Comments on 1208 | MetaTalk

I'm not worried about Aaron's feelings (well, actually I am, a little bit) so much as I am the newbie who gleans from this the idea that it's OK to call people fat fucks if you disagree with them.

[insert joke here about my being disappointed to learn I can't call people fat fucks]

Actually I think aaron's crack is more harmful than hincandenza's, if you're thinking about what a newbie would think. It had absolutely zero content, except to say he thought this discussion was crap. WTF? Basically he's just posting there so he can say he's smarter than everyone else who tried to contribute to the thread. It's remarkable that the thread is still going, and people are contributing. Hincandenza, on the other hand, simply sounded upset and admitted he was venting -- he didn't attack the entire premise of MeFi the way aaron did.

I get that aaron is old-guard, and at least some of you guys know him personally. And many of his contributions are sincere and valuable. But in this case he's really the one that brought the level down. Maybe hincandenza should take a break, but if you're going to ask him to, you at least have to talk to aaron about how he's using the site himself. Unless you want newbies to get the impression it's OK to piss on any thread and its participants just because you think you're smarter than them.
posted by mattpfeff at 7:07 AM on October 23, 2001

Just as an aside: it's THIS kind of link that originally drew me to Metafilter- quirky, often funny, something I wouldn't likely have ever stumbled across unless I read a hundred sites and blogs every day
(hincandenza)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:15 AM on October 23, 2001

Well, said, mattpfeff, but people get all self-referential about MeFi all the time, and it's a wee intellectual conceit, or a wank, or somewhere inbetween. Rabid, nasty, name-calling FUCKYOU talk is different.

I've described it elsewhere as the kind of thing that would incline me towards kicking the shit out of the person using that language, if they said it to my face. For what it's worth, I'm the kind of large, drug-addled, motorcycle-riding, take-no-shit person in meatspace, that that's exactly what I would do if the kind of words that hincandenza used in speaking to aaron (and note that I have great virtual-liking and respect for both of them) were used in speech to me on the street somewhere. I say it because people have said things like that to me before in bars and such in my long and spotted history, and I have indeed at times proceeded to use physical violence to persuade them of the error of their thinking...

For what it's worth.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:20 AM on October 23, 2001

I can only say this: Aaron's comment was a troll. However, that is how Aaron posts, pretty much.
But, you gotta figure, if hincendenza believes that stuff about Aaron, why would he actually WRITE it? That's just insanely mean. The guy really does need some time away, or at least to develop the ability to coexist with people who have belief systems diometrically opposed to his own.
posted by Doug at 7:29 AM on October 23, 2001

Actually I think aaron's crack is more harmful than hincandenza's, if you're thinking about what a newbie would think. It had absolutely zero content, except to say he thought this discussion was crap. WTF?

Point taken. But at least Aaron's comment can be refuted. How do you refute "fat fuck"?
posted by rodii at 8:11 AM on October 23, 2001

stavrostwc, rodii -- true. I don't mean to apologize for hincandenza (though I must say to me he sounded more upset and lacking in judgment than malicious or vindictive -- he could have been more hurftul by emailing aaron directly; and he was also almost apologetic in the paragraphs pre- and post-ceding his scurrilous vitriol).

In the end, though, no, I can't (and don't intend to) defend his remarks.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:29 AM on October 23, 2001

As a general rule, I think, if you use MeFi as a form of therapy, you should expect Matt to bill you at $100/hour.
posted by holgate at 9:37 AM on October 23, 2001

Surprising that the thread really didn't get all that derailed -- good use of metatalk: This is the way things are supposed to work. (Except for the meanness to Aaron thing. That was plainly hate speech.)
posted by sylloge at 9:52 AM on October 23, 2001

oh, stop with the hate speech. it was a mean remark and it was pointed directly to get under aaron's skin: a general remark about all fat/female/gay/black/whatever people everywhere is hate speech.

it's an important distinction because dressing up a hateful remark or personal attack with those words trivializes both hate speech and personal attacks, by diluting the meaning of the first term and diminishing the importance of the second event.

we don't need to make a personal attack into something more important than it is in order for it to be taken seriously; it's already plenty serious.

hincandenza was out of line, and I'd be in favor of a consequence as a result of that.

as for aaron, I've begun just ignoring him because he rarely has anything of substance to say. I've been thinking of him as the resident crank, but the truth is, his remark in that thread *is* a troll, and these days he spends *much* of his time here trolling. it's time that we called it what it is.

we put up with aaron because once upon a time he was one of the few conservative voices on the board, and he provided substantive discussion on a variety of topics. even if he were still the only conservative voice here (and he's not), that doesn't excuse his trolling, and I think it's time for the rest of us to stop excusing trolling just because we're used to the troll.

would anyone have an objection to hincandenza's remark if it were directed at (whoever that recurring troll is)? I don't think so.

