Dawkins should be discussed sometimes. October 13, 2006 10:32 AM   Subscribe

I was sorry to see this post on Dawkins get deleted becuase it was "yet another Dawkings post", when the one from three weeks earlier was deleted as well. I understand he's discussed alot, perhaps ad nauseum to some folks, but they can skip the post. I think the mistake being made here is that the same arguments will always be rehashed over and over. This disregards the fact that new people may have registered since the last time the topic was discussed.

In a very "meta" sense, the addition of new people to the discussion allows the argument to evolve, over the course of multiple debates. These kinds of topics - religion, rights, abortion, etc. - appear not to have objectively correct answers, however the passions on all sides and the articulation of arguments are a reflection of the community and our collective culture. By returning to the argument, with newer and older members we start to understand everyone's basis for their position, the forces that motivate the passions behind people's positions and give rise to the issue in the first place.
posted by Pastabagel to Etiquette/Policy at 10:32 AM (99 comments total)

How is that argument different from one that would justify any double being posted? More people might want to talk about flash games!

(In short, we've seen it often enough. New people can go to the archives. And the link was shit.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:35 AM on October 13, 2006


"alot" isn't a word.
posted by timeistight at 10:36 AM on October 13, 2006


New people register every day, homie. They don't get to participate in countless fascinating community discussions that have already been mercilessly beaten to death...and into the afterlife.
posted by kosem at 10:37 AM on October 13, 2006


Oh come on! Not only is Dawkins a trolling tool, the post itself sucked: a link to the NYTimes bestseller list and a link to a Slate precis of his book. BS. The post should have been pulled and I'm glad it was. This is a MeTa post, which must be motivated by a liking of Dawkins as it certainly doesn't seek to make MeFi a better place.
posted by OmieWise at 10:38 AM on October 13, 2006


The point of metafilter is not the 'debate'
posted by empath at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2006


I don't believe Richard Dawkins actually exists. lol. just lol.
posted by naxosaxur at 10:40 AM on October 13, 2006


I wish iraq/terrars posts could be deleted as vigilantly.
posted by boo_radley at 10:42 AM on October 13, 2006


[this is dumb]
posted by sciurus at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2006


And, the premise of this callout is flawed on its face, as the thread already had 35 comments and they were indeed "the same arguments [...] rehashed over and over." So I wonder what your point is?
posted by OmieWise at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2006


I had a very different reaction to the Chevy ad when I saw it. I saw it during a NASCAR race, and during the race a pit reporter used the Ohio ballots as an example of lying. Paraphrased: 'Within the margin of error of crew chiefs lying to pit reporters.' Later: 'you know, margin of error, the Ohio ballot...' I'm reposting and looking for further discussion on something I think is more important than it appears to be.
posted by Floydd at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2006


If it was discussed a day or two before, that's one thing. But this is something that was not discussed recently. Granted the links were mostly crap, but the salon interview (last link) is new. And the reason it was deleted doesn't appear to be "bad form" it appears to be "we don't want to talk about this anymore". The point is not for new people to read the archives (they don't have to register to do that), they point is that they might want to discuss it, i.e. participate.

OmieWise, I'm not a fan of Dawkins (I don't hate him either), and I think my point was that by deleting posts like this, metafilter is diminshed. Now it appears that certain topics, like the mideast conflict, abortion, the iraq war, the bush adminstration, and religion, (i.e. some of the most important issues in the world today) must be given a superlative fpp to survive. For these topics, the post must be excellent. For other topics, like a favorite band or gallery opening, a one or two link almost-pepsi-blue fpp appears to be sufficient.

I understand I'm in the minority on this and that the admin pantheon is omnipotent in this regard, but honestly, if you can't stand the topic or don't want to talk about it again, skip over the post. But please, let's not turn this place into digg or reddit.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2006


Good Christ. (And no, I don't believe in Him.) You're seriously saying Matt should allow an infinite number of posts linking to Dawkins' infinitely repeated "God doesn't exist and Christians are dumb" rants? Because you like endlessly talking about it?

I think the mistake being made here is that the same arguments will always be rehashed over and over.


