole purpose of voting Republican repeatedly, each time disguised as a prominent MetaFilter liberal. (And I say that as someone who regularly votes for a party with the word 'Socialist' in its name.)

What a shame about insomnia_lj, though. (I thought he should've been banned for repeatedly telling us he single-handedly invented LiveJournal back in 1908 using a carrier pigeon called Speckled RSS, and that since they pinned an advertising pamphlet on the pigeon's arse the world was about to end. Or whatever the fuck that hobbyhorse was about.)
posted by jack_mo at 7:29 AM on May 25, 2006

meaning that the people who love to pile on dios are always the ones trying to defend petty grudge matches.
posted by shmegegge at 7:29 AM on May 25, 2006

There is one meaningful solution for all this rigamarole, and only one: FORCED PUBLIC ENEMAS

Everybody line up in the back. No pushing.
posted by dgaicun at 7:32 AM on May 25, 2006

monju bosatsu writes: You might think that the tendency to engage in "delightful, devil-may-care" attacks on MeTa posters regardless of the content of their post is an endearing feature of the community, but I suspect you're in the minority.

I didn't mean to give that impression, because I don't think that's the case. I think it's actually the sort of intarweb boy's club ethos that drags Metafilter down, in many ways. However, it's the reality, and to pick one user out of over 30,000 and defend his honor over all the others is ridiculous, especially given his track-record.
posted by bardic at 7:32 AM on May 25, 2006

for myself, i agree with you. but on the other hand, i think that the converse is also true: to pick one user out of 30,000, and relentlessly call him to task regardless of the individual situation is ridiculous, especially when you consider the fact that there is evidence (not conclusive, but there nonetheless) that said user has been trying to change his tune a bit.

personally, i find dios politics repulsive. but the number of times i've found myself saying "your beef with dios has nothing to do with this post, and you're being annoying," to people in MeTa over the past year is indicative, to me, of a problem with grudge matches. not dios.

i really do not believe that "user [x] was was an asshole over there, so i can be an asshole to him in here," is okay, and i seem to remember threads about this in MeTa before where a lot of others felt the same way. it's one of the reasons rothko/alex_reynolds got banned.
posted by shmegegge at 7:37 AM on May 25, 2006

shmegegge writes "personally, i find dios politics repulsive. but the number of times i've found myself saying 'your beef with dios has nothing to do with this post, and you're being annoying,' to people in MeTa over the past year is indicative, to me, of a problem with grudge matches. not dios."

This is at the heart of my feelings as well, and well-said.
posted by OmieWise at 7:40 AM on May 25, 2006

and to pick one user out of over 30,000 and defend his honor over all the others is ridiculous, especially given his track-record.

That "ridiculous" behavior is called friendship. And while this concept is difficult to express over the internet, it's real, tangible, and worthy of acknowledgement. Moral absolutism and extreme consistency are great in terms of order and logic, but aren't human. Friendship is.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:41 AM on May 25, 2006

I didn't mean to give that impression, because I don't think that's the case. I think it's actually the sort of intarweb boy's club ethos that drags Metafilter down, in many ways. However, it's the reality, and to pick one user out of over 30,000 and defend his honor over all the others is ridiculous, especially given his track-record.

Wait, so a few minutes ago you thought it was fairly "fairly de rigueur" and even "delightful" for "people to be told to stfu and/or 'eat a bag of cocks' when they make a metatalk post, even when it's an obvious case," but now it's "the sort of intarweb boy's club ethos that drags Metafilter down?" That seems a bit unclear.

Ah, but your last sentence clears up the ambiguity; it's all about guilt by association. The problem isn't defending a user from attacks in MeTa, it's defending this user. I see. Regardless of the substance of his complaints, defense of dios is off limits because you don't like what you perceive to be his politics or his "track record."

For the record, I don't defend dios to the exclusion of others. I defend dios because he is the most-oft maligned user here, because he is my friend, and because he is actually right sometimes. Like this time.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:54 AM on May 25, 2006

So bardic is obviously an uncompassionate soul with no capacity for friendship? What's this about being assholes and having difficulty expressing things over the internet? Goodness gracious...

...when you consider the fact that there is evidence (not conclusive, but there nonetheless) that said user has been trying to change his tune a bit.

With regards to the lone-timeout ideal passed around earlier, it'd be interesting to have some metrics on the number of timeouts and deleted comments he has accumulated. Appearance isn't everything, and although I agree he has been curbing his attitude - this is in direct correlation to timeouts he receives. It's fairly difficult to consider his behavior modifications outside of that context, and I certainly wouldn't define that as soul crushing moral absolutism. But enough from me, my main interest here was the circumstances leading to our arrival at this junction, not dios in particular.
posted by prostyle at 7:56 AM on May 25, 2006

I tend to agree with mjjj, but on this case, I'm indifferent bordering on apathetic.
posted by crunchland at 7:56 AM on May 25, 2006

with a hint of lethargic on the horizon?
posted by shmegegge at 7:58 AM on May 25, 2006

I defend dios because dios loves freedom.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:59 AM on May 25, 2006

well, I know that for $5, insomnia_lj will be back with a new name. If he can resist the irresistable urge to bang his usual drum, he'll still manage to remain a part of Metafilter.
posted by crunchland at 8:02 AM on May 25, 2006

There should just be an unbanination fee. Like 25 dollars or something.

Seems like a fair deal, & I'd bet people would shape their asses up real quick like.
posted by dgaicun at 8:05 AM on May 25, 2006

Why, when they could just register $nick_part_deux?
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:10 AM on May 25, 2006

Anyway, can we re-divert this thread to the important issue of the tags on that post?

Or is that more appropriate for the blue than the grey?
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:11 AM on May 25, 2006

I've corresponded with dios privately and as a result I consider him a friend, but long before that came to be the case I thought him not at all like PP or any of the other arch-conservative so-called "trolls". He's always seemed pretty mild to me, both in politics and in manner. Getting to know him a bit better I became convinced that he's quite earnest and not in any but the very loosest, modern sense a "troll". I do think he's contrary by nature, but I think that's the case of a whole bunch of people here with opposing politics—we don't see it so much because, well, they're not being that contrary to us because we generally share their politics. I have never been shy about saying, also to him personally, that I an suspicious of anyone who hangs around a community where they are the ideological enemy. I strongly believe that much more likely than not, any person doing that is unlikely to be a saint in their behavior.

