How does admin justify keeping this post about Gitmo but deleting this one about Chechnya?

August 30, 2006 10:22 AM

How does admin justify keeping this post about Gitmo but deleting this one about Chechnya?

Yes, I realize I contributed to the Gitmo thread. But one newsfilter deserves another, right?
posted by SeizeTheDay to etiquette/policy at 10:22 AM (65 comments total)

Wouldn't this question be better served with an email exchange?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:26 AM on August 30, 2006

I thought about that. Perhaps you're right. Ya'll can delete this if you want, and I'll just write you a message.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:28 AM on August 30, 2006

At least the Gitmo one isn't titled "Gitmo update".
posted by smackfu at 10:30 AM on August 30, 2006

Gosh, you've given Matt just over an hour before you started with your churlish puling.
posted by boo_radley at 10:33 AM on August 30, 2006

How does admin justify keeping this post
Who the fuck are you to demand justifications?
There are no entitlements. Deal.

"But one newsfilter deserves another, right?"
You have got to be fucking joking!
posted by peacay at 10:39 AM on August 30, 2006

Metafilter: churlish puling since 1198
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:40 AM on August 30, 2006 [2 favorites]

Man oh man, the tact squad is in full effect today. I'm not demanding anything. I'm just asking a question. If you're implying that I cannot question the discretion used here, I think it might be you that has a problem, not me.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:42 AM on August 30, 2006

You got your puling in my churl!
No, you got your churling in my pule!
posted by cortex at 10:42 AM on August 30, 2006

the tact squad natural consequence of mefites bored at work is in full effect today

Don't take it too personally.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2006

I'm not implying that you're demanding anything. I'm telling you you're whining in a passive agressive fashion.
posted by boo_radley at 10:47 AM on August 30, 2006

What would be the active aggressive form of whining? Yelling, calling people names, and spamming the site? No thanks.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:48 AM on August 30, 2006

Call the wambulance, we've got someone going into shock.
posted by prostyle at 10:48 AM on August 30, 2006

A 71-year old man getting released from guantanamo is a noteworthy thing, even though it's just a news story. Does that not seem immediately strange and interesting? It's definitely unique.

Someone posting "Chechnya Update" with no explanation, context, or any supporting information isn't noteworthy at all. It's so boring it's ridiculous. If it was allowed to stay, we might as well have a daily Katrina Update post with a single link every day for the last year.

It seems pretty clear to me that the differences are black and white, even though the format of the post may seem similar (one link, short description).
posted by mathowie at 10:49 AM on August 30, 2006

You're letting it stand? Really? Single-link newsfilter? Oh, Matt.
posted by boo_radley at 10:51 AM on August 30, 2006

I dunno. Plenty of people have been released from Gitmo. This particular piece had almost no backstory, no substantial information, and seemed to me to be just a one line newstory. Contrast that with the Chechnya story, where the article was clearly far more comprehensive, interesting, and full of information that otherwise isn't readily accessible.

I do think the differences are black and white. I guess we just have different definitions of what's black and what's white.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:53 AM on August 30, 2006

How often do 71 year old terrorists get released from illegal prisons? Maybe in a few years when it's common place you guys will be right to comlain.
posted by chunking express at 10:54 AM on August 30, 2006

2: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3: Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
4: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5: Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6: On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7: when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8: "Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb;
9: when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10: and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors,
11: and said, `Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

Yours,
mathowie
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:54 AM on August 30, 2006 [2 favorites]

one newsfilter deserves another, right?

just for the record, no.
posted by jessamyn at 10:59 AM on August 30, 2006

Plenty of people have been released from Gitmo.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

<12 year olds and >70 year olds being held as enemies of the US are pretty noteworthy. Imprisonment is meant to protect the public from dangerous criminals and we have hundreds of years of history in the US of what that typically means. Small children, old men, the developmentally delayed -- any story about a harsh prison environment that involves anyone in those groups is noteworthy because those types of people don't seem like they could be a dangerous criminal or a threat to the public.