I agree that remarks like hincandenza's are out of line and shouldn't be tolerated, but I also think that we need to either delete trolling posts or start having consequences for users--even long-standing users--who have begun recurrently trolling. a note of warning and then an enforced time out or eventually having posting privleges revoked entirely.

aaron's remark in this thread and many, many others is equally destructive to the tone and substance of the board as hincandenza's.

posted by rebeccablood at 11:22 AM on October 23, 2001

aaron's remark in this thread and many, many others is equally destructive to the tone and substance of the board as hincandenza's.

While I agree that Aaron's comment wasn't constructive, I have to disagree with the idea that they equally contribute to the degradation of Mefi.

There is no place for rabid personal attacks on Mefi. If someone said this shit to my face, I would pound them into a pancake. If someone said something like Aaron said, I'd draw them into a discussion.

Aaron's post was a snarky but it was not verbally violent.
posted by fooljay at 11:37 AM on October 23, 2001

There is no place for rabid personal attacks on Mefi. If someone said this shit to my face, I would pound them into a pancake. If someone said something like Aaron said, I'd draw them into a discussion.

That is, if aaron allowed himself to be drawn into discussion. One of the most frustrating things about his particular brand of baiting is that it is never followed up by rhetoric. The typical aaron comment is snarky and meant to inflame...But you will rarely ever see him get into a conversation or defend his views. It seems that calling others marginalized and laughing at their own views is to him a satisfactory way of defending his own constantly inflammatory comments.

But then, it doesn't seem as though he actually wishes to garner discussion with his posts. It seems like he just wishes to snarkily get under people's skin, for whatever reason. Maybe just because he can?
posted by dogmatic at 11:49 AM on October 23, 2001

fooljay: aaron's post was a troll. likely, if you were at a party with someone who walked around the room consistently making sniping remarks in all the conversations he joined, remarks designed either to draw the conversation off track or completely discount those engaged in the conversation, likely you'd either leave when he appeared, or just try to ignore him.

but the fact is, if this were consistent behavior on his part, you'd probably stop inviting him to your parties after a while, since his purpose there so often boiled down to disrupting the conversations people were having, or, at worst, inducing others to engage in the same behavior.

personal attacks should not be tolerated; it's equally important to the ecology of a discussion board that trolls not be tolerated either.

it's worth noting that hincandenza's remark wasn't out of the blue, it's in response to an ongoing series of disruptive and dismissive remarks by aaron. how can you be violent to an inanimate, non-corporeal thing like a discussion or a discussion board? trolling is one way, and though "violent" isn't the correct term to use, "destructive" is, and the effect is equivalent. certainly, most people would characterize consistent dismissive comments from a partner/parent/friend as emotionally abusive. hincandenza handled it badly; aaron's behavior is still inexcusable, and an escalating problem that also needs to be addressed.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:54 AM on October 23, 2001

> oh, stop with the hate speech.

Sorry: I was making a reference to this thread (scroll down to my google link) and simultaneously poking Aaron. I know it's not hate speech.

I do agree that a time-out/penalty box type arrangement might be good. Good for those who are bad.
posted by sylloge at 11:59 AM on October 23, 2001

From whatis:

troll

As used on the Internet:
1) As a verb, the practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully-designed incorrect statements or similar "bait." In a real example, a Usenet newsgroup contributor mentioned the discovery of an ancient African carving containing a list of prime numbers. The contributor further listed some of the prime numbers found and included some numbers that, in fact, are not prime numbers. Other contributors then sent serious replies, correcting the list of prime numbers cited.

That sounds like aaron. Snarkiness is trolling. And his snarky baiting to reasoned comment ratio is really, really skewed from what I've perceived.

hincandenza is not really a troll, but a personal nasty attack demon.

2 slightly different things and maybe they should be handled differently, but they are equally disruptive.
posted by dness2 at 12:25 PM on October 23, 2001

sylloge--

I got the hate speech joke :)
posted by dness2 at 12:27 PM on October 23, 2001

"aaron's behavior is still inexcusable, and an escalating problem that also needs to be addressed."

I disagree.

If we get rid of (or penalize) all of the members that are snarky, dismissive, or disruptive that means about a quarter of the posters here. It's not a party, and no one was invited. We all just showed up. And started talking all at once. The rules for face to face social interactions don't apply. In fact getting a cross section of MiFi members in the same place might be disaster. We don't just disagree, we *passionately* disagree.

I support the idea of steering both of the members in question back to something more civil, but I don't think we've reached anything approaching destructive. (YMMV)

So..... Address it? Okay, we did that. Aaron? Inexcusable? Not even close.