And I've found him to be a handy litmus test—most of the people who are his most frequent and loudest critics are the people most partisan and ideological and thus, in my opinion, the least worthy of my attention. Their realities are as subjectively biased as the conservative hacks they hate. In fact, a lot of them aren't shy about admiring the GOP's ruthlessness.

Dios seems to me to be moderate right and pretty much no more or no less biased than most people with strong feelings about politics. It seems to me like some people that are dios's critics must hardly ever talk to a conservative in the real world—we're blind to our own bias, but the bias of people on the other side of the spectrum is glaring and universal. I don't think we're that much different. And my point is that dios seems to me to be about what you might expect from an earnest, intelligent, informed moderate conservative who likes to hang out at a liberal/progressive forum and argue with people. Yeah, he's biased. He starts from a lot of assumptions we don't or that we take the opposite. This is how it works. This is what real people do, and it's what real people, who are even nice people, do. It's what we do, though we don't recognize it, mostly. Because people can see dios's bias so clearly, but also his intelligence, then they jump to paranoid conclusions about dios as some Machiavellian schemer. That's overestimating him and underestimating an average person's ability to believe things that a large group of people simply can't accept that he might be believing in good faith. That's why the Colbert thing that's posted in the blue. Colbert really doesn't say anything that out-of-bounds for the real-life persona he's playing. That's sort of the beauty of it. The real satire in it is that from a certain viewpoint, it's not recognizable as satire. That, to me, implies a much greater grasp of how the opposition thinks than most of us have.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:17 AM on May 25, 2006

This isn't rotten.com?
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:21 AM on May 25, 2006

I agree with everything EB wrote, save one clarification: dios has not explicitly mentioned his own politics here, and the popular perception of his politics is likely wrong. Go ahead and ask him; you might be surprised.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:25 AM on May 25, 2006

You know who also had friends? Just sayin'. More to the point, I have friends as well whom others can't stand, and I'm not entirely sure why (with others, I'm pretty sure it's because they're obnoxious pricks to others. Go figure.). It's a shame that the rest of the world will never see their inner beauty or whatever you want to call it, but I certainly don't take it upon myself to become their life-long advocate. It's just the way things are. And I was trying to be explicit in saying that the "stfu, eat cock" crowd are the ones who cause the most trouble, but Matt thinks this place is fine with them (indeed, many of them are "regulars," if not outright "mefi celebs.")

So maybe someday I'll start my own fucking community web-log, but until then I'll call it like I see it. To quote Hannibal Lecter, "Toughened your nipples, didn't it?" Why yes, yes it did.
posted by bardic at 8:28 AM on May 25, 2006

yeah he has. he claims he's culturally liberal/fiscally conservative or something. it's worth mentioning, though, that he doesn't have to explicitly mention his political leaning. his position on various issues does that for him.
posted by shmegegge at 8:29 AM on May 25, 2006

Once again, a MetaTalk thread about an unrelated subject becomes a referendum on dios. Incredible.
posted by brain_drain at 8:31 AM on May 25, 2006

oh, and he's a constitutional strict constructionist, iirc.
posted by shmegegge at 8:32 AM on May 25, 2006

"dios has not explicitly mentioned his own politics here, and the popular perception of his politics is likely wrong. Go ahead and ask him; you might be surprised."

Yeah, he's said both publicy and privately that he's not a conservative. But I think he's to the right of me and I'm pretty accurately described as "culturally liberal and fiscally conservative". But I should allow that his true positions are as hard to linearly quantify as mine are. I will self-describe as a "moderate" but, in fact, probably a majority of my positions on particular issues are not "moderate". This is especially relevant in the context of the frequent complaint against "moderates" exemplified by the "you get one-quarter of the cake and he gets three-quarters" parable—the common assumption is that anyone who self-identifies as a "moderate" or who other people categorize as a "moderate" is a split-the-difference kind of moderate. I'm not. It's just that my politics simply don't fit on these two dimensions. And I'll self-identify as a "moderate" because although it's misleading, it's in some important ways less misleading than the conventional alternatives.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:37 AM on May 25, 2006

I know I've said this before, but it's possible to think that someone is an annoying douchebag irrespective of their political leanings. Fancy that!
posted by ludwig_van at 8:38 AM on May 25, 2006

Remember the dios/Rothko time-out vote-a-thon?

Isn't it cool how that diffused the issues with these members, and there have been no further incidents?

It is easy to get people to respond dramatically to you, if that is what you want. It is something that you have to do yourself. We're all just nyms here, no one else can make you notorious.

And that cult-of-personality stuff kills web forums, whether the personality is well-liked or not. When the conversation gets that reactionary dynamic going, it kills threads dead.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:41 AM on May 25, 2006

dios has not explicitly mentioned his own politics here, and the popular perception of his politics is likely wrong. Go ahead and ask him; you might be surprised.

Sure he has. He's a libertarian authoritarian.

I will cheerfully agree that the exact example used to illustrate his position might be surprising to some.
posted by Drastic at 9:03 AM on May 25, 2006

Oh, I agree that dios has discussed aspects of his philosophical and political outlook here before, but that doesn't tell us very much when the central organizing principle of political debate on MetaFilter seems to center on whether or not you voted for and support President Bush. It is dios' answer to that question that I think you might find surprising.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:13 AM on May 25, 2006

well, I know that for $5, insomnia_lj will be back with a new name. If he can resist the irresistable urge to bang his usual drum, he'll still manage to remain a part of Metafilter.

Won't happen. For insomnia being anonymous is the same as being banned.
posted by justgary at 9:26 AM on May 25, 2006

It's possible to think that someone is an annoying douchebag irrespective of their political leanings. Fancy that!
posted by ludwig_van at 11:38 AM EST on May 25

This cannot be repeated enough.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:42 AM on May 25, 2006

dios has not explicitly mentioned his own politics here, and the popular perception of his politics is likely wrong. Go ahead and ask him; you might be surprised.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:25 AM PST on May 25

Hahaha yeah, I guess "surprised" is one word you could use.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:58 AM on May 25, 2006

Optimus Chyme, dios states he's talking about a ruling philosophically. He asserts he's a "libertarian authoritarian" which I gather means he follows the rule of law whichever way that goes. It was a silly thing of him to talk about the 5 year old -- I think this quote has been pulled up before in an attempt to castigate dios -- but it was all meant to be philosophical about legal principles.