That's not a "mistake," my friend. That's reality. Did you actually read those threads? Although it's true that by now the repetitive arguments over God and atheism are getting swamped by the repetitive snarks about the stupidity of yet another Dawkins thread, which is a Good Thing and yet another reason to delete those suckers ASAP. Thanks, Matt!
posted by languagehat at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


There is nothing new under the sun.
posted by kosem at 10:54 AM on October 13, 2006


I wish iraq/terrars posts could be deleted as vigilantly.

Really, this is the only reason I would be inclined to agree that there needs to be a little more justification than "been there, done that" or else we will end up on that slippery slope.

Certainly, the most recent and heated theatre of war that the US has hinged billions of dollars on is probably as pointless and repetitive to discuss as the writings of an antagonist of religions. /groan

Thankfully, the administration has taken this fallacy into account thus far, but there will always be those who decry one as if it's identical to the other.
posted by prostyle at 10:54 AM on October 13, 2006


Pastabagel, your argument fails fundamentally right here:

Granted the links were mostly crap

Not granted. Never granted. Crap link = don't post.
posted by cortex at 10:54 AM on October 13, 2006


Are two admins enough to make a pantheon? What does Richard Dawkins think of the gods of MetaFilter?

These are the questions we must debate.
posted by timeistight at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2006


Okay, I guess I lose. But if you look at threads that are alive and well after the same amount of time (roughly 50 minutes) they have the same number of comments. And if you look into threads on these topics that survive, it seems that the more substantive comments show up later. In other words, there seems to be a lot of brief, slightly snarking or superficial rehashing in the beginning of the thread right after it goes up, but when they stay up, the more thoughtful comments show up later.

This is just my opinion, but it seems to be how discussions evolve on a lot of message boards and blogs that get a lot of comments. Whatever.

I thought there were a lot more than two admins...
posted by Pastabagel at 10:58 AM on October 13, 2006


Pastabagel, dawkins is plaaaaaayed out. He's up there with a thread about SUVs sucking, Why Abortion is Great, Evolution!, and Why Are Fat People So Damn Fat on MeFi. Dawkins has ascended into the pantheon of overdone topics that contain the exact same comments as every related topic post before, usually by different people, but it's always the same shouting past each other you're wrong, no you're wrong puffery that leads to nowhere.

Which is why it was deleted. Sorry.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:59 AM on October 13, 2006


Pastabagel, lots of comments != great for metafilter
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:59 AM on October 13, 2006


Also, the faq tells all about moderation.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2006


You know, I've been around awhile, and usually I miss the stuff that gets deleted quickly, and even when it doesn't, I'm usually too busy to do anything but ignore all the flamey links like this that set people off. But I happen to find myself with a lot of free time lately, and I wouldn't have minded dipping my toes in the waters a bit more, mainly to catch up with all you guys who seem to be on top of every mefi conversation that ever appeared, even briefly. It kind of kills me to say it, but I take pastabagel's point that an immediate dismissal of a reasonably open-ended but hackneyed topic is a definintion of the community's values.

I wonder whether there might be an intermediate step between FPP and deleted post - like a netherzone of "corralled" links. Not the trashheap of history so much as a "recycling zone for links that don't belong on the front page." Is there any merit to that pony?
posted by DenOfSizer at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2006


But now that it is called out in the grey...the post isn't really deleted, now, is it?
posted by tpl1212 at 11:02 AM on October 13, 2006


Not another Apple post. I don't believe Apple actually exists.

Not another DRM post. I don't believe DRM actually exists.

Not another YouTube post. I don't believe YouTube actually exists.

Not another [insert every fucking topic in the world but Richard Dawkins here] post. I don't believe [insert every fucking topic in the world but Richard Dawkins here] actually exists.


this is just sad. the older post was lame, this was fine, certainly better than a lot of stuff that appears daily on the front page. it's a very successful book by a prominent scientist, for fuck's sake.