For all we know, the guy could be Bin Laden's right hand man, but the image of an old dude with a walker being called a dangerous criminal is ludicrous at face value. Deep down, we all know that a feeble old man is typically the embodiment of a non-dangerous person, and we were treating him as if he was a threat. It's an unusual story, is it not?
posted by mathowie at 10:59 AM on August 30, 2006

I guess we just have different definitions...

What an understatement.
posted by prostyle at 11:00 AM on August 30, 2006

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be restrained. You asked,'Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?' therefore I have uttered that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I didn't know. You said,'Listen, now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you will answer me.' I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

I remain,
Boo.
posted by boo_radley at 11:01 AM on August 30, 2006 [2 favorites]

SeizeTheDay writes "Man oh man, the tact squad is in full effect today. I'm not demanding anything. I'm just asking a question."

"Matt, why was this newsfilter allowed while this wasn't?" is asking a question. Your phrasing and choice of words is much more whiny, demanding and confrontational.
posted by Mitheral at 11:02 AM on August 30, 2006

There is already a lot of Newsfilter on the front page today. It makes sense to prune it down to the more interesting stories. Reasonable minds can differ on what's interesting, but lines have to be drawn somewhere, and this line makes perfect sense.
posted by brain_drain at 11:14 AM on August 30, 2006

metafilter tactic 113 for defending an argument you're losing - whine to get the thread deleted
posted by pyramid termite at 11:16 AM on August 30, 2006

<1 2 year olds and>70 year olds being held as enemies of the US are pretty noteworthy. Imprisonment is meant to protect the public from dangerous criminals and we have hundreds of years of history in the US of what that typically means. Small children, old men, the developmentally delayed -- any story about a harsh prison environment that involves anyone in those groups is noteworthy because those types of people don't seem like they could be a dangerous criminal or a threat to the public.

For all we know, the guy could be Bin Laden's right hand man, but the image of an old dude with a walker being called a dangerous criminal is ludicrous at face value. Deep down, we all know that a feeble old man is typically the embodiment of a non-dangerous person, and we were treating him as if he was a threat. It's an unusual story, is it not?
posted by mathowie at 12:59 PM CST on August 30

I really don't care one way or the other on this one. (I would have deleted both). But I will add that I find this logic amazing.

It's noteworthy? Why? Because it plays into people's biases. As the OP said, the story is unimpressive on every point except for the guy's age. But as you readily concede, there may have been a perfectly good reason to detain him. There may not have been a good reason. But we don't know and the story doesn't tell us a damn thing.

So all we are left with is this story with one unexplained sensationalistic fact: age. It could have been entirely reasonable to detain the person. There is nothing inherently unreasonable about detaining kids or old people if they are doing the same things that you are detaining others for. If you accept that detaining people is acceptable for a cause, his age is irrelevant. If you have the preconceived bias that it is wrong, his age only gives you a further thing to decry. So any interesting fact about this barebones story is entirely derived from a preconceived notion.

But that doesn't matter. Because the story contains a sensationalistic fact, it permits people to gnash their teeth about what a great travesty this is and regurgitate the same tripe that has been beaten to dust about Gitmo.

Or to put it another way, its not an unusual story unless you begin from the presumption that they had no need to detain the man and it is therefore foolish that a man of such age would be detained. That is, it plays to prejudices.

As I said, I would have deleted both. I am not terribly offended that one is deleted and not the other. But I find the logic argued for keeping one to be wholly deficient insofar as the importance of the story derives wholly from a political view about the situation.
posted by dios at 11:16 AM on August 30, 2006

You know, I felt a certain contrarian spirit embodied in STD's remarks... how fantastic of him to show up in the flesh!
posted by prostyle at 11:18 AM on August 30, 2006

a political view

yes, it's allllllll just politics. what's "human interest"?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:19 AM on August 30, 2006

the image of an old dude with a walker being called a dangerous criminal is ludicrous at face value

As opposed to an old blind dude?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:20 AM on August 30, 2006

"It's an unusual story, is it not?"

