Thread on religious oppression may bring out hatemongering July 22, 2006 6:45 AM Subscribe
Regarding the question on ask.metafilter: Religious oppression, any question that would ask for perceived incidents of "personal oppression" from a segment of the population is subtle hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation. This thread is dangerous and should be removed immediately.
posted by rinkjustice at 6:41 AM PST on July 22 [+fave] [!]
posted by rinkjustice at 6:41 AM PST on July 22 [+fave] [!]
So what you're saying is that the thread has a hidden agenda to attack religions (but only those mentioned)? Because I see the thread as a few people discussing religious confrontations, which is well within the AskMe question requirements.
What ever happened to, 'if you don't like it, move on'?
posted by Meagan at 7:04 AM on July 22, 2006
What ever happened to, 'if you don't like it, move on'?
posted by Meagan at 7:04 AM on July 22, 2006
rinkjustice, I let vanoakenfeld's comment in that thread stand because people had already replied to it by the time I had seen it, but yours [as copied above] wasn't at all useful to the thread and I really don't know if it's going to be useful here either. People talk about a lot of ideas on the site, including ideas that some people thing are bad or wrong. The words slander, libel and hatemongering have no place in a thread where people are telling stories about religious people who harassed them.
MetaFilter will tolerate mild prostletyzing but not a lot more than that. I think you're going to have a difficult time getting a lot out of the site if you persist in being sort of a one-note poster trying to spread the word about your faith.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:06 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter will tolerate mild prostletyzing but not a lot more than that. I think you're going to have a difficult time getting a lot out of the site if you persist in being sort of a one-note poster trying to spread the word about your faith.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:06 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another? Why would you ask such a divisive and negative question about people in your own community? Such a question could only foster misunderstanding and hatred.
Again, this thread is dangerous and libelous and goes against the rules of Metafilter:
"...don't troll (quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face - basically people do this for kicks, to destroy conversations and communites, for the hell of it). "
posted by rinkjustice at 7:29 AM on July 22, 2006
Again, this thread is dangerous and libelous and goes against the rules of Metafilter:
"...don't troll (quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face - basically people do this for kicks, to destroy conversations and communites, for the hell of it). "
posted by rinkjustice at 7:29 AM on July 22, 2006
Jess, you probably already noticed but he posted that last comment in the thread in question as well.
posted by lampoil at 7:33 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by lampoil at 7:33 AM on July 22, 2006
Here's a contest. Try and think of things that could have replaced "organised religion" in that question that wouldn't have resulted in the question being deleted. All I can come up with is Republicans and Microsoft.
posted by matthewr at 7:41 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by matthewr at 7:41 AM on July 22, 2006
Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another?
Because that isn't the question. The poster's friend is not being helped, but harassed, and he is looking for ways to deal with it.
posted by LarryC at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2006
Because that isn't the question. The poster's friend is not being helped, but harassed, and he is looking for ways to deal with it.
posted by LarryC at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2006
lampoil: Because I knew my comments would be deleted in the ask.metafilter thread.
posted by rinkjustice at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by rinkjustice at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2006
from a segment of the population is subtle hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation.
Would it be hatemongering to wish that a hippopotamus (or similar giant mammal) fucks you and especially Jesus in the butt? I know it won't happen, what with you not being in Africa and with Jesus being as fictional as the Thundercats.
However, if I was a dying child, that is what I would ask the Make A Wish Foundation to arrange.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:44 AM on July 22, 2006 [5 favorites]
Would it be hatemongering to wish that a hippopotamus (or similar giant mammal) fucks you and especially Jesus in the butt? I know it won't happen, what with you not being in Africa and with Jesus being as fictional as the Thundercats.
However, if I was a dying child, that is what I would ask the Make A Wish Foundation to arrange.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:44 AM on July 22, 2006 [5 favorites]
Here's a contest. Try and think of things that could have replaced "organised religion" in that question that wouldn't have resulted in the question being deleted.
The police. Collections agencies. Some guy at work selling Amway on the side. Really, we have these kinds of questions all the time.
posted by LarryC at 7:45 AM on July 22, 2006
The police. Collections agencies. Some guy at work selling Amway on the side. Really, we have these kinds of questions all the time.
posted by LarryC at 7:45 AM on July 22, 2006
So this is a self-callout? I think you can give yourself a timeout without begging for the admins to do it for you.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:48 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:48 AM on July 22, 2006
Unless you assume the posters are lying with malicious intent it would be hard to label the thread libelous; why do you assume malicious lies on the part of the posters?
posted by little miss manners at 7:52 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by little miss manners at 7:52 AM on July 22, 2006
this thread proves that God doesn't exist
posted by matteo at 7:54 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by matteo at 7:54 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
rinkjustice : "Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another?"
Why not ask for incidences of people making good music? Why did I ask a question about Elizabethan sundials instead of asking a question about converting decimal notation to date-stamp notation in Excel? Why did Matt make MetaFilter a linking and discussion site instead of an anonymous FTP site or a webcomic?
rinkjustice : "quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face"
Looking through that thread, there is not a single person inflamed. In this thread, you are the only person inflamed. Everything will make someone angry. The term "inflammatory" is not used to mean "something that even one person gets upset at", but "something that many people get upset at". So this fails the troll test, for one, in that it isn't inflammatory.
Also, the only arguing that's happening is over the definition of the term "oppression". I have a hard time imagining that Krrrlson posted this post intentionally in order to get people to argue over the definition of "oppression". So I think it fails the troll test also in that it is not intentionally posting something for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the definition of oppression.
There are probably a few other ways that it fails the troll test. But when it comes down to it, the issue is whether matt or jessamyn believe that the question is a troll. Jessamyn has already weighed in, and it's not on your side. I really doubt Matt will be agreeing either. So, I wonder, what exactly is your goal here? If I were a cynic, I would say that it is intentionally posting an inflammatory callout for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face.
"This thread...goes against the rules of Metafilter...and should be removed immediately."
posted by Bugbread at 8:08 AM on July 22, 2006
Why not ask for incidences of people making good music? Why did I ask a question about Elizabethan sundials instead of asking a question about converting decimal notation to date-stamp notation in Excel? Why did Matt make MetaFilter a linking and discussion site instead of an anonymous FTP site or a webcomic?
rinkjustice : "quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face"
Looking through that thread, there is not a single person inflamed. In this thread, you are the only person inflamed. Everything will make someone angry. The term "inflammatory" is not used to mean "something that even one person gets upset at", but "something that many people get upset at". So this fails the troll test, for one, in that it isn't inflammatory.
Also, the only arguing that's happening is over the definition of the term "oppression". I have a hard time imagining that Krrrlson posted this post intentionally in order to get people to argue over the definition of "oppression". So I think it fails the troll test also in that it is not intentionally posting something for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the definition of oppression.
There are probably a few other ways that it fails the troll test. But when it comes down to it, the issue is whether matt or jessamyn believe that the question is a troll. Jessamyn has already weighed in, and it's not on your side. I really doubt Matt will be agreeing either. So, I wonder, what exactly is your goal here? If I were a cynic, I would say that it is intentionally posting an inflammatory callout for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face.