Dawkins posts always go and the dozens of OMFG LOOK WHAT ANN COULTER/MICHELLE MALKIN/FRED PHELPS SAID/WROTE/THOUGHT WHILE SITTING ON THE JOHN always stay on the front page. elephant posts, too.

not to mention the OMFG NEW PRODUCT!!! technology stuff that makes us look like BoingBoing's dumber brother (which, by the way, we very possibly are. no need to flaunt that, though)
posted by matteo at 11:08 AM on October 13, 2006


mathowie - The number of coments wasn't my point - someone mentioned that because the first 32 comments were the same old stuff it was proof that the thread was going to be crap, and I was simply saying that the first few dozen comments in any thread on these kinds of topics are always the same snarky, superficial stuff and that the discussion usually opens up after a little while with more considered comments.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2006


Dawkins gets a knee-jerk reaction; understood. However, I didn't see anything posted about the new book, other than the deleted post (which I did not locate prior to my post).

The inspiration for the post I wrote was a great derail "conversation" from MetaTalk, in a callout thread from Davy to Languagehat. Look it up if you want. That conversation told me that there were a lot of people who are interested in evolutionary biology, the conflicts among theism/deism/atheism, and the ongoing culture war/war against science. It is difficult to discuss these topics without mentioning Dawkins.

I also found this particular NY Times bestseller list fascinating - it will be the Rosetta stone to understanding what's left of our culture, should we all disappear tomorrow. It's interesting to look at the places Dawkins, O'Reilly, and Woodward hold in the cultural landscape- who has more "mindshare" in today's society, and what does that bode for the US and the world?

Personally, the discussion/commentary of posts and the issues and questions raised are the best part of MetaFilter. That's why I don't get all in a tizzy and flag newsfilter posts like this. This information is available elsewhere, but the intelligent, sarcastic, snarky, outraged reaction of MetaFilter is only found here. If this site is not "about the debate", then it is just about useless.

I understand the sensitivity of the management to Dawkins posts, and do not appeal the decision to remove it. I should point out that the discussion, which I apparently value more than some users, was progressing in a (mostly) civil and thoughtful manner, in contrast to other Dawkins threads.

I ask fellow MeFites to avoid making snap judgments based on their own prejudices - the assumption seems to be that I posted this as a paean to my hero, Richard Dawkins; this was not the case.
posted by Mister_A at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2006




Survey says ...

BZZZZT
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:10 AM on October 13, 2006


The problem here, as I see it, is that we keep discussing the wrong Dawkins [video]. Richard Dawkins? Meh. Chocolate Thunder FPPs? Undeletable.
posted by kosem at 11:10 AM on October 13, 2006


OMFG LOOK WHAT ANN COULTER/MICHELLE MALKIN/FRED PHELPS SAID/WROTE/THOUGHT WHILE SITTING ON THE JOHN always stay on the front page.

Bullshit. I've deleted every single Ann Coulter link I've seen go up in the past six months or so. Ditto for godhatesfags. I haven't seen a Malkin post in over a year, so I don't know what you're talking about.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:16 AM on October 13, 2006


I was wondering how long this'd take.

Not to be a jerk, but it was a horribly shitty FPP regardless of its content - NYT Bestseller list, a book review that doesn't relate to the gist of the FPP, a link to Bilge O'Liar's webpage(!), a highbrow Amazon.com page, and a coals to Newcastle interview?

Come on.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:17 AM on October 13, 2006


the assumption seems to be that I posted this as a paean to my hero, Richard Dawkins; this was not the case

No, it has nothing to do with your personal affection or lack thereof for Dawkins. It has to do with the topic always, always descending into unproductive shit in seconds flat.

Bullshit.

What Matt said. One of my daily joys is checking the list of deleted threads and seeing the crap that was not meant to be. That's the only place I can recall offhand seeing Coulter as FPP material recently.
posted by cortex at 11:18 AM on October 13, 2006


I believe a number of the elephant posts were deleted too, but meh...
posted by Stauf at 11:22 AM on October 13, 2006


Good post, but it could use a little more padding.

*posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:38 PM EST on October 13*

LOL Alvy.
posted by Mister_A at 11:23 AM on October 13, 2006


I was being sarcastic.

