GoreFilter?

February 26, 2007 6:01 PM

Are we gonna keep the "latest attempt to smear Gore" post on the front page just because it gets successfully refuted later in the thread? Or in the interest of being "Fair and Balanced", should Gore Bashing be kept equivalent to Bush Bashing?
posted by wendell to etiquette/policy at 6:01 PM (112 comments total)

Yeah, I'm voting for keeping it. People are refuting it (there should be a better source for his energy bills, he does buy offsets, and it is a working ranch after all) but I thought it showed both sides (treehugger.com and some crank site) and raises some interesting points about Gore and the issue.

It's a weak post, but not so bad it's delete worthy. To delete would seem shallow and partisan and I'd rather be the bigger person here and see what stuff people come up with to refute it.
posted by mathowie at 6:12 PM on February 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

They're just pissed because they couldn't nominate Rush Limbaugh for an Oscar, too.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:17 PM on February 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Notice that unlike many allegations made about the Bush administration here on MetaFilter, these particular charges against Al Gore can be sensibly refuted.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:33 PM on February 26, 2007

What on earth is shallow about deleting the MeFi equivalent of a Weekly World News fictional report? And what is partisan about removing partisan politics from your front page?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:40 PM on February 26, 2007

And what is partisan about removing partisan politics from your front page?

approx. 8,743 posts have been made about how Bush kind of sucks, and this is one "Gore uses too much energy on his massive estate" post. I tend to associate blogs that delete any and all posts that remotely go against the grain with an echo chamber.
posted by mathowie at 6:46 PM on February 26, 2007 [4 favorites]

I don't think having unsubstantiated smears of anyone on the front page of your web log makes you the bigger person.
posted by grouse at 6:46 PM on February 26, 2007

That thread is complete horseshit. You should have just deleted it while you were cleaning up that god-awful formatting.
posted by bob sarabia at 6:47 PM on February 26, 2007

I read the thread and found it interesting. I like to hear what Mefites have to say about shit like this.
posted by meh at 6:49 PM on February 26, 2007

I don't think having unsubstantiated smears of anyone on the front page of your web log makes you the bigger person.

It does when you debunk it and others can point out the fallacy of it when it shows up in other places.
posted by mathowie at 6:56 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Liberals are too partisan, unlike Conservatives.
posted by scalefree at 6:57 PM on February 26, 2007

The post is stupid, and it's been debunked in-thread.

I don't get why it should be deleted. Stupid and poorly substantiated != guideline-violating.

And it's possible that it'll help future web users find out about the raging stupid lurking in this story.

By the way, is there any proper way for conservatives to respond to other conservatives' efforts at humor other than chortling? Eliciting chortling seems to be the highest aspiration of conservative humor.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:59 PM on February 26, 2007

On non-preview, mathowie is right.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:00 PM on February 26, 2007

So Al Gore was on the Oscars. Put him on Danicng With The Stars, then I'll be impressed.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on February 26, 2007

It's better for people to hear about this here in a forum where it can be followed by rational discussion, rather than hearing it somewhere else, where it won't be. At least now people who read the thread will have some ammunition should they hear their friends/classmates/co-workers discussing this. Whether you are coming from the left or the right, it's impossible to deliver a drive-by smear on Mefi, people from both sides will always take you to task. So I enjoyed reading the thread and hearing what people had to say about it.
posted by crackingdes at 7:24 PM on February 26, 2007

If you're going to delete anything, delete the bitches in the thread whining about how the post sucks. Yeah, it's inaccurate, and so what. It's newsworthy on its own as a naked attempt at partisan smear, and it gets shot down appropriately. I think that alone makes it a worthwhile exercise.
posted by mullingitover at 7:35 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Some great comments above. When the right-wing noise machine makes up lies, discussing them doesn't actually help democracy, lead to better policies, or anything else.

Republican PR operatives: Gore and Hillary are child molesters!

Discussion: There isn't any evidence for that.

Takeaway by the casual reader: Gore and Hillary might be child molesters, but it isn't proven.