But hincandenza's comment is another matter. He deliberately tried to be as rude and mean as possible. He's clearly being an asshole on purpose.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:43 PM on October 23, 2001

it looks to me like aaron is being an asshole on purpose.

I don't think we've reached anything approaching destructive

you know, I do. I've been noticing for a while that a number of the right-leaning members here have adopted aaron's tactics, so I think he is having an effect. and if one of our concerns is the example posters set for new users, then trolling has to be up there with personal attacks.

I don't know about banning users, I doubt if matt would go for it, frankly. but perhaps he'd be willing to delete trolling posts (or allow others to do it based on a consensus vote).
posted by rebeccablood at 1:26 PM on October 23, 2001

I've been noticing for a while that a number of the right-leaning members here have adopted aaron's tactics...

Really? I thought it was the other way around. IMHO, he was a lot more civil and better-reasoned when he was the site's leading "token conservative". It seems to me that only after other right-wingers started getting away with being rude that aaron let his standards slip.
posted by harmful at 1:48 PM on October 23, 2001

harmful: point taken, I hadn't though of it in those terms, and maybe you're right. I do notice a strong difference between the way he is now and how he used to be.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:04 PM on October 23, 2001

Why are left-wingers more polite these days? Is it because they're more respectful of differences? In my day it was the conservatives who, though secretly intolerant, were publicly more civil and subtle.
It's not an American phenomenon either. Here in Europe the conservatives are also becoming more ill-mannered and yobbish - think soccer hooligans drunk on vintage port - while former raving marxists have adopted the PC thing wholeheartedly and become as considerate and genteel as old philosophers down on their luck.
Perhaps the rude/polite divide has nothing to do with right/left but rather with populist/elitist. Populists are always rude.
99% of populists seem to be right-wing nowadays. As an old-fashioned conservative liberal I think political correctness is one of the great inventions of our time. All it it is good manners, i.e., sensitivity to others, recognition of differences, awareness of community.
But almost all conservatives nowadays delight in decrying it and going out of their way to offend. What's sad is that some leftwingers are going the same way.

Aaron and hincandenza, from what I've read, are both intelligent idealists who express themselves very well. There's absolutely no need to choose between them. It's just sad to see them squander their gifts on childish jibes which are so clearly beneath both of them.

If the Left go the same way as the Right then we're all doomed.

(Not really - as a conservative I like the way things are :-)

posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:12 PM on October 23, 2001

Am I confused? I can't tell if people are defending aaron's comment, or just defending aaron the person. E.g., y6y6y6 -- rebeccablood says "aaron's behavior is still inexcusable and ... needs to be addressed" and y6 starts talking about "getting rid of" people -- surely that's not what addressing that behavior necessarily means?

Look, it's not about aaron, or people who make the occasional snarky remark. If we're going to talk about the people themselves, from what I've seen, hincandenza has been far more constructive in his remarks in past (albeit relatively recent) discussions than aaron has. But that's not the point, is it? It's gotta be about the comments themselves, and whether or not they're appropriate. I personally can't see how aaron's comment in that thread is defensible. Clearly it served no one but aaron, and at the expense of people who wished to participate in that thread.

Right now there are blessedly few remarks like either hincandenza's or aaron's on MeFi -- and it needs to stay that way. I mean, if it doesn't, who here is going to stick around to read them?
posted by mattpfeff at 2:38 PM on October 23, 2001

I mean, if it doesn't, who here is going to stick around to read them?

Judging by this thread, pretty much all of us. Look, Aaron gets under my skin too, but often not nearly as much as some of his less eloquent right-leaning brethren. The truth is, snarky comments that lead to rebuttal aren't nearly as trollish as some of the polite, non-confrontational, nose-raising-noise that goes on from the right and the left. You know the comments:

"That's not worth talking about"
"I won't dignify that with a response"
"Well thank you such-and-such for agreeing that any opinion but ours isn't worthy"

Snarky comments, sarcasm, and baiting the emotions of one's opponents is just going to happen. The fact that we have these discussions aren't proof that MeFi is becoming Usenet; its more evidence that we can review what we believe and value. Isn't that what commenting on an issue (or a link) is really about?