Good zing, though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:27 AM on October 13, 2006


But this is something that was not discussed recently.

What has changed since the last time the discussion occurred? And I'm speaking with regards to the substantive issue.

Nothing.

No single person has no information or insight to add to the discussion.

If you want to talk about this shit, then why don't you go to a website dedicated to talking about it? Here, we are about new things. The same discussion over and over and over and over when nothing new has occurred is not new. The post is never anything new. Its just a pretext for the bores to rehash the same debate with the same positions.

I can't fathom why you would want to have that discussion again unless you just enjoy talking shit to the other side or if you hoping to convert people by proselytizing. Neither of those is a good basis for a post.
posted by dios at 11:36 AM on October 13, 2006



Bullshit. I've deleted every single Ann Coulter link I've seen go up in the past six months or so.


;)

look, it's your decision, your site. you pay the bills, you choose what stays and what goes. seriously, nobody denies that. and I've stated many times here and in private how much I value your fairness and good judgement. but in this case, I just disagree, strongly. no biggie.

frankly, I don't need to read about Dawkins here, I just think the bar has been raised impossibly high now, unfairly. I think it's possible to make a good Dawkins post -- but then, I have actually read his God Delusion book, so maybe I'm unqualified to speak.

writing a blacklist of topics that just won't be posted on MeFi is, to me, self-defeating. saying "enough with Dawkins" is, to me, a mistake.

having said that: your site, your decision, etc
posted by matteo at 11:38 AM on October 13, 2006


Oh yeah, I'm bringing back double negatives.
posted by dios at 11:41 AM on October 13, 2006


I had some new insight. It would have cleared the whole misunderstanding right up. Now? It's lost forever. It was only relevant to that specific thread.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:51 AM on October 13, 2006


I think it's possible to make a good Dawkins post

Yes, but the deleted post wasn't a good Dawkins post. A link to video of Dawkins college-aged experimentation with prayer - that would be a good post. A transcript of an honest to goodness debate between Dawkins and an equally intelligent religious figure - that would be a great post. A press release of a new book, same as the old book? Crap post even if it was about, say, Quentin Tarrantino.
posted by muddgirl at 11:54 AM on October 13, 2006


I also found this particular NY Times bestseller list fascinating - it will be the Rosetta stone to understanding what's left of our culture, should we all disappear tomorrow.

Then why aren't we discussing Elizabeth Edwards' breast, Nora Ephron's neck, John Grogan's dog, James E. McGreevey's homosexuality or Bono's ego? They're all higher up on your "Rosetta stone" than Dawkins.
posted by timeistight at 11:56 AM on October 13, 2006


A transcript of an honest to goodness debate between Dawkins and an equally intelligent religious figure - that would be a great post.

No it wouldn't. That would be trash, too.

What would be good about it? It would be the same arguments we have all seen a hundred times. And, sure enough, the resulting discussion would be the same arguments from users who care less what the link says; instead the discussion progress as if the link was nothing more than "Open thread on Atheism v. Christianity."

What would be new about it? Dawkins arguments would be the same. The Religious figures' arguments would be the same. The comments would be same.

Not one damn scintilla of "new and interesting" would come out of the entire thing.
posted by dios at 12:00 PM on October 13, 2006


However, I didn't see anything posted about the new book, other than the deleted post (which I did not locate prior to my post).

That's because the new book isn't on the web, it's at the bookstore.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on October 13, 2006


matteo, as I said in the grateful dead thread, it was about something actually new about coulter. Just like I'm waiting to see something new about Dawkins instead of yet another "the faithful are deluded" nonsense. It's fun once, but not many times over.

Also, here's more for your list: 1, 2, 3, 4 and that's just the ones that mention her by name. There have been more.

Whether we like it or not, we seem to develop hot button topics that constantly pop up but go nowhere every six months or so here. I don't want this site to turn into an echo chamber about the same set of pet topics everyone wants to discuss over and over again because it works into a synergistic cycle, where one dawkins thread a week springs more and people just find any old crap they can online so we can discuss it again and a few months pass and we're like the daily kos of dawkins claptrap.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:06 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


It's unusual for me to agree with matteo, but a blacklist of topics doesn't sit well with me. Yes, as a matter of simple fact, there are a few topics that always encourage pointless, tired, and acrimonious discussion. And yes, that sucks.