We hope. I suspect it's not as unusual as we'd like to think it is.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:22 AM on August 30, 2006

...it permits people to gnash their teeth about what a great travesty this is and regurgitate the same tripe that has been beaten to dust about Gitmo.

Just to be clear, the tripe you're talking about is how is how it's an evil illegal prison and boring shit like that right?
posted by chunking express at 11:22 AM on August 30, 2006

mathowie writes "Small children, old men, the developmentally delayed -- any story about a harsh prison environment that involves anyone in those groups is noteworthy because those types of people don't seem like they could be a dangerous criminal or a threat to the public."

His age itself isn't an eliminating factor, a couple years back we had a 61 year old guy kill a cougar with a pocket knife and Jim Ward completed the Ironman at 77.

Now the fact he uses a walker is a little more suspicious.
posted by Mitheral at 11:24 AM on August 30, 2006

Dios circa 1944: "Are you people still complaining about Auschwitz?"

do not write below this line

---

posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:24 AM on August 30, 2006

i invoke godwin
posted by pyramid termite at 11:25 AM on August 30, 2006

---

do not write above this line
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:26 AM on August 30, 2006

It's noteworthy? Why? Because it plays into people's biases.

Not everything is political. That wasn't my thinking behind it at all, but thanks for assuming I liked it for political reasons.

It's an unusual twist in an otherwise usual story, as I stated. A "feeble old man no longer considered dangerous threat" story is a fish-out-of-water story. It could have been about a blind dude summiting Everest. It was unusual.
posted by mathowie at 11:29 AM on August 30, 2006

Wizzer's brevity puts the tripe in the spotlight, to allow it to render its appropriate stench. SCOTUS found the system is broken, so the assumption of guilt before innocence underpinning the Gitmo operation is either false or requires some measure of justification. That an elderly man is imprisoned for five years without the due process accorded him by US law only highlights the stink of the tripe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:31 AM on August 30, 2006

I have to admit I've been speculating about how SeizeTheDay would have dealt with stories about mistreatment of Jews in '30s Germany. "Look, I'm not crazy about Chancellor Hitler either, and I realize there are some unfortunate things going on, but I don't see that a single-link story about so-called "camps" is worth much without any context or real sourcing. I mean, where are these "camps"? How many of them are there? Who exactly is held in them? Until all these questions can be answered—with documentation, of course—I just don't see the point in circulating stories like this."

---

do not write inside this line

posted by languagehat at 11:35 AM on August 30, 2006

Matt, I'm not trying to accuse you of "liking it for political reasons."

If isn't clear from my earlier comment, let me make it plain: I am interested in this only from a moderation standpoint. A post was left because it was interesting to certain people. As I tried to explain above, that importance is entirely derived from a particular viewpoint.

The question is: how does a moderator guage importance? We all have different definitions of importance. For example, assume the story was about the new morning after pill. Assume there was a new story about how the pill wasn't given to a under the age of 14 in Idaho. Now, to the people who really are interested in that story to begin with, this new tidbit might be interesting and cause great consternation and amazement. But I submit that their interest in this new fact to the people who already cared about it is poor justification or basis for deeming it important. But so it is here: to some, its uninteresting because someone with infirmity doesn't change the fact he could have been reasonably detained, to some it is very interesting because detaining an old man only shows how absurd the whole detainment issue is, to most, i suspect, its uninteresting because the minutia of who is detained is not something we are interested in.

That's why a more efficient moderation standard would be to exclude all news stories. Then you are not stuck in the conundrum of determining what it is important to people with varied views on things.

But I'll take your word that you found it interesting solely because of his age. Again, that seems to be an odd basis for finding it interesting because an old person with a walker is perfectly able to conspire with terrorists.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I am trying to understand where you are coming from vis-a-vis moderation. I found a comment you made interesting because it seemed to me to be an odd basis from which to judge the thing.
posted by dios at 11:37 AM on August 30, 2006

dios makes a good point (my hands are shaking). The article does play into pre-conceived biases, but that cannot be a criteria for postworthiness. Evidence that points to the truth of a political suspicion should absolutely be presented and debated. I submit that the release of a man without charge after a long detention says more than just "bush sucks". It's uncontestable evidence of extra-legal action.

