Overeager moderation?

June 12, 2007 8:35 PM

Overeager moderation? I'm sure that I saw a spot-on comment (from Optimus Chyme, I believe?) about a possibly hypocritical comment concerning gay vs. interracial marriage. Now it's gone. WTF?
posted by MrMoonPie to Etiquette/Policy at 8:35 PM (413 comments total)

The one where OC just decided to go after konolia for daring to say something supportive about human rights? Yeah, it looks like jessamyn deleted that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:41 PM on June 12, 2007

Overeager moderation?

You know what they say about cooks in the kitchen.
posted by The God Complex at 8:43 PM on June 12, 2007

Yes, cortex, indeed, that one. The one where OC was, in fact, perfectly right, correct, and accurate, though, I suppose, maybe not terribly nice. Yup, that's the one.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:44 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

And I don't mean that as a dig, necessarily, before everyone jumps on me. As you add more voices of authority to any community, the likelihood is that what is deemed unacceptable will grow to include more things.

Also, having not seen the comment, it's hard to form a solid opinion one way or the other. On one hand, it can be a bit tiring to see someone attack another poster out of a continued grievance. On the other, people make their beds and should sleep in them, you know?

To sum up, whatever.
posted by The God Complex at 8:48 PM on June 12, 2007

OC went after konolia about previous comments she'd made in other threads. konolia is trying to turn over a bit of a new leaf and having people trot out things she's said in other threads and hurl them at her isn't kosher.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:48 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Here's the deleted comment

FWIW, as a Christian myself, I had to point this out to my (unreconstructed) parents, who objected to my daughter's choice of a black husband on religious grounds-which in reality was simply an excuse to be racist. The arrival of the grandbaby has softened things considerably, I must say. I'll have to tell my daughter about this post. I don't think she even KNOWS interracial marriages used to be illegal. posted by konolia at 4:13 PM on June 12

How anyone who opposes equal marriage rights for homosexuals can post this shit without seeing a hint of irony in it blows my fucking mind. In twenty years one of your descendants will be posting this about you, konolia. But I hope they'll have the presence of mind to keep their child away from their you.

posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:50 PM on June 12, 2007

OC went after konolia about previous comments she'd made in other threads. konolia is trying to turn over a bit of a new leaf and having people trot out things she's said in other threads and hurl them at her isn't kosher.

The comment seems a bit uncouth, but not off the mark. Why is Konolia afforded the kid glove treatment when so many others are not? I mean, unless her new leaf involves her extolling the virtues of gay rights and whatnot.
posted by The God Complex at 8:52 PM on June 12, 2007

Good call, jessamyn.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:53 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Seems like an ok comment. Maybe could have left out the part about people keeping their children away from konolia, but I don't see how the thing about equal marriage rights for gays crosses any lines.
posted by puke & cry at 8:55 PM on June 12, 2007

Why is Konolia afforded the kid glove treatment when so many others are not?

The new leaf thing? That's dressing and human decency on top of the general notion that straight-up user-on-user invective just isn't cool. We delete that sort of shit now and then.

Taking the opportunity to fling nasty shit at a fellow user for past commentary isn't hot stuff. It runs a lot freer in the grey than anywhere else, but it's pretty much ugly across the board.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:56 PM on June 12, 2007

This same exact debate has taken place before, scripted with konolia's spouting her support of interracial marriage thus implying she's not a bigot. Then, she gets called out for comments she's made in the past showing she's not a beacon for tolerance.

I think OC made a valid point. Support of gay marriage in leiu of interracial marriage is exactly on point. All this is doing is going people a free pass to support one aspect civil rights while simultaneously wanting to withhold an equally important aspect of civil rights.
posted by jmd82 at 8:57 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Why is Konolia afforded the kid glove treatment when so many others are not?

Why are konolia's hypocrisies picked on when the hypocrisies of most others are not? Perhaps we should dispense a team, like the tagging team, to track every thing every single person has said on this site, since registration. Then, anytime they say something that contradicts it, someone on the team can call them out. Because, you know, people never change their minds. Or say things they regret. Surely that will further our community goals!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:57 PM on June 12, 2007 [9 favorites]

Why is Konolia afforded the kid glove treatment when so many others are not?

The basic guideline is don't stalk members through the site dragging up crap they used to say and calling them names. The fact that people agree with what OC had to say doesn't mean it's cool for him to say it. Comments from people that are basically "screw you other user" or "you sound reasonable here but you were a fucker before so I'll just drag that out in a thread where it doesn't belong" aren't cool.

konolia isn't getting the kid glove treatment any more than the typical soft-hearted BRAND NEW DAY crap we trot out for anyone.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:58 PM on June 12, 2007

Why are konolia's hypocrisies picked on when the hypocrisies of most others are not?

Because hers are destructive, harmful, and hateful, and cause deep, real harm to good people.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:01 PM on June 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Why is Konolia afforded the kid glove treatment when so many others are not?

oh, like the time people badgered her to repeat her already well-known (and widely shared by many of her co-religionists) views about homosexuality so she could get banned for a week?

that kid glove treatment?

(OBDISCLAIMER - i do not agree with her views on this subject, period)

that was a bad performance all the way around
posted by pyramid termite at 9:01 PM on June 12, 2007

That comment was fine until it came to this: But I hope they'll have the presence of mind to keep their child away from their you.

Yeah, that's the way to do it. When you rail against intolerance, show some intolerance and hatred yourself. Jeez.
posted by caddis at 9:01 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why are konolia's hypocrisies picked on when the hypocrisies of most others are not?

Probably because they outline a pattern of bigotry and ignorance far more important than whether I like Apple products on Thursday and rail against them on Friday.

As I said, I can see the need to curb user stalking, but unless OC follows Konolia around--and I'm unaware whether he does or not--it seems somewhat on point given her comment. But I also repeat my earlier "whatever" and won't belabor the point any further!
posted by The God Complex at 9:02 PM on June 12, 2007

Because, you know, people never change their minds. Or say things they regret. Surely that will further our community goals!

Well, we're talking about one of the few christians being ok with interracial marriage but openly saying that gays don't have the same rights. So no one's every supposed to mention it, like it never happened or something?
posted by puke & cry at 9:02 PM on June 12, 2007

one of the few christians here
posted by puke & cry at 9:03 PM on June 12, 2007

Well, we're talking about one of the few christians being ok with interracial marriage but openly saying that gays don't have the same rights.

But the only thing konolia said in that thread was "hey, interracial marriage is cool with me and with God, and it frustrates me that my conservative folks have an issue with it."

Not a peep about gay marriage. Nothing but supporting commentary pretty much totally in line with prevailing opinion.

So no, OC was not "on point". He was being a jerk, without provocation.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:07 PM on June 12, 2007

So no one's every supposed to mention it, like it never happened or something?

In threads on other topics? No, you're not supposed to mention it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:08 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

So now one's every supposed to mention it, like it never happened or something?

We talked to konolia and told her that sort of crap wasn't welcome on MeFi and she had a choice to make. To the best of my knowledge she's been cool since then. This thread wasn't about gay marriage, konolia wasn't being weird or homophobic, and OC went after her.

If you want to get on her for being allegedly hypocritical, do it over email. She's been pretty open about the shit she's been going through with her biracial grandkid and dealing with her folks who were being appalling about it. I'm not saying it makes her a saint, I'm just saying people are COMPLICATED and the general policy here is no going after users with crap from old threads, and the aforementioned BRAND NEW DAY.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:10 PM on June 12, 2007

I was one of those who flagged OC's comment. It was both a personal attack and a derail, and if you think that those sorts of comments are the comments which touch hearts and minds, then you're dreaming.