But the problem with this post and this callout is that discussion never legitimizes a post's existence. And here's the thing: the obvious corollary of that rule is that discussion never illegitimates a post, either.

A post should live or die on the quality of what it links to.

Pastabagel and many others seem to think that discussion is the raison d'etre of MetaFilter. What they don't understand is that while it is true that the quality of the discussion is the crown jewel of MetaFilter, what keeps the quality of that discussion alive is the quality of the posts and their links. If discussion were allowed to justify every post to MetaFilter, the result would be that we would poison the well.

Here's an analogous situation from my own experience. As many people know, I attended St. John's College, the so-called "Great Books" school. While I have a deep love for the Program and for the books we read, in the end what I think makes SJC special is that it is a seminar school and the quality of the discussion and the quality of the students and their desire for good discussion is extraordinarily high. Not unlike MetaFilter. But would that remain true if you took the discussion out of the context of the books we read? If it were all after-seminar coffee shop bullshitting, all the time? Of course it wouldn't.

The quality of the posts to MetaFilter, which rely on the quality of their links, has to come first. If it does, everything else will follow. If it doesn't, what makes MeFi special will wither away and die.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:08 PM on October 13, 2006 [2 favorites]


they point is that they might want to discuss it, i.e. participate.

Then you miss the point of MetaFilter. The links, the "best of the web," is the most important part of the post. Not the discussion.

(And, in an attempt to head off the rather predictable strawman, I'm not saying that the discussion is entirely unimportant to MeFi, or that we shouldn't have discussion, or anything of that sort. Just that the discussion is less important than the links.)

That said, if we were doing Wikipedia-style voting consensus-building on this one, I would have voted weak keep based on the Salon interview. The other links are all useless (and should have been left out of the post), but that at least was new and moderately interesting.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:10 PM on October 13, 2006


It's unusual for me to agree with matteo,

OK, I've changed my mind, fuck Dawkins posts
posted by matteo at 12:16 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


It doesn't seem like a blacklist so much as a "deletion much more likely than usual if post isn't great" list.
posted by cortex at 12:17 PM on October 13, 2006


Yeah, Dawkins posts just get (legitimately) profiled.
posted by OmieWise at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2006


I think the YouTube post of Dawkins auditioning for So You Think You Can Dance would have made the cut.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2006


Or Dawkins playing the tuba part for Baby Elephant Walk at a middle school concert.
posted by cortex at 12:27 PM on October 13, 2006


In my secular, atheistic way, I think the world has reached its Yeatsian crisis, where

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
[...]
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


I also think Metafilter is one of places I could get to hear at least echoes of the first squalling cries of this awesome and terrible new advent, but only if religious people here become a little more secure in their faith and cease to fear critical voices like Dawkins so much (and he is so weak!) they reflexively flag over and over again any post which has the potential to open up a real discussion about religion.
posted by jamjam at 12:30 PM on October 13, 2006


. . .instead of yet another "the faithful are deluded" nonsense.
posted by mathowie at 2:06 PM CST on October 13 [+] [!]

The use of the word "nonsense" . . . a clue, perhaps?
posted by landis at 12:31 PM on October 13, 2006


One of the more interesting (true) Dawkins anecdotes is that he was introduced to his future wife by Douglas Adams. His lament when Adams died was pretty touching.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:32 PM on October 13, 2006


landis writes "a clue, perhaps?"

To what? Are you claiming bias on the part of mathowie? Have you read Dawkins? He's a tool.
posted by OmieWise at 12:33 PM on October 13, 2006


What if Dawkins is Born Again and denounces is former heathen lifestyle? Or would that be too newsfiltery?
posted by birdherder at 12:37 PM on October 13, 2006


I have noticed that certain political and religious FPPs get deleted with a brushoff.