Yeah, he should probably not say things one might hear at a pub after the 8th beer, but it was just hyperbole as far as I can see. No doubt there are those here including yourself who will not move on and just see this as lasting evidence of some greatly malformed character. It really isn't ya know.

What I'm saying is: I don't really see any political beliefs espoused in the link you've put up.
posted by peacay at 11:48 AM on May 25, 2006

Pretty much everyone who's played the role of "centrist contrarian" around here has done a better & more honest job of it than dios – even in the face of Bligh and monju's protestations on his behalf I have a lot of trouble believing it just on the basis of his previous interactions in the community.

I actually buy ParisParamus' moderate bona-fides more than I do dios' – PP has some rightish views, some leftish ones, and is very, very hawkish, and he's come out and said so. He's usually pretty honest about his viewpoints.

Whatever happened to thedevildancedlightly? Remember him? He was really good at that role.
posted by furiousthought at 11:53 AM on May 25, 2006

Optimus Chyme...CHECK
posted by Dreamghost at 11:57 AM on May 25, 2006

Speaking of ParisParamus - too bad he got banned, eh?
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:00 PM on May 25, 2006

I sooooo love Matt right now. In a manly, heterosexual way.
posted by LarryC at 12:03 PM on May 25, 2006

What I'm saying is: I don't really see any political beliefs espoused in the link you've put up.

I find that an odd statement--it's a deliberately obscenely hyperbolic (a cynic might say "attention seeking") example that clearly delineates a political philosophy. The "no political beliefs" bit does clarify monju's stance a lot more for me--people really do receive "political beliefs" as being vastly different from "political philosophy," don't they? So, point taken.
posted by Drastic at 12:04 PM on May 25, 2006

And others confuse legal philosophy with political philosophy or beliefs. Go figure.
posted by peacay at 12:10 PM on May 25, 2006

diosfilter.com is available, you know.
posted by jack_mo at 12:12 PM on May 25, 2006

When a legal philosophy is attendant on being directly derived from the political authority of a democratic majority's decision (on purple shirts or whatever matter), go figure indeed.
posted by Drastic at 12:17 PM on May 25, 2006

Wow, Paris got banned?

In that case, I got a opening on my contact list, if anyone's interested. Apply early, apply often!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:17 PM on May 25, 2006

What did he get banned for?
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:37 PM on May 25, 2006

Yeah, what's that all about? I see he commented this month.

Was that just some impenetrable smart-aleckness, or is PP gone?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:42 PM on May 25, 2006

...too bad he got banned, eh?

You really are a one trick pony.
posted by prostyle at 12:49 PM on May 25, 2006

Optimus Chyme...CHECK
posted by Dreamghost at 11:57 AM PST on May 25

Originally in the post I was going to write "p.s. yo dreamghost add me to da list" but I deleted it because I knew you would anyway.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:50 PM on May 25, 2006

Oh, wait no... two - click the previous sentence for more information!
posted by prostyle at 12:50 PM on May 25, 2006

Dreamghost, it only works if you keep a hate-list in your user profile. Duh!
posted by bardic at 12:53 PM on May 25, 2006

And ParisParamus did say he might be going to Iraq. Seriously. I mean, I think he's full of shit, but hey--there's a lot we don't know about each other IRL, apparently. (Not in the mood to look it up right now though.)
posted by bardic at 12:54 PM on May 25, 2006

And of course it's a "hate-list" and not an "extremely-predictable-reactionary" list. Because dreamghost isn't pointing out shockingly consistent behavior, he's hatin'!
posted by cortex at 12:55 PM on May 25, 2006

Six of one, half-a-dozen etc. I just feel left out that I'm not on anyone's precious list these days. It's lonely at the bottom.
posted by bardic at 1:02 PM on May 25, 2006

Well yes, cortex. Considering I know none of the users that I have been grouped with, have never met them personally, nor associate with them anywhere on the internet, it is pretty much horse shit. But hey, we all know how well keeping lists works... following in the footsteps of greatness, I suppose. The fact that you would agree with such a summation of users and equation of said group to an "echo chamber" of "reactionaries" is incredibly disappointing and downright insulting to all of our time spent here, including yours.
posted by prostyle at 1:04 PM on May 25, 2006

omg cortex you troll, you know how sensitive these people are
posted by thirteenkiller at 1:14 PM on May 25, 2006

Um. I have made essentially the same list as dreamghost, in a previous thread, independent. There's no conspiracy or network here, on either side—it is simply an observable fact that several users react negatively with great predicatability to the subject/persona/mention of dios in Metatalk threads.

That doesn't imply that you and bardic and OC and matteo et al are some scheming, best-buds vanguard of the Anti-Dios Front. It also doesn't imply that Dreamghost and I and monju get together for meetings at the secret Dios Defense Squad HQ.

I make no effort to keep lists. I don't consider list-keeping a useful part of my time spent here. And yet I have managed to acquire a short list of users who come out against dios at seemingly every opportunity. The implication is that it happens so much I can't help but notice.

I read Metatalk pretty regularly. "Thoroughly" might be a good word. There are observable trends.
posted by cortex at 1:18 PM on May 25, 2006

Cortex, I wouldn't have a problem with dios if he would quit acting like the fashion police. Some of us look good in purple.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:26 PM on May 25, 2006

I have no horse in the chroma race—do as you will.
posted by cortex at 1:27 PM on May 25, 2006

...it is simply an observable fact that several users react negatively with great predicatability to the subject/persona/mention of dios in Metatalk threads.

You've also made it very clear that any ensuing static is due to this influx of said greatly predictable behavior, and has nothing to do with dios himself. Amazing. I'm sure if we all disappeared tomorrow, nobody would take "our places" in "your list". Peace would spread across the land and rational discourse would spring forth wherever dios was generous enough to flutter down and land, softly like a newborn butterfly, gracing us with his divine presence.
posted by prostyle at 1:34 PM on May 25, 2006

My list is just those members of MeFi that I'd totally go gay for...
posted by klangklangston at 1:38 PM on May 25, 2006

Oh, and the Jews. I wouldn't be a German if I didn't keep a list of the Jews.
posted by klangklangston at 1:38 PM on May 25, 2006

You've also made it very clear...

prostyle, I don't think I made that clear at all. I find the kneejerk reactions to dios obnoxious, surely, but I don't pretend that he is a perfect, misunderstood angel. If you can point out where I conveyed that, though, please do; it's not something I was aiming for.