Repeat it a few hundred times, and you end up with what happened to John Kerry, where the takeaway ended up being "John Kerry is a coward who hid from war and George Bush is a noble warrior", which is precisely the opposite of the truth. This PR tactic *works* to spread lies.

If the premise of your story is a lie, discussing it doesn't lead to the truth. What it leads to is a few (if it's debunked) or a lot (if it isn't) of people believing the lie. It's a net negative for the truth. The lie is given credibility by the very act of discussing it.

And on preview: the difference, mathowie, between (most) of the Bush Sucks posts and this one is that they are (generally) based on true facts, unlike this one, which is just some lies designed to make news for a few days and then be forgotten except for the nagging doubt in the back of your mind that Gore might be a hypocrite.

Adverse truths about one political side need not be balanced by adverse lies about the other. That's not "balance".
posted by jellicle at 7:39 PM on February 26, 2007 [13 favorites]

When you say "smear Gore," I think American Psycho.
posted by breezeway at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

So Al Gore was on the Oscars. Put him on Danicng With The Stars, then I'll be impressed.
posted by jonmc at 10:22 PM EST on February 26

Put him on Danicng With The (Lesbian Koala) Bears, then I'll really be impressed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:54 PM on February 26, 2007

jellicle, I disagree. One crackpot anti-tax group from Tennessee isn't going to derail the entire climate crisis movement. It's not part of a huge right wing noise machine, it's a little goofball bunch of dorks that don't want to pay tax. And it was completely refuted.

It surprises me how strongly people react to any opposition here. Our leaders, politics, or beliefs can handle a little opposition with some simple refuting via facts, no?
posted by mathowie at 7:54 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The TCPR are being used as the injection point for the disinformation but it's already being spread far & wide across the right-wing blogosphere. This is practically the definitive case of the right wing noise machine, happening right before our eyes.
posted by scalefree at 8:06 PM on February 26, 2007

This is practically the definitive case

Which one is it??
posted by dorisfromregopark at 8:13 PM on February 26, 2007

omg, how will we ever survive? HOW?!
posted by mathowie at 8:14 PM on February 26, 2007

mathowie writes "It's not part of a huge right wing noise machine,

Actually, the way this appeared in the media through various key figures, as well as on the group's site, I'm pretty sure it is. The Republicans have made an art of this.

it's a little goofball bunch of dorks that don't want to pay tax.

Right. Well, the president of that bunch of dorks was from the AEI, which has direct ties to Bush. As was mentioned in the posts, they are also part of the State Policy Network. They aren't a disconnected bunch of dorks.

And it was completely refuted."

I think you should leave the post up, but, yeah, it was refuted, much like anti-evolution arguments have been refuted for over 100 years. They still get traction for the same reasons the Kerry swift boat stories did.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:15 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ok, so how about this: if this "story" is showing up on hundreds of blogs, this one has a high technorati rank and pagerank and thoroughly refutes it. Chances of mefi popping up above a hundred right wing blogs are very good in future searches and people will find our discussion instead of some red state blog saying "hell yeah, Gore is teh suck".
posted by mathowie at 8:22 PM on February 26, 2007

Matt, I agree that the story should stay up because I think the story has become "diary of a right-wing smear", which I think the thread illustrates pretty well.
posted by scalefree at 8:27 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can't say either way, delete or leave, but it is quite possible that krinklyfig is spot on in pointing out this is EXACTLY how the noise machine works. Who cared what the Swift Boat "Veterans"had to say, that one crackpot anti-Kerry organization?
posted by edgeways at 8:32 PM on February 26, 2007

I just loved the poster's first comment about how hypocritical it was to not be green if "Hollywood and DC's elite are going to lead social change." I couldn't stop laughing long enough to keep reading. I mean, does anyone really believe the Hollywood elite is going to lead social change on *anything*?
posted by mediareport at 8:33 PM on February 26, 2007

Oh, and Matt's right. It's a stupid post and allkindsoftime should be embarrassed to have pooped it out, but deleting it is worse than leaving it at this point.
posted by mediareport at 8:34 PM on February 26, 2007

"And they would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those nosy kids and their dumb blog."