And I've read some Dawkins. What do you find so tool-like about him?
posted by landis at 12:38 PM on October 13, 2006


Clovis pattern, polished handle.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:39 PM on October 13, 2006


jimjam, how do you know it's religious people doing the flagging?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:40 PM on October 13, 2006


And I've read some Dawkins. What do you find so tool-like about him?
posted by landis at 12:38 PM PST


Please refer to all the previous threads. Generally people object to Dawkin's un-nuanced understanding of why people turn to religion. He is a tool. I say this as someone who stopped believing in God at about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

I held similar views to Dawkins when I was a teenager. Thats pretty much the age when I thought I knew everything.
posted by vacapinta at 12:49 PM on October 13, 2006


I think it a breach of the propriety that governs our usually cordial exchange of bytes and packets to discuss the substance of a metafilter post in the metatalk thread relating to that post. Furthermore, please consider the risk to the very fabric of the metafilter universe, or filterverse, if you will. Breach the barriers between the dimensions of meta-discussion, mix blue with grey as it were, and you tear the very fabric of our world apart.

The post died. It was eulogized and buried.

The world has turned, and moved on.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:04 PM on October 13, 2006


There's plenty of room at the MetaPurgatory. Any time of day. We're pissing in the gray...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:09 PM on October 13, 2006


Atheists have killed more people than Christians.

My ass itches.

One of the above statements is true.
posted by docpops at 12:31 PM EST on September 22 [+] [!]


Wow, what a torrent of wisdom that thread was for me!
posted by peeedro at 1:10 PM on October 13, 2006


There's plenty of room at the MetaPurgatory. Any time of day. We're pissing in the gray...

On a lark, made a callout
Fresh snark in my hair
Warm smell of deletion
Rising up through the air
posted by cortex at 1:15 PM on October 13, 2006


A very fair question, pyramid termite; I don't know; I don't see how I could know for certain. But mathowie's remark

. . .instead of yet another "the faithful are deluded" nonsense.
posted by mathowie at 2:06 PM CST on October 13 [+] [!]


points in that direction, and so does anything more than a casual perusal of threads such as this deleted one of orthogonality's, where members are lamenting in the thread that it should be deleted, and why hasn't it been deleted yet, and so forth. I know, or think I know from reading their prior posts what the general stance of these indivdual people toward religion is.

Do you think my conclusion is mistaken?
posted by jamjam at 1:17 PM on October 13, 2006


There's plenty of room at the MetaPurgatory.

MetaLimbo, however, is closed for good.
posted by Gamblor at 1:19 PM on October 13, 2006


matteo writes "Not another YouTube post. I don't believe YouTube actually exists."

I'd sure like to see that deletion reason more often.
posted by Mitheral at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2006


Well, now that Google bought 'em, it may end up being true.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:24 PM on October 13, 2006


Have you read Dawkins? He's a tool. Dawkins may well be a tool, but it wasn't the reading that gave you that impression.
posted by econous at 1:36 PM on October 13, 2006


Do you think my conclusion is mistaken?

yes ... but if you're going to quote matt out of context and ignore everything else he said, then i guess you've already determined what your conclusion is going to be, haven't you? ... it's because the religious aren't "a little more secure in their faith" and have to flag things instead of debating them

now, excuse me, i've got some firewood and a stake i need to set up ... sun's going to set soon and we need burning heretics to see by
posted by pyramid termite at 1:45 PM on October 13, 2006


It doesn't seem like a blacklist so much as a "deletion much more likely than usual if post isn't great" list.

Yeah, what cortex said. I don't have a blacklist, but if those posts about those controversial topics aren't great, even-handed, and introduce something novel and interesting, they'll often descend into a pile of crap I delete.

I also stopped believing in god about the time I stopped believing in santa, but I don't go around thinking all religious people are deluded.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:06 PM on October 13, 2006


I don't know if it would make a worthy MeFi post, but I'd pay money to see a video of Dawkins' college-aged experimentation with prayer.

only if religious people here become a little more secure in their faith and cease to fear critical voices like Dawkins so much (and he is so weak!) they reflexively flag over and over again any post which has the potential to open up a real discussion about religion.

Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of people here are not religious at all and fear Dawkins even less than we fear the alleged deity, and yet we still think these posts suck and flag the shit out of them and are grateful when Matt buries them. You really don't get it, do you? You can't imagine any other reason for disliking another religion-sucks post besides Fear of Dawkins? Like dios said, if that's what you want, find a website dedicated to endless discussion of religion.
posted by languagehat at 2:14 PM on October 13, 2006


yes ... but if you're going to quote matt out of context and ignore everything else he said, then i guess you've already determined what your conclusion is going to be, haven't you? ... it's because the religious aren't "a little more secure in their faith" and have to flag things instead of debating them

now, excuse me, i've got some firewood and a stake i need to set up ... sun's going to set soon and we need burning heretics to see by.


I see that even if my conclusion was not mistaken, taking your question seriously and thinking you wished to have an actual conversation instead of merely to score rhetorical points was, sadly.

Enjoy your bonfire, but should it prove not so illuminating as you anticipate, do keep in mind that there are "None so blind as those who will not see."

Now, where was it I read that...?
posted by jamjam at 2:26 PM on October 13, 2006


I also stopped believing in god about the time I stopped believing in santa, but I don't go around thinking all religious people are deluded.

Actually, I think you do. If I believe in Santa and you don't, one of us must be deluded and each of us thinks it's the other.
posted by timeistight at 2:28 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


Or it could just be a difference of opinion
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:31 PM on October 13, 2006


Now, where was it I read that...?

it's from "cheap sunglasses" by zz top
posted by pyramid termite at 2:38 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


well, maybe matt could set up a hotline with dios or his like (or give them instant FPP veto power), so that the time delay between posting and topic deletion is minimized...there are people who don't live at metafilter and thus don't identify every single double post or tired topic at the outset, and some of those people, rather than going into every single thread and giving an opinion on everything in the world, will tend to select one or two interesting topics and then will read through the comments and put time and effort into making a thoughtful contribution to the topic, and finding the topic deleted upon hitting the 'post' button quite sucks for said persons...

...and maybe more consideration could be given to the idea that if a FPP can still generate discussion amongst the members such that a number of them will make a contribution, then such FPP is perhaps not as played out as some people seem to think...not to mention the fact that those uninterested need not click the links--it's strange to me how many people will take the time to make a comment within a topic that a post or discussion is not worthy of one's time...
posted by troybob at 2:46 PM on October 13, 2006


Or it could just be a difference of opinion

Nah, if you thing punk rock is the pinnacle of musical expression and I think it's just pretentious noise, that's a difference of opinion because there's no objective truth. But if you think the world is flat and I think it's round, then, by definition, I think you're deluded. I think you have misapprehended the truth.
posted by timeistight at 2:50 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


I think it's possible to make a good Dawkins post

Then try it; these posts are sucking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:00 PM on October 13, 2006


rather than going into every single thread and giving an opinion on everything in the world, will tend to select one or two interesting topics and then will read through the comments and put time and effort into making a thoughtful contribution to the topic, and finding the topic deleted upon hitting the 'post' button quite sucks for said persons...

Thank you, troybob. This has been my experience here many times. Which is why I find all this so frustrating.

And I must say that, while I have taken issue (rightfully, in my mind) with Matt's deletion policy, I respect him and do appreciate the work he and jessamyn put into the site.
posted by landis at 3:11 PM on October 13, 2006


I think the religious are diluted, but I can't proof it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:11 PM on October 13, 2006


timeistight, there is the reasonable middle ground in which both parties that differ on some fundamental belief do recognize and understand the groundings of one another's beliefs.

While I believe neither in Alice's God nor that pink bunnies are screaming at Bob to kill everyone, it's likely I can understand the basis for Alice's belief, and it's likely that Alice can understand the basis for mine—where "deluded" can (and is) used a perjorative, and not merely a value-neutral label for "belief in what I do not believe", I would not call Alice deluded for differing on personal metaphysics. Bob, though? Deluded out the ass.
posted by cortex at 3:13 PM on October 13, 2006


I think we have a difference of opinion: I see Alice as deluded; I see Bob as delusional, although now that I look them up, they seem to mean the same thing.

languagehat, please hope me!
posted by timeistight at 3:24 PM on October 13, 2006


Difference of opinion? What are you, deluded?