"This thread...goes against the rules of Metafilter...and should be removed immediately."
posted by Bugbread at 8:08 AM on July 22, 2006
Similar questions have been asked before without stirring up too much trouble.
posted by bleary at 8:09 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by bleary at 8:09 AM on July 22, 2006
rinkjustice, could you please explain how were you able to discern the intention of the question poster? You say that the poster asked the question with the "intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation." But there's nothing in Krrrlson's question that indicate that intention -- in fact, Krrrlson gave a good-faith reason for posting the question.
Did you have a private e-mail exchange with Krrrlson in which he/she admitted to this intention?
If you are just guessing at Krrrlson's intention, then it seems to me that you are the one who is "propagating slander, libel and misinformation."
(Or did you make your objection just because you didn't like where you thought the discussion would go?)
posted by jayder at 8:11 AM on July 22, 2006
Did you have a private e-mail exchange with Krrrlson in which he/she admitted to this intention?
If you are just guessing at Krrrlson's intention, then it seems to me that you are the one who is "propagating slander, libel and misinformation."
(Or did you make your objection just because you didn't like where you thought the discussion would go?)
posted by jayder at 8:11 AM on July 22, 2006
Doesn't belong in the ask.metafilter section but this pair makes for an interesting Compare and Contrast. Note that it's neither the same location and not the same source, and that the first source isn't necessarily as fair as it claims to be, but the contrast is food for thought.
posted by little miss manners at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by little miss manners at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2006
Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another?
Post the question yourself. (If you think it can be put in a way that doesn't break the guidelines. I don't know, something like: "I'm trying to convince my friend that Christians - motivated by their faith - actually help others. Does anyone have any concrete examples of this occurring?"). But suggesting that this question is, in and of itself, deliberately provocative and divisive is just fucking stupid.
posted by bunglin jones at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2006
Post the question yourself. (If you think it can be put in a way that doesn't break the guidelines. I don't know, something like: "I'm trying to convince my friend that Christians - motivated by their faith - actually help others. Does anyone have any concrete examples of this occurring?"). But suggesting that this question is, in and of itself, deliberately provocative and divisive is just fucking stupid.
posted by bunglin jones at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2006
actually, i am subtle hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation. i am dangerous and should be removed immediately.
posted by quonsar at 8:28 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by quonsar at 8:28 AM on July 22, 2006
Why did Matt make MetaFilter a linking and discussion site instead of an anonymous FTP site or a webcomic?
I thought MetaFilter was a webcomic.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:47 AM on July 22, 2006
I thought MetaFilter was a webcomic.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:47 AM on July 22, 2006
I thought MetaFilter was a webcomic.
In all seriousness, why the hell hasn't somebody *cough*Robot Johnny*cough* already done this? See here for some gettin' started pointers.
posted by Gator at 9:03 AM on July 22, 2006
In all seriousness, why the hell hasn't somebody *cough*Robot Johnny*cough* already done this? See here for some gettin' started pointers.
posted by Gator at 9:03 AM on July 22, 2006
"Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another? "
Read the fucking question, ace.
Y'know, if you started spouting off like this while I was talking to you in, say, a bar, I would totally give you a purple nurple.
(I thought the question was a bit chatfiltery, but then I've never really felt all that oppressed by religion in my adult life. And I've learned that the fastest way to shut up the campus preacher is to join him and proslytize for whatever strikes your fancy at the moment. Jesus wants me to get a hummer! No more boring blowjobs for me, sez Jesus!)
posted by klangklangston at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2006
Read the fucking question, ace.
Y'know, if you started spouting off like this while I was talking to you in, say, a bar, I would totally give you a purple nurple.
(I thought the question was a bit chatfiltery, but then I've never really felt all that oppressed by religion in my adult life. And I've learned that the fastest way to shut up the campus preacher is to join him and proslytize for whatever strikes your fancy at the moment. Jesus wants me to get a hummer! No more boring blowjobs for me, sez Jesus!)
posted by klangklangston at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2006
I think the post is okay and am enjoying reading it. The comments about what constitues oppression are valid as well. That the poster had an "...intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation" is WAY out in left field, as far as I'm concerned. That's a trinity you're just imagining, and make your complaints sound like an imagined persecution, or crucifixion if you will.
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by SteveInMaine at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2006
the thread in question ruined my life and raped my mother
posted by 29 at 9:57 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by 29 at 9:57 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
I can't speak to ruining your life, but the thing with your mom was actually me, 29. Sorry about that. I mistook her for your sister.
posted by Justinian at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
If the OP actually wanted to help his friend, he would have included some detail about his friend's situation. Soliciting anecodotes that may or may not apply his oppression doesn't seem the best way to attack the problem. This is nothing but chatfilter...with the same old horror stories that are posted to every other religion thread.
posted by klarck at 10:20 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by klarck at 10:20 AM on July 22, 2006
This thread is personally oppressing me.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2006
I agree it's pretty damn chatty.
This is the worst form of callout. It's a cry for censorship to protect some jackass's belief system from "slander." How utterly laughable is that? I laugh in your face, rinkjustice.
Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another?
I love this tactic on the part of the Right. You ask the Administration what they're doing about all the violence in Iraq, and they point you *over there* where something "good" is happening (as if that's a response). And if the news media doesn't go out of their way to be "balanced," as in making the Iraq war look 50% good and 50% bad, then they are biased, no matter what a briar patch it really is. IF YOU'RE NOT SPOUTING OUR DOCTRINE HALF THE TIME YOU'RE BIASED. What a crock.
And none of that applies here anyway, rj, so roll on.
posted by scarabic at 10:47 AM on July 22, 2006
This is the worst form of callout. It's a cry for censorship to protect some jackass's belief system from "slander." How utterly laughable is that? I laugh in your face, rinkjustice.
Why not ask people for incidences when a Christian may have helped another?
I love this tactic on the part of the Right. You ask the Administration what they're doing about all the violence in Iraq, and they point you *over there* where something "good" is happening (as if that's a response). And if the news media doesn't go out of their way to be "balanced," as in making the Iraq war look 50% good and 50% bad, then they are biased, no matter what a briar patch it really is. IF YOU'RE NOT SPOUTING OUR DOCTRINE HALF THE TIME YOU'RE BIASED. What a crock.
And none of that applies here anyway, rj, so roll on.
posted by scarabic at 10:47 AM on July 22, 2006
I agree it's pretty damn chatty.
Yeah, me too. If it were "What are some effective ways to deal with harrassment from religious types, and I'm talking about real harrassment and not just the minor annoyance of being handed a tract," that would've been a better question than "Share your stories of harrassment from religious types." As it is, a lot of the responses are just "Here's how I was harrassed one time," which seems more like chatfilter than anything useful for the friend in question.
I mean, if I posted saying, "Share your stories of psychotic bosses! I had a psychotic boss last year and want to know how best to respond if it happens again," and everybody chimed in with their own tale of workplace insanity but didn't offer much in the way of advice, that would be chatfilter, wouldn't it?
posted by Gator at 10:59 AM on July 22, 2006
Yeah, me too. If it were "What are some effective ways to deal with harrassment from religious types, and I'm talking about real harrassment and not just the minor annoyance of being handed a tract," that would've been a better question than "Share your stories of harrassment from religious types." As it is, a lot of the responses are just "Here's how I was harrassed one time," which seems more like chatfilter than anything useful for the friend in question.