I see your point, matt, and you've almost talked me out of the DeleteItNow! mob, BUT I'd hate it if the World Famous (and Sparely Used) MeFi Detective Agency starts becoming a Political Truth Squad 20 months before the Next Big Election, so this may be a dangerous precedent.
posted by wendell at 8:35 PM on February 26, 2007

grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind gore grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind gore lies grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind gore licks grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind hore licks


Anyone want a nice cup of horlicks?
posted by lalochezia at 8:38 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's ok. Aside from the Harry Potter kid's knob, we didn't have anything else better to do.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:39 PM on February 26, 2007

one of the things I like about mefi is how reasonable its left-leaning politics tends to be. There are many members of this site who are decidedly liberal, but on the whole we aren't on the KOS side of things with a shrill anti-conservative agenda.

The people clamoring for deletion of this post are not who I'm thinking of when I think about how reasonable our liberal politics are.
posted by shmegegge at 9:48 PM on February 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Question? If someone posted a post right after it, Saying Hey the post below me about Gore is a bunch of lies, would that be deleted?
posted by magikker at 12:36 AM on February 27, 2007

Wow, I'm blown away by this callout. The only way to effectively oppose the "right-wing noise machine" is top-down censorship instead of debate? I thought the left was supposed to be in favor of an open exchange of ideas.
posted by fuzz at 2:43 AM on February 27, 2007

with a shrill anti-conservative agenda.

because God forbid one becomes shrill, of all things. one must bend over and take it like a good liberal, like good ole John Kerry in the summer of '04, because one doesn't want to appear impolite or, the horror, damage a right winger's sense of self worth calling an actual scumbag a scumbag.

in the meantime, they're laughing all the way to Abu Ghraib, thanks to people like you. just don't be shrill. don't disturb them too much, go to your assigned free-speech zone and protest politely there.

and don't raise your voice, it's unAmerican.

are not who I'm thinking of when I think about how reasonable our liberal politics are.

I'm sure your disapproval is making them very sad.
posted by matteo at 2:45 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

having said that, keep the thread, who gives a shit, it's certainly better than the single YouTube link to Argerich playing the piano.

no, wait, it also has a wikipedia link, it makes it OK then.
posted by matteo at 2:47 AM on February 27, 2007

...BUT I'd hate it if the World Famous (and Sparely Used) MeFi Detective Agency starts becoming a Political Truth Squad 20 months before the Next Big Election...

Because the mass media are doing such a good job at that? The post sucked. The response is worthwhile, to the point that the thread is good.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:37 AM on February 27, 2007

one of the things I like about mefi is how reasonable its left-leaning politics tends to be. There are many members of this site who are decidedly liberal, but on the whole we aren't on the KOS side of things with a shrill anti-conservative agenda.

Shrill is a code word used by the right to smear people who are saying things that the writer doesn't agree with. It has a strong association with a stereotype of the shrewish emasculating woman. Resonable is a codeword for agreeing with the writer or at least being to polite to say that you don't. Joe Lieberman is reasonable but Nancy Pelosi is shrill.

So what you are saying is "be nice little Mefites and go along with what you are told and don't act up. Buy into our nice little right-wing story lines and only discuss things within the boundaries that we have setup as being part of reasonable discussion. And please don't use bad words, that might be shrill. So thanks but no thanks for the complement, I'll keep doing my best to be shrill.
posted by octothorpe at 3:57 AM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Uh, just because the right uses "shrill" as a way of marginalizing certain people and opinions doesn't mean there's never a time when lefties shoot themselves in the foot by being too, er, shrill.
posted by mediareport at 4:51 AM on February 27, 2007

picture a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other on either side of a river with blinders on ... they are so wrapped up in what they are doing and so unable to see around the blinders that they do not notice the cataclysmic mudslide that is barreling down the valley at them

that is right and left today ... and any attempt to tell either that their clay gods are not what they think they are results in mass denial and hysteria

and no, the cataclysmic mudslide is not global warming, although it may play a role later on

frankly, you and your enemies combined will probably do their level best to destroy all of us

if the shoe fits, wear it ... if this pisses you off, wait 10 years and then see what you think

bye
posted by pyramid termite at 5:20 AM on February 27, 2007

Al Gore is holy and must NOT be criticized! Death to the critics of Gore! Death!
posted by LarryC at 5:21 AM on February 27, 2007