The "sensationalist" fact that he's 71 is fair game too. Not only does it cast a justified hue of ridiculousness over the whole affair, but imagine how it will make the US look in Iraq. (Actually a link to something along those lines might have made a good bookend to the FPP)
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:37 AM on August 30, 2006

What the hell does his age have to do with the violation of his rights? Are the elderly supposed to somehow be immune to illegal government activities? Or is it now somehow less inhumane to violate the human rights of the non-elderly?

(Can we please keep that part of the argument in the blue, where it belongs, rather than here? It's tough to keep track of two discussions on the exact same subject.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:38 AM on August 30, 2006

His age has nothing to do with his rights, but his age adds non-legality/politics/rights-related interest to the story.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:41 AM on August 30, 2006

Godwin holds no power here!
posted by LarryC at 11:41 AM on August 30, 2006

Godwin holds no power anywhere anymore, thank Godwin.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:42 AM on August 30, 2006

What happened to this guy may or may not be tragic. The point is, based on the story, WE DON'T KNOW. All we know is that an old man with family ties was released after it was determined that he NO LONGER posed any threat. Perhaps there was a government conspiracy to cover up the truth (that he was illegally detained). Or, he was in the process of committing an illegal act when he was detained and no longer poses the same threat he did 5 years ago. We don't know. That's the point. The story was so lacking in evidence of anything (good or bad), that it made a poor FPP. There was no context, there was no substantiation. It was just a one line FPP with a one line factoid.

Contrast that with the Chechnya post that was full of information, full of context, and had a real story. That's my argument for asking why one was deleted and the other stayed. This isn't about politics (in this MeTa thread, one could argue differently in the MeFi thread). This is about two newsfilter posts. One was good. The other was crap. Clearly Matt and I disagree with which is which, but the implications here that I'm a fascist, pro-censorship, or pro-War on Terror are completely without merit.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:43 AM on August 30, 2006

...but the implications here that I'm a fascist, pro-censorship, or pro-War on Terror are completely without merit.

Lets just settle on ignorant and call it a day?

Or you and dios can hang around here digging yourselves deeper, really, whatever works.
posted by prostyle at 11:48 AM on August 30, 2006

Or, he was in the process of committing an illegal act when he was detained and no longer poses the same threat he did 5 years ago.

Did you even read the article? It says he was arrested when he complained of his son's arrest. I guess it's possible he had a bomb with him, even though the article mentions no such thing, but WE DON'T KNOW, do we.

We don't know.

Only because you are demanding a level of proof that you would not demand for other topics.

Why are you doing that?

We don't know.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:51 AM on August 30, 2006

Lets just settle on ignorant and call it a day?

This from the guy who believes the 9/11 hijackers were found alive by the BBC! And that there's a conspiracy afoot to supress it! Glass houses my friend, glass houses. You say far too many stupid things here, and far too loudy, to accuse anyone of ignorance.
posted by loquax at 11:53 AM on August 30, 2006

regurgitate the same tripe that has been beaten to dust about Gitmo.

"tripe"? from an alleged lawyer (a Texan one, OK, but still), this is amazing. so much for the rule of law, I guess.
posted by matteo at 11:53 AM on August 30, 2006

"Now the fact he uses a walker is a little more suspicious."

It's actually in case of cougar attacks. Some prefer pocketknives, some prefer blunt objects.
do not look at this line

---

posted by Drastic at 11:54 AM on August 30, 2006

You say far too many stupid things here, and far too loudy, to accuse anyone of ignorance.

We go back a ways, my friend. If you want to take issue with my views that are unrelated to this FPP or this meta thread, feel free to email me. Thanks again.
posted by prostyle at 11:55 AM on August 30, 2006

What happened to this guy may or may not be tragic.

I'm pretty sure it was tragic. At least by most peoples definition of the word.
posted by chunking express at 11:56 AM on August 30, 2006

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts...
posted by blue_beetle at 11:58 AM on August 30, 2006

Only because you are demanding a level of proof that you would not demand for other topics.