I support OC's stance on gay marriage, but that is completely beside the point.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:12 PM on June 12, 2007

Your right, cortex, she didn't say anything about gay marriage. However, when somebody trumpets out that they're a beacon of civil rights (hey, look I showed mom and pop interracial marriage is OK), one's track record of civil rights about the same subject (marriage) is right on topic.
posted by jmd82 at 9:13 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

*waits for the interracial gay marriage thread*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:13 PM on June 12, 2007

You know, it's after midnight, and I'm going to bed. My final comment (at least, until Wednesday morning) on this topic will be this--in the seven years I've been a member of metafilter (yes, seven--there is one commenter in this thread with more seniority than me, and she beats me by six months) I've not objected to one other comment deletion. Do what you will; I don't antcipate losing sleep over this. But I do disagree with the deletion.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:16 PM on June 12, 2007

However, when somebody trumpets out that they're a beacon of civil rights

Get back to me when konolia trumpets out that she's a beacon of civil rights in that thread. I saw a mild, supportive comment from someone who is just as deserving of the benefit of the doubt as any other member of this site.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:20 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

jmd82 nailed it.
posted by puke & cry at 9:20 PM on June 12, 2007

“So no, OC was not ‘on point’. He was being a jerk, without provocation.”

And he does this with konolia pretty consistently—this isn't the first time. Actually, in general he's pretty free-handed with the over-the-top, righteous, outraged, and hateful rhetoric.

“But I do disagree with the deletion.”

Over-the-top, righteous, outraged, and hateful comments should be deleted more often.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:27 PM on June 12, 2007

Over-the-top, righteous, outraged, and hateful comments should be deleted more often.

But—but if they get deleted we can't reference them later on THE NEXT NEW DAY in carefully nurtured off-topic character assassinations!
posted by carsonb at 9:35 PM on June 12, 2007

In threads on other topics? No, you're not supposed to mention it.

Except that the historic struggles of interracial couples to marry mirrors the modern struggles of gay couples to get married. The two are intrinsically tied together, so I don't see any problem with the latter being brought up when a user that's stated their opinion on it in the the past makes a comment on the former.

Although I suppose I agree that the comment was over the top, so the deletion is understandable. But if you're in favor of deleting comments that are "on other topics" there are a few more in that thread that need to get axed.
posted by puke & cry at 9:37 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

More important is what konolia thinks about Ralph Wiggum and vikings.
posted by brain_drain at 9:42 PM on June 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

I would just like to take a moment to bring up the time cortex said he would punch me in the nose (and then buy me a donut).

Why is this madman an admin/mod?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:50 PM on June 12, 2007

I would like to come out in favor of forgetting everything any poster ever said as soon as the next thread comes along. That way, instead of a community of people who get to know each other through the blue, we'll be...well, I don't know what we'd be like, because I've never seen a message board like that.

how interesting this could be!
posted by davejay at 10:02 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Goofball commentary aside, I have a serious question: if person A knows something about person B that alters the meaning of what person B says, is it kosher to call it out in-thread, even if it isn't on the main topic?

I don't mean in a hateful way; I mean something like person B is a salesman for butter and says something really positive about butter in the thread, but only person A (and a few other regulars) know that he's a butter salesman. Or something a bit closer to what this thread is about, where person B says something that seems sincere on its face, but has made comments in the past that render that sincerity suspect.

In short, are we an every-person-for-himself place where you reads your comments and takes your chances, or are we a self-policing and regulating community? I realize that sounds leading, but it's not meant to be; can't think of another way to phrase it, though.

by the way, IANABS
posted by davejay at 10:07 PM on June 12, 2007

I agree with jessamyn's decision to delete - and also object to
there is one commenter in this thread with more seniority than me, and she beats me by six months

(emphasis added)

Surely we, as a community, have matured past this low user number = more important a member...
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:11 PM on June 12, 2007

The text above the posting buttons clearly says:

note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site.

OP's comment was directed at another member and was deleted, as it should have been.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:12 PM on June 12, 2007

DAVEJAY IS A PAID LOBBYIST FOR THE BUTTER CONSORTIUM
posted by Falconetti at 10:13 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

HURF DURF BUTTER SELLER
posted by scody at 10:22 PM on June 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Surely we, as a community, have matured past this low user number = more important a member...

No, we haven't.

anyway, I think you missed MoonPie's point. He has been here a long time and has yet to object to a deletion. The point was to emphasize how big a deal this deletion was. Oh, and that more senior member, she was the one who deleted it. It wasn't about seniority as much as longevity.
posted by caddis at 10:24 PM on June 12, 2007

It is disingenuous to pretend that Konolia's supposed opposition to gay marriage warrants an attack like that. Maybe y'all are too young and too male to really understand why this particular attack was so harsh, but to a mother, to any mother, the idea that her child could one day hate her so much as to keep her own grandchildren away from her? Man!

I agree that miscegenation and gay marriage prohibition are comparable and will be seen as such by some future generation but... I am legion on this board.

"Who wants to listen to enlightened, sincere, right-thinking people all the time. Yawn..."
Preach! What would MeFi be without a little "action" once in a while?

"Bush Kills Babies!"
"Yep."
"Yup."
"Right on!"
"Got that right."
"Exactly."
"Millions and millions!"

We don't want MeFi to be Fark but do we really want some kind of hive-mind circle jerk going on here?
posted by MikeMc at 9:59 AM on November 10

Wouldn't this place lose some of its savor without the brave souls who venture in here who don't agree with most of MetaFilter on every point? Konolia is one of the very few social conservatives we've got here. Konolia is one of the few people who can generally be depended upon for a minority opinion. She adds a hell of a lot more to these discussions than yet another "me too" -- in fact she has peeled my cap back more than once -- and now, when she does offer something in support of the majority view, now we're going to harsh on her?

Yes, it was dick. Good deletion.
posted by Methylviolet at 10:27 PM on June 12, 2007 [9 favorites]

It's kind of mind blowing. The assumption that because person A believes X, they therefore must believe Y or else they deserve attack because their world view does not line up with what one would expect. I know environmentalists who love NASCAR, I know lesbians who frequent redneck bars, there are many people out there who hold very similar views konolia does. She is not unique in any way in this regard. I don't agree with it, but I also don't see any inherent disconnect with people holding those beliefs.
Off topic and personal attacks should be deleted. Not to say that people shouldn't be held to what they say, but address it appropriately, in the appropriate place.
posted by edgeways at 10:43 PM on June 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

Wouldn't this place lose some of its savor without the brave souls who venture in here who don't agree with most of MetaFilter on every point?

I agree, dissenting opinions should be more than welcome. But if we're not allowed to ever mention someone's opinion on a topic (in a related topic, as mentioned) then the point is moot. Then we aught to make this place like 4chan, where everyone is anon and we can all post hilariously disgusting jpgs.
posted by puke & cry at 10:45 PM on June 12, 2007

It was over-the-top, but exactly true and needed to be pointed out. Konolia has been very openly condemning and very very judgemental about all of us here who are gay or lesbian for a very long time. It's no secret, and if Konolia is ashamed of her behavior, she can apologize to us anytime. She knows she hurts us.

It should not have been deleted.
posted by amberglow at 10:51 PM on June 12, 2007 [5 favorites]

This is interesting.

Far as I can tell, the site works best when ideas are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. If an idea or statement is true or good, then it's so, no matter who says it. Simple logic, no?

Have you ever noticed how the more worthwhile threads contain the highest ratio of idea discussion vs personality discussion? Really - all this stuff about other people, who they are, what their motivations are, their assumed political affiliation or age or economic class, their presumed IQ or educational level is pure noise. Chaff to be separated from the wheat of actual reasoned thought.

Know what? In the end, it's no one's business who konolia is. Full stop. Try and grasp this: it's her right to be who she wants to be and think what she wants to think. We have every right and good reason to ask her to defend her ideas, but no right or useful reason whatsoever to attack her personally.