~scene~

posted by cortex at 3:32 PM on October 13, 2006


Trolling shouldn't be allowed on the front page just because the troll managed to get his book published and it sold well.
posted by koeselitz at 3:53 PM on October 13, 2006


econous: Dawkins may well be a tool, but it wasn't the reading that gave you that impression.

As a regular reader of Free Inquiry and The Humanist I must say that I came to the conclusion after reading Dawkins that he's a tool, or at least brilliantly and stubbornly mistaken. He is more of a Don Quixote insisting on using the wrong tool to charge windmills rather than a potent critic of religion. While others explore the wide expanse of humanist and skeptical thought, Dawkins somehow manages to return to the same dead horse month after month.

For pity's sake, give me Hitch even with his political cognitive dissonance regarding Nixon's war vs. Bush's war. Give me Schermer who at least seems to be aware that skepticism needs to address the potent reality of altered states of consciousness. Give me E. O. Wilson whose awe of the universe and struggles with the need for myth come out in his writing. Or for that matter, give me Randi's smug smackdown of the use of cold and hot reading by psycics.

Please, please, please, no more of Dawkins trying to shove the square peg of religious belief into the round hole of "memes" and "mind viruses" month after month. Not when there are much better critics writing.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:04 PM on October 13, 2006


And yes, I really do believe that Hitchins is a better writer on these issues that Dawkins. Hitch is a better writer, and obviously better read on these issues. His main flaw is trying to rationalize why Kissinger's policies were criminal then, but necessary now.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:27 PM on October 13, 2006


dawkins is plaaaaaayed out. He's up there with a thread about SUVs sucking, Why Abortion is Great, Evolution!, and Why Are Fat People So Damn Fat on MeFi.


HURF DURF CREATOR HATER

(Somebody had to say it...)
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:52 PM on October 13, 2006


You Mefites are dumb
posted by Joeforking at 5:31 PM on October 13, 2006



posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:25 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


best gif ever
posted by pyramid termite at 6:38 PM on October 13, 2006


troybob writes "...and maybe more consideration could be given to the idea that if a FPP can still generate discussion amongst the members such that a number of them will make a contribution, then such FPP is perhaps not as played out as some people seem to think..."

I think "played out" is defined as "the same conversation occurs over and over again", not "it's all been discussed before, so no conversation occurs". Most of the hot-button played out topics fit that profile: they generate discussion amongst the members, but no new discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 PM on October 13, 2006


I think it's possible to make a good Dawkins post

Unless it includes colonoscopy videos, don't bother.
posted by mediareport at 7:14 PM on October 13, 2006



posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:26 PM on October 13, 2006


Insult those that behead Dawkins, الثناء. الله..
posted by econous at 8:51 PM on October 13, 2006


Oh, are we doing this already?


posted by Stauf at 9:01 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hey Matt, why not just go ahead and put on the 'post a link' page that anything that mentions Dawkins, or is in any way offensive to Christianity, will be deleted? Why waste people's time guessing when you can easily let us know what things are specifically forbidden to talk about? You have Middle-East/Iraq/etc stuff on there so please go ahead and add the rest of your pet peeves.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:33 PM on October 13, 2006


I second Optimus Chyme, except that I'm guessing he was being sarcastic, and I'm not.
posted by Bugbread at 2:46 AM on October 14, 2006


"Hey Matt, why not just go ahead and put on the 'post a link' page that anything that mentions Dawkins, or is in any way offensive to Christianity, will be deleted?"

Why not get it through your skull that shitty links deserve to be deleted?
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 AM on October 14, 2006


It might be worth pointing out that, in addition to Palestisrael threads, threads on fatties, Iraq, evolution, abortion, and atheism will be deleted, unless the links are of high quality.
posted by graventy at 10:12 AM on October 14, 2006


Good.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:10 AM on October 14, 2006


« Older Was high school really this complicated?   |   Metafilter Writer's Group on Vox Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments