Did I miss a thread? June 5, 2006 5:36 AM Subscribe
Was there a "Bush expresses regret for 'Bring it on!' " thread, and I missed it? apolgies if this should've been asked in AskMeFi instead
I agree that it would probably wind up being the MeFi equivalent of a food fight -- those sorts of threads do, all too often. In fact, I had wondered if the thread started, went completely nonlinear, and jessamyn or mathowie adminstered a mercy killing!
Anyway, thanks for pretty much confirming my suspicion.
posted by pax digita at 5:49 AM on June 5, 2006
Anyway, thanks for pretty much confirming my suspicion.
posted by pax digita at 5:49 AM on June 5, 2006
I am going to eat your soul.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 AM on June 5, 2006
A little rosemary and garlic....mmmm, soul with fresh rosemary...some thinly sliced psyche for a garnish perhaps?
posted by pax digita at 6:04 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by pax digita at 6:04 AM on June 5, 2006
"Not that I saw. Why? It would be a terrible FPP."
Yep. But I can't resist...it uncharacteristically didn't appear because it's not anti-Bush newsfilter. Wouldn't it have been a glorious day (well, in some respect) had one of the usual suspects thought this important enough to bring to our attention? It's arguable that this admission has practical policy consequences and thus is important; it's also arguable that this admission is as important an insight as any other into the character of this President on whom so much has rests. Either way, if there is a justification for a post on "Bring it on", then there is a justification for a post on this (partial) retraction (or admission of error!).
I despised Bush and still despise him for that comment and, furthermore, in parsing his supposed admission of error I see a weaseling that is characteristic, the "mistakes were made" (not by him!) bullshit we get from him. But so? Does that make this post unimportant? Less worthy of attention? If I were one who felt called to show folks the True Path, would I be so full of hubris that I would filter what I present to them so as to not confuse them? Well, actually, were I that sort of person, that's exactly what I would do. And that's exactly what they've done, consciously or unconsciously. That's why they preach, and that's why they're preaching is an insult.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:33 AM on June 5, 2006
Yep. But I can't resist...it uncharacteristically didn't appear because it's not anti-Bush newsfilter. Wouldn't it have been a glorious day (well, in some respect) had one of the usual suspects thought this important enough to bring to our attention? It's arguable that this admission has practical policy consequences and thus is important; it's also arguable that this admission is as important an insight as any other into the character of this President on whom so much has rests. Either way, if there is a justification for a post on "Bring it on", then there is a justification for a post on this (partial) retraction (or admission of error!).
I despised Bush and still despise him for that comment and, furthermore, in parsing his supposed admission of error I see a weaseling that is characteristic, the "mistakes were made" (not by him!) bullshit we get from him. But so? Does that make this post unimportant? Less worthy of attention? If I were one who felt called to show folks the True Path, would I be so full of hubris that I would filter what I present to them so as to not confuse them? Well, actually, were I that sort of person, that's exactly what I would do. And that's exactly what they've done, consciously or unconsciously. That's why they preach, and that's why they're preaching is an insult.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:33 AM on June 5, 2006
it was Bush's smirking glance immediately after saying that that was the real news
posted by amberglow at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by amberglow at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2006
it uncharacteristically didn't appear because it's not anti-Bush newsfilter
Or maybe simply because it never happened.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:39 AM on June 5, 2006
Or maybe simply because it never happened.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:39 AM on June 5, 2006
it was Bush's smirking glance immediately after saying that that was the real news
posted by amberglow at 9:35 AM CST on June 5
Never fails.
posted by dios at 7:45 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by amberglow at 9:35 AM CST on June 5
Never fails.
posted by dios at 7:45 AM on June 5, 2006
Yep. But I can't resist...it uncharacteristically didn't appear because it's not anti-Bush newsfilter.
I certainly understand your point Ethereal_Bligh, but I can't say I agree with you on the importance of the retraction (or of the original statement). This would have been a bad post. It is obvious why this news didn't make the front page from a substance standpoint, but I even if it did, the post would be iffy from a newsfilter standpoint.
In reality, the original incident and this retraction are both news stories, but they shouldn't be Metafilter posts because it doesn't meet the essential criteria of what a good post should be. The only people that care about this minutia are people who are obsessed with politics. Such people are likely to blow everything out of proportion. And when that is the case, the signal to noise gets out of whack, and the arguments get pettier.
posted by dios at 7:53 AM on June 5, 2006
I certainly understand your point Ethereal_Bligh, but I can't say I agree with you on the importance of the retraction (or of the original statement). This would have been a bad post. It is obvious why this news didn't make the front page from a substance standpoint, but I even if it did, the post would be iffy from a newsfilter standpoint.