I think all posts should be deleted, just a matter of policy. Really crank up the "filter" part of MetaFilter!
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:27 AM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Even fucking shitty digg has a way of flagging posts as possibly inacurate right on the post itself (which I assume most people read vs. those who dive into the comments..)
posted by Space Coyote at 5:47 AM on February 27, 2007

What is the cataclysmic mudslide, pyramid termite?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 6:08 AM on February 27, 2007

Question? If someone posted a post right after it, Saying Hey the post below me about Gore is a bunch of lies, would that be deleted?

In a heartbeat.
posted by cortex at 6:10 AM on February 27, 2007

It surprises me how strongly people react to any opposition here.

It saddens me but doesn't surprise me. People like echo chambers. That's why there are so many of them.

So what you are saying is "be nice little Mefites and go along with what you are told and don't act up. Buy into our nice little right-wing story lines and only discuss things within the boundaries that we have setup as being part of reasonable discussion. And please don't use bad words, that might be shrill.

Yes, that's just what he's saying.
*rolls eyes*

Also, you forgot to close your quote, which makes your paragraph not only shrill and irrational but virtually incomprehensible. Trifecta!
posted by languagehat at 6:11 AM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Personally, I could for a piece of peach cobbler, right about now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:28 AM on February 27, 2007

Hey guys-- I'd just like to say, you should be nice little Mefites and go along with what you are told and don't act up. Buy into our nice little right-wing story lines and only discuss things within the boundaries that we have setup as being part of reasonable discussion.

Oh, on preview, what octothorpe said.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:37 AM on February 27, 2007

The post should be deleted so people can spend more time lamenting that Dick Cheney didn't get blown up. Because that's the height of logical, civil discourse.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:39 AM on February 27, 2007

Question: Matt, do you happen to know how many people read the headlines vs read the threads?
posted by empath at 6:40 AM on February 27, 2007

This isn't about 'letting the opposition speak' or giving both sides equal time in a rational debate. This is about lies.

Why is it okay to post lies to the front page?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:57 AM on February 27, 2007

I have a feeling that the momentum and media narrative is so strongly in favor of Al Gore, Obama and the Democrats right now, that this kind of thing will not catch hold, except among the most hard core conservatives.
posted by empath at 7:16 AM on February 27, 2007

Why is it okay to post lies to the front page?

Why are you so afraid? When Matt creates the Department of Metafilterland Security in order to enforce truth on the front page, then the conservatives will have already won.
posted by fuzz at 8:03 AM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

If the premise of your story is a lie, discussing it doesn't lead to the truth. What it leads to is a few (if it's debunked) or a lot (if it isn't) of people believing the lie. It's a net negative for the truth. The lie is given credibility by the very act of discussing it.

That's a really cute argument against free speech. Next stop: nanny state.
posted by Tuwa at 8:20 AM on February 27, 2007

Why do liberals have so little faith in liberty?
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2007

There already is a 'Department of Metafilterland Security' (catchy, that) and it's made up of the two Metafilter moderators, Matt and Jess.

Matt and Jess already delete Rumorfilter posts. Why? Because the rumors might not be true. So here we have this item, a right-wing smear about Gore that is proven to be a lie. Yet it stays, because 'to delete would seem shallow and partisan.'

How did we get to the point when preventing a lie from spreading is called 'shallow?'

On Preview:
"We have to let the lying liers lie! Otherwise it's censorship!"

Free Speech doesn't mean you can spread unsubstantiated smears with impunity.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2007

Why do libertarians fantasize that deleting a blog post is government tyranny?
posted by ibmcginty at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2007

Why are you so afraid?

Let's see... why am I afraid of right-wing fringe groups using lies to guide the public discourse... a few well-placed lies never hurt anyone, right?

On Preview: this thread raises more questions than it answers.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:49 AM on February 27, 2007

Free Speech doesn't mean you can spread unsubstantiated smears with impunity.