And it's absurd to suggest that I would think no one would give dios shit if "your places" became vacant—unless you think I believe that the current collection, which I have explicitly stated I do not believe is an organized group, nonetheless came into being simultaneously and inorganically.

People react to other people's reactions to dios. So the cycle continues and worsens. Bitching at and about dios has become abstract sport.

People react to dios-the-user as if he were dios-the-mythos. That is irresponsible static that is increasingly unrelated to anything dios himself does, and so, yes, in that respect what I find obnoxious has little-to-nothing to do with dios. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it obnoxious.
posted by cortex at 2:04 PM on May 25, 2006

(All of that aside from the fact that this list that has presented itself is not the lens through which I peer at you, or bardic, or matteo, or OC—each one of you is just this individual on mefi with various habits and inclinations, and every one of you has made me laugh at some point in some other context. I do seperate what I see as this particularly brand of obnoxiousness from my overall picture of you, and try to treat you on your merits situation-by-situation. That's why it's not a goddam hate-list; it's just an observation that's hard not to make after a while.)
posted by cortex at 2:16 PM on May 25, 2006

I find the kneejerk reactions to dios obnoxious, surely, but I don't pretend that he is a perfect, misunderstood angel. If you can point out where I conveyed that, though, please do.

While you certainly did not convey anything in particular about his character in this instance, you have made comments of an absolving nature in the past, as well as in this thread:

One can step around a derail—and folks should, more often—and thus spirit the derail off into obselecence in a few consecutive instances of self-control.

While I agree with you in theory (as stated earlier) in practice this is non-functional. It's like riding in a car with a kid in the back seat incessantly screaming. Sure, you could spirit the annoyance off into obsolesence by exhibiting a ridiculous degree of self control, or you could just correct the childs irresponsible and ridiculous behavior. Which seems more logical? I suppose that is our only deviation in practice, as I agree with you all around in most circumstances.

The list... I could care less about the list, and the semantics surrounding it's inception in whoevers mind. It's a pittance compared to the idea that our lack of self control creates these circumstances. That is not to say I don't find it annoying, or predictable, or ridiculous - it is usually all of the above. I just like to kill troubling plants at the roots, and not spend an entire summer trimming away or raking up their problematic attributes - as comical as I may be hovering on a ladder with a polesaw.
posted by prostyle at 2:29 PM on May 25, 2006

Sure, you could spirit the annoyance off into obsolesence by exhibiting a ridiculous degree of self control, or you could just correct the childs irresponsible and ridiculous behavior. Which seems more logical?

I think that analogy is lacking—the behavior that bugs me is more like another kid in the backseat of that car who, whenever the kid in question opens his mouth, and regardless of what the kids says, intones, "oh, great, the screamer's screaming again. What a fuckin' screamer. Scream it up, scream boy!" etc.

When you decide that all this kid does is scream—indeed, his name is a byword for screaming, and he needn't even be in the car for you to note that, were he here, he would no doubt be screaming, and so on—that's where the idea that you're "correcting" someone's "irresponsible and ridiculous behavior" skids right off the road. And that's what I see going on—not some reasoned, justified discipline, but petty grudgery not tied to the action that set it off.

But I'm battling analogies with analogies. I agree with you, there's a lot of hair-splitting here, and I do find you agreeable much of the time as well. That is pretty much my point—if I find you (and a few others) to be oddly unreasonable/obnoxios regarding the dios mythos despite my general respect for you, doesn't that suggest I'm reacting to specific conspicuous behavior rather than some blind indictment of your character and capacity? (Or, of course, that I am somehow blindly devoted to dios—which I will plaintively deny, but that won't do much good if you actually believe it, I guess.)
posted by cortex at 2:45 PM on May 25, 2006

I think that analogy is lacking

This is true.

the behavior that bugs me is more like another kid in the backseat of that car who, whenever the kid in question opens his mouth, and regardless of what the kids says, intones, "oh, great, the screamer's screaming again. What a fuckin' screamer. Scream it up, scream boy!" etc.

I totally agree. Dios has made many fine points and wonderfully insightful comments for as long as I've been here to witness them. Under those circumstances, I also find it outrageous to see him being called out and heckled for no apparent reason other than his presence. There have been a few times where I even have gone as far as to e-mail him a supportive missive, in shock at the way he was being misperceived.

When you decide that all this kid does is scream—indeed, his name is a byword for screaming, and he needn't even be in the car for you to note that, were he here, he would no doubt be screaming, and so on—that's where the idea that you're "correcting" someone's "irresponsible and ridiculous behavior" skids right off the road. And that's what I see going on—not some reasoned, justified discipline, but petty grudgery not tied to the action that set it off.

Well, I'd see that specific example as being more analogous to situations where dios is called out preemptively. I also find that behavior despicable and disingenuous. First and foremost, you just can't assume that much about someone and formulate a message around that assumption while retaining a shred of integrity. Second, it's just flat out rude and disrespectful and adds to the referenced 'mythos' or obsession with character assassination.

I try to avoid those situations as much as possible, and as far as I recall I have never instigated one.

That is pretty much my point—if I find you (and a few others) to be oddly unreasonable/obnoxios regarding the dios mythos despite my general respect for you, doesn't that suggest I'm reacting to specific conspicuous behavior rather than some blind indictment of your character and capacity?

You may very well be responding to the behavior you and I both find deplorable, and I have nothing but respect for that. I just find this series of judgements inapplicable in a situation where he has made an undeniable derail throughout multiple abrasive comments.

(Or, of course, that I am somehow blindly devoted to dios—which I will plaintively deny, but that won't do much good if you actually believe it, I guess.)

