What's so wrong about good old-fashioned dorky enthusiasm? June 16, 2006 9:26 PM Subscribe
See here. Clearly the denizens of MetaFilter are too cool to appreciate the simple pleasures of life.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:38 PM on June 16, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:38 PM on June 16, 2006
I don't know; this is a little different, though related.
posted by Tlogmer at 9:41 PM on June 16, 2006
Secondly, I've seen some really shitty comments about the LJ'er. Comments about her look, her hair, her very person for even posting such a thing. Someone got to see someone they admire and made an excited post. Good for them. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Look, it's LJ, it's a place people post stuff for their friends and, secondly, for a community which might have a similar interest. If you are neither, let it be. It's assholes like you that force people to make their LJ's private, thus denying access to other people who might've been interested. Yes, she has the right to be offended. A very well-trafficed and popular site linked her private LJ and in the comments insulted her personally. Jesus.--
/wants 5 bucks back
posted by Tlogmer at 9:41 PM on June 16, 2006
I'm also not sure the "it's just fun!" tack accurately captures it. A few people aren't getting the humor, and are then getting uglily pissed off that someone would dare post something that doesn't interest them.
posted by Tlogmer at 9:44 PM on June 16, 2006
posted by Tlogmer at 9:44 PM on June 16, 2006
Hangin' With Anderson Cooper.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:55 PM on June 16, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:55 PM on June 16, 2006
Matt was complaning about this just the other day, as you can see in the link SeizeTheDay posted.
posted by delmoi at 10:35 PM on June 16, 2006
posted by delmoi at 10:35 PM on June 16, 2006
well, for what it's worth, I'd missed the original fpp and this girl is my hero, now. good for her.
also, her friend's handle is yitzhakgroupie?! do they have a meeting for people with rare and unexpected celebrity crushes that they go to or something?
posted by shmegegge at 11:15 PM on June 16, 2006
also, her friend's handle is yitzhakgroupie?! do they have a meeting for people with rare and unexpected celebrity crushes that they go to or something?
posted by shmegegge at 11:15 PM on June 16, 2006
There's 186 comments in that thread, mostly discussing the topic that this metatalk is about. do we really need to see it here to?
posted by nadawi at 12:14 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by nadawi at 12:14 AM on June 17, 2006
Hmm. My takeaway from the thread was completely different. I was going to post a new thread about it, but I reconsidered. But I saved it in Notepad in case I reconsidered reconsidering, later. This, I have done.
mathowie said : 'Why did you even have to add the word "female" to it? What kind of humorless twat are you?'
My question's not about the irony of using 'twat' here (though it's amusing, given the context - that HuronBob'scomment was deleted apparently at least in part because it was stupidly sexist as well as anti-obsessive-geek) it's about couple of other things.
1) We're all entitled to lose our cool at The Stupid once in a while, mathowie too, but Our Beloved Host might do well to wonder how seriously anyone, particularly our younger and more impressionable members, are going to take the admonition "note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site" under the circumstances. Not my main concern (other than to note, as has been noted before, that a little smalltext notice to be nice below the posting box accomplishes exactly fuck-all in the continuing mission to limit unpleasant behaviour). Matt's totally allowed to bitch-slap as he feels fit (notice the deliberate irony of using 'bitch-slap'. Thank you -- I'll be here all week, folks!) But I also note that HuronBob got his comment deleted, but mathowie's remains, and that makes me laugh, because again it's apparently of exactly the same ignoble misogynistically-phrased nature (or so many would would say, not necessarily me), and maybe worse by the lights of the above-quoted admonition, because directed at a fellow Mefite. Not that I disagree with the spirite of Matt's comment at all, mind you.
2) This is the meat of the (well, my) problem: the comment to which mathowie is responding with his twatulary inquiry has been disappeared. Who is it that he is ironically suggesting is twaterrific, and why? Well, we don't know, unless we read closely enough (and that thread isn't exactly as rewarding as Ulysses) to figure out that the apparent offender against propriety was HuronBob, and his first (and possibly other comments) have been deleted without any record of their having existed.
This is pretty clearly suboptimal. (Delete this as well, Matt, if you feel this issue (#2, I mean -- #1 is related, but not the fulcrum of the problem) has been resolved in the past.)
I don't think it has.
I'm far from sure what the best resolution is, though. I tend somewhat to think comments should not be deleted at all, not because each one is a beautiful and unique snowflake, but because silent deletion encourages more bad behaviour -- 'I can follow my shitcokcy whims -- mathowie or jessamyn'll clean up after me!'
Does leaving the offending comments, or collapsing or something encourage more of the same even more? Would public knowledge that a user's comments were being deleted, maybe with some unobtrusive marker, lead to a king-of-the-shitpile game? I don't think so, but it's very arguable, I know.
What is best? Well, my argument all along has been that it's to socially engineer things to minimize people's tendency to shit things up, through publicly visible moderation. I note that the proposed 'talk' threads as companions to every thread in the blue in the future will, in my opinion, accomplish precisely the opposite, as well as making more work for Matt and Jessamyn.
A good discussion of related issues (because they're all about how best to manage the site, and unwanted behaviours) continues at the end of this thread, one which mathowie has either missed or not deigned to weigh in on.
Now I know you tend to respond, if at all, to this kind of thing with 'but what can I do, I'm stuck, I'm going to get bitched at no matter what, oh my stars and whiskers whatever can I do, you bastards hold me to the highest standard and blame me for everything bad and ignore the good I do, maybe I'll whack in this new feature and see what happens', Matt. That's your prerogative, and I know that no perfect consensus is ever possible, and in the end it's your decision about these matters. But I think the value is in talking them through, not necessarily in hoping for any kind of output at the end.
I risk running this hobbyhorse into the ground, I know, but I think it's important, at least in the micro-importance sense when we're talking about minor procedural issues in this little corner of the web.