There are time when people are going to respond in a "violent" manner to another's expression. If you decide its "inexcusable" please don't attribute that to community will. I think the will has been clearly stated: we want MeFi to stick around as an intelligent and viable blog. IMO, those who expect that viability to ride on their judgement of it are more damaging than those who have a snit with someone else's non-helpful sarcasm. Hincandenza crossed the line of polite discorse, and been chided for it here. GOOD! Aaron's "contribution" to that have also been discussed. Good as well. Demanding satisfaction (GLOVE SLAP) from either of them is intruding on a potent juxtaposition that the rest of us can learn from, and I think have. (I do have to exclude Matt from my estimations, not because I'm sucking up, but because its his ballpark. If he decides I'm full of it and wants to reprimand either of them, than I think we have a resolution, yes?).
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:18 PM on October 23, 2001

Hey, me here after a good night's sleep. Man, I feel like absolute shit about that post- while Aaron totally gets under my skin, I gotta stop letting it affect me- he may be a troll with some of his comments, but responding to it at all is my own problem. That the M's lost, and I was tired and frustrated last night, is really no excuse.

Other than this MeTa post here, I think it's probably a good idea what I said about taking a week or two off from posting to MeFi, just to stop feeling like I have to take everything so personally or that every thread/post that I find especially interesting requires me to actually comment, even when I feel strongly about it. I'm like that when it comes to politics- get that from my Dad I suppose- but such brutal ad hominem attacks are not only unnecessary and uncalled for but don't accomplish anything anyway. I like to believe that most of the time, I keep it pretty civil and as someone said above, stay my usual idealistic lefty self. However, I'm certainly not going to get aaron to change his mind or get usefully involved by calling him or anyone else names. :(
posted by hincandenza at 3:19 PM on October 23, 2001

But hincandenza's comment is another matter. He deliberately tried to be as rude and mean as possible. He's clearly being an asshole on purpose.

A little clarity, dude. He tried a smackdown on one who he felt was trying a smackdown on him. If you don't like the method, say so. He wasn't being rude to all of us. He was being rude to Aaron. Calling him back to the path is a matter of making it non-personal, not more so.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:24 PM on October 23, 2001

"He tried a smackdown on one who he felt was trying a smackdown on him."

What? I thought we were talking about the regulatory takings thread. Where is aaron smacking down hincandenza? I see aaron disimssing the post as alarmist, and then hincandenza saying the most cruel thing he can think of.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:05 PM on October 23, 2001

It seems to me that only after other right-wingers started getting away with being rude that aaron let his standards slip.

Or perhaps he is fed up with the double standard. The left-leaning members of MeFi are rude often and quite rarely called on it. Even this thread, ostensibly about hincandenza, has turned into an aaron bashing session.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:51 PM on October 23, 2001

Or perhaps he is fed up with the double standard.

Heh, yeah right, sure.

The left-leaning members of MeFi are rude often and quite rarely called on it. Even this thread, ostensibly about hincandenza, has turned into an aaron bashing session.

You're joking, right? The MeFi cops aren't letting anything slide, nor should they. If you wish to back up your (statistical) claim, I'd like to see it.

The point I was trying to make is that if you wish to improve the environment, take it away from the personal. And here you are moving right into the territory of personally insulting a goodly portion of the denizens who dwell here. So what are you wishing to assert here, really?
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:17 PM on October 23, 2001

ljr: I don't see a double standard; I'd like to see examples, or I'd like to see you bringing them up here when you see them happening.

my intention here hasn't been to bash aaron, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that there are two unacceptable posts in that thread, aaron's troll and hincandenza's response. if one gets called to the carpet, both should. and if either is consistently behaving unacceptably, it should be noted and at matt should decide what should happen next.

personally, I'd like to see trolls and name-calling posts pulled, but that makes more work for matt.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:23 PM on October 23, 2001

I hate to disagree with Rebecca, who I think is a Righteous Metafilter Babe of Justice, but I don't think Aaron's post was a troll. I see it as an expression of contempt for what he sees as a predictable direction of discussion, and I think that's a legitimate position to take, even if it's an annoying one. But even if it is the dreaded t-word, it's a lot different from the kind of personal venom that's been directed at him.

Aaron pisses me off all the time, and has for a long time. I've gotten in lots of disagreements with him. He's not always respectful (not unlike many of us). But for a long time he was--even in his most disagreeable moments--articulate and engaged. But he has probably taken more shit personally than any other member, some of it deserved, some not, and I think he's just soured. He's become defensive and nasty. I can't justify that, but I also can't really blame him. As ljr observed, a MetaTalk thread has--once again--gotten to be about him. Has anyone even done him the courtesy of letting him know we're talking about him? (Don't bother--he knows.)

I think the thing to keep in focus here is this: Aaron has dared to expose his sensitivity over his weight, and weight issues. He could have kept quiet about it, but it was important to him to establish his standing on an issue. Now hincandenza has decided to use that vulnerability and go for the maximum personal pain, directed at someone who was already in pain. I think that's despicable. It would despicable if it was aimed at me, or DoublePostGuy, or PrivateParts, or any of us.