I do not believe such a thing and hope I have not implied it anywhere a long the line. I hate being generalized and sequenced into ideological compartments as much as the next person, so I try to avoid doing that to others as much as possible. Thanks for your insight.
posted by prostyle at 3:50 PM on May 25, 2006

funny how all of you completely know and understand why we say what we do about dios, and behave the way we do--really funny. In MetaTalk alone he's been a castigating and hectoring voice since he joined. In the blue towards those he dislikes, he's been much worse.

Also funny is that we're knocked for not wanting to continue to see our friends picked off one by one by a person who kept a shitlist--while you guys defending your own friend is amply in evidence here as well and doesn't prevent you from knocking us for doing much the same. Very funny.
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on May 25, 2006

You have serious issues, amberglow. Drop the persecution complex, it makes you look like a whiny bitch. And now I see you've picked sides and friends and everything. Nice. Shouldn't you be out picketing or marching or something?
posted by puke & cry at 4:52 PM on May 25, 2006

I don't completely know and understand why you or anyone else says what they do about dios. I have suspicions, and I've stated some of them—fundamentally, I think it's easy to pick up on a mythos and run with it, and easy to build a grudge out of that—but that's as far as I take it, and I'm not condemning anyone for it any more than I'm willing to condemn dios on the otherside. I've been talking about observed behavior, mostly, and I've observed a lot of reactions that don't seem in proportion to dios' behavior.

I don't think I'm precisely "friends" with dios. I'm friendly with him—we chat occasionally, he's a decent guy with a good sense of humor—but I've never met him in person and we don't have any shared history to fall back on. I've argued with him about his behavior and his own reactions to the shit he gets here, and the shit he sometimes stirs. We have actual conversations about it, and though he sometimes seems upset by the conflicts here, he is very accepting of reasonable and civil criticism of his own behavior.

If someone other than dios had been the one to call out insomnia_lj's corpse spamming, would dios still have been responsible? Would Matt have been less annoyed at insomnia_lj? Is dios the only person who could possibly have posted this callout? If the ban had happened without a callout, would that still have been an indictment? Does it matter to you at all that dios didn't mention banning, or do any shit-stirring in this thread?

You complain about his hectoring and castigation, but you yourself are dropping a comment dripping with sweeping condescension and dismissiveness. If you really want to pick sides and make it an Us vs. Them issue, you're welcome to—I'm mostly sick to death with that sort of shit.
posted by cortex at 4:57 PM on May 25, 2006

funny how all of you completely know and understand why we say what we do about dios

Wow, if there's one thing I love about dios threads, it's how fucking surreal and hilarious they get.

It's all dios dios dios dios dios dios MUSHROOM! MUSHROOM! dios dios dios dios" in here.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:59 PM on May 25, 2006

Dios has rocked for a long, long time,
Now it's time for him to pass the torch.
He has songs of wildebeasts and angels,
He has soared on the wings of a demon.

It's time to pass the torch,
You're too old to rock, no more rockin' for you.
We're takin' you to a home,
But we will sing a song about you.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:01 PM on May 25, 2006

I begin to understand what the tighty righties mean when they use the epithet 'moonbat'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on May 25, 2006

Er, I refer to this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:10 PM on May 25, 2006

... it makes you look like a whiny bitch. ...

Nice. Very nice.

If you really want to pick sides and make it an Us vs. Them issue, you're welcome to—I'm mostly sick to death with that sort of shit.
You guys are the ones who made it us vs. them by ascribing motives and reasons for why we say what we did. You guys are the ones pontificating on a "mythos" and stuff. If you're sick to death of that sort of thing, you shouldn't actually start that sort of thing.
posted by amberglow at 5:20 PM on May 25, 2006

You guys are the ones who made it us vs. them

Stop with the "You guys are the ones". This isn't a playground and we don't have to punch each other.
posted by yerfatma at 5:27 PM on May 25, 2006

*punches yerfatma*
posted by justgary at 5:30 PM on May 25, 2006

"... it makes you look like a whiny bitch. ..."

Let's be realistic here. You're all whiny bitches.
posted by graventy at 5:32 PM on May 25, 2006

You guys are the ones who made it us vs. them by ascribing motives and reasons for why we say what we did.

I speak for myself. It's not "you guys", and that's important. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone else agrees with my beliefs. I haven't consulted anyone on this. I'm not conspiring, I'm not on a team, and I don't agree with everything said by the folks who aren't attacking dios. I think puke & cry's comment there was shitty baiting that's no better than the shit being flung at dios.

And if I'm completely wrong—if you're reacting at all times to the contemporary substance of dios' statements and not to any sort of grudge you have toward him—then I so stand corrected. That just doesn't seem consistent with what I see going on around here.
posted by cortex at 5:36 PM on May 25, 2006

I speak for myself. ...
And so did i, and others who spoke of dios. It's hard to understand why that occasioned the speeches here of mythos and persona and motives, and the attacks on those of us who dislike what was done, especially when it's sparked by the person who is killing metafilter, yet somehow is still around as others fall by the wayside permanently.

Teams were formed with the first attacks on some of us here--as if we have motives that need pontificating on, but dios doesn't. bullshit--utterly.
posted by amberglow at 6:03 PM on May 25, 2006

I'm on your team cortex ;-) Regardless of what dios has or hasn't done, folk definitely shit on him when he's minding his own business. Either you're all competing in a seagull impersonation contest, or something nasty is going on. (And, since it may not be obvious, I'm not a friend of dios', nor do I share his politics, as far as I can tell.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:06 PM on May 25, 2006

I wish I could harvest the energy that's continuously invested in these vacuous arguments about Dios...

I'd be bigger than Enron.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:18 PM on May 25, 2006

It's hard to understand why that occasioned the speeches here of mythos and persona and motives

Because it comes up a lot, and because I have an opinion on it. What I see, when I watch various individuals reacting to the presence or even mention of dios, makes me think there is some inconsistency between what they're saying and what is happening.

You have a long-standing dislike for dios, one that (or so it appears to me) you wouldn't dream of setting by the wayside, so deep is your contempt for him—and you're wondering why I think there's a mythos, a persona, involved?

People who have apparently never had a conversation with him, who came along well after the bad old glory days when dios was At His Worst, nonetheless glom onto the "dios bad!" bandwagon—because, well, it's the bandwagon. Vibrating brooms, mushroom jokes, dios = bad; it's memetic. There is an understanding that dios is to be distrusted and rebuked that apparently extends well beyond personal entanglements such as you presumably have had with him. That's mythos, that's persona.