Being debunked and roundly mocked seems somewhat punitive.
posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on February 27, 2007

Being debunked and roundly mocked seems somewhat punitive.

"I sentence you to be roundly mocked.'

Being mocked isn't really much of a punishment, especially if the behavior that's being mocked doesn't change.

"Even though you got a good solid mocking, you're still breaking into banks. What gives?"

If the people spreading unsubstantiated smears were punished-- and I'm talking about fines and/or jail time-- maybe this dirty tactic would be used less often.

now what this comment needs is quonsar to come in right below and say 'mock mock mock'
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:09 AM on February 27, 2007

Roundly mocking is appropriate for churlish puling. Swift-boating rates a brisk roger.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:24 AM on February 27, 2007

The thread's basically Anti-Gore Mudslinger Gets Pwnt. If you can't see that it's a small, tiny victory over the forces of mendacity and spite that have and continue to fuck the United States up, then take a good long look at your own politics, at how invested you really are in them. If you can't or won't see leaving it up is a Good Thing and deleting it would be a Bad Thing, whose side are you on, anyway?

Personally, shrill is a word that I use to for the whiners and foot stompers. Those who refuted the claims with facts and passion are not shrill. People who clamor for deletion because their fragile political identities are threatened and it's easier to whine than to fight are shrills.

I appreciate the fear that this may open the floodgates and turn this place into Snopes, Lefty Version, but hell people, this isn't the SCOTUS - Matt and Jess' hands aren't tied by precedent. They know how to do their jobs, and do it well.

Frankly, it's one of the few times that a PoliFilter thread resulted in something constructive, rather than the echo chamber back-slapping social snobbery stick circle jerk they usually turn into.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:31 AM on February 27, 2007

I want to roundly mock ABC news for printing:

"Considering that he spends an overwhelming majority of his time advocating on behalf of and trying to affect change on this issue, it's not surprising that people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo would go after him," said the former Gore aide."

That's all.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:43 AM on February 27, 2007

the echo chamber back-slapping social snobbery stick circle jerk they usually turn into.

That should be deleted too. Stupid post, stupid comments.
posted by grouse at 9:48 AM on February 27, 2007

It's better for people to hear about this here in a forum where it can be followed by rational discussion, rather than hearing it somewhere else, where it won't be.

How many people are going to read those comments though? Oh well, he's not running for anything and it hardly make a difference.
posted by delmoi at 9:52 AM on February 27, 2007

People who clamor for deletion because their fragile political identities are threatened and it's easier to whine than to fight are shrills.

The Gore thread should be deleted for the same reason that a creationism thread should be deleted. That reasoning doesn't weaken the validity of evolution or any other flavor of rational thought.

If giving equal time to dishonest people and false ideas isn't a crime, it should be.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:07 AM on February 27, 2007

I'm failing to see how this isn't: You print all kinds of liberal truths, you need to balance it out by printing a conservative lie.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:20 AM on February 27, 2007

If giving equal time to dishonest people and false ideas isn't a crime, it should be.

Hey, weren't you the person misrepresenting Obama's voting record, saying he voted for the Iraq war, just a week or two ago? Oh yes, it seems you did do that.

What's that about giving equal time to falsehood?
posted by Snyder at 10:30 AM on February 27, 2007

Is this comment by the OP an admission to trolling? That would be a much better reason to delete the post than because of the linked content, which is entirely fair game for a MetaFilter post. After all, since when did we stop linking to things that are complete nonsense?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:43 AM on February 27, 2007

Where are the insults about my mother, Snyder? If I continue to ignore you, perhaps you might look to the content of some of your previous comments to explain why.

As to Obama's support for the Iraq war, he abstained from voting to control funding. And the other issues I mentioned regarding Obama's voting record are, indeed, on the record.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:46 AM on February 27, 2007

The poster has outed himself as a troll. Brilliant.
posted by 2sheets at 10:57 AM on February 27, 2007

How many people are going to read those comments though?