Hincandenza expresses remorse--here. Has he said anything to Aaron? Doubt it. He has admitted it was "brutal" (while still making it clear that it's somehow Aaron's fault for "getting under his skin"). Do we want to condone brutality? Has Aaron ever gone for the personally hurtful attack? Has he savaged anyone for being a drunk, or poked at the wounds from their divorce, or the loss of their job? He's expressed contempt for people's ideas and even their character, but he's never, as far as I can remember, deliberately tried to wound anyone.

Face it. This shit is unacceptable. If this place gets meaner and meaner, and eventually someone gets seriously hurt emotionally--well, we'll probably never know, because it'll get acted out offline and safely out of our view--will that be OK? Do you know how badly Aaron--or some other member of this nominal "community"--is hurting now? And if you see someone--even someone you consider your enemy--hurting, doesn't it make you want to ease up? No? Then by all means, call him a fat fuck, but the hell with you.
posted by rodii at 8:21 PM on October 23, 2001

I am not normally a big fan of "me too" posts, but I think with an issue this emotional it is worth weighing in: What Rod said. Twice.
posted by redfoxtail at 8:48 PM on October 23, 2001

He's expressed contempt for people's ideas and even their character, but he's never, as far as I can remember, deliberately tried to wound anyone.

Uhhmmm, I see a little inconsistancy in that statement. This whole online discussion thingy is about having your words accepted, and if someone attacks your character, then they are definately trying to wound you. Notice, I haven't even tried to attack aaron here, but this defense of his behavior at the cost of honesty is pretty lame.

p.s. You're still trying to make this about someone instead of something, rodii. If you don't think this should be a discussion about aaron, why are you still trying to make it such? I, for one, thought this thread was about acceptable behavior as regards those we disagree with, not aaron.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:17 PM on October 23, 2001

Now hincandenza has decided to use that vulnerability and go for the maximum personal pain, directed at someone who was already in pain.

Not only that, Hincandenza made his personal attack from the safety of a pseudonym, protecting himself from similar ill treatment. (My guess is that he'd never post a comment like that under his own name.)

Why are we even talking about a minor offense like being snarky and dismissive, a crime many of us commit with serial frequency, when Hincandenza's "fat fuck" comment was one of the Top 10 most loathsome things ever posted on MetaFilter?
posted by rcade at 10:02 PM on October 23, 2001

if someone attacks your character, then they are definately trying to wound you.

Sorry, I don't agree with this. In fact, it feels a bit like a non sequitur, to be honest. If I call you a liar, I'm attacking your character; you can decide for yourself if that would hurt your feelings. It wouldn't mine, if I knew I wasn't a liar. If by "wound" you mean "lower your acceptance by the other people reading," well, that's not what I meant. I meant hurt.

Notice, I haven't even tried to attack aaron here, but this defense of his behavior at the cost of honesty is pretty lame.

I make no excuses for Aaron, Wulf, and I'm not defending him (I'm not sure what you mean by "at the cost of honesty"). I've tried to be honest about my ambivalence here. Aaron and I have never been buddies. My point is that there is an undertone of "he deserved it" here. If the offense had been toward someone more widely liked, no one would have tried to justify it. It doesn't matter whether Aaron was "trolling" or not, no one should be attacked like that.

You're still trying to make this about someone instead of something, rodii.

Yes, I'm pointing out that the object of the attack here is a someone, and suggesting some empathy is in order.

If you don't think this should be a discussion about aaron, why are you still trying to make it such?

Well, I'm clearly not making myself understood very well. I'm not saying what the discussion should or shouldn't be about at all. I was just following up ljromanoff's observation that, regardless of how it started, it turned into a discussion of Aaron, as it so often has before.

I realize my post above sounds a little overwrought. Sorry about that; I tried to phrase it more coolly, but I guess I don't have a knack for that.
posted by rodii at 10:26 PM on October 23, 2001

In general, the snarkiness/sarcasm levels around MeFi have reached an all-time high. As a lurker, and someone who hits just about every thread looking for a place to jump in, it's disappointing that so many threads are taken over by people interested only in appearing clever by making jokes (often at others' expense) or perpetrating barely-appropriate "you'd've had't've been there", in-house jokes. I'm not calling the kettle black -- I've made a few pointed cracks myself, could count them on half a hand. There are some who do it all the time.

And then there are the types of posts like Aaron's, which I have noticed often. The ones that subtly say, "This is a stupid link, the person who posted it is stupid, and you're stupid if you regard it with any credibility." Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but if we're going to get into the matter of emotions, I don't know how many times I've read a link, then read the comments, only to have someone insinuate that I--any everyone else, for that matter--am stupid for agreeing with what I'd read--and then not even provide reasoning behind it. Sheesh. Does it get to me? Sometimes.

Just because it's done in a subtle manner does not, as rcb said, make it less harmful to the environment. It sure as heck doesn't make me want to post. And that type of post sucks the life out of a thread. Insidious, in my opinion... but hard to pin down as any sort of direct violation.

Then there are posts like hicadenza's. Maliciously hurtful, crude, unnecessary and just... wrong. I don't endorse it--am inherently opposed to that sort of thing-- but I can understand the frustration that would prompt the feeling behind it. I can't count the times that I have thought, "Jesus, could you just drop the incessant, better-than-you snarkiness for a minute?" I'd never voice it. I'm a lurker, an unestablished, "who are you again?" poster who might as well be a newbie. That may be part of the reason why I can understand.

Is a hurtful comment that is pointed and boldly vicious worse than a hurtful comment that is subtle and sweeping and aimed at a potentially large group of people? I think that one is so in your face, and the other so subtle, that we as a general whole might be inclined to focus on one and discount the harmfulness of the other.

I think both of them are bad. I think both of them are unacceptable, and that neither should be overlooked or allowed to flourish. I get the feeling that since so many people resort to the subtle version, though, that it's going to be heartily defended, or at least downplayed. And I can understand that too.

I'm loathe to whine about this, though, without offering some idea of a constructive solution... so I'm going to pose a "Three strikes, you're out" policy. MeFi's just varied enough where some subject is always going to be touchy to some of us. And given the vast diversity of users, there will always be someone who seems to know just what buttons to push.

So I think that posters trolling or occasionally taking pot shots of this sort is to be expected... but not condoned. Three strikes is a fair number: one and two get warnings, on the third it's sayonara. I think it's safe to say that by then, a poster's pretty much established that they are unable to stop being abusive, and that what they have to contribute to MeFi is outweighed by what they're taking away. Think priviledge--not right.

(sorry for the length, guys.)
posted by precocious at 10:54 PM on October 23, 2001

A lot of sense here, multipolar sense, MetaFilter's particular strength. But Aaron's comment hasn't been analysed as closely as hincandenza's and I think it might help.
He quoted this sentence from the link:
The idea represents nothing less than a complete subversion of democracy.
He then wrote:
Oh boy, hysterical alarmism! What better guarantee of a rational discussion? I'm there! Not.

Now if you consider that not even Nazi Germany was a "complete subversion of democracy" - that "complete" is in itself, a form of totalitarian discourse - and weigh the tone of the linked article, it is at least fair comment to describe it as "hysterical alarmism". More: it could easily be defended an accurate, objective description.
He then goes on to say that this sort of grossly exaggerated rhetoric preempts rational discussion. I don't agree, because you can pick up the gist of an argument, while forgetting its hyperbole, in order to address the underlying issues. But he's certainly justified in refusing to go to all that trouble, if the author himself didn't bother.
So when Aaron asks "What better guarantee of a rational discussion?" he could just as easily have framed it in a more hypocritical, supposedly "positive" way. For instance: "If the article were written in a more measured and open way, leaving room for ambiguities, it would be more deserving of discussion. As it is, the shouting just shuts out decent, civilized questioning and commentary".
But that would be BS, right?

What Aaron is doing, in his own style - and let no one pretend they're unfamiliar with it - was explaining why he wouldn't be participating in the thread. He's saying "Sorry, I read the link and I don't think it's worth discussing" in a frank, non-hypocritical way.

Of course the tone of his comment does put off - and insult - other posters. But I'm new here and know nothing of feuds and stuff. The fact remains that he at least glanced at the article, decided it was too hysterical to merit his time and then posted his reaction.

He commented and moved on. He in fact said "I shan't be hanging around this thread". It's just unpleasant. It would have been better just to have remained silent but...hey, cast the first stone and all that. That could be said about almost all of us.

As for hincandenza, "fat fuck" was the least of it. If you read the rest of the "comment" you'll understand just how offensive he was.
But, in his defense, he did frame his comment in the context of a personal situation(the Marines/Yankees thing are enigmatic references to me...)and did honestly confess he was wrong to let Aaron "get under his skin". This is also, in a perverse way, a form of respect. He found, even in the heat of the moment, Aaron important enough .

In his subsequent posts he couldn't have been more thoughtful and straightforward - as he always is. Of course his self-accusation is an apology. The truth is, I suspect, that Aaron and him are more similar to each other than either cares to think.

The bottom line: Aaron is nowhere to be seen; hincandenza is threatening to take two weeks off. Now this is unacceptable behaviour! A lot of MeFi members have pitched in to mend the situation and reaffirm the spirit which was momentarily lost. Things are so much clearer now. So ---

Enough already, you guys - and come out fighting!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:51 AM on October 24, 2001

rodii, rcade, et al.
I think the discussion is focusing more on aaron because the trolling he has been doing lately is a less obvious transgression than hicandenza's. No one is arguing the seriousness of that; no subtle nuances there to ponder. This snarky trolling however, has got people waffling.
It IS disruptive and does sabatage conversation (when done by anyone.) We empathize (well I do anyway) with his pain after being called names, but hey, he was being snarky before he got attacked, so it's not an EXCUSE. It certainly doesn't justify hicandenza, but the ugly words aren't an eye-for-an-eye free pass for aaron either. Maybe he's just a whipping boy for a handful of posters who are snarking lately, but I do think he has earned a place in the current group of MeFi troublemakers.
Miguel--
Actually, a break from the action may be just the ticket for them -- hicandenza for his felony, aaron for his series of misdemeanors. Hugging and making up may feel a lot more comfortable when this thread gets buried way down at the bottom of the scroll bar.
posted by dness2 at 1:02 AM on October 24, 2001

Um...now that all you fat fucks have weighed in, and the scales of MeFi justice remain a motion-blurred see-saw, might I suggest that there is such a thing as too much effing cerebration?

Chrissake. Hyperbole + "Fat Fuck" = 6500 words? Aaron is now a venerable but vulnerable jumbo stick of Right Guard (on-sale everywhere), and Hincandenza has incandesced into a hot-flash rage queen, tortured into hormonal imbalance by the MeFi Marquis de Matrix.

I'm going to forget everything I've learned here about these two chaps - personal tidbitteries of the third kind are inevitably distracting in a discussion forum.

Best argument for anonymity I've seen in a while.

Hmm...seems to me I've called everyone a nasty name, and I've impugned the value of this thread. To save time, just back the trucks up and dump a colorful assortment of nouns, verbs, adjectives...I'll sort them later.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:23 AM on October 24, 2001

I love rodii like a brother, and I do agree with his points and feel that what hincandenza said was quite vile. That said, much as I'm not down with "me too" posts, I have to say that I'm with Rebecca and precocious here.

Not to say that aaron deserved to be called a "fat fuck" -- ad hominem attacks have no place here. Loathsome, yes, but hardly (as rcade put it) one of the top ten most loathsome things ever posted here; we've had many posts seriously wishing millions of other people dead, for instance. There are worse things than being called names on the internet, like having the points of view of many people continuously belittled by someone who refuses to contribute anything constructive to any discussions.

The hypocritic thing to do would be to condemn one sort of behavior and let the other sort off the hook, when they're both obviously wrong.
posted by lia at 1:29 AM on October 24, 2001

hypocritical, dammit.
posted by lia at 1:33 AM on October 24, 2001

Loathsome, yes, but hardly (as rcade put it) one of the top ten most loathsome things ever posted here

Not in the top ten? Please point me to more offensive posts. Just reading hicandenza's entire comment turns my stomach.

I'll take 10 trolls over hate speech such as this any day, and I fail to see (despite reading every comment here) how aaron's post and hicandenza's are in any way comparable.
posted by justgary at 2:40 AM on October 24, 2001

Regarding the sin bin idea, I prefer an initial warning and then perhaps no posting or commenting rights for 1-7 days (depending on the severity of the comment or post). I would include trolling and obscene comments and in certain cases double posts.

For a third offense, punishment should at least double, a minimum of 7 days and so on. While I realise this takes time and Matt will be having to read everything more closely and think of some kind of punishment, I believe there is an alternative.

I would propose a system where 7 "respected" members have the ability to post or e-mail Matt when they see a post or a comment that is worthy of punishment along with what they think is an appropriate punishment.

Obviously, for each case not all 7 people would e-mail Matt, but I would believe it would allow Matt to get a good feel of a diversity of viewpoints.

I second everything Rodii said about aaron and hicandenza's comments.
posted by jay at 3:33 AM on October 24, 2001

What's next, a council clothed in black turtlenecks with the power to banish offending parties into the Phantom Zone? That's all well and good, but what happens if someone escapes the trippy, 2-D mirror realm to which they have been confined? Are we really prepared to reap a whirlwhind of Zod-like proportions? I, personally, could live happily for the rest of my days without ever hearing the phrase "Kneel before dong_resin!".

What? Well, as a matter of fact, I did drink the whole bottle of cough syrup. What's it to ya?
posted by Optamystic at 4:40 AM on October 24, 2001

What's next, a council clothed in black turtlenecks with the power to banish offending parties into the Phantom Zone?

I'm not so crazy about turtlenecks, actually.

OK, I admit that the points made by lia (who I love like a sister) and precocious have merit. The big-picture thing to see (per Wulfgar) is that the overall levels of anger, cruelty and sarcasm have risen to a level that's probably past the "good hard argument" point that we often endorse.

I don't know what to do about it except try to self-police. I've been guilty of some vicious sarcasm (though I hope never anything approaching hincandenza's comment--I agree with Rogers that it's one of the worst things I've ever seen here; I urge you to read it if you haven't) in the past and I'm trying to recognize and resist the urge nowadays. But short of changing my behavior and hoping for the best, what can I do ("I" here considered as a random would-be constructive member of MeFi)?

I don't think a "penalty box" approach is going to work because I don't think Matt wants to take it on, nor does he want to deputize people. An furthermore, as seen in this thread, it's not easy to tell a troll from a snarky but sincere comment; if it were, it wouldn't be a troll.
posted by rodii at 5:24 AM on October 24, 2001

What's next, a council clothed in black turtlenecks with the power to banish offending parties into the Phantom Zone?

I doubt it. Have you read hincandenza's apology? See this is how metafilter is supposed to work. Somebody misbehaves, the rest of the community objects, the offender appologizes, and everyone learns what is and isn't appropriate. I've done my time in the apology chair (after I publically assumed malice on another user's part where there was none).

What I think has been missing from MeFi lately is apology. If people don't fess up when they are wrong, we get to the point where the pointing out of anticommunity behavior is itself attacked. Of course, this requires a bit of humility on the part of the offender, and it requires the accusers to let it go once the apology has been made.

I don't think that people ever need to apologize for the opinions that they are discussing, and I don't think that we all have to like each other. But we do have to tolerate each other and when that [toleration] is violated, somebody needs to take responsibility.
posted by iceberg273 at 5:51 AM on October 24, 2001

<crickets />
posted by rodii at 2:41 PM on October 24, 2001

ljr: I don't see a double standard; I'd like to see examples, or I'd like to see you bringing them up here when you see them happening.

We could start with the individual who initiated this thread referring to everyone he disagreed with as "ignorant fuckwits" recently. And the term "fascist" is thrown around without hesitation by the left side of the MetaFilter membership pretty frequently.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:46 AM on October 25, 2001

No, dear sweet ljr, you once again fail to grasp a basic distinction: a comment on an individual's contribution to MeFi can be judged from a brief trawl through the archives, whereas a comment on physical circumstances is neither relevant, nor verifiable. I can't extrapolate a judgement on your weight, appearance or sexual potency from your comments, but I can say with considerable evidence that they darken every thread they touch.
posted by holgate at 11:58 AM on October 25, 2001

I can't extrapolate a judgement on your weight, appearance or sexual potency from your comments

No doubt if you could you would have taken the opportunity to sling some ill mannered comments based on them hincandenza-style. I guess the less specific "fuckwits" will do in a pinch, though, right?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:20 PM on October 25, 2001

ljromanoff: No offense, but if I say I hate fuckwits or bugfucks or metafucks this is not only true but victimless. It doesn't even have to be plural, i.e. "I hate a fuckwit of a Thursday evening" . You can even say "A fascist is anyone I disagree with and should therefore die." Or try "Stalinist" if fascism is a problem. I know I do.
Haven't we all succumbed to this tempting thought? (Note: not you, not holgate: we).
When you use this abstraction(from ab-, meaning away from)you avoid ad-(meaning towards)hominy(meaning something you eat in Louisiana)attacks.
So you're really saying we're all fuckwits at some time or another - susceptible to fuckwittedness - without actually attributing that condition to X or Y. This is good. You get your point across without demeaning yourself or your adversary. Well, not much.
Even if you think someone is permanently challenged with this unattractive quality, but refrain from saying so out of politeness or, even more intelligently, out of the old and honourable "whom am I to say for sure?" relativism, then you are clearly not being ill-mannered. Rather, careful. And - if you're interested in niceties - far deadlier.

I suggest you start a thread of your own instead of trying to derail one like this where so many have laboured to come to a satisfactory conclusion, as non-idiots are wont to do. I have a very good impression of the Romanoffs and I'm sure you'd be the last one to destroy it.

posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:15 PM on October 25, 2001

I suggest you start a thread of your own instead of trying to derail one like this where so many have laboured to come to a satisfactory conclusion, as non-idiots are wont to do. I have a very good impression of the Romanoffs and I'm sure you'd be the last one to destroy it.

I'm not attempting to derail anything. I was asked to come up with a specific example of someone of the more progressive/leftist/liberal persuasion throwing around insults and/or behaving badly without any MeTa response and did so. I believe that those in the political minority of MeFi do get held to a higher standard of decorum than those in the majority.

If the community at large feels it is necessary to mediate every one of these perceived "out of bounds" comments then it shouldn't ignore one side in favor of focussing on the other.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:04 PM on October 25, 2001

October 23, 2001 3:26 AM Subscribe

October 23, 2001
3:26 AM Subscribe