It's not exclusive to dios, of course—I'm sure you get some shit that's more related to folks' conception of amberglow-as-persona than what you say in any given situation, and so do any number of other high-visibility figures, for better or worse. But dios is the flagship, dios is the name on the lips of the seemingly largest and most vocal ad hoc group of lazy grousers on the site.
posted by cortex at 6:23 PM on May 25, 2006

In this thread that is not at all in evidence--in fact, the opposite is true. There is no bandwagon of people jumping in to trash dios, but there is a bandwagon of people jumping in to trash those, and pontificate on those, who dislike dios.

I have a long-standing dislike for dios primarily because of actions--his many personal attacks and insults against me and others, as well as his incessant castigating of the site and of members of the site here in the gray, and his attacks and derails on those (and their posts) who he disagrees with. It's not mythos nor persona, but actions. Actions that have gotten many banned, but not dios. Actions that were described as killing metafilter, which apparently is not at all as bad as posting a picture inside a thread. Actions that continue with the very posting and existence of this thread.
posted by amberglow at 6:43 PM on May 25, 2006

The specific action cited as "killing metafilter", in the mathowie comment you linked, was that of reacting to and even pre-emptively calling out a username independent of the actual substance of the discussion. Which is something that folks have famously done to dios. Where are you going with that?

You want dios banned? Clear as rainwater. You don't like that people whose behavior dios dislikes ever end up banned? Also clear. Where the two meet is seeming awfully muddy to me.

The sum total of dios' actions in this thread was to complain about an act of pure, unchecked jackassery on insomnia_lj's part. You think dios was just gunning for insomnia_lj, from what I can tell; I think a whole lot of people were bothered by the inline posting of a picture of a dead child. We disagree, I guess, but you haven't responded to any of the questions I asked above.

Matt was completely fed up with insomnia_lj, the latter got banned, and dios' callout here seems largely immaterial to that. Indeed, he could have refrained—story of Metatalk's life—and if he had there's a reasonable chance someone else would have posted instead. There's a chance that no one would have posted. I'm sure the offending comment got flagged to hell and back, and mathowie was likely to be goddam pissed—so what, exactly, is the great big deal about this thread that qualifies it as a continuation of dios' single-handed killing of metafilter?
posted by cortex at 7:06 PM on May 25, 2006

You can not justify the treatment Dios recieved in this thread. And this is far from the first time the people i listed on my roll call have pounced on him for no valid reason. Get over your fucking petty grudges. Mathowie is not buying it, I'm not buying it and Most people on this site are not buying it. Your all looking very foolish.
posted by Dreamghost at 7:23 PM on May 25, 2006

...this is far from the first time the people i listed on my roll call have pounced on him for no valid reason

Well, the interesting thing that you seemed to have glossed over was the massive derail he created in the very thread he references.

If he would have just taken his issue with the Tags to the grey, airing it in the correct channel (as he very well knows he should) I would have found nothing curious about the situation we have found ourselves in. My interest is as simple as that, so you can quit ascribing all of these malicious attributes to me and grouping me with other users, because it is way too convenient for you.
posted by prostyle at 7:29 PM on May 25, 2006

To be fair to amberglow—in a manner of speaking—it's not that he's a crazy person about dios, it's that he's a crazy person in a general way in which this dios stuff is an example. There's a whole bunch of times I love amberglow, and I think he's a good guy that means well, but his judgment about what and who he thinks of as his generic "enemies" is piss-poor. Really, really bad. He's paranoid, hypocritical, and simple-minded. I don't know why he's like this, he just is. He's very much like some of the right-wing folks he hates and fears so much. The enemy is portrayed as a caricature but in total sincerity. Hillary is a plotting murderer. Dios is a plotting destroyer of MetaFilter. This is how some, or many, people think. It's sad.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:35 PM on May 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

That'd be the very thread with the picture of the dead kid, right? He's glossing over the issue ancillary to the actual thread we're in right now?
posted by cortex at 7:41 PM on May 25, 2006

I'm adding cortex to the list I keep in my heart.
Seriously, well said, man.

This, in my opinion, is what is killing metafilter: people making comments directed at other personalities instead of the post topic or issues surrounding it.
-Mathowie

Why did this thread turn into another diosFest?
Because a completely justified call-out had his name at the bottom of it, and instead of people making comments about the post topic or issues surrounding it, they instead directed it at other personalities.

Thanks for the linking to that quote, amberglow. It was quite helpful.

And remember: Tomorrow is a brand new day.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:44 PM on May 25, 2006

If your mad at dios for derailing that thread? How are you any better then him for derailing this thread?

An eye for a eye, aye

I want no part of that....
posted by Dreamghost at 7:48 PM on May 25, 2006

No, I'm not angry, I didn't ascribe any behaviors to him or say he was "killing metafilter". I simply found it to be interesting considering the content of the thread and his participation in it. That. Is. All. It wasn't worth another MeTa, mathowie took action here within a dozen comments, and that was that. There really wasn't anything left to "derail" here, in particular. I did not press the issue directly, I merely continued to comment on the themes of behavior being ascribed to various users after I was called out by yourself, Dreamghost. I thought I had a very cogent and reasoned conversation with cortex, among others - something I would barely consider a negative experience. We're all to blame for the derail here, if that's what you're hung up on. Don't play coy, Keeper Of The List!
posted by prostyle at 8:03 PM on May 25, 2006

our friends picked off one by one by a person who kept a shitlist

Get help.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:30 PM on May 25, 2006

You all understand dios got what he wanted and stopped reading this thread, like, 36 hours ago, right?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:36 PM on May 25, 2006

Krrrlson, keeping the scene alive in 1 + '05.
posted by rob paxon at 8:39 PM on May 25, 2006

EB: you're mistaken and insulting to boot. I explained why i dislike him. Go put words and thoughts and motives into your own mouth. Maybe spend a little time on why you feel it necessary to be so insulting towards me? Am i your enemy? Have I or Do I ever speak of or about you this way? What is your problem? Seriously.