In reality, the original incident and this retraction are both news stories, but they shouldn't be Metafilter posts because it doesn't meet the essential criteria of what a good post should be. The only people that care about this minutia are people who are obsessed with politics. Such people are likely to blow everything out of proportion. And when that is the case, the signal to noise gets out of whack, and the arguments get pettier.
posted by dios at 7:53 AM on June 5, 2006
I'm with amberglow - too insincere, too little, too late. Now if Bush were to intercede and change direction on this disgrace, then I might consider it a meaningul apology and worthy of front page notice, perhaps. Until then, it's just more spin.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:38 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by madamjujujive at 8:38 AM on June 5, 2006
It's interesting to see republicans apologize for mistakes, and then see some liberals then bash them for apologizing. Or at least bash them when the apologize. for example.
posted by delmoi at 8:46 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by delmoi at 8:46 AM on June 5, 2006
The only people that care about this minutia are people who are obsessed with politics.
I agree. Posts that only interest a small group of readers don't make good FPPs.
posted by jlub at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2006
I agree. Posts that only interest a small group of readers don't make good FPPs.
posted by jlub at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2006
I agree. Posts that only interest a small group of readers don't make good FPPs.
The history of this particular line of argument in Metatalk is so long and varied that I can not decide whether or not jlub is being earnest.
posted by cortex at 9:33 AM on June 5, 2006
The history of this particular line of argument in Metatalk is so long and varied that I can not decide whether or not jlub is being earnest.
posted by cortex at 9:33 AM on June 5, 2006
i believe jlub might be referring to dios' series of boring law posts from a few months back.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:58 AM on June 5, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 11:58 AM on June 5, 2006
Posts that only interest a small group of readers don't make good FPPs.
Unless the reader is in that interest group, or has a point to make.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:04 PM on June 5, 2006
Unless the reader is in that interest group, or has a point to make.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:04 PM on June 5, 2006
Posts that only interest a small group of readers don't make good FPPs.
I completely disagree. Something can be a superb site and only interest a small group of readers; contrariwise, it should be obvious that large numbers of people will flock to even the most putrid Bushfilter stories. Some of the best posts in the history of MeFi have only attracted a few comments.
posted by languagehat at 12:30 PM on June 5, 2006
I completely disagree. Something can be a superb site and only interest a small group of readers; contrariwise, it should be obvious that large numbers of people will flock to even the most putrid Bushfilter stories. Some of the best posts in the history of MeFi have only attracted a few comments.
posted by languagehat at 12:30 PM on June 5, 2006
*retracts comment about how much this subject has been talked about, replaces it with picture of ceilingcat, exits*
posted by cortex at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2006
posted by cortex at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2006
There never was one. If there's one thing we never do around Metafilter, it's gloating over the failings of another.
posted by crunchland at 3:06 PM on June 5, 2006
posted by crunchland at 3:06 PM on June 5, 2006
If I were one who felt called to show folks the True Path, would I be so full of hubris that I would filter what I present to them so as to not confuse them? Well, actually, were I that sort of person, that's exactly what I would do. And that's exactly what they've done, consciously or unconsciously. That's why they preach, and that's why they're preaching is an insult.
But from here,
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.
posted by y2karl at 2:12 PM on June 6, 2006
But from here,
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.
posted by y2karl at 2:12 PM on June 6, 2006
Karl, maybe you should take up masturbation or something.
Oh, wait. That's what you're doing here. Never mind.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:56 PM on June 6, 2006
Oh, wait. That's what you're doing here. Never mind.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:56 PM on June 6, 2006
Projecting yet once again, creep in his parent's basement ?
posted by y2karl at 7:06 PM on June 6, 2006
posted by y2karl at 7:06 PM on June 6, 2006
Y2karl:
If EB is saying "people with different opinions than your own might not be evil, but just wrong", how does that conflict with "people avoid topics which refute their stated opinions"? How does saying both make one hypocritical? Is "avoiding a topic" itself a "different opinion"? This comes off as "you said you don't like apples, but there you are, eating an orange. Hypocrite!"
posted by Bugbread at 7:17 PM on June 6, 2006
If EB is saying "people with different opinions than your own might not be evil, but just wrong", how does that conflict with "people avoid topics which refute their stated opinions"? How does saying both make one hypocritical? Is "avoiding a topic" itself a "different opinion"? This comes off as "you said you don't like apples, but there you are, eating an orange. Hypocrite!"
posted by Bugbread at 7:17 PM on June 6, 2006
One comment preaches against the destructiveness of ascribing the worst on the part of other people while the other ascribes the worst on the part of other people.
posted by y2karl at 7:46 PM on June 6, 2006
posted by y2karl at 7:46 PM on June 6, 2006
Well, at any rate, I would rather not be unpleasant to and in front fo strangers online. And I should talk about projection. Plus I made a personal insult. Well, apologies for that EB. I regret the remark.
MetaFilter: Strangers deriding strangers since 1999.
posted by y2karl at 8:11 PM on June 6, 2006
MetaFilter: Strangers deriding strangers since 1999.
posted by y2karl at 8:11 PM on June 6, 2006
Actually, my research suggests that the deriding may not have really started in earnest until early 2000. The Dave Winer thread, for example.
posted by cortex at 6:04 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by cortex at 6:04 AM on June 7, 2006
y2karl writes "One comment preaches against the destructiveness of ascribing the worst on the part of other people while the other ascribes the worst on the part of other people."