Here? More than read the article I'd bet.
posted by srboisvert at 10:59 AM on February 27, 2007

Is this comment by the OP an admission to trolling? That would be a much better reason to delete the post than because of the linked content, which is entirely fair game for a MetaFilter post. After all, since when did we stop linking to things that are complete nonsense?

If anything, I think this admission by the poster validates the idea that this was one of those "the right-wing can't lose" situations. If no one argued with the OP, then he smeared Gore successfully. Since everyone, with amazing ease, pointed out all his bullshit, it's somehow proof that "we won't let in alternate viewpoints."

So, congrats on spending five bucks to pretend you "got" a bunch of strangers on the internet I guess, or something. Yeah.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:59 AM on February 27, 2007

I vote delete. Its basically just a newsfiltery, partisan-sniping op/ed presented from someone with an agenda.
posted by dios at 11:10 AM on February 27, 2007

(Oh, and if we delete all of them, then we solve Matt's concern about equal time and avoiding the appearance of an echo chamber... but I think that point has been beaten to death.)
posted by dios at 11:12 AM on February 27, 2007

allkindsoftime's comment reads a lot more like a sarcastic expression of weariness than an admission of trolling. A glance at his profile suggests a solid, non-axegrindy posting history; I think you guys are reaching on this.

Deletion seems unlikely, given Matt's participation in the original thread and involvement (and dissent) in this one.
posted by cortex at 11:15 AM on February 27, 2007

Where are the insults about my mother, Snyder? If I continue to ignore you, perhaps you might look to the content of some of your previous comments to explain why.

So, you're saying that someone who points out your dishonesty and now, hypocrisy, is making a baseless insult? Do you think you're above criticism? You didn't bother to reply to me, or sergeant sandwich, or delmoi, or others who wanted to know what was up with you, so I'm kind of amused that you respond now. Yeah, I was less then polite in later responses to you, but considering you're willfull misconstruing of what other people say or do, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you a person of good will. Combined with your little spouting of some authoritarian ideas about wanting to see Matt and the OP as criminals, ("...giving equal time to dishonest people and false ideas isn't a crime, it should be,") I'm not sure how you are a victim.

As to Obama's support for the Iraq war, he abstained from voting to control funding. And the other issues I mentioned regarding Obama's voting record are, indeed, on the record.

Well, it's been mentioned severeal times before, but abstaining does not equal voting, which is what you said he did. So, either you were wrong, and ignored your own links, but continued with your inital assessment even after being corrected, or you were willfully misrepresenting the truth for your own puposes. As to other issues you had with his record, well, as sergeant sandwich pointed out, that "Christian fundamentalist" bill you pointed out was, in fact, a vote to fund contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives. Considering your continued spinning, I flat out don't beleive you that you were and are acting in good faith. Your position about criminalising falsehood, while ugly, also shows you to be hypocritical, and your crediblity is laughable, at best.
posted by Snyder at 11:57 AM on February 27, 2007

AllegoryFilter
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:02 PM on February 27, 2007

The post should be deleted so people can spend more time lamenting that Dick Cheney didn't get blown up.

The solution at this point is clear: let's drop Al Gore on Dick Cheney from a great height, and see what happens.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 PM on February 27, 2007

If you drop him from just the right angle you'll get serious dick gore.
posted by cog_nate at 4:09 PM on February 27, 2007

matteo said:

because God forbid one becomes shrill, blahblahblah
and don't raise your voice, it's unAmerican.

I would say this is one of the most disinegenuous, idiotic things you've ever said, but you have a history of shit like this. you're the kind of liberal who attacks fellow liberals for being too conservative. everything you contribute to political discussions on this site is pure noise that muddies the waters of political discourse and further contributes to the perception that liberals are nothing but hand wringing whiners with nothing of value to contribute to the political landscape. If you can't handle being told that every once in a while we have to let a conservative voice be heard, then you're exactly what's wrong with the left in this country and you reveal how tenuous your political beliefs are since they apparently can't stand up to even the most easily refuted criticism.
posted by shmegegge at 4:21 PM on February 27, 2007

then you're exactly what's wrong with the left in this country

I believe matteo lives in Italy.
posted by y2karl at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2007