Because a completely justified call-out ...
It's not a completely justified call-out. What insomnia did needed to be flagged. If flagging caused no action (and there's no way it wouldn't have), then a metatalk post was justified. It's why we have flagging.
posted by amberglow at 8:56 PM on May 25, 2006

You all understand dios got what he wanted and stopped reading this thread, like, 36 hours ago, right?

And what would be so wrong with that? I seem to recall a meta thread where one of the people who was "picked off" by dios kept hounding languagehat for a response to a comment he made. Over, and over and over... Only to find out that languagehat had, you know, IRL life things to do wasn't keeping constant tabs on every thread he'd commented in. Guess who looked more the fool?

There was nothing egregious about calling for the removal of the image in question. He didn't suggest or even imply that insomnia_lj be banned. That was matt's call. Dios had every reason to believe that the usual suspects would show up with their usual hate (but, hey, at least they don't keep in on a list...) I consider knowing when you've said your piece as well as you are able and then staying out of the ensuing shitstorm a too rarely practiced virtue.

There's a whole bunch of times I love amberglow, and I think he's a good guy that means well, but his judgment about what and who he thinks of as his generic "enemies" is piss-poor. Really, really bad. He's paranoid, hypocritical, and simple-minded.

Man, I totally agree with you. The sad part is that amberglow will almost certainly focus on the later part of that comment, rather than understanding the often complicated affection expressed in the former.

With that being said...

There is no bandwagon of people jumping in to trash dios, but there is a bandwagon of people jumping in to trash those, and pontificate on those, who dislike dios.

The lack of self-awareness in that comment is stunning.
posted by Cyrano at 8:56 PM on May 25, 2006

posted by brownpau at 8:58 PM on May 25, 2006

My favorite part of the thread. The rich creamy sweet center filling where lulz images abound. ;)


posted by Dreamghost at 9:05 PM on May 25, 2006

posted by rollbiz at 9:14 PM on May 25, 2006

Your all looking very foolish.

Dreamghost, I have a serious question for you.

Do you understand the difference between "your" and "you're"? In ninety percent of the posts in which you use one or both of those words, you get it wrong. I've even seen posts of yours where you somehow manage to use both of them incorrectly. How is that possible? You're clearly fluent in English, but this habit of yours makes it crazy hard to ever take you seriously.

As for all the dios this, dios that stuff, it's pretty funny that there's a little crew all ready to defend him when he routinely calls out the entirety of MeFi as a bunch of idiots and only comments on posts that he doesn't like. It's also funny that you all call him insightful and brilliant and "the best poster in the universe" when we're talking about a man who is okay with child molestation as long as the legislature has declared it legal. Ostensibly this would go for any one of a thousand offenses against others - murder, rape, slavery. I am continually surprised that this is someone whose opinions you respect.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:41 PM on May 25, 2006

a little crew all ready to defend him

There's a distinction between defending someone and objecting to the shitty behavior of that someone's attackers. It is not a distinction without a difference, much as it may be ignored by folks hoping to rally forces against some imagined Dios Squad.

There are no teams. It's just people, individuals, staking out positions and treating each other with greater or lesser degrees of respect and civility and grace. The idea that "but he started it" or anything like that excuses incivility or disrespect or gracelessness is childish. Make an effort to be better than that, or stop whining when other people play at the same level.
posted by cortex at 10:19 PM on May 25, 2006

What's the context of that photo, dreamghost? I really like the swaggering "well, we fucked up in a colossal way that no one thought possible, so let's take a picture and go drink some beer" vibe from it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:29 PM on May 25, 2006

"Maybe spend a little time on why you feel it necessary to be so insulting towards me? Am i your enemy? Have I or Do I ever speak of or about you this way? What is your problem? Seriously."

No, and I feel bad about it. I like you. You're not my enemy, or I, yours (I hope). But I can't think of anyone else here, on the left, with more of a "these are my friends and these are my enemies" sensibility that forgives your friends everything and sees no virtue, ever, in your enemies. I think this sensibility is the dominant poison of the conservatives and I'm deeply conflicted about it when I encounter it people I consider allies and friends. I think that a lot of good, well-meaning people experience the world this way and that a lot of evil results from it. It makes me mad and sad.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:36 PM on May 25, 2006

It's also funny that you all call him insightful and brilliant and "the best poster in the universe" when we're talking about a man who is okay with child molestation as long as the legislature has declared it legal.

Are you really ready to claim that dios is the only person here who's ever exaggerated to make a point? Do you have that comment bookmarked so you can whip it out at a moments notice? (You know that "picked off" guy did.) I'd wager more that least a few of you do (or have at least memorized the search strings necessary to find it at a moments notice.)

Do you in fact. Really. Believe that dios is OK with child molestation? His point, which all that maybe a half-dozen people seemed to get, is that if you don't like the law, then you should change it (hint: attacking the favorite Bad Boy on a website isn't exactly the same as leading a civil rights march, and it isn't going to change things.)

Because if you do believe that, you're a fuckwit.

I have a lot of respect for XQUZYPHYR. I like his blog, and I know he's working to change things. Whenever matteo drives me up the fucking wall, I just remind myself that he's a Joe R. Landale fan, and then he becomes more human to me and I can get past the oft ridiculous vitriol he spews. I would bet everything I have that amberblow and I would vote the exact same way in any election you put in front of us. You. You make me feel slightly schizophrenic, because I so totally agree with you at times and then at other times I think you are so, so totally a prick.

And I'm fine with that. I don't require total agreement to every sliver of my worldview to like, or at least appreciate, someone.
posted by Cyrano at 11:03 PM on May 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

I would bet everything I have that amberblow

Totally unintended slip. I swear.

slinks off, slightly embarrassed.
posted by Cyrano at 11:13 PM on May 25, 2006

RIFF: (Spoken) Against the Sharks we need every man we got.
ACTION: (Spoken) Tony don't belong any more.
RIFF: Cut it, Action boy. I and Tony started the Jets.
ACTION: Well, he acts like he don't wanna belong.
BABY JOHN: Who wouldn't wanna belong to the Jets!
ACTION: Tony ain't been with us for over a month.
SNOWBOY: What about the day we clobbered the Emeralds?
A-RAB: Which we couldn't have done without Tony.
BABY JOHN: He saved my ever-lovin' neck!
RIFF: Right! He's always come through for us and he will now.
(sings)
When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.
When you're a Jet,
If the spit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man!
You're never alone,
You're never disconnected!
You're home with your own:
When company's expected,
You're well protected!
Then you are set
With a capital J,
Which you'll never forget
Till they cart you away.
When you're a Jet,
You stay a Jet!
posted by bardic at 11:21 PM on May 25, 2006

"Do you understand the difference between "your" and "you're"? In ninety percent of the posts in which you use one or both of those words, you get it wrong. I've even seen posts of yours where you somehow manage to use both of them incorrectly. How is that possible? You're clearly fluent in English, but this habit of yours makes it crazy hard to ever take you seriously."