If Matt says 'we're going to keep deleting comments as we see fit and based on flags, and that's not going to change, so get over it, lame-o' that's cool, I'll live. I'm probably wrong about all this, anyway.
But don't ban me for admin-sass either way, please.
Postscript: Since I wrote that this morning, caddis asked 'OK, what did huronbob say?' I rest what little there is of my case.
I've got to cut down on the coffee.
Finally: What's so wrong about good old-fashioned dorky enthusiasm?
Absolutely nothing. There always have been and always will be those who look upon uncomplicated sincerity and unselfconsciousness of expression with an unhealthy mixture of cynicism, jealousy and faux sophistication. So it goes.
Of course, I don't even know if that applies in this case, 'cause I didn't follow the original link. HA!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:34 AM on June 17, 2006
mathowie said : 'Why did you even have to add the word "female" to it? What kind of humorless twat are you?'
My question's not about the irony of using 'twat' here (though it's amusing, given the context - that HuronBob'scomment was deleted apparently at least in part because it was stupidly sexist as well as anti-obsessive-geek) it's about couple of other things.
1) We're all entitled to lose our cool at The Stupid once in a while, mathowie too, but Our Beloved Host might do well to wonder how seriously anyone, particularly our younger and more impressionable members, are going to take the admonition "note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site" under the circumstances. Not my main concern (other than to note, as has been noted before, that a little smalltext notice to be nice below the posting box accomplishes exactly fuck-all in the continuing mission to limit unpleasant behaviour). Matt's totally allowed to bitch-slap as he feels fit (notice the deliberate irony of using 'bitch-slap'. Thank you -- I'll be here all week, folks!) But I also note that HuronBob got his comment deleted, but mathowie's remains, and that makes me laugh, because again it's apparently of exactly the same ignoble misogynistically-phrased nature (or so many would would say, not necessarily me), and maybe worse by the lights of the above-quoted admonition, because directed at a fellow Mefite. Not that I disagree with the spirite of Matt's comment at all, mind you.
2) This is the meat of the (well, my) problem: the comment to which mathowie is responding with his twatulary inquiry has been disappeared. Who is it that he is ironically suggesting is twaterrific, and why? Well, we don't know, unless we read closely enough (and that thread isn't exactly as rewarding as Ulysses) to figure out that the apparent offender against propriety was HuronBob, and his first (and possibly other comments) have been deleted without any record of their having existed.
This is pretty clearly suboptimal. (Delete this as well, Matt, if you feel this issue (#2, I mean -- #1 is related, but not the fulcrum of the problem) has been resolved in the past.)
I don't think it has.
I'm far from sure what the best resolution is, though. I tend somewhat to think comments should not be deleted at all, not because each one is a beautiful and unique snowflake, but because silent deletion encourages more bad behaviour -- 'I can follow my shitcokcy whims -- mathowie or jessamyn'll clean up after me!'
Does leaving the offending comments, or collapsing or something encourage more of the same even more? Would public knowledge that a user's comments were being deleted, maybe with some unobtrusive marker, lead to a king-of-the-shitpile game? I don't think so, but it's very arguable, I know.
What is best? Well, my argument all along has been that it's to socially engineer things to minimize people's tendency to shit things up, through publicly visible moderation. I note that the proposed 'talk' threads as companions to every thread in the blue in the future will, in my opinion, accomplish precisely the opposite, as well as making more work for Matt and Jessamyn.
A good discussion of related issues (because they're all about how best to manage the site, and unwanted behaviours) continues at the end of this thread, one which mathowie has either missed or not deigned to weigh in on.
Now I know you tend to respond, if at all, to this kind of thing with 'but what can I do, I'm stuck, I'm going to get bitched at no matter what, oh my stars and whiskers whatever can I do, you bastards hold me to the highest standard and blame me for everything bad and ignore the good I do, maybe I'll whack in this new feature and see what happens', Matt. That's your prerogative, and I know that no perfect consensus is ever possible, and in the end it's your decision about these matters. But I think the value is in talking them through, not necessarily in hoping for any kind of output at the end.
I risk running this hobbyhorse into the ground, I know, but I think it's important, at least in the micro-importance sense when we're talking about minor procedural issues in this little corner of the web.
If Matt says 'we're going to keep deleting comments as we see fit and based on flags, and that's not going to change, so get over it, lame-o' that's cool, I'll live. I'm probably wrong about all this, anyway.
But don't ban me for admin-sass either way, please.
Postscript: Since I wrote that this morning, caddis asked 'OK, what did huronbob say?' I rest what little there is of my case.
I've got to cut down on the coffee.
Finally: What's so wrong about good old-fashioned dorky enthusiasm?
Absolutely nothing. There always have been and always will be those who look upon uncomplicated sincerity and unselfconsciousness of expression with an unhealthy mixture of cynicism, jealousy and faux sophistication. So it goes.
Of course, I don't even know if that applies in this case, 'cause I didn't follow the original link. HA!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:34 AM on June 17, 2006
There's 186 comments in that thread, mostly discussing the topic that this metatalk is about. do we really need to see it here to?
posted by nadawi at 9:14 AM CET on June 17 [+fave] [!]
Quoting this.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:56 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by nadawi at 9:14 AM CET on June 17 [+fave] [!]
Quoting this.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:56 AM on June 17, 2006
Oh goody what have I missed.. I see.. reminds me of when I was much younger, this sort of thing went on all the time at school. I shared a room with a very tall, though thin and spotty boy called Elliot. He was incredibly shy, and at lunch and dinner would walk to a corner of the south quad, rather than sit with everyone else. He was picked on without mercy by most anyone. The masters knew it, but the weirding children always got picked on. I only bullied him when he took my lack of cruelty as a kindness. I had to bully the silly bugger till he went away. I was a bit of a stand out myself, and couldn't carry the social weight, not quite in enough with the in crowd you see. Anyway every year the school had a ball, when do I get to stick a gif in?
posted by econous at 2:46 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by econous at 2:46 AM on June 17, 2006
Sometimes MeFi likes to tear off its clothes and stumble back and forth in the front yard gibbering like a loon and slapping itself. "Cynical! Overhipstersnark! West of Beb!" it says laughing through tears. Then it runs up to you insisting that it's a genuine loving person. It puts its hands on your cheeks and forces you to make a fish-mouth. "I .. wub... you.. MetaFilter" it says, in a mockery of your voice. Then it gets a sly look and tells you something about boners.
posted by fleacircus at 3:19 AM on June 17, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by fleacircus at 3:19 AM on June 17, 2006 [2 favorites]
Sometimes MeFi likes to tear off its clothes and stumble back and forth in the front yard gibbering like a loon and slapping itself.
Me too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:49 AM on June 17, 2006
Me too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:49 AM on June 17, 2006
Clearly the denizens of MetaFilter are too cool to appreciate the simple pleasures of life.
like boners
posted by caddis at 6:17 AM on June 17, 2006
like boners
posted by caddis at 6:17 AM on June 17, 2006
I prefer a good, old-fashioned dorking...WITH A BONER.
posted by Captaintripps at 6:22 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 6:22 AM on June 17, 2006
I disagree somewhat with stavros. Not on the stumbling and gibbering think, but the post before that. Huronbob's nasty personal insult was correctly deleted from the thread. The phrase that popped into my head when I read it was 'stupid twat', so I can't complain about the wording of Mathowie's slap-down[1]. Sadly, it would appear evident that such public admonishments are necessary to remind mefites of basic principles of civility. In this imperfect world, I actually think that deleting the comment whilst retaining some of the reaction to it is the least bad available compromise. The resulting mess is Huronbob's fault, not Matt's.
[1] That said, I am used to the British usage of 'twat' and 'cunt', which is less misogynistic than American usage (and would rarely be used against a female), so I didn't spot the irony.
posted by nowonmai at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2006
[1] That said, I am used to the British usage of 'twat' and 'cunt', which is less misogynistic than American usage (and would rarely be used against a female), so I didn't spot the irony.
posted by nowonmai at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2006
Sadly, it would appear evident that such public admonishments are necessary to remind mefites of basic principles of civility.
No, wait, you missed my point about the visible deletion thing.
In this imperfect world, I actually think that deleting the comment whilst retaining some of the reaction to it is the least bad available compromise.
OK, maybe you didn't.
The resulting mess is Huronbob's fault, not Matt's.
Blame the trainer, not the dog, says me.
i lurvs me some twat.
Oh, yeah, baby.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2006
No, wait, you missed my point about the visible deletion thing.
In this imperfect world, I actually think that deleting the comment whilst retaining some of the reaction to it is the least bad available compromise.
OK, maybe you didn't.
The resulting mess is Huronbob's fault, not Matt's.
Blame the trainer, not the dog, says me.
i lurvs me some twat.
Oh, yeah, baby.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2006
Bad form on all fronts. There isn't necessarily a problem with dorky enthusiasm, it's just that the internet is so full of it that it takes exceptional dorky enthusiasm to make a worthwhile post.
Oh, and HuronBob's got developmental issues stemming from a head injury. Posting here is part of his mainstreaming at the group home, so he can't really be held to a social standard.
On a third note, the thread refered to does show how futile talk pages would be— HuronBob and Mathowie's back and forth is both content- and meta-discussion, and responses to both shear off in different directions.
As for the deletion, it's moronic to delete Bob's comment and not Matt's. But that's the prerogative of power, imperfectly weilded (Machiavelli would recommend that we look to ways of making Metafilter a republic, though I fear some of the strident leftists would balk at the very word).
posted by klangklangston at 7:45 AM on June 17, 2006
Oh, and HuronBob's got developmental issues stemming from a head injury. Posting here is part of his mainstreaming at the group home, so he can't really be held to a social standard.
On a third note, the thread refered to does show how futile talk pages would be— HuronBob and Mathowie's back and forth is both content- and meta-discussion, and responses to both shear off in different directions.
As for the deletion, it's moronic to delete Bob's comment and not Matt's. But that's the prerogative of power, imperfectly weilded (Machiavelli would recommend that we look to ways of making Metafilter a republic, though I fear some of the strident leftists would balk at the very word).
posted by klangklangston at 7:45 AM on June 17, 2006
The problem is with the original post. It's not clear why it was posted, but obviously it was supposed to be funny. There are lots of kinds of funny, and lots of ways of responding to funniness. Some are acerbic and cynical, some dorky and enthusiastic, and many in between.
I thought it was stupid. Not the LJ chick, who was just a typical enthusiastic dork. The post. Sure, stupid can be funny. But there is too much stupid-funny on MeFi these days (Barbie World anyone?). Yes, you can skip it and read the more substantive and compelling posts, but the stupid-funny youtube and blog links suck a lot of the conversational energy out of other threads on more serious subjects. Notice how many comments they get? I'm guilty of it too. It's fun and easy to jump on a snark-fest, an animated-gif orgy, or a punning contest. Sadly, lately MeFi is turning into mostly that. I don't know why. Maybe it's just too big, or the summer doldrums, or fatigue with serious topics given all the crises in the world, or (my theory) loss of a sense of community.
I'm all for snark. I love to snark as much as the next MeFi wiseass. But I think we desperately need some attention to quality around here. Notice how few FPPs appear to have taken their posters more than 5-10 minutes to construct, lately?
Oh but wait, there's a new topless photos of a school teacher scandal breaking and she's HAWT. She even has a myspace page. And to top it off, she teaches in Austin, apparently at a public school where the Bush Daughters went, so we can use this tread to talk Bush and bush at the same time.