As far as the original topics of the post and derail are concerned, I'll bet the church I attend has more interacial marriages than just about anywhere (one of the pastors in fact is in one), and they don't do gay weddings. So I'd suggest this might be a pretty common real-world situation and hardly radical for konolia to express.
posted by scheptech at 10:51 PM on June 12, 2007 [4 favorites]

Was today another Brand New Day? We need a Google Calendar to keep track of the Brand New Days.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:53 PM on June 12, 2007

I agree, dissenting opinions should be more than welcome. But if we're not allowed to ever mention someone's opinion on a topic (in a related topic, as mentioned) then the point is moot.

There are ways to deal with this that aren't so explicitly personal attacks. "But I hope they'll have the presence of mind to keep their child away from their you" is not an enlightened way to open a dialog about the acceptance of gay marriage.

Then we aught to make this place like 4chan, where everyone is anon and we can all post hilariously disgusting jpgs.

422441 GET
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:56 PM on June 12, 2007

Comments from people that are basically "screw you other user" or "you sound reasonable here but you were a fucker before so I'll just drag that out in a thread where it doesn't belong" aren't cool.

Off topic and personal attacks should be deleted.

This seems to be the point of contention; whether it was off-topic or not.

I don't see how this is akin to a straight ad-hom -- you think Ralph meant a metaphorical Viking therefore your ideas about evolution must be shit. But interracial marriage to gay marriage? That's not much of a stretch. I gave up long ago hoping that people here would treat each comment on its face and forget the person behind it. If you want a community, then calling out hypocrises is part of that -- and a valuable part. If you can feel the pain of one kind of discrimination, isn't it valuable for someone to point out how it is similar to a way in which you continue to discriminate?

Now you don't have to be a dick about it, but all it would have taken was konolia to say "I've rethought that position" or "I am in the process of rethinking that position" for OC to lay off. Unless of course she still holds that position, in which case it's perfectly valid to challenge the statement in the thread with other, arguably inconsistent views currently held by the commenter.
posted by dreamsign at 11:03 PM on June 12, 2007 [7 favorites]

It is disingenuous to pretend that Konolia's supposed opposition to gay marriage warrants an attack like that. Maybe y'all are too young and too male to really understand why this particular attack was so harsh, but to a mother, to any mother, the idea that her child could one day hate her so much as to keep her own grandchildren away from her? Man!

Yet children are taken from their parents in courts even today simply because the mother is lesbian, and therefore ruled "unfit" and the father (or grandparents in some cases--or Judges) speaks of a "heterosexual environment" or "unnatural influences" or bible stuff, etc. Hmmm...
posted by amberglow at 11:05 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

(btw, Virginia's one of the states that still automatically presumes lesbians and gay men are unfit--the same Virginia in Loving v. Virginia)
posted by amberglow at 11:09 PM on June 12, 2007

If you have a point, make your point.

If all you have is a personal attack, don't post it. I support the deletion.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:14 PM on June 12, 2007

She's been pretty open about the shit she's been going through with her biracial grandkid and dealing with her folks who were being appalling about it.

I hadn't heard about this. Sounds like a My Name is Earl sort of karmic lesson. Damacus irony.

OC's last sentence in his deleted post was unnecessary. I'm not entirely sure it merited deletion of the entire post, because 4/5ths of it was dead on target without stepping over the line.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:18 PM on June 12, 2007

If you want a community

Yeah, I guess there's a ditch on either side of the road. Is is fair to say OC's vigilantism was a little too much "community"?

Yet children are taken from their parents in courts even today simply because the mother is lesbian

See this is better, now we're talking about ideas which are completely separate from our own personalities. Ideas which have their own independent merit.
posted by scheptech at 11:18 PM on June 12, 2007

That comment would have deserved to stay if it lost the last line. It's not necessary.

he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty comment!
posted by liquorice at 11:25 PM on June 12, 2007

Eh, that being said, I'm surprised that she was "warned" about other comments that she had made. I'm basically anti-deletion except in very serious circumstances, but I'm not familiar with these past instances. You're anti-gay-marriage? Ok, that's a valid view. You're anti-mixed-marriage? Ok, that's valid, too. I don't agree with either stance, but I don't see how arguing either case is deletion-worthy, nor how bringing up those views when discussing a directly related issue is either.
posted by dreamsign at 11:25 PM on June 12, 2007

“The assumption that because person A believes X, they therefore must believe Y or else they deserve attack because their world view does not line up with what one would expect.”

The deeper problem, in my opinion, is the failure on all sides to comprehend differing assumptions. The accusation of hypocrisy in this case begs the question of similarity—if there is no similarity, there can be no hypocrisy.

For example, there's a good chance that I could go to the archives and find at least one or two of the people accusing konolia of hypocrisy proclaiming their opposition to animal rights. As I think that animal rights are comparable to race, sex, and orientation rights, I might then accuse those members of being hypocritical. But of course they'd argue that my claim is absurd because the issue of animal rights isn't like the others.

My point is that I wouldn't accuse those people of hypocrisy because they aren't being hypocritical. They'd have to accept the premise that these things are all alike to be hypocritical in defending one and attacking another. But they don't. And konolia doesn't think that gay marriage and miscegenation are the same.

“You're anti-gay-marriage? Ok, that's a valid view. You're anti-mixed-marriage? Ok, that's valid, too. I don't agree with either stance, but I don't see how arguing either case is deletion-worthy, nor how bringing up those views when discussing a directly related issue is either.”

I strongly agree. I'm hoping that I misunderstood and it's not the case that konolia was banned for merely stating an unpopular view.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:34 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Unless of course she still holds that position, in which case it's perfectly valid to challenge the statement in the thread with other, arguably inconsistent views currently held by the commenter.

No.. I don't think it is valid to challenge people over an opinion that isn't expressed in the thread. It might be valid to ask a respectful question about that opinion,

"konolia, I'm very interested in your experience, but how do you resolve that with your stance on ...

it might even be valid to mention that a user holds a given opinion,

"I really appreciate konolia's comment here, but I can't help remembering her opinion of gay marriage - she is against it. It still amazes me that people can hold such seemingly contradictory opinions."

but challenging a user over an opinion not in the thread is inciting a flame war.

OptimusChyme wasn't really challenging konolia though, he was just being offensive.

Good deletion.
posted by Chuckles at 11:46 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

But of course they'd argue that my claim is absurd because the issue of animal rights isn't like the others.

What do animal rights have to do with the right of consenting adults to marry, or a conversation thereof? That's a rather strained comparison.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 AM on June 13, 2007

Not only do I support the decision to delete the comment, but I also recommend that they close this lame callout, permaban half the commenters in this thread, and make fun of their mothers.

Plowshares into swords, I say, and trade those damn kid gloves for an iron fist!
posted by Krrrlson at 12:12 AM on June 13, 2007

What? The moderators are overeaters?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:20 AM on June 13, 2007

Not only do I support the decision to delete the comment, but I also recommend that they close this lame callout, permaban half the commenters in this thread, and make fun of their mothers.

Now, if we can get something up and running like this in the ralph thread, then we'll be getting somewhere.
posted by puke & cry at 12:24 AM on June 13, 2007

You're just saying that cause you're anti-Futurama, puke & cry. Don't be surprised if your cartoon-loving kids barely speak to you.
posted by dreamsign at 12:35 AM on June 13, 2007

There ought to be a flag option on comments: "The person who made this comment was being a dick."

Once the number of dick-flags that have accumulated on that comment reach some predetermined super-secret number, an image (I suggest the righthand section of this) appears beside their diatribe. Even a link to that image would be good, with something like "A significant number of other Metafilter users think the user who made this comment is being a dick."

I don't like uncalled-for personal attacks, but deleting them makes us unable to actually notice and remember which people are the sorts of folks that tend to make them.