That's presumptuous and patently untrue. And I'm getting really tired of having to defend my character when the point here is the depth of fact in an FPP. Show me outside context that suggests that this PARTICULAR guy's detainment was unjustified. You can't. And I can't point to context that suggests that this PARTICULAR guy's detainment was legal. That's the point. We both start from a point of ignorance and intelligent conversation should naturally ensue? Please. This was a soapbox FPP to continue a rant against Gitmo. Contrast that with the Chechnya post, which at least had some solid factual ground to stand on.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:58 AM on August 30, 2006

Because it plays into people's biases.

But why do you assume that the "preconceived bias" is against the Bush administration, as opposed to against the world's most powerful democracy running a prison camp outside of the Geneva Conventions, outside of American soil, and outside of a legal framework for redress? For a guy who constantly pisses and moans about partisanship, you seem only to happy to ascribe it to everyone you can, even when doing so trivializes the subject at hand.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:01 PM on August 30, 2006

Tragically, the definition of "tragic" has been blurred into "absurdity". Lexicographers weep, which is itself perhaps a tragedy, no one is sure. We don't know.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:01 PM on August 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

And I'm getting really tired of having to defend my character when the point here is the depth of fact in an FPP.

What did I say about your character? I said something about your logic.

Analogy: Boolean reasoning vs. Bayesian reasoning

Sure, it's not incorrect per se to say the guy could be a terrorist but to do so you have to throw out all the partial information available to you, that, if you were instead dealing in probabilities, would lead you to the opposite conclusion.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:02 PM on August 30, 2006

SeizeTheDay: I thought the Chechnya post had interesting content as well. I guess I'm no more in touch with the editorial policy than you are.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:06 PM on August 30, 2006

Sorry prostyle, I tried that and you continued to act like a general ass to me and pretty much everyone you come in contact with who doesn't share your exact worldview. I have no interest in actually talking to you about anything, but I don't particularly feel it's appropriate for metafilter for you to attack and insult anyone who disagrees with you in the way that you do. Especially when you're too lazy to spend 5 minutes on the internet actually trying to verify life-changing "facts" you saw in a movie once. You and your attitude is what's wrong with metafilter+politics and that's why I barely contribute anymore. Your behaviour in the thread in question is pathetic and childish, as it is in any I've had the displeasure of observing it in. I know you don't care if I think so or not, but it's sure making me feel better to write it.

"You fucking lose"? What is this, wrestling? If you can't express your ideas without insulting people and swearing, maybe you should stick to crusing the mall, or whatever teenagers do.
posted by loquax at 12:06 PM on August 30, 2006

Haha, I love it!
posted by prostyle at 12:09 PM on August 30, 2006

If you can't express your ideas without insulting people and swearing

Most routers' TCP/IP stacks require at least a 2% payload (averaged over one socket session) of swears to ensure proper delivery. This dates back to Usenet.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:10 PM on August 30, 2006 [4 favorites]

When I was a kid and wanted to go and dig a garden bed or nail some wood together (admittedly I probably had something much more sinister in mind) and I asked my parents for permission and was told "no", I immediately asked "why not?"

And of course I got the old chestnut answer: "because I said so".

I would wax lyrical about the safety of my intended activity and compare it to something more stupid that my brother had done but whenever I questioned the reasoning behind the "no" I was always met with that brick wall parental retort of "because I said so".

It was completely stupid to continue arguing after hearing it twice because it is one of those enigmas of parental authority that can never be overturned. Eventually I had to let go.
posted by peacay at 12:15 PM on August 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

I've had it about up to here with blue_beetle and the way he's always rubbing his goddamn cococuts in our faces.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:17 PM on August 30, 2006

Jesus, why can't I spell today?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:18 PM on August 30, 2006

I'll fix it: feces
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:19 PM on August 30, 2006

Wow, this is going wonderful places. I'm going to close it now.
posted by mathowie at 12:23 PM on August 30, 2006