He would also reject being called a "liberal." He's a serious leftist, maaan.
posted by languagehat at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2007

No, he comes from where left of center is not right of Eisenhower Republican.
posted by y2karl at 5:01 PM on February 27, 2007

How does that contradict what I wrote? Surely you don't think our flammable Italian friend does consider himself "liberal"?
posted by languagehat at 5:02 PM on February 27, 2007

No history of personal animus towards matteo on your part, is there ?
posted by y2karl at 5:06 PM on February 27, 2007

No, I like matteo. As far as I can see, I'm correcting shmegegge's characterization, just as you were. (No history of personal animus towards matteo on your part, is there?) I would seriously be surprised if he came into the thread and said "Sorry, LH, I do consider myself a liberal"; if he did, I would apologize and correct my impression. But I'm pretty sure I'm right. He's consistently caustic about liberalism.
posted by languagehat at 5:28 PM on February 27, 2007

Jesus, Languagehat, have you stopped beating your wife?
posted by gsb at 5:34 PM on February 27, 2007

Huh? What are you on about? I pointed out that characterizing matteo as a "liberal" is inaccurate by his own standards. I said if he corrects me I'll apologize. What the fuck is your problem?
posted by languagehat at 5:36 PM on February 27, 2007

Wait wait wait... are you by any chance one of those blinkered people who think that everything good is "liberal" and that saying somebody isn't "liberal" is ipso facto an insult? I hope not, because then I'd think uncomplimentary things about your intellect. But maybe you were just having a Tourette's moment.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on February 27, 2007

Deep breaths, man.
posted by cortex at 5:39 PM on February 27, 2007

Well, while he rubs people the worng way with his sharp tongue, compared to the matteo of yore, matteo these days is a fluffy kitten. But, as with dios, who has similarly toned it way down, people are going to pile on him the minute anyone takes offense at his weak tea version of his old self. That was my thought.
posted by y2karl at 5:53 PM on February 27, 2007

worng is the wrong way to spell wrong, by the way.
posted by y2karl at 5:54 PM on February 27, 2007

Well, you know, 'liberal' is as uselessly vague and obfuscatory a label as 'convervative'. What matteo is, as far as I can tell, is 'batshitinsane'.

In an amusingly vitriolic, good-post-making way, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 PM on February 27, 2007

Er, 'convervative' is the new 'conservative': for people with absolute heaps of vim, vigour and verve!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 PM on February 27, 2007

Don't you mean conberbative ?
posted by y2karl at 5:56 PM on February 27, 2007

That was it!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 PM on February 27, 2007

i don't imagine myself as piling on him (although it's pretty obvious I think he's being an absolute ass), and I think it's pretty clear languagehat wasn't joining me in my approach to him, so no chance of that pile-on, right?
posted by shmegegge at 5:57 PM on February 27, 2007

Well, lib and let liveral.
posted by y2karl at 5:57 PM on February 27, 2007

Who the fuck ate all the rhinos in my box of animus crackers? I was saving them for Golden Girls, you assholes!
posted by breezeway at 6:15 PM on February 27, 2007

I saved you the horns, stop being shrill.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 PM on February 27, 2007

I see your shrill and raise you poised.
posted by breezeway at 7:10 PM on February 27, 2007

Yeah, I was less then polite in later responses to you

Thank you for acknowledging it.

Well, it's been mentioned severeal times before, but abstaining does not equal voting

In a representative democracy, when every dissenting voice counts, abstaining is the same as a vote for the tyranny of the status quo.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:04 PM on February 27, 2007

That was a press release. Metafilter is media.
posted by owhydididoit at 8:04 PM on February 27, 2007

Do gerrymandered districts and the electoral college really constitute a representative democracy?

When (and a big if) the silent join the dissent and the dissent becomes the status quo, is the status quo still tyrannical? Would the newly created dissenters, that is to say, supporters of the old status quo, then be fighting tyranny?

Why should I bother adding my vote in a district where my vote, which might be against the national status quo, simply adds to an overwhelming local majority? Winning a majority of the popular vote counts for bubkus. If more than half of my locality agrees with me already, what use is my tally?