Of course, everybody has the occasional bad day. So it goes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:37 AM on June 13, 2007 [5 favorites]

Samuel Farrow writes "Surely we, as a community, have matured past this low user number = more important a member."

Sure, a noob with a great big 15K user ID (mumble)
posted by Mitheral at 12:44 AM on June 13, 2007

I think stav's suggestion should be taken seriously. Maybe not the person who made this comment was being a dick, but something to that effect.

“What do animal rights have to do with the right of consenting adults to marry, or a conversation thereof? That's a rather strained comparison.”

But that you say so is exactly the point. If you, for example, can rebut a charge of hypocrisy by saying that X is not the same kind of thing as Y, then so can konolia.

Really, a charge of hypocrisy can only be valid if the accused has explicitly stated some belief and then been inconsistent with it. A person can only be hypocritical by their own standards, not someone else's. There should be a name for this tactic of invalid accusations of hypocrisy. It's so common and pernicious, it'd be helpful if we had a nomenclature to focus attention on it. I think it's particularly objectionable because it is either very dishonest or it is very narrow-minded.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:01 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't see why someone can't consistently be in favor of interracial marriage but opposed to homosexual marriage.

You describe Optimus Chyme's comment as "spot on," but I suspect it's only because you happen to agree with its conclusion. The comment didn't really make any sense.

Since it was a personal attack to boot, the deletion was a good one. We're not going to allow personal attacks, even if they agree with your ideology.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:13 AM on June 13, 2007

If you, for example, can rebut a charge of hypocrisy by saying that X is not the same kind of thing as Y, then so can konolia.

Absolutely. Of course, this wasn't allowed to happen. The offending comment was stricken from the discourse so there was no need to fashion a reply of any kind.

I don't see why someone can't consistently be in favor of interracial marriage but opposed to homosexual marriage.

Likewise abortion and capital punishment. Small government and health care. But it's arguable. Let's permit the argument, shall we?
posted by dreamsign at 1:33 AM on June 13, 2007

Sure. I love argument. The deleted comment wasn't much of an argument, though.

Optimus Chyme should've done more than just call konolia's perspective "shit" and crassly express surprise that anyone could disagree with him. That alone is pretty worthless.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:46 AM on June 13, 2007

That's fair.

So what I want to know now is, if this was an attempt to prevent someone forcing konolia into defending views that people don't want expressed on Metafilter, why exactly are those views verboten? Cause that's what it sounded like to me. "We'd taken konolia aside and told her not to argue this issue and you're opening up our carefully sealed can of worms."

What sort of "crap" isn't welcome on MeFi, exactly?
posted by dreamsign at 2:04 AM on June 13, 2007

But that you say so is exactly the point. If you, for example, can rebut a charge of hypocrisy by saying that X is not the same kind of thing as Y, then so can konolia.

That makes no sense at all.

Animal rights is an entirely different discussion from comparisons between gay and interracial marriages. Animal rights doesn't even relate.

Separate from the discussion of OC's comment, it's entirely appropriate to relate positions on gay and interracial marriage with respect to civil rights, as much as animal rights is irrelevant. "Opinion" doesn't even enter into it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:16 AM on June 13, 2007

The dreamsign, he pose good question.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:23 AM on June 13, 2007

“That makes no sense at all.”

It makes perfect sense. I think you're missing the point.

You're free to argue that X and Y are alike while Z is different. I'm free to argue that X, Y, and Z are all alike. And konolia is free to argue that X, Y, and Z are all different. But none of us can argue that one of the others is a hypocrite unless that other person is being inconsistent within their own beliefs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:33 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think it was a bad deletion, but then, I don't really care how the mods ruin metafilter any more.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:13 AM on June 13, 2007

I'm confused as to why well known members who have sock puppet accounts aren't "dealt" with.

Especially when they bitch so much.
posted by liquorice at 3:41 AM on June 13, 2007

the typical soft-hearted BRAND NEW DAY crap we trot out for anyone

Don't be so flip about it, Jessamyn! The fact that the admins on this site believe in the fundamental goodness inside each one of the users, and are willing to let the users grow, change, learn from mistakes, and become better people, is what makes this the best place on the Internet.

God bless Metafilter, where every day is a BRAND NEW DAY.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:43 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

What do animal rights have to do with the right of consenting adults to marry, or a conversation thereof?

How anyone who opposes equal marriage rights for dolphins can post this shit without seeing a hint of irony in it blows my fucking mind. In twenty years one of your descendants will be married to a sea snail, and that snail will look back on your metafilter comment in disgust. But I hope they'll have the presence of mind to keep their kids away from black people.

OP's comment was directed at another member and was deleted, as it should have been.

That sets a rather higher standard than is, or should be, prevalent. The comment was also a clumsy and ill-thought insult, so I'm glad to see it gone. A pointed and clever insult would've been another matter.
posted by sfenders at 4:19 AM on June 13, 2007

I don't envy the mods, really. Keep the mudslinging here to a dull roar must be kind of an icky job at times.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:20 AM on June 13, 2007

I think it was a bad deletion, but then, I don't really care how the mods ruin metafilter any more.

Yeah, the only way they could've botched things more is if Matt had asked that humourless twat crunchland to admin.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:42 AM on June 13, 2007

I support the deletion, not because the comment brings up old stuff but because of the dickishness.
posted by teleskiving at 4:52 AM on June 13, 2007

It's easy to give someone a brand new day when you are not among the people they've harmed.

It's perhaps a bit much, mods, to expect those non-hetero MeFites who've battled Konolia's homophobia to feel the same way with no sign of contrition from Konolia.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:56 AM on June 13, 2007 [6 favorites]

Optimus is the che guevara of Mefi, without him we would be overrun by the dark lords of knitting and baking cakes and stuff - every day i thank god that he sent people like Optimus to preserve our freedom.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:00 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Over-the-top, righteous, outraged, and hateful comments should be deleted more often.

Amen. Konolia has consistently been one of the nicest, politest posters around here, regardless of certain views which I (like the vast majority of MeFites) do not share; the poster whose comment was deleted has consistently been one of the nastiest and most unpleasant. If I had to toss one of them overboard, I wouldn't hesitate a second. And some of those who are bitching about the deletion are acting in their own self-interest, because they cherish their own right to make pointless personal attacks.
posted by languagehat at 6:02 AM on June 13, 2007 [5 favorites]

It's easy to give someone a brand new day when you are not among the people they've harmed.

Oh dear! I didn't realize she'd harmed people here! I may have to take back everything I've said. What did she do: burn down your house? Kill your pet? Send threatening messages to your loved ones?

Oh, she just said things you didn't like on a website? Never mind then.
posted by languagehat at 6:04 AM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

She didn't do anything to me - don't have a horse in this boullabaise.

I agree that the deletion was well within reason, and that OC has been a jerk, and that Konolia is a good person.

But it would be disingenuous to expect people to forgive and forget without an apology. Not totally relevant to the deletion, but to the MeTa thread.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:06 AM on June 13, 2007

no sign of contrition from Konolia.

WTF?

I am unapologetic about these following beliefs:

evolution
heliocentric model of our solar system
the need to eliminate capital punishment
the need to re-work antitrust laws so as to disassemble media conglomerates with a big fucking pointed stick
the right of same sex and mixed-race couples to marry

If you believe differently on any of those, that's ok. I certainly don't demand an apology from you. What fucking, galling hubris, Joseph Gurl.
posted by dreamsign at 6:16 AM on June 13, 2007

Ok, you know what, timing myself out for a bit. I'm getting way too worked up over other people's problems.
posted by dreamsign at 6:34 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the only way they could've botched things more is if Matt had asked that humourless twat crunchland to admin.

That's particularly uncharitable of you, especially considering this is a BRAND NEW DAY, and my efforts to turn over a new leaf. I take solace in knowing that your comment will soon be deleted by the moderators who protect people like me from people like you.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:52 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ok, you know what, timing myself out for a bit.