I mean, if I posted saying, "Share your stories of psychotic bosses! I had a psychotic boss last year and want to know how best to respond if it happens again," and everybody chimed in with their own tale of workplace insanity but didn't offer much in the way of advice, that would be chatfilter, wouldn't it?
posted by Gator at 10:59 AM on July 22, 2006
Soliciting anecodotes that may or may not apply his oppression doesn't seem the best way to attack the problem. This is nothing but chatfilter
Yeah, absolutely. The responses are interesting but are any of them actually offering strategies for dealing with harassment, which presumably was the purpose of the post?
posted by jamesonandwater at 11:00 AM on July 22, 2006
Yeah, absolutely. The responses are interesting but are any of them actually offering strategies for dealing with harassment, which presumably was the purpose of the post?
posted by jamesonandwater at 11:00 AM on July 22, 2006
MetaTalk: give yourself a timeout without begging for the admins to do it for you.
posted by loquacious at 11:14 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by loquacious at 11:14 AM on July 22, 2006
This thread is dangerous and should be removed immediately.
Kindly STFU.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:18 AM on July 22, 2006
Kindly STFU.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:18 AM on July 22, 2006
Funny thing: there's no mention of Christianity in the post in question. The poster specifically avoids mentioning any religion in specific. Many of the comments are not about Christianity. How telling that rinkjustice read that thread and believed it to be an assault on Christanity.
posted by waldo at 11:19 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by waldo at 11:19 AM on July 22, 2006
Regarding the question on ask.metafilter: Religious oppression, any question that would ask for perceived incidents of "personal oppression" from a segment of the population is subtle hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation. This thread is dangerous and should be removed immediately.
I think you're the only one here who's inciting contention or propagating misinformation, as you so fatuously put it. You're free to post your own questions to AskMe.
You're basically asking for pre-emptive self-censoring of the site because you have some bizarre, paranoid persecution fixation, and the most egregious bit is that you're the one who wants to turn this into a Christo-centric issue, which I think everyone sees it is not.
posted by clockzero at 11:20 AM on July 22, 2006
I think you're the only one here who's inciting contention or propagating misinformation, as you so fatuously put it. You're free to post your own questions to AskMe.
You're basically asking for pre-emptive self-censoring of the site because you have some bizarre, paranoid persecution fixation, and the most egregious bit is that you're the one who wants to turn this into a Christo-centric issue, which I think everyone sees it is not.
posted by clockzero at 11:20 AM on July 22, 2006
this thread proves that God doesn't exist
Why, because a hippopotamus has not yet fucked rinkjustice in the butt? Give it time, give it time. God works in mysterious ways.
Love the self-callout, by the way—you made my day, rinkjustice!
posted by languagehat at 11:21 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Why, because a hippopotamus has not yet fucked rinkjustice in the butt? Give it time, give it time. God works in mysterious ways.
Love the self-callout, by the way—you made my day, rinkjustice!
posted by languagehat at 11:21 AM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
So, can we index this self-callout in the Ask thread as an example? Or would that cause the universe to explode with God's anger and wrath?
posted by loquacious at 11:24 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by loquacious at 11:24 AM on July 22, 2006
I'd like to know what Krrrlson is up to, given his asshattery towards the end of this thread. Of course, Decani didn't help matters.
posted by bardic at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
*sprinkles ASPARTAME all over this thread*
Also I strongly suggest that everyone right-click save-as brownpau's comic because it doesn't get any better than that, baby.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
Also I strongly suggest that everyone right-click save-as brownpau's comic because it doesn't get any better than that, baby.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
Why would you ask such a divisive and negative question about people in your own community? Such a question could only foster misunderstanding and hatred.
Any thread hinting at or asking about bad behavior by Christians can only be divisive and must therefore be censored. That is a really, really retarded reading of the site guidelines.
posted by scarabic at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
Any thread hinting at or asking about bad behavior by Christians can only be divisive and must therefore be censored. That is a really, really retarded reading of the site guidelines.
posted by scarabic at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2006
The brother of my muslim 7-11 clerk was killed by a jew.
posted by mischief at 11:37 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by mischief at 11:37 AM on July 22, 2006
I'd like to know what Krrrlson is up to, given his asshattery towards the end of this thread.
posted by bardic at 11:30 AM PST on July 22
I just answered it as if he were dead serious. Second-guessing the motives of AskMe posters is a dangerous precedent.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:43 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 11:30 AM PST on July 22
I just answered it as if he were dead serious. Second-guessing the motives of AskMe posters is a dangerous precedent.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:43 AM on July 22, 2006
Rinkjustice: Please stfu and go somewhere else. Your perceived religious persecution combined with your fucked up nutritional advice are a pretty good indicator that you are completely fucking nuts.
No, on second thought, please stay. You're like a trainwreck. You know you shouldn't stare but you do anyway.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:48 AM on July 22, 2006
No, on second thought, please stay. You're like a trainwreck. You know you shouldn't stare but you do anyway.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:48 AM on July 22, 2006
I agree. Just copping to my bias, and I'd be happy to swallow it with some crow if I'm wrong. Religious bigotry is a serious problem, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on July 22, 2006
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on July 22, 2006
It might be dangerous, but I am going to read all of that thread and then all of this one. *braces self*
Highway to the danger zone
Gonna take you
Right into the danger zone
Highway to the danger zoooooone!
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2006
Highway to the danger zone
Gonna take you
Right into the danger zone
Highway to the danger zoooooone!
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2006
I'd like to know what Krrrlson is up to, given his asshattery towards the end of this thread. Of course, Decani didn't help matters.
I'd like to know what consitutes asshattery on my part, besides disagreeing with your eminence.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:58 AM on July 22, 2006
I'd like to know what consitutes asshattery on my part, besides disagreeing with your eminence.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:58 AM on July 22, 2006
I'm a Christian and the askme thread doesn't bother me.
Interesting to see what people do and do not consider harrassment. I was approached two different times by LDS missionaries (once at Walmart, in the kitchen/bath area, for heaven's sake) and I didn't feel harrassed.
When I was done with them, maybe THEY did. ;-)
posted by konolia at 12:13 PM on July 22, 2006
Interesting to see what people do and do not consider harrassment. I was approached two different times by LDS missionaries (once at Walmart, in the kitchen/bath area, for heaven's sake) and I didn't feel harrassed.
When I was done with them, maybe THEY did. ;-)
posted by konolia at 12:13 PM on July 22, 2006
I'm a Christian and the askme thread doesn't bother me.
Of course it shouldn't, because the original question has nothing to do with Christianity. Anyway. I reckon krrrlson was asking a legitimate question - sure, a lot of the answers were a bit pathetic (being asked not to smoke is religious oppression? Boy, you must be oppressed everytime you walk into a kindergarten or hospital then as well!) and it may be these answers that make the question somehow look like a troll. If only the very small minority who had been jailed or beaten or spat upon answered the question, then it would have been a decent little post, and krrrlson probably would have had exactly the answers he was looking for. But, I guess, that's why the question descended into debate over the definition of oppression.
So, rinkjustice, when krrrlson (who, as we can see, is hardly anti-religious) posts a legitimate question ("I'm looking for relatively involved or prolonged incidents (e.g. if someone offered you a tract on the bus, and you refused and were left alone, that probably wouldn't qualify)" - hardly trollish), and other people choose to answer out of their own free will, you see it is dangerous and libellous and some kind of attack on Christianity? Pardon my french, but Christ! I mean, if he was trolling from a pro-religious point of view, the result that would have made him happy would be an empty thread, right? Oh look, no answers, therefore religious oppression must not exist!
posted by Jimbob at 12:56 PM on July 22, 2006
Of course it shouldn't, because the original question has nothing to do with Christianity. Anyway. I reckon krrrlson was asking a legitimate question - sure, a lot of the answers were a bit pathetic (being asked not to smoke is religious oppression? Boy, you must be oppressed everytime you walk into a kindergarten or hospital then as well!) and it may be these answers that make the question somehow look like a troll. If only the very small minority who had been jailed or beaten or spat upon answered the question, then it would have been a decent little post, and krrrlson probably would have had exactly the answers he was looking for. But, I guess, that's why the question descended into debate over the definition of oppression.
So, rinkjustice, when krrrlson (who, as we can see, is hardly anti-religious) posts a legitimate question ("I'm looking for relatively involved or prolonged incidents (e.g. if someone offered you a tract on the bus, and you refused and were left alone, that probably wouldn't qualify)" - hardly trollish), and other people choose to answer out of their own free will, you see it is dangerous and libellous and some kind of attack on Christianity? Pardon my french, but Christ! I mean, if he was trolling from a pro-religious point of view, the result that would have made him happy would be an empty thread, right? Oh look, no answers, therefore religious oppression must not exist!
posted by Jimbob at 12:56 PM on July 22, 2006
(being asked not to smoke is religious oppression? Boy, you must be oppressed everytime you walk into a kindergarten or hospital then as well!)
The demand that he not smoke at family gatherings was made on LDS religious grounds, not health ones, at least according to the commenter.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:04 PM on July 22, 2006
The demand that he not smoke at family gatherings was made on LDS religious grounds, not health ones, at least according to the commenter.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:04 PM on July 22, 2006
Could you describe any notable incidents when you, personally, have suffered or faced oppression from ex girlfriends/boyfriends in Europe or North America? How did you deal with it?
Oops, I guess I'm hatemongering and spreading slander and libel. Sorry.
posted by Neiltupper at 1:16 PM on July 22, 2006
Oops, I guess I'm hatemongering and spreading slander and libel. Sorry.
posted by Neiltupper at 1:16 PM on July 22, 2006
Catholics killed my dog. Ran him down in the middle of the highway.
'Course, my family's Catholic too, and the stupid dog knew he wasn't supposed to be playing on the road, so...
Decani didn't help matters.
Anyone here want to see my Claude Raines impression?
Anyone?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:31 PM on July 22, 2006
'Course, my family's Catholic too, and the stupid dog knew he wasn't supposed to be playing on the road, so...
Decani didn't help matters.
Anyone here want to see my Claude Raines impression?
Anyone?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:31 PM on July 22, 2006
rinkjustice, isn't it the answers rather than the question that bothers you? All over the world and throughout history, members of a dominant religion have treated others not of that religion badly--it's not surprising, is it?
posted by amberglow at 1:58 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by amberglow at 1:58 PM on July 22, 2006
You know what's dangerous? Being thrown to the lions or getting burned at the stake. You know what's neither dangerous nor slanderous/libelous (you may want to look up terms of art before accusing people of, say, committing a crime)? Having to confront opinions and experiences different from your own, especially ones that hold a mirror up to to the uglier side of your own convictions/allies. Read Mill's On Liberty, grow a fucking spine, and if you still can't get the Red Sea sand outta yer vagina, offer up your suffering to your Father in Heaven. The world is not out to persecute you. Majorities that play the oppressed minority card make me sick.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:19 PM on July 22, 2006 [3 favorites]
posted by joe lisboa at 2:19 PM on July 22, 2006 [3 favorites]
The demand that he not smoke at family gatherings was made on LDS religious grounds, not health ones
So? Calling it "oppression" is absurd and demeans the very word.
posted by languagehat at 2:21 PM on July 22, 2006
So? Calling it "oppression" is absurd and demeans the very word.
posted by languagehat at 2:21 PM on July 22, 2006
Ow! Fuck-fuckity-fuck! rinkjustice was totally right! That page gave me an ePaperCut on my iSoul. Goddamned ghost is bleeding all over the motherfucking machine! My Radioactive God is weeping rancid neutrinos all over the Internet! But fear not, MeFites - Web 2.0 has died for your sigs.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:35 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:35 PM on July 22, 2006
Rinkjustice, out of curiosity, I started perusing your posting history. It was . . . interesting. It might have gotten even more interesting, but I couldn't get past the second time you used the phrase "grievous sin." I have a sneaking suspicion I would have seen it pop up more had I been able to keep going, so my parting gift to you (if you decide not to stick around after this) is a link to some synonyms for grievous.
Vaya con dios. Oh. Wait. Forget I said that.
posted by veggieboy at 2:52 PM on July 22, 2006
Vaya con dios. Oh. Wait. Forget I said that.
posted by veggieboy at 2:52 PM on July 22, 2006
When I read rinkjustice's answers on AskMe, I nearly always go "Who the hell is this guy?". Then I see that it's him, and I remember. It's that guy. He's reliably useless and/or slightly insane. I'm glad he's brought himself out into the open, for everyone to mock.
posted by MadamM at 3:13 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by MadamM at 3:13 PM on July 22, 2006
For a good while, I thought rinkjustice was kidding. But then I checked his posting history. He really is a crazy whack-job fundamentalist.
posted by matkline at 3:19 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by matkline at 3:19 PM on July 22, 2006
I honestly hope he sticks around, flailing his arms and shrieking hyperbole and hysterical moralizing into every thread he can reach, giving us the opportunity to point at him and laugh and laugh and laugh, forever.
Or, you know, Mayor Curley's hippopotamus thing.
posted by Zozo at 3:19 PM on July 22, 2006
Or, you know, Mayor Curley's hippopotamus thing.
posted by Zozo at 3:19 PM on July 22, 2006
Yeah, his posting history reads like a handbook for religious zealotry.
posted by bob sarabia at 3:23 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 3:23 PM on July 22, 2006
This thread has been awesome. I'll admit that I was a little bit down, my mood was verging on maudlin, and then I came here and saw this and it had the snarks and the webcomics and the misplaced sense of moral outrage that really floats the best emotions of metatalk.
So I would like to say thank you to all involved, the religous nutjobs, the cranks, the vaguely pissed-off-at-each-other grudge holders, the webartistsTM, mathowie, jessamyn, the elephant and the hippo, quonsar and the Thundercats and IRFH and, well, just everybody. I leave with my would refreshed, my mood lightened, my Pepsi Blue and my mind clear.
posted by OmieWise at 3:28 PM on July 22, 2006
So I would like to say thank you to all involved, the religous nutjobs, the cranks, the vaguely pissed-off-at-each-other grudge holders, the webartistsTM, mathowie, jessamyn, the elephant and the hippo, quonsar and the Thundercats and IRFH and, well, just everybody. I leave with my would refreshed, my mood lightened, my Pepsi Blue and my mind clear.
posted by OmieWise at 3:28 PM on July 22, 2006
Shit, I forgot Jesus. Oh well, he'll forgive me.
posted by OmieWise at 3:29 PM on July 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 3:29 PM on July 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter: perceived religious persecution combined with fucked up nutritional advice
posted by scarabic at 3:32 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by scarabic at 3:32 PM on July 22, 2006
Read Mill's On Liberty, grow a fucking spine, and if you still can't get the Red Sea sand outta yer vagina, offer up your suffering to your Father in Heaven. The world is not out to persecute you.
I think there's a point being made in here somewhere but damn if I can make it out. I have to go read a whole book to find out what you're talking about?
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on July 22, 2006
I think there's a point being made in here somewhere but damn if I can make it out. I have to go read a whole book to find out what you're talking about?
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on July 22, 2006
at the end, there's a scratch and sniff that smells like Liberty.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:43 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:43 PM on July 22, 2006
Let me help you, scarabic:
(1) Read Mill's On Liberty;
(2) Grow a fucking spine;
(3) Examine yer vagina for sand;
(4) If sand persists, offer up your suffering.
I can draw you a picture if you like, but Matt probably wouldn't appreciate a crayon-rendered sandy vag on the grey.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:44 PM on July 22, 2006
(1) Read Mill's On Liberty;
(2) Grow a fucking spine;
(3) Examine yer vagina for sand;
(4) If sand persists, offer up your suffering.
I can draw you a picture if you like, but Matt probably wouldn't appreciate a crayon-rendered sandy vag on the grey.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:44 PM on July 22, 2006
bardic writes "I'd like to know what Krrrlson is up to, given his asshattery towards the end of this thread. Of course, Decani didn't help matters."
Yeah, the timing of the question (in the middle of the metatalk foofaraw over the Camp Atheist thread) made me wonder too. (And that's why I didn't add my anecdote to it.)
posted by orthogonality at 3:50 PM on July 22, 2006
Yeah, the timing of the question (in the middle of the metatalk foofaraw over the Camp Atheist thread) made me wonder too. (And that's why I didn't add my anecdote to it.)
posted by orthogonality at 3:50 PM on July 22, 2006
On second thought, I vote we forgive rinkjustice, if only because he's a Mormon.
posted by matkline at 3:51 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by matkline at 3:51 PM on July 22, 2006
Oh for the gods' sakes, won't someone just flame out and have done with it? This looked so promising, too.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 3:52 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by Meep! Eek! at 3:52 PM on July 22, 2006
rinkjustice, I'm willing to bet that the real reason for this callout is that you're pissed that some of the answers in that thread were decrying the Mormon faith. This was undoing all the Good Work you've been putting in lately trying to convert us, so it needed to be banned. I understand.
posted by blag at 3:53 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by blag at 3:53 PM on July 22, 2006
joe lisboa: "I can draw you a picture if you like, but Matt probably wouldn't appreciate a crayon-rendered sandy vag on the grey."
Picture the toothless grin of unwashed Stigmata.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:55 PM on July 22, 2006
Picture the toothless grin of unwashed Stigmata.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:55 PM on July 22, 2006
Yeah, the timing of the question (in the middle of the metatalk foofaraw over the Camp Atheist thread) made me wonder too.
Surely that's the point?
The thread in the blue is about a camp which helps kids stand up to religious oppression.
So he asks a question in the green to see if anyone has an example of such. Perfectly logical.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:10 PM on July 22, 2006
Surely that's the point?
The thread in the blue is about a camp which helps kids stand up to religious oppression.
So he asks a question in the green to see if anyone has an example of such. Perfectly logical.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:10 PM on July 22, 2006
AmbroseChapel writes "Surely that's the point?"
Yes, exactly. But Krrrlson's explanation isn't that. It's that coincidently to the thread where he's minimizing religious oppression and getting into a pissing match with those arguing that there's a lot of religious oppression, Krrrlson happens to have friend who is suffering such oppression.
It's an odd lacuna that Krrlson doesn't mention his friend's oppression in the thread in the blue, instead preferring to argue that "militant atheism" is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible. You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked "militant atheists".
posted by orthogonality at 4:24 PM on July 22, 2006
Yes, exactly. But Krrrlson's explanation isn't that. It's that coincidently to the thread where he's minimizing religious oppression and getting into a pissing match with those arguing that there's a lot of religious oppression, Krrrlson happens to have friend who is suffering such oppression.
It's an odd lacuna that Krrlson doesn't mention his friend's oppression in the thread in the blue, instead preferring to argue that "militant atheism" is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible. You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked "militant atheists".
posted by orthogonality at 4:24 PM on July 22, 2006
You know, this would all go much better if we just avoided discussing religion and politics. Like nice, civilized people.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:52 PM on July 22, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 4:52 PM on July 22, 2006
If nothing else, rinkjustice has the best website I've seen in, ooh, hours:
DO YOU WANT TO LOOK LIKE A MAN? OR DO YOU WANT THE LEAN, HARD, MUSCULAR LOOK OF A
SUPER MAN?!
And, for the ladies:
FINE-TUNE YOUR FANNY!
posted by jack_mo at 5:22 PM on July 22, 2006
DO YOU WANT TO LOOK LIKE A MAN? OR DO YOU WANT THE LEAN, HARD, MUSCULAR LOOK OF A
SUPER MAN?!
And, for the ladies:
FINE-TUNE YOUR FANNY!
posted by jack_mo at 5:22 PM on July 22, 2006
Ow! Fuck-fuckity-fuck! rinkjustice was totally right! That page gave me an ePaperCut on my iSoul. Goddamned ghost is bleeding all over the motherfucking machine! My Radioactive God is weeping rancid neutrinos all over the Internet! But fear not, MeFites - Web 2.0 has died for your sigs.
By godfrey, I'm growing quite fond of you, It's Raining Florence Henderson
posted by languagehat at 5:23 PM on July 22, 2006
By godfrey, I'm growing quite fond of you, It's Raining Florence Henderson
posted by languagehat at 5:23 PM on July 22, 2006
Members, please quit trying to run rinkjustice off. I want to continue to have the chance of looking at the world through those eyes, don't you? I mean it. Please?
posted by jamjam at 5:31 PM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by jamjam at 5:31 PM on July 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
So? Calling it "oppression" is absurd and demeans the very word.
True enough, but "don't smoke because the prophet said not to" is completely different from "don't smoke because there are children and/or sick people here."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:38 PM on July 22, 2006
True enough, but "don't smoke because the prophet said not to" is completely different from "don't smoke because there are children and/or sick people here."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:38 PM on July 22, 2006
languagehat: "By godfrey, I'm growing quite fond of you, It's Raining Florence Henderson"
The feeling is entirely mutual.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:30 PM on July 22, 2006
The feeling is entirely mutual.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:30 PM on July 22, 2006
"Decani didn't help matters"
I am so getting that put on a T-shirt. Probably.
posted by Decani at 6:35 PM on July 22, 2006
I am so getting that put on a T-shirt. Probably.
posted by Decani at 6:35 PM on July 22, 2006
Told ya so. rinkjustice sees AskMe (and the rest of MeFi, I'd bet) primarily as an opportunity to proselytize - for Jesus and metabolic supplements both.
Try and think of things that could have replaced "organised religion" in that question that wouldn't have resulted in the question being deleted.
Oh, horseshit.
posted by mediareport at 9:23 PM on July 22, 2006
Try and think of things that could have replaced "organised religion" in that question that wouldn't have resulted in the question being deleted.
Oh, horseshit.
posted by mediareport at 9:23 PM on July 22, 2006
Yes, exactly. But Krrrlson's explanation isn't that. It's that coincidently... blah blah
Or, you know, it could be that the thread reminded me of a question I intended to post to Axme. But I wouldn't expect a self-admitted paranoiac to try and explain anything with something besides an evil conspiracy.
It's an odd lacuna that Krrlson doesn't mention his friend's oppression in the thread in the blue, instead preferring to argue that "militant atheism" is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible.
That is, of course, a blatant, malicious lie.
You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked "militant atheists".
Why are you so sure it was Christian hands?
posted by Krrrlson at 12:16 AM on July 23, 2006
Or, you know, it could be that the thread reminded me of a question I intended to post to Axme. But I wouldn't expect a self-admitted paranoiac to try and explain anything with something besides an evil conspiracy.
It's an odd lacuna that Krrlson doesn't mention his friend's oppression in the thread in the blue, instead preferring to argue that "militant atheism" is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible.
That is, of course, a blatant, malicious lie.
You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked "militant atheists".
Why are you so sure it was Christian hands?
posted by Krrrlson at 12:16 AM on July 23, 2006
And remind me, before I forget -- was it you, by any chance, who kept lying about his identity at meetups? Because it's mighty big of you to spew accusations about my alleged motives.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:21 AM on July 23, 2006
posted by Krrrlson at 12:21 AM on July 23, 2006
I wrote "It's an odd lacuna that Krrrlson doesn't mention his friend's oppression in the thread in the blue, instead preferring to argue that 'militant atheism' is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible. "
Krrrlson indignantly responds, "That is, of course, a blatant, malicious lie."
Krrrlson, I humbly apologize if I missed your comment mentioning your friend's oppression in the Camp Atheist thread in the blue. If it's a "blatant, malicious lie", could you please provide a link to your comment in the blue? I've looked and looked at your comments in that thread and I don't see it.
Are we really supposed to take this seriously?
I wrote "You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked 'militant atheists'."
Krrrlson cleverly responds, "Why are you so sure it was Christian hands?"
Well, you did specifically ask about "oppression from organized religion in Europe or North America". Last I checked Christian sects are by far the majority organized religions in both places. Certainly, "militant atheists" -- the target of your ire in the thread -- aren't notorious for oppressing people, except on Fox News. Were you planning some "clever" denouement to the askMefi? Like, "A-ha all you Christian-bashers making your assumptions, it was really a Sikh who harassed my buddy by tauting him with that great big turban?"
Are we really supposed to take you seriously?
Krrrlson peers out from under his bridge. J'Accuse, he sputters! "And remind me, before I forget -- was it you, by any chance, who kept lying about his identity at meetups? Because it's mighty big of you to spew accusations about my alleged motives."
You're trolling again, Krrrlson.
Admit it Krrrlson, you don't come here to be taken seriously, do you?
posted by orthogonality at 1:31 AM on July 23, 2006
Krrrlson indignantly responds, "That is, of course, a blatant, malicious lie."
Krrrlson, I humbly apologize if I missed your comment mentioning your friend's oppression in the Camp Atheist thread in the blue. If it's a "blatant, malicious lie", could you please provide a link to your comment in the blue? I've looked and looked at your comments in that thread and I don't see it.
Are we really supposed to take this seriously?
I wrote "You'd think Krrrlson would have mentioned his friend's troubles at Christian hands before he'd have attacked 'militant atheists'."
Krrrlson cleverly responds, "Why are you so sure it was Christian hands?"
Well, you did specifically ask about "oppression from organized religion in Europe or North America". Last I checked Christian sects are by far the majority organized religions in both places. Certainly, "militant atheists" -- the target of your ire in the thread -- aren't notorious for oppressing people, except on Fox News. Were you planning some "clever" denouement to the askMefi? Like, "A-ha all you Christian-bashers making your assumptions, it was really a Sikh who harassed my buddy by tauting him with that great big turban?"
Are we really supposed to take you seriously?
Krrrlson peers out from under his bridge. J'Accuse, he sputters! "And remind me, before I forget -- was it you, by any chance, who kept lying about his identity at meetups? Because it's mighty big of you to spew accusations about my alleged motives."
You're trolling again, Krrrlson.
Admit it Krrrlson, you don't come here to be taken seriously, do you?
posted by orthogonality at 1:31 AM on July 23, 2006
And remind me, before I forget -- was it you, by any chance, who kept lying about his identity at meetups?
Now that you mention it, yes, it was.
Are we really supposed to take you seriously?
posted by bob sarabia at 1:54 AM on July 23, 2006
Now that you mention it, yes, it was.
Are we really supposed to take you seriously?
posted by bob sarabia at 1:54 AM on July 23, 2006
Err... whether or not ortho lied about his identity at meetups has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of the words in his posts, you fallacious monkeys. Still, it's a nice, lazy way for lazy people to dismiss him, isn't it?
And Krrrlson is still, no doubt, sniffily waiting for me to justify calling him a fucking idiot.
posted by Decani at 4:32 AM on July 23, 2006
And Krrrlson is still, no doubt, sniffily waiting for me to justify calling him a fucking idiot.
posted by Decani at 4:32 AM on July 23, 2006
Recourse to years-old MeTa posts about long gone arguments having no bearing on the issue at hand is not only classy, it demonstrates how RIGHT you are, so, you know, you guys rock!
posted by OmieWise at 4:39 AM on July 23, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 4:39 AM on July 23, 2006
orthogonality : "Were you planning some 'clever' denouement to the askMefi? Like, 'A-ha all you Christian-bashers making your assumptions, it was really a Sikh who harassed my buddy by tauting him with that great big turban?'"
I just assumed "oppression" + "organized religion" + "North America" = "Scientology"
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 AM on July 23, 2006
I just assumed "oppression" + "organized religion" + "North America" = "Scientology"
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 AM on July 23, 2006
bugbread writes "I just assumed 'oppression' + 'organized religion' + 'North America' = 'Scientology'"
Krrrlson's friend is Oprah?!?!?
posted by orthogonality at 5:23 AM on July 23, 2006
Krrrlson's friend is Oprah?!?!?
posted by orthogonality at 5:23 AM on July 23, 2006
Krrrlson, I humbly apologize if I missed your comment mentioning your friend's oppression in the Camp Atheist thread in the blue. If it's a "blatant, malicious lie", could you please provide a link to your comment in the blue? I've looked and looked at your comments in that thread and I don't see it.
The burden of proof is on you to link to my comment which argues this:
'militant atheism' is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible
Either you can't read, or you lied.
Well, you did specifically ask about "oppression from organized religion in Europe or North America". Last I checked Christian sects are by far the majority organized religions in both places... Were you planning some "clever" denouement to the askMefi? Like, "A-ha all you Christian-bashers making your assumptions, it was really a Sikh who harassed my buddy by tauting him with that great big turban?"
Your ability to make false conclusions and trace my alleged intentions is uncanny. You'll make some psychiatrist very happy some day. Sadly, none of this is founded on any semblance of verifiable fact.
You're trolling again, Krrrlson.
"There's no place like home, there's no place like home."
And Krrrlson is still, no doubt, sniffily waiting for me to justify calling him a fucking idiot.
No more than I wait for the unwashed, urine-smelling hobo raving on a streetcorner to justify anything he yells at me. Or any other intellectual peers you might have.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:12 AM on July 23, 2006
The burden of proof is on you to link to my comment which argues this:
'militant atheism' is a greater problem and that religious oppression is negligible
Either you can't read, or you lied.
Well, you did specifically ask about "oppression from organized religion in Europe or North America". Last I checked Christian sects are by far the majority organized religions in both places... Were you planning some "clever" denouement to the askMefi? Like, "A-ha all you Christian-bashers making your assumptions, it was really a Sikh who harassed my buddy by tauting him with that great big turban?"
Your ability to make false conclusions and trace my alleged intentions is uncanny. You'll make some psychiatrist very happy some day. Sadly, none of this is founded on any semblance of verifiable fact.
You're trolling again, Krrrlson.
"There's no place like home, there's no place like home."
And Krrrlson is still, no doubt, sniffily waiting for me to justify calling him a fucking idiot.
No more than I wait for the unwashed, urine-smelling hobo raving on a streetcorner to justify anything he yells at me. Or any other intellectual peers you might have.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:12 AM on July 23, 2006
I honestly hope he sticks around, flailing his arms and shrieking hyperbole and hysterical moralizing into every thread he can reach, giving us the opportunity to point at him and laugh and laugh and laugh, forever.
Is this comment serious, or is there an inside joke that I've missed?
posted by Neiltupper at 10:29 AM on July 23, 2006
Is this comment serious, or is there an inside joke that I've missed?
posted by Neiltupper at 10:29 AM on July 23, 2006
Damn, Aquaman has really let himself go.
posted by Gator at 11:04 AM on July 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Gator at 11:04 AM on July 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Why did I ask a question about Elizabethan sundials instead of asking a question about converting decimal notation to date-stamp notation in Excel?
I came this close to calling you out on that issue, bugbread. Elizabethan sundials? Good god, man, you can't discuss such a dangerous and libelous subject!
rinkjackass, it's time for you to leave. You need to find a compatible community for your particular brand of lunacy.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:56 PM on July 23, 2006
I came this close to calling you out on that issue, bugbread. Elizabethan sundials? Good god, man, you can't discuss such a dangerous and libelous subject!
rinkjackass, it's time for you to leave. You need to find a compatible community for your particular brand of lunacy.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:56 PM on July 23, 2006
bugbread: "I just assumed 'oppression' + 'organized religion' + 'North America' = 'Scientology'"
I thought I was the only one who jumped to that conclusion.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 1:22 PM on July 23, 2006
I thought I was the only one who jumped to that conclusion.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 1:22 PM on July 23, 2006
This thread is dangerous and should be removed immediately
You are dangerous and should be removed immediately.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:33 PM on July 23, 2006
You are dangerous and should be removed immediately.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:33 PM on July 23, 2006
Hey all, I'm back. Thanks for keeping my seat warm. I have a couple of statements I want to make.
First and foremost, I stand by every word I've made in prior posts and believe MetaFilter is irresponsible for allowing this hyperbolic, rediculous question on ask.metafilter to exist. It singles out individuals and families of different faiths who live and work in our communities, and the negative nature of the discussion promotes misunderstanding and ill-will.
Regardling the claims I use metafilter to proselytize my faith and my website, this is only partly correct. MetaFilter has provided key opportunities to share what I know about fitness and my faith, but while I'll likely never know in this lifetime what effect I've had in directing thirsty souls to the Source of Living Water, I do know MetaFilter is a meagre slice of my web traffic pie to ZerotoSuperhero.com. Google continues to be where it's at in that department.
As for those of you who want me to leave, I won't be obliging.
I'll close my comments with a word of encouragement for anyone reading who is of religious conviction: Stand and be counted. Said Paul to the Corinthians:
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:58.)
posted by rinkjustice at 2:47 PM on July 23, 2006
First and foremost, I stand by every word I've made in prior posts and believe MetaFilter is irresponsible for allowing this hyperbolic, rediculous question on ask.metafilter to exist. It singles out individuals and families of different faiths who live and work in our communities, and the negative nature of the discussion promotes misunderstanding and ill-will.
Regardling the claims I use metafilter to proselytize my faith and my website, this is only partly correct. MetaFilter has provided key opportunities to share what I know about fitness and my faith, but while I'll likely never know in this lifetime what effect I've had in directing thirsty souls to the Source of Living Water, I do know MetaFilter is a meagre slice of my web traffic pie to ZerotoSuperhero.com. Google continues to be where it's at in that department.
As for those of you who want me to leave, I won't be obliging.
I'll close my comments with a word of encouragement for anyone reading who is of religious conviction: Stand and be counted. Said Paul to the Corinthians:
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:58.)
posted by rinkjustice at 2:47 PM on July 23, 2006
Is this comment serious, or is there an inside joke that I've missed?
I find this jackass's ravings to be non-stop laughs; I honestly do hope he sticks around to fight the good fight and keep me in popcorn-munching entertainment.
posted by Zozo at 2:56 PM on July 23, 2006
I find this jackass's ravings to be non-stop laughs; I honestly do hope he sticks around to fight the good fight and keep me in popcorn-munching entertainment.
posted by Zozo at 2:56 PM on July 23, 2006
I wonder if the whackjob evangeliclas know that their off-putting nature actually makes it harder for their more competent brethren to successfully convert people because of the prior bad experiences? Or does that even matter, is making yourself feel like you're doing the right thing more important than actual success or saving souls?
posted by Space Coyote at 2:58 PM on July 23, 2006
posted by Space Coyote at 2:58 PM on July 23, 2006
MetaFilter has provided key opportunities to share what I know about fitness and my faith
Do you and konolia run spin classes together?
posted by bardic at 3:10 PM on July 23, 2006
Do you and konolia run spin classes together?
posted by bardic at 3:10 PM on July 23, 2006
... I stand by every word I've made in prior posts and believe MetaFilter is irresponsible for allowing this hyperbolic, rediculous question on ask.metafilter to exist. It singles out individuals and families of different faiths who live and work in our communities, and the negative nature of the discussion promotes misunderstanding and ill-will.
I want to pick apart all the inanities in the above-quoted passage, but I've decided it's just not worth the time. What strikes me, above all, is the profound lack of respect you exhibit toward fellow MeFites, that you would demand that any question not fitting your idiosyncratic preferences be deleted. It is shocking that a seemingly normal, functioning adult would make such a pathetically childish demand. It's not only rude --- it's actually manifestly oppressive in its intentions, in that you would actually support the removal of a question that a fellow MeFite invested time and care in crafting. You're trying to silence someone just because they don't agree with you.
I had hoped that your next comment on this thread would be something along the lines of, "I've thought about this whole issue, folks, and I was wrong. I'm sorry." But you came back with a defense of yourself that was even more offensive than your original demand.
And, when the question didn't identify any religious group, how in the hell can you say it singles out individuals and families? That makes no sense at all.
posted by jayder at 3:11 PM on July 23, 2006
I want to pick apart all the inanities in the above-quoted passage, but I've decided it's just not worth the time. What strikes me, above all, is the profound lack of respect you exhibit toward fellow MeFites, that you would demand that any question not fitting your idiosyncratic preferences be deleted. It is shocking that a seemingly normal, functioning adult would make such a pathetically childish demand. It's not only rude --- it's actually manifestly oppressive in its intentions, in that you would actually support the removal of a question that a fellow MeFite invested time and care in crafting. You're trying to silence someone just because they don't agree with you.
I had hoped that your next comment on this thread would be something along the lines of, "I've thought about this whole issue, folks, and I was wrong. I'm sorry." But you came back with a defense of yourself that was even more offensive than your original demand.
And, when the question didn't identify any religious group, how in the hell can you say it singles out individuals and families? That makes no sense at all.
posted by jayder at 3:11 PM on July 23, 2006
while I'll likely never know in this lifetime what effect I've had in directing thirsty souls to the Source of Living Water
???
posted by supercrayon at 3:16 PM on July 23, 2006
???
posted by supercrayon at 3:16 PM on July 23, 2006
I just want to distance myself from the folks saying rinkjustice should leave. I think he just needs to reign himself in *on AskMe* when it comes to judgmental and inappropriate answers. I'll point again to this comment, in which rinkjustice ignored the premise of the question ("I know sex isn't bad, how do I get rid of residual religious guilt about it?") and preached that "Fornication is a grievious sin and an abomination in the eyes of God."
That's inappropriate in AskMe, and he should stop doing that. I can easily ignore him elsewhere.
posted by mediareport at 3:23 PM on July 23, 2006
That's inappropriate in AskMe, and he should stop doing that. I can easily ignore him elsewhere.
posted by mediareport at 3:23 PM on July 23, 2006
while I'll likely never know in this lifetime what effect I've had in directing thirsty souls to the Source of Living Water
?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 3:47 PM on July 23, 2006
?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 3:47 PM on July 23, 2006
I've heard the Living Water is prone to rain down in a veritable golden shower.
posted by bardic at 3:52 PM on July 23, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:52 PM on July 23, 2006
You know, if I saw Rinkjustice in a book, the sheer militant credulity that seems to permeate his existence wouldn't be believable for me.
"An evangelical Christian and a hawker of 'get fit fast' schemes over the internet? This author's a bit ham-handed, isn't he?"
posted by klangklangston at 5:11 PM on July 23, 2006
"An evangelical Christian and a hawker of 'get fit fast' schemes over the internet? This author's a bit ham-handed, isn't he?"
posted by klangklangston at 5:11 PM on July 23, 2006
I stand by every word I've made in prior posts and believe MetaFilter is irresponsible for allowing this hyperbolic, rediculous question on ask.metafilter to exist.
...
Regardling the claims I use metafilter to proselytize my faith and my website, this is only partly correct.
so, it's alright for you to make your views on religion known, but others should be careful of expressing views that are "irresponsible"
you, sir, are an arrogant hypocrite
posted by pyramid termite at 5:43 PM on July 23, 2006
...
Regardling the claims I use metafilter to proselytize my faith and my website, this is only partly correct.
so, it's alright for you to make your views on religion known, but others should be careful of expressing views that are "irresponsible"
you, sir, are an arrogant hypocrite
posted by pyramid termite at 5:43 PM on July 23, 2006
MetaFilter has provided key opportunities to share what I know about fitness and my faith
Oh, me too, dude. MetaFilter has provided key - and we're talking a big fat mortise job here, non of your spindly Yale shit - opportunities for me to share what I know about fitness (massive alcohol consumption and frequent, bitter, angry masturbation fests) and my faith (hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation). And frankly, this post of yours is attacking my right to do that. You are dangerous, and I demand that you remove your panties... err... I mean yourself.... immediately.
posted by Decani at 6:16 PM on July 23, 2006
Oh, me too, dude. MetaFilter has provided key - and we're talking a big fat mortise job here, non of your spindly Yale shit - opportunities for me to share what I know about fitness (massive alcohol consumption and frequent, bitter, angry masturbation fests) and my faith (hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation). And frankly, this post of yours is attacking my right to do that. You are dangerous, and I demand that you remove your panties... err... I mean yourself.... immediately.
posted by Decani at 6:16 PM on July 23, 2006
What would Jesus eat? Not carbs, apparently.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:27 PM on July 23, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:27 PM on July 23, 2006
MetaFilter: Directing thirsty souls to the Source of Living Water.
posted by ericb at 6:28 PM on July 23, 2006
posted by ericb at 6:28 PM on July 23, 2006
"an arrogant hypocrite"
Right now, I'm thinking more along the lines of prankster sockpuppet.
posted by mischief at 6:55 PM on July 23, 2006
Right now, I'm thinking more along the lines of prankster sockpuppet.
posted by mischief at 6:55 PM on July 23, 2006
What shmegegge exclaimed.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 PM on July 23, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 PM on July 23, 2006
Right now, I'm thinking more along the lines of prankster sockpuppet.
Entirely possible. Either way it is only a matter of time until he gets himself banned for preaching rather than answering AskMe questions.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:39 PM on July 23, 2006
Entirely possible. Either way it is only a matter of time until he gets himself banned for preaching rather than answering AskMe questions.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:39 PM on July 23, 2006
Right now, I'm thinking more along the lines of prankster sockpuppet.
You mean that, under certain circumstances,a producer could make more money with a flop than with a hit a writer could get more attention with inanity than with thoughtful commentary? My boy, it's comic genius! It's a theatrical coup! rinkjustice, I salute you!
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:01 AM on July 24, 2006
You mean that, under certain circumstances,
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:01 AM on July 24, 2006
It occurs to me that it may be about time for the Christians to have themselves another Inquisition. Time for them to remember what real persecution is like, and time for them to remember what happens when you let extremists take over your church.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:34 AM on July 24, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 7:34 AM on July 24, 2006
I don't believe in imaginary friends. I also don't believe in rinkjustice. I am happy, happy, happy.
posted by weirdoactor at 11:55 AM on July 24, 2006
posted by weirdoactor at 11:55 AM on July 24, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
You didn't actually say that with a straight face, did you?
posted by Bugbread at 6:57 AM on July 22, 2006