Should I move to another district and vote there? Oh, false democracy, taking away my right to self-determination, forcing me to farm soybeans 'til my vote counts, when all I want is a little freedom and the world's best pastrami on rye.
posted by breezeway at 8:39 PM on February 27, 2007

Why do libertarians fantasize that deleting a blog post is government tyranny?

I'm not a libertarian, and I didn't confuse deleting a blog post with government tyranny. What I was referring to was jellicle's statement If the premise of your story is a lie, discussing it doesn't lead to the truth. What it leads to is a few (if it's debunked) or a lot (if it isn't) of people believing the lie. It's a net negative for the truth. The lie is given credibility by the very act of discussing it.

On the surface it might look like a convincing argument, but it raises questions which jellicle doesn't bother to answer. One of them would be "so do you really think the public shouldn't discuss something untrue, and if so, do you really have any firm belief in your government (of the people, by the people, for the people)?" Another would be "oh, gee, if individuals can't discuss lies because it's not in the public's best interest, then who gets to decide what is safe to discuss and what is safe to say about it?" followed by "That would be the government, wouldn't it?" and "Do you think they will be oh-so-generous as to share the evidence with us peons about why and how we get to discuss whatever we get to discuss?" and, finally, "Oh, no, they won't, will they?--because showing why something is a lie would invite discussion of that lie, and we can't discuss lies because 'the public' is too stupid/lazy/indifferent/whatever to handle it."

Hence nanny state by way of adopting role of benevolent dictator and infantilizing the public. If I wanted to be infantilized I'd plug into FOX news.
posted by Tuwa at 9:42 PM on February 27, 2007

Question: Is this person in any way related to this person?

I ask, because I note the craptacular Tennessee Policy link the MeFi poster provided was provided in the Treehugger thread, by one "Elaine" aka spatuladeity.

OTOH, it doesn't look like allkindoftime's MeFi web profile would be that of one of those scum viral marketers. Any having reviewed the links once again, while the poster was a doofus for letting TP's media release taint his post and page title, it wasn't much of a troll.

It was a newsfilter post, though. And boring newsfilter, because, really, who gives a flying fig about whether the movie won an Oscar. I can not think of a more worthless accolade for a movie of this type.

Getting spunked on by Hollywood is not exactly important in the greater plan of saving this planet from ourselves.

And I apologize to allkindsoftime for the abusive comment. That was wrong, and I've asked admins to delete it.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:34 PM on February 27, 2007

Well, good for you for saying and doing so. We all say things we later regret but not everyone steps up and owns up to it. My experience here has been a real learning curve and while I'd like to think I have come a long way from when I started, I am still amazed at how easy it is to get riled up and intemperate.
posted by y2karl at 11:57 PM on February 27, 2007

Looks like the Mainstream Media is treating the 'Tennessee Center for Policy Research' like the assclowns they are:

"The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs."

****

Nice try, Drew Johnson (Pres. of the 'Tennessee Center for Policy Research).
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:34 AM on February 28, 2007

mathowie: It's not part of a huge right wing noise machine, it's a little goofball bunch of dorks that don't want to pay tax.

Drew Johnson, by the way (according to the page I linked to above) has ties to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute (which rents office space to The Project for The New American Century.) Oh, and he went to school at Pepperdine.

So yes, Drew Johnson and the 'Tennessee Center for Policy Research are part of the huge right wing noise machine.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:51 AM on February 28, 2007

              mock
mock         u        mock
              mock
posted by taosbat at 8:17 AM on February 28, 2007

Thank you for acknowledging it.
Some were less than polite, some were downright rude. My apologys for the rude ones.

In a representative democracy, when every dissenting voice counts, abstaining is the same as a vote for the tyranny of the status quo.

Or, in cases of bills like this, abstension can be a willingness to go along with the bills statement. Common law has almost always held that silence in a paticular matter equals agreement or aquiesence, therefore it could be interpreted that Obama agrees with the bill. In any case, I still say that your inital discription of Obama's voting record is highly misleading.
posted by Snyder at 12:26 PM on February 28, 2007