Who taught you people to step away from the keyboard like this? How is anyone going to flame out in a blaze of righteous glory if you continue to act so sensibly?! Sheesh.
posted by carsonb at 6:53 AM on June 13, 2007

I don't really care how the mods ruin metafilter any more.

That's particularly uncharitable of you

poke, poke.
posted by carsonb at 6:55 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

So what I want to know now is, if this was an attempt to prevent someone forcing konolia into defending views that people don't want expressed on Metafilter, why exactly are those views verboten?

because they're unpopular here and people get very upset over her views, even after she explains them politely after being asked to

that's the real reason
posted by pyramid termite at 7:00 AM on June 13, 2007

Seems many of you need some real strife and privation in your lives to help you get some sense.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:06 AM on June 13, 2007

FWIW, as a Christian myself, I had to point this out to my (unreconstructed) parents, who objected to my daughter's choice of a black husband on religious grounds-which in reality was simply an excuse to be racist. The arrival of the grandbaby has softened things considerably, I must say.

I'll have to tell my daughter about this post. I don't think she even KNOWS interracial marriages used to be illegal.
posted by konolia at 4:13 PM on June 12

How can you say this with a straight face? In twenty years one of your descendants will be saying this about your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:40 AM on June 13 [+] [!]

Some people just won't give up.
posted by caddis at 7:11 AM on June 13, 2007

no sign of contrition from Konolia.

That's the thing that's curious about Brand New Day. It's seemingly being implemented as a completely one-sided "gift" from the community to the member. Your past is forgotten* whether you or not you wish it would go away.

* In this case, via an apparent email pact between the mods and konolia that the general membership is responsible for adhering to despite ignorance of its existence.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:16 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Because hers are destructive, harmful, and hateful, and cause deep, real harm to good people.

Really? "Deep, real harm"? I mean ... really?

It's no secret, and if Konolia is ashamed of her behavior, she can apologize to us anytime. She knows she hurts us.

If you, amberglow, are truly "hurt" by something konolia says on MetaFilter, you need to grow some thicker skin. Presumably you are very comfortable with your sexuality, and very confident that gays and lesbians deserve certain rights. I would think, therefore, that it would be impossible for the personal opinions of one slightly unstable middle-aged woman from North Carolina (or wherever) to wound you.

Oh, the drama.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:26 AM on June 13, 2007 [5 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that it is not what she says here that causes harm but the effects of that belief out in the world. As such, I think it is kinda stinky that OC's pointing out how little sense she made was deleted: she has not just mentioned her opposition to gay marriage once or twice, but has made herself pretty closely associated with that opinion. I hope the less-insulting version stays.
posted by dame at 7:29 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

For many people, there is a big difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Why is that hard to discern?
posted by Burhanistan at 7:31 AM on June 13, 2007

OP's comment was directed at another member and was deleted, as it should have been.

Sounds great in theory, but attacks on other members happen every day and go untouched. Maybe Konolia has been given more protection than other members because of her past, but I'm guessing it was agreed to with the super secret email pact that ahfu speaks of.
posted by justgary at 7:31 AM on June 13, 2007

For many people, there is a big difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Why is that hard to discern?

For many people, Ralph is speaking of being a metaphorical Viking. Why does that make people accuse others of autism?
posted by dame at 7:33 AM on June 13, 2007

I'm pretty sure that it is not what she says here that causes harm but the effects of that belief out in the world.

and i'm darn certain that the effects of that belief out in the world are going to remain the same no matter how many comments for or against are deleted ... and that no one's going to have their mind changed by muzzling them
posted by pyramid termite at 7:33 AM on June 13, 2007

shit, she's IN FAVOR OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, how fucking radical is that! let's all cheer! she's so enlightened -- maybe she's even against slavery and seven egregation (she'd better be, because her own grankids would end up in chains/in the back of the bus)!!!

what amuses me to no end is that, some forms of bigotry are widely accepted here as long as one is nice about it. it's all about _nice_. thank god that Holocaust denier that got banned once wasn't nice about it, he'd still be here arguing that the diary of Anne Frank is a fake.

I'm sure lots of segregationists were awfully nice to other whites, back in the good ole days.

Oh dear! I didn't realize she'd harmed people here!

spoken as a white heterosexual educated man (ie, a first class citizen, unlike lesser castes), that oppressed minority.

of course, if languagehat were gay and his own status of second-class citizen had been consistently advocated, say, by konolia, maybe our nice professore (who, as we all know, never attacks user personally here, he only calls them assholes and roots for their banning out of a sense of kindness) would like her a bit less. you know, maybe.

maybe. but then, languagehat's been able to get married, right, unlike gay Americans, so what the hell does _he_ care. it's not his problem (and, come to think of it, segregation in the south wasn't really a white Northener's problem, either -- fuck those outside agitators I suppose). nobody wants to take rights away from _you_, languagehat, so it's all OK. and it makes you look so tolerant when you speak out for bigots, doesn't it?

talk about hypocrites, jesus fucking christ.

(note to our admins: delete away, I haven't been nice enough and it's all about nice here, isn't it).
posted by matteo at 7:33 AM on June 13, 2007 [12 favorites]

Wow, konolias apples and oranges comment got deleted there also. Think I'll tiptoe away from this place for awhile.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:35 AM on June 13, 2007

I'm surprised that she was "warned" about other comments that she had made.

We just asked her to stop showing up in every thread on GLBT topics and talking about how everyone there were sinners. I'm fairly sure this made MeTa when it came up last time, so I don't think it's like there was any sort of backdoor deal. She did her time in the penalty box and came back like many people do. There's no pact except that if you think someone is making a good faith effort to not be dickish you could, you know, let them continue. I know we're not all a touchy-feely support group here, but we don't need to be a bunch of scab-pickers either.

I think it was a bad deletion, but then, I don't really care how the mods ruin metafilter any more.

However, in order for the BRAND NEW DAY policy to work, you have to look like you're at least making the smallest shred of effort. Also, we don't delete insults in MeTa generally. Dave Faris, if you do not like it here and think it is "ruined" you do not need to stay.

I don't really know what Optimus Chyme thinks he's doing in that thread, but it looks to me like if he starts poking konolia about gay marriage she's going to start bringing it up in that thread and then it's going to turn into a shitstorm, one that wouldn't have happened if he weren't being deliberately provocative about it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:42 AM on June 13, 2007

The concept of a BRAND NEW DAY is ludicrous. We have to live with the stuff we write here, and take the crap from the enemies that result ... as you've clearly pointed out. To make arbitrary and capricious deletions just because you think you need to protect somebody is unprecedented and wrong. Why not just admit that you made a mistake?
posted by Dave Faris at 7:53 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Brand New Day is euphemism. It's both a joke and a guideline, and most if not all of the people who use the phrase around here remember the discussion it came from and don't apply it as stone-literal.

The basic idea that people should not go after each other in grudgy muckracking callouts so goddam much is sound and falls well short of Everything Has To Be Nice All The Time, as much as it might drive matteo et al crazy to consider the notion.

You want to have a miserable grudge against someone for something they said in the past? Go crazy. Free country. You want to persecute said grudge in any thread where the opportunity presents itself? That's not so great and some of that shit gets deleted.

Of course, this is Metatalk, where people can say all kinds of accusatory and meanspirited shit. Go nuts.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:12 AM on June 13, 2007

BRAND NEW DAY is the dumbest concept I've heard on the gray in a long time. It's just an excuse to show favoritism towards certain users. konalia is given a BRAND NEW DAY because she is liked by a certain subset of the metafilter population. And that's fine - every community has it's cliques and subgroups. However, she shouldn't get a free ride because she's decided to turn a new leaf. Her opinions have been expressed - she should have to defend them. I agree with the initial deletion as being dickish but the deletion of the 2nd version of the comment is ridiculous. Why is there a culture of "niceness" manifesting itself all over the site? This isn't metachat.
posted by Stynxno at 8:13 AM on June 13, 2007

Of course, this is Metatalk, where people can say all kinds of accusatory and meanspirited shit. Go nuts.

'Cause there aren't any ads in metatalk, yeah?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:14 AM on June 13, 2007

The two issues are like comparing Royal Gala and Cortland. Nothing alike really.
posted by yeti at 8:19 AM on June 13, 2007

It would be unfair to bring up unrelated comments, but all OC did was bring up that Konolia is claiming tolerance on non "traditional" (whatever we define traditional as this week) marriage, when she's made numerous opposing statements on the EXACT SAME TOPIC.

Was he being a dick about it? Oh lord yes, but she well deserves it for what I see as a dishonest claim of tolerance. It should not have been deleted.

(on a side note, her things shouldn't be deleted either, IMO. Seeing such casual bigotry only helps on-the-fence people realize how hateful it can be.)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:23 AM on June 13, 2007

it looks to me like if he starts poking konolia about gay marriage she's going to start bringing it up

So OC pays the price for Konolia's inability to ignore a troll?

There are a lot of people here who do not know the history of this issue. Suffice to say that I once quite liked konolia, despite her batshitinsane bible-thumping. Last time around she went so far beyond that, quite honestly, I'm disappointed she's allowed back. She is destructive to our real-life society, let alone our web board.

If she's allowed back, then you have to let people respond to her. She's like a fucking holocaust denier: she shouldn't be given an inch.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

god damn. being an admin must be so wearying.
posted by psmith at 8:26 AM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

it looks to me like if he starts poking konolia about gay marriage she's going to start bringing it up in that thread and then it's going to turn into a shitstorm

I think that's a bad deletion reason. Prevention is tricky in general, moreso on the Internet, and even moreso in Internet communities. Deleting Optimus Chyme's original comment because it contained invective towards another user is a good reason. Deleting comments because they could potentially invite a shitstorm is a bad reason. Should a shitstorm ensue, your moderation is welcome.
posted by carsonb at 8:28 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think Stynxno got it right, more or less.

I think it was fine for OP to express surprise and indignation at konalia's hypocrisy... he just didn't need to be a dick in the process.

How can you say this with a straight face? In twenty years one of your descendants will be saying this about your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:40 AM on June 13

I don't think this should've been deleted. It makes the the "spot-on" point that MrMoonPie wanted without being quite so... well, mean.
posted by Zephyrial at 8:34 AM on June 13, 2007

it looks to me like if he starts poking konolia about gay marriage she's going to start bringing it up in that thread and then it's going to turn into a shitstorm

Prior restraint is generally considered a BAD thing.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:37 AM on June 13, 2007

"konalia is given a BRAND NEW DAY because she is liked by a certain subset of the metafilter population."

That's OK. No one's calling that comment fucking retarded because we all kinda like ThePinkSuperhero.
posted by klangklangston at 8:37 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I just wanted to say that the behavior of certain posters in this thread (puke & cry, jmd82, amberglow) has ensured that I will have a hard time taking them seriously in the future.
posted by nasreddin at 8:39 AM on June 13, 2007

Aww, klangklang, I'm touched. Come on now, y'all, let's hug!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Her opinions have been expressed - she should have to defend them.

This is one of those crux things: that there's justice in the notion that a person should be expected in general to defend or reconsider their position and past statements on a contentious subject is a fine notion. I doubt there's much of anyone in this thread who would disagree with that as a general principle.

But application matters. There's nothing that says that swaggering into any fucking situation you like and calling someone out is kosher. Metafilter is not, first and foremost, anybody's personal grudgematch. The idea that because someone holds and has expressed an opinion before, you are automatically justified in trying to tear there ass up about it for failing to apologize anytime the comment on something in the semantic vicinity of the topic on which you dislike their opinion is bad. It's shitty, destructive behavior, to both the idea that we're not all a bunch of jackals and to the thread you're fucking with.

It's nothing to do with being Nicey Nice, it's about not being a unilateral, axe-grinding asshole and at the expense of whatever thread you decide to throw down in.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

It makes perfect sense. I think you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point. You can't squeeze animal rights into a comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage to make up some specious claim that Konolia can't be called on her contradictory views. Animal rights have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And the contradiction remains.

But none of us can argue that one of the others is a hypocrite unless that other person is being inconsistent within their own beliefs.

Your reasoning is utter nonsense. I might as well say you're a hypocrite because you believe it's a sunny, beautiful day outside, in a conversation about, say, the morality of gay marriage or interracial marriage.

Whether it is sunny outside doesn't have a damned thing to do with the subject matter. Nor does it change the problematic logical contradiction if you support interracial marriage but not gay marriage.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 AM on June 13, 2007

It's a very pretty day outside.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:53 AM on June 13, 2007

languagehat: I didn't realize she'd harmed people here! ... What did she do: burn down your house? Kill your pet? Send threatening messages to your loved ones?

Oh, she just said things you didn't like on a website? Never mind then.

No, she just supports laws which prevent two consenting adults from getting married.

Come on -- if she and millions like her were actively preventing you from marrying the love of your life, from adopting kids, from building a life together..., wouldn't you view that as "harm"? Or would you shrug your shoulders... "oh well, at least she didn't shoot me in teh balls! hurf durf"

on preview: Never mind, I see you've already been filleted.
posted by LordSludge at 8:55 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nor does it change the problematic logical contradiction if you support interracial marriage but not gay marriage.

"problematic logical contradiction" is an extremely extremely generous way to put it. I think knowing Konolia's hypocrisy, bigotry, and inconsistency on this matter makes a real difference to how you read her comments on that thread, and they affect how one parses what she said. Therefore, I think it is both useful and necessary to point that out in the thread.

Again, didn't have to be quite so dickish, but it wasn't worth deleting, and was still quite a bit nicer than many of us would have put it.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:58 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

konolia has an email address listed in her profile for people to contact her. Throwing down in a thread "Oh yeah how do you explain THIS past statement you made in light of this comment you just made" is, as near as I can tell, done so that you have an audience for your argument with her. If you want to do that, MeTa is the place for it, not a thread on a different, though related, topic. I've looked through her last six months of commenting history and all the stuff people are objecting to specifically is pre-2007. If people are dredging that up (as opposed to, say bringing up a comment from a few days ago) it's really seen as pretty axe-grindy.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:59 AM on June 13, 2007

I agree that OC's comment was way over the top in that thread, and am ok with its deletion. But no matter how politely and gently konolia has expressed her beliefs that gay marriage is wrong, the not-very-sub subtext is that my partner and I are not people deserving of the same rights and responsibilities afforded her, her husband, her daughter, and her son-in-law. I know she'd never come to my house and throw rocks or beat me up. But she (and many other people like her) seems to believe that I am less of a person than she is. Of course that hurts. I can (and mostly do) ignore it - walking around like a raw nerve all the time is impossibly exhausting, and I'm fortunate to live in a place where attitudes like that have very little daily effect on me. But it never feels good to know that someone thinks you're not as human as she is.


Also, what John Kenneth Fisher said.
posted by rtha at 9:06 AM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

at the expense of whatever thread you decide to throw down in.

This wasn't "whatever thread". There is certainly a parallel between konolia's comment and gay marriage.

done so that you have an audience for your argument with her.

What's wrong with that? The audience is the reason I participate here, whether I'm arguing or cracking jokes. The threshold of "take it to email" is a tough line to define, but it shouldn't be considered automatically crossed just because part of the argument has deep roots.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:15 AM on June 13, 2007

Good deletion. And as usual, ethereal_bligh and languagehat are correct and show their capacity to analyze an issue without their personal political views tainting the water.

It's pretty piss poor to see people excusing patently shitty behavior merely because the person is advocating their policy choices.

Good job admins.
posted by dios at 9:18 AM on June 13, 2007

Come on -- if she and millions like her were actively preventing you from marrying the love of your life, from adopting kids, from building a life together..., wouldn't you view that as "harm"? Or would you shrug your shoulders... "oh well, at least she didn't shoot me in teh balls! hurf durf"

Bullshit. We're not talking about "she and millions like her," we're talking about one woman, who has a right to her views and isn't hurting anybody. If you want to lump her in with other people who are hurting somebody, that's your choice, and she's not responsible for it. It's just another version of "You know who else blablablah? That's right—Hitler!" There's a reason we make a joke out of that around here: because it's stupid and illogical. And believe it or not, if someone here wants to tell me I shouldn't be married or shouldn't be allowed to have kids or whatever, I'd just go "hurf durf, what an asshole." Because I understand the difference between speech and actions.

And speaking of assholes:

on preview: Never mind, I see you've already been filleted.

By "filleted," you mean "shrieked at by matteo, the Last Righteous Man, who loves the sound of his own rhetoric so much he shares it with everyone at the drop of a hat." Here we have a rich, white, male, heterosexual (talk about hypocrites, jesus fucking christ) professional Italian bravely standing up for the rights of poor downtrodden people of all lands and sexual orientations to tell everybody else what to do and say. You go, righteous dude! You are so much more righteous than everybody else, I don't know how you can stand bathing—you might accidentally wash off some of the righteousness!

As for the accusations, I would have thought everyone would just have laughed, but I see six people have favorited his spittle-flecked comment, so for the record: I have a gay brother, I have gay friends, yada yada, I have consistently stood up for the rights of gay people both here and elsewhere, and matteo's statement that I don't care about them is despicable mendacity (since he knows perfectly well it's not true). Tarring me with hypothetical support for segregation is even worse. I know (since he's admitted it more than once) matteo doesn't take this place or its denizens seriously and feels free to say whatever will stir the shit, but really, the act is getting stale. You want to start a revolution? Take to the hills and start organizing people. Go for it, overthrow the Man, take power and start building camps where you can stash doubleplusungood people like me and konolia. But quit wasting your time here (or at the fucking opera). Put your life where your mouth is.
posted by languagehat at 9:21 AM on June 13, 2007 [14 favorites]

You want to have a miserable grudge against someone for something they said in the past? Go crazy. Free country. You want to persecute said grudge in any thread where the opportunity presents itself? That's not so great and some of that shit gets deleted.

You know, I think that's a bit unfairly belittling, and I don't quite understand the deletion of the reposted, personal-attack-free comment. OC's comment isn't about some petty past slight, it's about a current social/political discussion in which the views of people like Konolia have actual, real-world ramifications.

I understand ya'll don't want people trolling member's comment history looking for minor contradictions to be used as argument weapons, but that's not the case here. I haven't been around that long, but I'm quite aware of Konolia's religiously influenced views on issues like gay marriage - it's not like she made some one-off comment years ago. In addition, it's entirely relevant to the thread. The interracial dating/gay marriage comparison is well-known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the debate.
posted by lalex at 9:24 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

languagehat: don't defend yourself against those shrill, baseless accusations. It is beneath you to have to defend your well-established credentials on human decency. Shaming people in order to get them to "fall in line" with one's desired viewpoint is a pathetic tactic that should be ignored. Such accusations against you could not be more absurd, so just treat them with the derision they deserve.
posted by dios at 9:28 AM on June 13, 2007

so who do we call when languagehat starts flaming out?

(but really, he's right ... you guys aren't changing anything with petty little vendettas against those who post things you don't like here ... several of us, including myself, have told her she's wrong on this and that's ALL WE NEED TO DO

we don't need to keep bringing it up every time a marginally related subject comes up and she makes a comment)
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm gonna completely backpedal. If Cortex and Jess and Matt want to take positive action to make the site less divisive and unpleasant, then more power to them. It's an uphill battle, and they certainly don't need any criticism to hold them back from that lofty goal.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:30 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

what amuses me to no end is that, some forms of bigotry are widely accepted here as long as one is nice about it. .. or if those bigotries are culturally/politically palatable to the usual suspects.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:32 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you, amberglow, are truly "hurt" by something konolia says on MetaFilter, you need to grow some thicker skin. Presumably you are very comfortable with your sexuality, and very confident that gays and lesbians deserve certain rights. I would think, therefore, that it would be impossible for the personal opinions of one slightly unstable middle-aged woman from North Carolina (or wherever) to wound you.

This would be a salient point if it weren't also the apparently majority opinion within the continental United States if recent electoral results are to be believed.

I'm always mildly embarrassed when people trot out this argument. If someone on Metafilter was spouting off about how blacks and whites shouldn't marry and a black person took exception (or was "hurt", no less) I guarantee there wouldn't be these sort of passive aggressive jabs at them. But every time a gay person is offended by something similar, a handful of people--usually the same handful of people--show up to accuse them of being thin-skinned or drama queens.

Oh dear! I didn't realize she'd harmed people here! I may have to take back everything I've said. What did she do: burn down your house? Kill your pet? Send threatening messages to your loved ones?

Case in point.
posted by The God Complex at 9:34 AM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

Frankly, I'm surprised OC's comment was deleted, and I'm surprised languagehat and EB, among others, defend it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:34 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you, amberglow [konolia], are truly "hurt" by something konolia [Optimus Chyme] says on MetaFilter, you need to grow some thicker skin.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:35 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

This would be a salient point if it weren't also the apparently majority opinion within the continental United States if recent electoral results are to be believed.

i say we delete them
posted by pyramid termite at 9:39 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

In addition, it's entirely relevant to the thread.

No, it's semantically related to the thread. The thread is being used as an excuse to go after konolia, and that's it. That's bad faith bullshit.

konolia ever saying anything about marriage ever again does not make a posting-history bitchslap suddenly relevant. Her saying something agreeable and progressive even less so, and it's bizarre that so many people are treating her contentious opinioneering from months back as an exemption to basic civility in this case. A user should not be used as a ready whipping post for an ideology you don't approve of. Full stop.

Being upset at something someone said before does not make any opportunity to jab them about it suddenly relevant.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:40 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Bullshit. We're not talking about "she and millions like her," we're talking about one woman, who has a right to her views and isn't hurting anybody. If you want to lump her in with other people who are hurting somebody, that's your choice, and she's not responsible for it. It's just another version of "You know who else blablablah? That's right—Hitler!" There's a reason we make a joke out of that around here: because it's stupid and illogical. And believe it or not, if someone here wants to tell me I shouldn't be married or shouldn't be allowed to have kids or whatever, I'd just go "hurf durf, what an asshole." Because I understand the difference between speech and actions.

Unless they actually can't get married. You can dance around it until your blue in the face, but it's patently absurd for someone who isn't being oppressed in a meaningful way to consistently trot out this, "Oh, if it were me I wouldn't even care!" line.

Did Rosa Parks overreact? She only had to sit at the back of a bus--they didn't string up her dog or threaten her family. Were those who rioted in Chicago being thin-skinned? I mean, so what if they drank from a different fountain: nobody skinned their cat, right?

From a neighbouring perspective, watching this sort of discourse in America (from intelligent like languagehat) drives me halfway mad. It's as if the overriding belief that all Americans are taught as youngsters is "everyone is entitled to their opinion" and, on some level, it supersedes everything else. And at some point it always boils down to, "Hey, man, shrug it off! (And move to Massachusetts, maybe)"
posted by The God Complex at 9:42 AM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

Being upset at something someone said before does not make any opportunity to jab them about it suddenly relevant.