Quick, someone make an FPP about it. Just cut and paste my last paragraph. Sorry, no Youtube links . . .wiat, here's an obligatory YouTube link to complete the post.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:00 AM on June 17, 2006
I thought it was stupid. Not the LJ chick, who was just a typical enthusiastic dork. The post. Sure, stupid can be funny. But there is too much stupid-funny on MeFi these days (Barbie World anyone?). Yes, you can skip it and read the more substantive and compelling posts, but the stupid-funny youtube and blog links suck a lot of the conversational energy out of other threads on more serious subjects. Notice how many comments they get? I'm guilty of it too. It's fun and easy to jump on a snark-fest, an animated-gif orgy, or a punning contest. Sadly, lately MeFi is turning into mostly that. I don't know why. Maybe it's just too big, or the summer doldrums, or fatigue with serious topics given all the crises in the world, or (my theory) loss of a sense of community.
I'm all for snark. I love to snark as much as the next MeFi wiseass. But I think we desperately need some attention to quality around here. Notice how few FPPs appear to have taken their posters more than 5-10 minutes to construct, lately?
Oh but wait, there's a new topless photos of a school teacher scandal breaking and she's HAWT. She even has a myspace page. And to top it off, she teaches in Austin, apparently at a public school where the Bush Daughters went, so we can use this tread to talk Bush and bush at the same time.
Quick, someone make an FPP about it. Just cut and paste my last paragraph. Sorry, no Youtube links . . .wiat, here's an obligatory YouTube link to complete the post.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:00 AM on June 17, 2006
fourcheesemac : "Notice how few FPPs appear to have taken their posters more than 5-10 minutes to construct, lately? "
I dunno. In my understanding of MetaFilter, the ideal post should take about 30 seconds to construct. You find something absolutely fucking awesome on the net, and you post it with a short description ("Here's a site dedicated to pictures of X taken by piloting a nanobot through Y by controlling it with Z"). Posts that take a long time to construct often (not always, of course) seem to be trying to make create something good out of just average net materials. When it works, that's great, and when a short, 30 second post links to something that sucks, that's bad, but neither speed of construction or effort in construction are inextricably linked to final quality.
posted by Bugbread at 8:06 AM on June 17, 2006
I dunno. In my understanding of MetaFilter, the ideal post should take about 30 seconds to construct. You find something absolutely fucking awesome on the net, and you post it with a short description ("Here's a site dedicated to pictures of X taken by piloting a nanobot through Y by controlling it with Z"). Posts that take a long time to construct often (not always, of course) seem to be trying to make create something good out of just average net materials. When it works, that's great, and when a short, 30 second post links to something that sucks, that's bad, but neither speed of construction or effort in construction are inextricably linked to final quality.
posted by Bugbread at 8:06 AM on June 17, 2006
stavros, I deleted the original huronbob post because it was so mean, but he posted a followup quickly where he said the thing I quoted. I was quoting his followup, not the original.
And yeah, I know I wasn't supposed to make comments directed at another person and frankly I'm surprised no one called me on that until now. I deleted a much more colorful paragraph where I made references to his mother. Normally I would have made this metatalk post then and there, but I already did it a couple days ago for the exact same reason.
My point is simply that I wish people here could dial back the snark one notch, and realize the snark isn't required in every single thread by someone. It makes us look stupid, especially when the subject of a post can see it and respond to it. We end up being tarnished with the broad brush of one humorless snarky member, as if MetaFilter is always like that and we are all just like that one person.
I guess that's what chaps my hide in this.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:09 AM on June 17, 2006
And yeah, I know I wasn't supposed to make comments directed at another person and frankly I'm surprised no one called me on that until now. I deleted a much more colorful paragraph where I made references to his mother. Normally I would have made this metatalk post then and there, but I already did it a couple days ago for the exact same reason.
My point is simply that I wish people here could dial back the snark one notch, and realize the snark isn't required in every single thread by someone. It makes us look stupid, especially when the subject of a post can see it and respond to it. We end up being tarnished with the broad brush of one humorless snarky member, as if MetaFilter is always like that and we are all just like that one person.
I guess that's what chaps my hide in this.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:09 AM on June 17, 2006
My point is simply that I wish people here could dial back the snark one notch, and realize the snark isn't required in every single thread by someone. It makes us look stupid, especially when the subject of a post can see it and respond to it. We end up being tarnished with the broad brush of one humorless snarky member, as if MetaFilter is always like that and we are all just like that one person.
With this I cannot disagree.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:20 AM on June 17, 2006
With this I cannot disagree.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:20 AM on June 17, 2006
I really liked this girl's thing. Silly funny thing. Was a day when that would be just plain likeable, by net standards.
That the mefi thread turned into a shitfest does not shock me, but it is pretty fucking disappointing.
posted by cortex at 8:56 AM on June 17, 2006
That the mefi thread turned into a shitfest does not shock me, but it is pretty fucking disappointing.
posted by cortex at 8:56 AM on June 17, 2006
nowonmai, are you sure that the british usage of twat and cunt are less misogynistic? why?
oh, and it only being said to men doesn't make it less misogynistic. see, what's bad about it is when you say "twat" and "cunt" to a guy because it's supposed to imply that he is, in some way, resembling a female and therefore weak/stupid/cowardly/annoying/whatever. see, it's using aspects of a female to automatically denote something bad that makes it misogynistic, and I don't see this being missing from british usage of the terms.
posted by shmegegge at 9:08 AM on June 17, 2006
oh, and it only being said to men doesn't make it less misogynistic. see, what's bad about it is when you say "twat" and "cunt" to a guy because it's supposed to imply that he is, in some way, resembling a female and therefore weak/stupid/cowardly/annoying/whatever. see, it's using aspects of a female to automatically denote something bad that makes it misogynistic, and I don't see this being missing from british usage of the terms.
posted by shmegegge at 9:08 AM on June 17, 2006
You know, being a woman, I have never once felt oppressed by the words twat or cunt. Furthermore, I think cunt is a word that represents power.
posted by nadawi at 9:27 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by nadawi at 9:27 AM on June 17, 2006
shmegegge,
I don't know if it counts for "less misogynistic", but I will say that "twat" and "cunt" are less offensive in British English. If you call someone a twat in America, it is almost always directly and clearly motivated by misogynism. In British English, it may still be mysognist, but it's far far less likely to be directly motivated by misogynism.
I guess the analogue would be if you heard a schoolkid say that some video game was "gay", versus if you heard someone shout at a guy coming out of a gay club "Hey, faggot!". I won't argue that the "gay" usage is less of a homophobic slur than the "faggot" usage, but I will argue that they are different.
posted by Bugbread at 9:28 AM on June 17, 2006
I don't know if it counts for "less misogynistic", but I will say that "twat" and "cunt" are less offensive in British English. If you call someone a twat in America, it is almost always directly and clearly motivated by misogynism. In British English, it may still be mysognist, but it's far far less likely to be directly motivated by misogynism.
I guess the analogue would be if you heard a schoolkid say that some video game was "gay", versus if you heard someone shout at a guy coming out of a gay club "Hey, faggot!". I won't argue that the "gay" usage is less of a homophobic slur than the "faggot" usage, but I will argue that they are different.
posted by Bugbread at 9:28 AM on June 17, 2006
I don't see this being missing from british usage of the terms.
It seems to me to be more of a throwaway term in British English, whereas if you say "cunt" in the US, in most places, it's sort of dropping the C bomb. Whether or not it's more or less misogynistic that way I'm not certain, but it seems to be more removed from the actual female=lame connotation just because of its prevalence, sort of like dick or asshole in the US.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2006
It seems to me to be more of a throwaway term in British English, whereas if you say "cunt" in the US, in most places, it's sort of dropping the C bomb. Whether or not it's more or less misogynistic that way I'm not certain, but it seems to be more removed from the actual female=lame connotation just because of its prevalence, sort of like dick or asshole in the US.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2006
shmeggage: what you say is logical, however I disagree. Most of the pejorative terms that are thrown around derive from some anatomical term, whether male, female or unisex. The casual use of auch a word, however, does not necessarily imply every nuance that could be derived from its etymology.
Take "dork", for instance, which is used several times upthread. I'm sure that everyone who used the word is as aware as you and I that it was originally a slang word for "penis"; however unkind the use of the word in describing the lady whose amusing blog post has provoked all this hubbub, I don't think anybody was really intending to liken her to the male member.
So, the way I, as an Englishman, am accustomed to using the word "twat", or even "cunt". These words can refer to the female pudenda. Or they can refer to an unpleasant or worthless person. In Britain, you'd rarely hear them used of a woman; perhaps they're considered "too rude" so we stick to "cow" or "bitch" instead. ("cow", in Britain, does not imply being overweight in the same way it does in the US). In Britain (or at least in the part where I grew up), twat, cunt, dick, cock, arse, arsehole, tit and wanker would all be pretty much interchangeable, with varying differences in severity but not meaning.
In the US, in my experience, the "t" and "c" words are most usually used to be offensive about a woman, and as you say, to imply undesirable feminine qualities in a man. Hence my impression of a misogyny that is not present back home, my statement, your query and this long-winded answer, for which I apologise to all.
posted by nowonmai at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2006
Take "dork", for instance, which is used several times upthread. I'm sure that everyone who used the word is as aware as you and I that it was originally a slang word for "penis"; however unkind the use of the word in describing the lady whose amusing blog post has provoked all this hubbub, I don't think anybody was really intending to liken her to the male member.
So, the way I, as an Englishman, am accustomed to using the word "twat", or even "cunt". These words can refer to the female pudenda. Or they can refer to an unpleasant or worthless person. In Britain, you'd rarely hear them used of a woman; perhaps they're considered "too rude" so we stick to "cow" or "bitch" instead. ("cow", in Britain, does not imply being overweight in the same way it does in the US). In Britain (or at least in the part where I grew up), twat, cunt, dick, cock, arse, arsehole, tit and wanker would all be pretty much interchangeable, with varying differences in severity but not meaning.
In the US, in my experience, the "t" and "c" words are most usually used to be offensive about a woman, and as you say, to imply undesirable feminine qualities in a man. Hence my impression of a misogyny that is not present back home, my statement, your query and this long-winded answer, for which I apologise to all.
posted by nowonmai at 9:36 AM on June 17, 2006
Take "dork", for instance, which is used several times upthread. I'm sure that everyone who used the word is as aware as you and I that it was originally a slang word for "penis"
What? For real? I've never in my entire life heard someone say "dork" and mean anything but "look at that fucking neeerrrrd"
Next you'll tell me that 'butt pirate' has nothing to do with buccaneering.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:34 AM on June 17, 2006
What? For real? I've never in my entire life heard someone say "dork" and mean anything but "look at that fucking neeerrrrd"
Next you'll tell me that 'butt pirate' has nothing to do with buccaneering.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:34 AM on June 17, 2006
"I've never in my entire life heard someone say "dork" and mean anything but "look at that fucking neeerrrrd""
You haven't seen Sixteen Candles? I find that a little hard to believe.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:41 AM on June 17, 2006
You haven't seen Sixteen Candles? I find that a little hard to believe.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:41 AM on June 17, 2006
mathowie : "I've never in my entire life heard someone say 'dork' and mean anything but 'look at that fucking neeerrrrd'"
I think that's the point. "Dork" means "penis", which I suspect most (but not everyone) here knows, but nobody uses it to mean "penis" anymore. Saying that "dork" is an example of misandry is assigning excessive weight to its etymology. With "twat" or "cunt", in the UK, it's more on the edge (unlike dork, people do still use them to refer to the part of the body), but when someone is talking about "that twat on the radio", they aren't thinking "vagina" as much as "jerk". The question, then, is whether a word has to stop being used for both before it can no longer be considered misandrous/misogynistic. My personal guess is that it's on a sliding scale, where the more often it gets used without its biological connotation, the less misandrous/misogynist it is. So cunt's etymology is equally misogynistic in the UK and US, but the word cunt itself is less misogynistic in the UK than in the US.
Really, I guess, peoples' opinions probably come down to whether they're a linguistic proscriptivist or descriptivist. For some people, a term that comes from anatomy will always be misandrous/misogynist because etymology doesn't change. For others, the level of misandry/misogyny will vary based on conventional usage.
posted by Bugbread at 10:56 AM on June 17, 2006
I think that's the point. "Dork" means "penis", which I suspect most (but not everyone) here knows, but nobody uses it to mean "penis" anymore. Saying that "dork" is an example of misandry is assigning excessive weight to its etymology. With "twat" or "cunt", in the UK, it's more on the edge (unlike dork, people do still use them to refer to the part of the body), but when someone is talking about "that twat on the radio", they aren't thinking "vagina" as much as "jerk". The question, then, is whether a word has to stop being used for both before it can no longer be considered misandrous/misogynistic. My personal guess is that it's on a sliding scale, where the more often it gets used without its biological connotation, the less misandrous/misogynist it is. So cunt's etymology is equally misogynistic in the UK and US, but the word cunt itself is less misogynistic in the UK than in the US.
Really, I guess, peoples' opinions probably come down to whether they're a linguistic proscriptivist or descriptivist. For some people, a term that comes from anatomy will always be misandrous/misogynist because etymology doesn't change. For others, the level of misandry/misogyny will vary based on conventional usage.
posted by Bugbread at 10:56 AM on June 17, 2006
Furthermore, I think cunt is a word that represents power.
Others agree:
Cunt: Reappropriation.
'Vagina' Sonnet ("...a waste of brains - to be concerned about/ this minor issue of my cunt's good name.")
"Dork" means "penis", which I suspect most (but not everyone) here knows
Not I. To me, it's always meant 'dweeb' and only 'dweeb.'
posted by languagehat at 11:16 AM on June 17, 2006
Others agree:
Cunt: Reappropriation.
'Vagina' Sonnet ("...a waste of brains - to be concerned about/ this minor issue of my cunt's good name.")
"Dork" means "penis", which I suspect most (but not everyone) here knows
Not I. To me, it's always meant 'dweeb' and only 'dweeb.'
posted by languagehat at 11:16 AM on June 17, 2006
"Dork" means "penis", which I suspect most (but not everyone) here knows
languagehat : "Not I."
Wh...wha?!
I wouldn't be surprised by anyone here not knowing it, except for you. Now you've got me doubting myself. You've got an OED, right? Can you check and let me know if I've been off-base all this time?
posted by Bugbread at 11:32 AM on June 17, 2006
languagehat : "Not I."
Wh...wha?!
I wouldn't be surprised by anyone here not knowing it, except for you. Now you've got me doubting myself. You've got an OED, right? Can you check and let me know if I've been off-base all this time?
posted by Bugbread at 11:32 AM on June 17, 2006
dork etymology: This slang sense dates to at least 1961 and is probably a variant on dick or dirk (another name sometimes used to personalize the phallus). The sense meaning a stupid or obnoxious person follows a few years later, 1967.
posted by dgaicun at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2006
posted by dgaicun at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2006
Huh. Looks like I was off on that "most people know the etymology of dork" thing. Well, now I have something to say when people start talking about random trivia.
posted by Bugbread at 12:43 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 12:43 PM on June 17, 2006
nowonmai : "See also 'schmuck'."
Whoa. It means "foreskin"? That one came as a surprise.
posted by Bugbread at 1:10 PM on June 17, 2006
Whoa. It means "foreskin"? That one came as a surprise.
posted by Bugbread at 1:10 PM on June 17, 2006
See also "came as a surprise."
posted by found missing at 1:16 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by found missing at 1:16 PM on June 17, 2006
found missing : "See also 'came as a surprise.'"
Everyone knows "surprise" comes from "syrup rise", referring to the rise of semen in the urethra before ejaculation. Misandrist.
posted by Bugbread at 1:20 PM on June 17, 2006
Everyone knows "surprise" comes from "syrup rise", referring to the rise of semen in the urethra before ejaculation. Misandrist.
posted by Bugbread at 1:20 PM on June 17, 2006
irregarlessly redundant.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:21 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 1:21 PM on June 17, 2006
That said, pancakes will never be the same in my household.
posted by found missing at 1:35 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by found missing at 1:35 PM on June 17, 2006
Looks like I was off on that "most people know the etymology of dork" thing.
I knew, but only because I'd read The Prehistory of the Far Side years ago: "I once referred to a character in one of my cartoons as a 'dork' (a popular insult when I was growing up), but my editor called me up and said that 'dork' couldn't be used because it meant 'penis.' I couldn't believe it. I ran to my New Dictionary of American Slang and sure enough, he was right. All those years of saying or being called a 'dork' and I had never really known what it meant. What a nerd."
posted by Gator at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2006
I knew, but only because I'd read The Prehistory of the Far Side years ago: "I once referred to a character in one of my cartoons as a 'dork' (a popular insult when I was growing up), but my editor called me up and said that 'dork' couldn't be used because it meant 'penis.' I couldn't believe it. I ran to my New Dictionary of American Slang and sure enough, he was right. All those years of saying or being called a 'dork' and I had never really known what it meant. What a nerd."
posted by Gator at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2006
Sometimes MeFi likes to tear off its clothes and stumble back and forth in the front yard gibbering like a loon and slapping itself. "Cynical! Overhipstersnark! West of Beb!" it says laughing through tears. Then it runs up to you insisting that it's a genuine loving person. It puts its hands on your cheeks and forces you to make a fish-mouth. "I .. wub... you.. MetaFilter" it says, in a mockery of your voice. Then it gets a sly look and tells you something about boners.
posted by fleacircus at 3:19 AM PST on June 17
Next time warn me before you hold that mirror up and show me my own Medusa-head like that. This put me into blubbering fits all afternoon.
posted by hermitosis at 2:46 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by fleacircus at 3:19 AM PST on June 17
Next time warn me before you hold that mirror up and show me my own Medusa-head like that. This put me into blubbering fits all afternoon.
posted by hermitosis at 2:46 PM on June 17, 2006
Also 'nerd' was originally invented by Dr. Suess as term for the Grinch's penis.
Yes, iiitt's true. /Paul Harvey>
posted by dgaicun at 3:13 PM on June 17, 2006
Yes, iiitt's true. /Paul Harvey>
posted by dgaicun at 3:13 PM on June 17, 2006
Jesus Christ only on metafilter can a drama-laden thread about an otherwise so-so thread somehow segue into a entymology of the work dork.
posted by geoff. at 5:11 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by geoff. at 5:11 PM on June 17, 2006
Was there drama? I read the whole thing and didn't see any drama.
posted by Captaintripps at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2006
You've got an OED, right? Can you check and let me know if I've been off-base all this time?
No, no, you're perfectly correct on the sense development:
1. The penis.
1964 Amer. Speech XXXIX. 118 The word dick itself serves as a model for two variants which are probably Midwestern, dirk and dork, also meaning ‘penis’. 1969 P. ROTH Portnoy's Complaint 194 The glorious acrobatics she can perform while dangling from the end of my dork. [...]
2. A foolish or stupid person; also as a general term of contempt.
1972 D. WESTHEIMER Over Edge (1974) ii. 23 What kind of dork do you think I am?
And the strange thing is, I read Portnoy's Complaint the year it came out ("came out"! huh-huh-huh!), so I must have seen that use, but I probably just figured it was something Roth made up and forgotten it. Anyway, I wasn't doubting your etymology, just that most people knew it, and I still doubt that.
posted by languagehat at 6:39 PM on June 17, 2006
No, no, you're perfectly correct on the sense development:
1. The penis.
1964 Amer. Speech XXXIX. 118 The word dick itself serves as a model for two variants which are probably Midwestern, dirk and dork, also meaning ‘penis’. 1969 P. ROTH Portnoy's Complaint 194 The glorious acrobatics she can perform while dangling from the end of my dork. [...]
2. A foolish or stupid person; also as a general term of contempt.
1972 D. WESTHEIMER Over Edge (1974) ii. 23 What kind of dork do you think I am?
And the strange thing is, I read Portnoy's Complaint the year it came out ("came out"! huh-huh-huh!), so I must have seen that use, but I probably just figured it was something Roth made up and forgotten it. Anyway, I wasn't doubting your etymology, just that most people knew it, and I still doubt that.
posted by languagehat at 6:39 PM on June 17, 2006
languagehat : "I wasn't doubting your etymology, just that most people knew it, and I still doubt that."
As, now, do I.
posted by Bugbread at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2006
As, now, do I.
posted by Bugbread at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2006
The odd things you learn about people here!
Me, I've always understood dork=penis (and goofy male person) in the same way that dink=penis (and slightly different style of goofy male person).
A dork is likeable, but a dink isn't, so much (when we're talking about humans, not genitals). A dork is amusing, but a dink is annoying. Judging by this thread, that understanding of the nuanced difference is probably not shared by many others. Neat-o, if problematical for writers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on June 17, 2006
Me, I've always understood dork=penis (and goofy male person) in the same way that dink=penis (and slightly different style of goofy male person).
A dork is likeable, but a dink isn't, so much (when we're talking about humans, not genitals). A dork is amusing, but a dink is annoying. Judging by this thread, that understanding of the nuanced difference is probably not shared by many others. Neat-o, if problematical for writers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on June 17, 2006
Bitch bitch bitch, cry cry cry.
I think a lot less things should be deleted and everyone be allowed to sort it out themselves.
I also think comments should be threaded. Threaded comments encourage discussion. Flat comments encourage one liners and zingers because you can't have a coherent discussion with anyone when you don't know who they're replying to and you have to read every single comment to even know what's been said before.
But, whatever, I'm the snarky asshole who wrote the original post on yeeeah.com so in a weird way I'm the one who started all this the way a butterfly flaps in a rainforest.
posted by nyxxxx at 7:50 PM on June 17, 2006
I think a lot less things should be deleted and everyone be allowed to sort it out themselves.
I also think comments should be threaded. Threaded comments encourage discussion. Flat comments encourage one liners and zingers because you can't have a coherent discussion with anyone when you don't know who they're replying to and you have to read every single comment to even know what's been said before.
But, whatever, I'm the snarky asshole who wrote the original post on yeeeah.com so in a weird way I'm the one who started all this the way a butterfly flaps in a rainforest.
posted by nyxxxx at 7:50 PM on June 17, 2006
Also, for the record, I skipped over the whole thing about penises mostly because I like women, but also because the whole unthreaded comments situation gets on my schboygen!
Etymologize that one, dorks!
posted by nyxxxx at 7:53 PM on June 17, 2006
Etymologize that one, dorks!
posted by nyxxxx at 7:53 PM on June 17, 2006
Also, for the record, I skipped over the whole thing about penises mostly because I like women, but also because the whole unthreaded comments situation gets on my schboygen!
It's an obvious misspelling of Sheboygan, a city in wisconson.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 PM on June 17, 2006
It's an obvious misspelling of Sheboygan, a city in wisconson.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 PM on June 17, 2006
I read Portnoy's Complaint the year it came out ("came out"! huh-huh-huh!)