Ok, yeah, you've got a point there.
posted by Bugbread at 7:56 AM on June 7, 2006
Ok, yeah, you've got a point there.
posted by Bugbread at 7:56 AM on June 7, 2006
One comment preaches against the destructiveness of the habit of "ascribing the worst on the part of other people" while the other ascribes the worst on the part of a particular group of people." There is nothing hypocritical about that.
Furthermore, what I preached against was the assumption of the worst motives of people against whom one is ideologically opposed or hostile which in no case, in this example or elsewhere, do I indulge. Am I ideologically opposed to the hectoring NewsFilter posters? Certainly not. I share their politics. What I don't agree with are their actions which contradict certain community norms and general standards of human behavior. A limited amount of psychoanalysis based upon an examination of their actions is common and appropriate where, in contrast, the hostile psychoanalysis of ideological oppononents on the basis of their ideologies is also common but very often inappropriate.
I was thinking earlier this morning about what it means to post to the MetaFilter's front page. The ethos of this community as I understand it, and certainly the version I find most useful and harmonious, is that of a person person passing along a "find" to other people who largely share their sensibilities. It's generous. The hectoring NewsFilter folks are not "sharing" in a generous sense, they're acting like doctors prescribing for us our daily medicine. Yes, such actions are ostensibly in the best interests of the group. But the difference between the friendly passing along of some cool and interesting website and the prescribing of the daily medicine is that the former is friendly and humble and egalitarian while the latter is patronizing, arrogrant, and authoritative. They're not giving us what we want so much as they're giving us what they think we need.
That's hubristic and I really fucking don't care how much y2karl hides behind his reluctance to be personal or anecdotal or his precious avoidance of the personal pronoun "I". That fact of the matter is that all those affections provide a cover behind which he can hijack the front page and and various threads with his preachy and intensely solipsistic worldview. He lives in his little bubble of his few Seattle friends, avoids meetups and otherwise entirely avoids taking any real-world responsibility for his net activities (this in the context of his patronizing hectoring is nothing but cowardly), and if anyone is critical of him in the tiniest sense, with anyone really meaning "anyone" and including people who think of themselves as his friends, he reacts with incredibly thin-skin, becomes petulant, and sulks and snarks for at least six weeks. And then in the end may be very slightly self-reflective and self-critical and will offer a sort of apology and be quescient for a while. But he never, ever changes.
I've changed. My comments are shorter and it's occured to me that stupid little grudge matches and contempt are soul-crippling. Not to mention repellent to others. Even so, I've finally written y2karl off because he's a broken record and far more trouble than he's worth. I could make nice with him today but that would only last until the day his thin-skin is scratched once again. Fuck it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2006
Furthermore, what I preached against was the assumption of the worst motives of people against whom one is ideologically opposed or hostile which in no case, in this example or elsewhere, do I indulge. Am I ideologically opposed to the hectoring NewsFilter posters? Certainly not. I share their politics. What I don't agree with are their actions which contradict certain community norms and general standards of human behavior. A limited amount of psychoanalysis based upon an examination of their actions is common and appropriate where, in contrast, the hostile psychoanalysis of ideological oppononents on the basis of their ideologies is also common but very often inappropriate.
I was thinking earlier this morning about what it means to post to the MetaFilter's front page. The ethos of this community as I understand it, and certainly the version I find most useful and harmonious, is that of a person person passing along a "find" to other people who largely share their sensibilities. It's generous. The hectoring NewsFilter folks are not "sharing" in a generous sense, they're acting like doctors prescribing for us our daily medicine. Yes, such actions are ostensibly in the best interests of the group. But the difference between the friendly passing along of some cool and interesting website and the prescribing of the daily medicine is that the former is friendly and humble and egalitarian while the latter is patronizing, arrogrant, and authoritative. They're not giving us what we want so much as they're giving us what they think we need.
That's hubristic and I really fucking don't care how much y2karl hides behind his reluctance to be personal or anecdotal or his precious avoidance of the personal pronoun "I". That fact of the matter is that all those affections provide a cover behind which he can hijack the front page and and various threads with his preachy and intensely solipsistic worldview. He lives in his little bubble of his few Seattle friends, avoids meetups and otherwise entirely avoids taking any real-world responsibility for his net activities (this in the context of his patronizing hectoring is nothing but cowardly), and if anyone is critical of him in the tiniest sense, with anyone really meaning "anyone" and including people who think of themselves as his friends, he reacts with incredibly thin-skin, becomes petulant, and sulks and snarks for at least six weeks. And then in the end may be very slightly self-reflective and self-critical and will offer a sort of apology and be quescient for a while. But he never, ever changes.
I've changed. My comments are shorter and it's occured to me that stupid little grudge matches and contempt are soul-crippling. Not to mention repellent to others. Even so, I've finally written y2karl off because he's a broken record and far more trouble than he's worth. I could make nice with him today but that would only last until the day his thin-skin is scratched once again. Fuck it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2006
^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz^
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
thanks, EB. but for you, i'd still be addicted to ambien.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:37 AM on June 7, 2006
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
thanks, EB. but for you, i'd still be addicted to ambien.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:37 AM on June 7, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by dobbs at 5:41 AM on June 5, 2006