If they made software to recognize the patterns of such statements, it'd be called DoucheFilter.
posted by rob paxon at 11:22 PM on May 25, 2006

Do you understand the difference between "your" and "you're"? In ninety percent of the posts in which you use one or both of those words, you get it wrong. I've even seen posts of yours where you somehow manage to use both of them incorrectly. How is that possible? You're clearly fluent in English, but this habit of yours makes it crazy hard to ever take you seriously.

I can improve my grammar. I doubt you can change your personality.
posted by Dreamghost at 11:29 PM on May 25, 2006

Pettyfilter.
posted by crunchland at 12:52 AM on May 26, 2006

I think dios should buy a sock-puppet to post callouts with. Because just seeing his name sets off such a damn firestorm that is not about the callout, and I am probably not the only one who finds this constant diosfilter nonsense tiresome. And I don't even read all of meta or anything - I'm sure there have been some lovely massive petty threads I've missed.
posted by beth at 3:22 AM on May 26, 2006

This is my favorite dios comment:

Is this general music made by Metafilter users? Or is this project about music about Metafilter made by Metafilter users? I'm not sure I would be inclined to purchase the former, because it would probably be a bunch of Creed knockoffs or some other alternative rock sound that I'm not interested in. If it is the latter, then I would be inclined to get one. Especially if there is an "Ode to dios" song on it. Ha!
posted by dios at 4:52 PM GMT on April 17 [+fave] [!]

"Creed knockoffs or some other alternative rock sound that I'm not interested in!" I love it.

I think part 2 of the compilation should consist entirely of songs about dios, entirely in the style of Creed. It would really reflect the zeitgeist around here.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:25 AM on May 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

There's a whole bunch of times I love amberglow, and I think he's a good guy that means well, but his judgment about what and who he thinks of as his generic "enemies" is piss-poor. Really, really bad. He's paranoid, hypocritical, and simple-minded.

Man, I totally agree with you. The sad part is that amberglow will almost certainly focus on the later part of that comment, rather than understanding the often complicated affection expressed in the former.

I agree too, and I too knew exactly how amberglow would react. Sad. This whole thread is sad, and should have been closed long ago. (And I say that as someone who generally dislikes closing threads.)
posted by languagehat at 6:53 AM on May 26, 2006

"Creed knockoffs or some other alternative rock sound that I'm not interested in!"

I am a little sad that no one submitted any swampy gut-shot blues—I agreed with him on that front (from another thread somewhere after that).
posted by cortex at 7:00 AM on May 26, 2006

But I can't think of anyone else here, on the left, with more of a "these are my friends and these are my enemies" sensibility that forgives your friends everything and sees no virtue, ever, in your enemies.
If you felt bad about it, you wouldn't state it the way you do. And, again, i'm not the one who has ever ever ever spoken of "enemies". Stop it. You continue to put word in my mouth and and paint me as someone i'm not.

I get shit like this weekly here, most of it completely unoccasioned: Spell it out for us, you fucking jackass.
I don't run here to the gray with each thing (and it comes from people in this very thread as well), even if it's from someone you think i see as an "enemy".

I question why this post was made here, even more so when it's from someone who only posts here to attack the site, and specific other members----that's a valid question. The poster of this thread has such delicate sensibilites that he can't flag something and move on? Bullshit. utterly.

If there are people i don't like because of their words and actions towards me, and when i speak of my dislike of them, and then get even more insults from other people, even you should be able to understand how that perpetuates things, since even you are doing it. Note i said "towards me", which is an important part of this--you and some others have ignored that to paint me as a political robot. Think what you will, and i'll think what i will about people who insult (me, as well as continual attacks on others) instead of speaking to each other as human beings.
posted by amberglow at 7:13 AM on May 26, 2006

The poster of this thread has such delicate sensibilites that he can't flag something and move on?

Moreover, he spent several comments in the original thread debating the merits of the tags.

Seriously, who cares? If you do care, you should take it to MetaTalk.

Dude is a derailer. Loves to talk about the merits of a post in the thread despite knowing better and having been asked on multiple occassions to take it to MT or flag worrisome posts.

But the rules are always for other people.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:28 AM on May 26, 2006

posted by darukaru at 10:55 AM on May 26, 2006

Dude is a derailer. Loves to talk about the merits of a post in the thread despite knowing better and having been asked on multiple occassions to take it to MT or flag worrisome posts.

But the rules are always for other people.

Word. It's not about his politics or his intentions but rather his obliviousness to the corner into which he has painted himself. He makes it personal, takes it I-I-I-I me-me-me personal and is a lightning rod as a result. Go figure. It's not rocket science.
posted by y2karl at 1:02 PM on May 26, 2006

"you and some others have ignored that to paint me as a political robot."


posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:54 PM on May 26, 2006

posted by rollbiz at 9:45 PM on May 26, 2006

posted by rollbiz at 9:47 PM on May 26, 2006

Seriously, this thread is fucked. Dios the mythos, dios the user, dios the monster under your bed...He isn't here, hasn't been for awhile. As usual, it's a lot of people shouting back and forth about his merits and demerits. Which I truly think he enjoys.
posted by rollbiz at 9:52 PM on May 26, 2006

...I hate to see longterm members permanently banned unless they are really destructive or malevolent. I wouldn't use those adjectives for him.

If opinions matter, I would vote for an extended timeout rather than a permaban. On the other hand, if annoying and tasteless is bannable, I have several other nominations.

I too agree with juju.
posted by homunculus at 10:43 PM on May 26, 2006

This whole thread is sad, and should have been closed long ago.

I dunno, I thought this was beautiful.
posted by homunculus at 10:47 PM on May 26, 2006