Shhhh, lest somebody post that godforsaken animated chicken gif again.
posted by dgaicun at 10:03 PM on June 17, 2006
Shhhh, lest somebody post that godforsaken animated chicken gif again.
posted by dgaicun at 10:03 PM on June 17, 2006
Also I knew about dork, because it was used by John Candy in Heavy Metal talking about peni.
posted by dgaicun at 10:07 PM on June 17, 2006
posted by dgaicun at 10:07 PM on June 17, 2006
This thread is a litmus test. Dorks.
posted by klangklangston at 6:46 AM on June 18, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 6:46 AM on June 18, 2006
Please, not peni. Penes or penises or dorkippopotami, please.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:31 AM on June 18, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:31 AM on June 18, 2006
Good Lord! I've actually managed to pretty much stay out of this discussion since I became infamous as the world's foremost sexist, but finding a metatalk on this, after 180+ comments on the blue...I guess a word or two is in order.
After reading the blog linked to in the original FPP, my opinion was that the behavior of the writer of the blog, as documented by word and photo, was inappropriate and possibly offensive, so I said so.
My use of the word "female" in my comment wasn't sexist. The event surrounding the purpose of that person's livejournal entry hinged around what seemed like some confused sexuality that included a comment on a shirt about a specific individual that graphically discussed sexual arousal, although in an odd way given the gender of the person wearing the shirt, as a response to his persona... I guess I find that a bit rude. My comment referenced her gender, it seemed appropriate to me. Had someone asked me of my intent in using the word "female" (yep, for those that never saw the original post, I called the blog writer a "female"), or in referencing her gender at all, I would have been glad to explain as best I could.
It could have been the fact that I posted a negative response to the content of a blog instead of being all "AWWW, isn't she sweet!", I'm getting a sense that negative comments about anything out on the net are frowned upon nowdays... I can live with that, although it may take watching that Folgers commercial a few more times to get me in the new "Spirit of MetaFilter"
Perhaps it was my use of the phrase "dumb shit"....but, it just seemed to fit.
Now, granted I didn't use the word "twat" which seems to be acceptable. My apologies for that. In the future I'll avoid the term "male" and use "dork" instead, and will use "twat" instead of "female". Although it was used to refer to me, a male last time I looked, which confuses me a bit, but, heck, I'll get it sorted out and that really is another issue altogether.
I have to admit, however, that I'm really curious about the content of the "much more colorful paragraph" Matt speaks of.
Peace ya'll....
posted by HuronBob at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2006
After reading the blog linked to in the original FPP, my opinion was that the behavior of the writer of the blog, as documented by word and photo, was inappropriate and possibly offensive, so I said so.
My use of the word "female" in my comment wasn't sexist. The event surrounding the purpose of that person's livejournal entry hinged around what seemed like some confused sexuality that included a comment on a shirt about a specific individual that graphically discussed sexual arousal, although in an odd way given the gender of the person wearing the shirt, as a response to his persona... I guess I find that a bit rude. My comment referenced her gender, it seemed appropriate to me. Had someone asked me of my intent in using the word "female" (yep, for those that never saw the original post, I called the blog writer a "female"), or in referencing her gender at all, I would have been glad to explain as best I could.
It could have been the fact that I posted a negative response to the content of a blog instead of being all "AWWW, isn't she sweet!", I'm getting a sense that negative comments about anything out on the net are frowned upon nowdays... I can live with that, although it may take watching that Folgers commercial a few more times to get me in the new "Spirit of MetaFilter"
Perhaps it was my use of the phrase "dumb shit"....but, it just seemed to fit.
Now, granted I didn't use the word "twat" which seems to be acceptable. My apologies for that. In the future I'll avoid the term "male" and use "dork" instead, and will use "twat" instead of "female". Although it was used to refer to me, a male last time I looked, which confuses me a bit, but, heck, I'll get it sorted out and that really is another issue altogether.
I have to admit, however, that I'm really curious about the content of the "much more colorful paragraph" Matt speaks of.
Peace ya'll....
posted by HuronBob at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2006
HuronBob writes "Although it was used to refer to me, a male last time I looked, which confuses me a bit"
That's 'cause you're not familiar with how it's used in British English. Might wanna reread this thread.
posted by Bugbread at 6:30 PM on June 18, 2006
That's 'cause you're not familiar with how it's used in British English. Might wanna reread this thread.
posted by Bugbread at 6:30 PM on June 18, 2006
Last time I looked, neither Matt nor I were British...
ah well
posted by HuronBob at 6:48 PM on June 18, 2006
ah well
posted by HuronBob at 6:48 PM on June 18, 2006
Wow, the death of Metafilter is becoming so undignified. Matt, please pull the plug.
And it's penes, not peni. Say it with me: penes!
posted by ghastlyfop at 7:59 PM on June 18, 2006
And it's penes, not peni. Say it with me: penes!
posted by ghastlyfop at 7:59 PM on June 18, 2006
And HuronBob, your Huron River site is simply fascinating. Do you have other interests?
posted by ghastlyfop at 8:01 PM on June 18, 2006
posted by ghastlyfop at 8:01 PM on June 18, 2006
Ghastlyfop... thanks for the link. I appreciate it.
and...do you want me to e/mail you the list or just give you a quick call?
posted by HuronBob at 3:44 AM on June 19, 2006
and...do you want me to e/mail you the list or just give you a quick call?
posted by HuronBob at 3:44 AM on June 19, 2006
A dork is likeable, but a dink isn't, so much (when we're talking about humans, not genitals). A dork is amusing, but a dink is annoying. - stavrosthewonderchicken
Though I've never had cause to articulate it as such, that's exactly the connotations I've associated with each of those words.
posted by raedyn at 11:53 AM on June 19, 2006
Though I've never had cause to articulate it as such, that's exactly the connotations I've associated with each of those words.
posted by raedyn at 11:53 AM on June 19, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Tlogmer at 9:27 PM on June 16, 2006