Whew! Am I ever relieved to hear that!
posted by Dave Faris at 9:43 AM on June 13, 2007

Matt, Jess and Cortex are the pillars of wisdom and good judgment in this thread. Good job guys.
posted by caddis at 9:48 AM on June 13, 2007

This would be a salient point if it weren't also the apparently majority opinion within the continental United States if recent electoral results are to be believed.

I understand your point and would point out that the trajectory of society's mores on this issue is obvious and irreversible. But this comment cuts both ways. The reasonableness of the outrage and vitriol directed to konolia must be analyzed in the context that she is advocating a point of view which has been the operating assumption of effectively the entire globe for the last 3,000 years. Is she particularly hateful to members of the site in her expression of her viewpoint? (I don't know because I don't follow these discussions close enough). If she isn't, then it is rather noxious to have her beat over the head with her viewpoint and treat as if it is so extremely shocking that she might as well be advocating the eating of fetuses. To react that way is not effective for purpose of discussion or healthy for the community. (Not to mention it is not productive for those people who want to convince others of their viewpoint). Now if konolia is hateful towards members of the site in her advocacy of her viewpoint, then she should be dealt with administratively.
posted by dios at 9:52 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Because I understand the difference between speech and actions.

Unless they actually can't get married.

well, you can't get married on metafilter ... so, indeed, it is all about speech and no action is involved
posted by pyramid termite at 9:53 AM on June 13, 2007

Whew! Am I ever relieved to hear that!

You're trying, I'm trying. If more people were consistently trying, it wouldn't be so goddam trying around here sometimes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:57 AM on June 13, 2007

Saith Jessamyn: "Having people trot out things she's said in other threads and hurl them at her isn't kosher."

If that's now (as cortex said upthread) general policy for everybody, does that mean people are now obligated to stop resurrecting my so-called "anti-semitic" and "pedophile-defending" comments? If so I'm against it: let me go on record here as stating that I volunteer to be exempt from that "protection," even if I'm the only one; I might sometimes change my mind or realize I'm wrong, but I don't post anything to these sites I'm not willing and able to be held accountable for. Nor do I expect anybody to be any less "mean" to me than I sometimes am; it might be gratifying to have everbody genuinely worship me and praise my every utterance, but I doubt I have a right to expect that. And yes, I do mean that those who are too wussy to say that about themselves and stand by it should refrain from typing anything for public consumption, regardless of the cheap thrills some Mefite intellectuals might get from enacting cheap chivalry.
posted by davy at 9:58 AM on June 13, 2007

I agree for the most part, dios, at least insofar as this comment is concerned. It was, as I first said, uncouth, and the attack at the end was too angry and off-point to make it a good comment (one might even say it was a feckless attempt).

That said, I don't think it was necessary to delete the comment, as these sort of on-topic but overtly harsh comments are left on the blue dozens of times a week.
posted by The God Complex at 10:07 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

well, you can't get married on metafilter ...

As an ordained minister, I want you all to know that I am ready and willing to officiate at your on-line marriage ceremony any time you like.

But only in MetaTalk. Not in the blue or green.
posted by dersins at 10:11 AM on June 13, 2007

That said, I don't think it was necessary to delete the comment, as these sort of on-topic but overtly harsh comments are left on the blue dozens of times a week.
posted by The God Complex at 12:07 PM on June 13

Well, I would suggest that the solution to that inconsistency is to delete the other instances as well; not leave this up because they escape deletion.
posted by dios at 10:12 AM on June 13, 2007

Shaming people in order to get them to "fall in line" with one's desired viewpoint is a pathetic tactic that should be ignored

I talked to the strawman about this very problem and he is in 100% agreement. As an aside, he asks if we have yet stopped taking turns beating his wife.

No one is being "shamed" into a point of view. There are simply folks pointing out how chronic cognitive dissonance is required to maintain the illusion that interracial marriage is Good, while gay marriage is Bad. Additionally, there are others pointing out that there's nothing wrong with pointing this out. This can be done in a respectful manner, but it can be done nonetheless.

If you feel uncomfortable with maintaining that illusion yourself, any shame you feel is your responsibility to acknowledge and own up to.

No one is twisting your arm to maintain two mutually exclusive ideas, just as there's nothing wrong with others respectfully pointing out the contradiction.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:13 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

davy, if you're going to keep willfully bringing up your previous scrapes yourself, I don't think you need to worry about whether or not people are going to keep bringing them up.

And it isn't as simple as you or anyone wanting to exempt themselves from the idea, either. It's not just about protecting someone's feelings—I have no idea if konolia even saw the original comment or not. It's just as much about the thread and the community as a whole. This sort of history-spelunking grudgery is someone trying to make whatever was going on switch rails over to their mano-a-mano. Whether it's sadism or masochism driving it doesn't make a difference to its destructiveness to the ostensible purpose of the site.

So electing to be exempt, hoping and taunting for that kind of selected attention, is just as much of a problem. Please don't.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:14 AM on June 13, 2007

let me go on record here as stating that I volunteer to be exempt from that "protection," even if I'm the only one

Same.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:15 AM on June 13, 2007

So, konolia is not supposed to address issues of homosexuality and, as long as she stays on the wagon, everybody else is not supposed address konolia's previous statements on homosexuality.

Is that where we we currently stand? Don't ask, don't tell?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:16 AM on June 13, 2007 [5 favorites]

Um.

I missed cortex's "please don't" there. That wasn't intentionally defiant.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:18 AM on June 13, 2007

It's nothing to do with being Nicey Nice, it's about not being a unilateral, axe-grinding asshole and at the expense of whatever thread you decide to throw down in.

That perfectly describes the first of OC's comment that was deleted but it really doesn't justify the deletion of the 2nd version he posted. He was not the first person in the thread to bring up gay marriage, it was not a derail, and even though it was a personal callout, it's not unprecedented on the site nor is it bad form. It's part of metafilter.

It's not ax-grinding since OC isn't posting anti-konalia comments in every thread she posts in. And she has mentioned her biracial family plenty of times in the past and she hasn't been called out in those threads. This one instance of her being called out for holding an opinion that other people don't like (and have no problem vigorously defending or attacking) is relate to the thread as it was being discussed and as the thread was evolving.

Deleting the first was fine. Deleting the 2nd is one I disagree with. The only justification I can think of is not wanting konalia to bite at the "troll" but that seems too much like preferential treatment, niceness, and other freakiness that I wouldn't want anyone on this site to have.
posted by Stynxno at 10:22 AM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

What did she do: burn down your house? Kill your pet? Send threatening messages to your loved ones?


Feeeeeeelings.... nuthing moar than.... feeeeEEE-lings.....
posted by phaedon at 10:27 AM on June 13, 2007

This is a miserable thread.

Was there a way for Optimus Chyme to check konolia and say something like "A lot of us think that your oft-stated opposition to gay marriage is exactly the same as opposition to interracial marriage in the sixties, so I'm going to take what you say on this topic with a grain of salt and other people should, too." without resort to viciousness? Perhaps.

Did he do it that way? No. Not even close, and his comment was justifiably deleted.

Why isn't that the end of the story?
posted by kosem at 10:34 AM on June 13, 2007

matteo is a retard
posted by cellphone at 10:35 AM on June 13, 2007

“I'm not missing the point. You can't squeeze animal rights into a comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage to make up some specious claim that Konolia can't be called on her contradictory views.”

I'm not saying that you can't argue against her view that gay marriage and inter-racial marriage aren't comparable. I'm not saying that I don't think they're comparable, because of course I do. If you want to tell her that she's wrong, go ahead. If you want to argue that she's being irrational in making a qualitative distinction between the two, go ahead.

But you can't argue that she's being hypocritical or contradictory because, by definition, she'd have to agree to your claim that the two things are alike, and subsequently argue that they should be treated differently, to be hypocritical or contradictory. But she doesn't agree to your claim that they're alike, therefore she's not being hypocritical or contradictory.

I wasn't comparing animal rights to gay marriage except in the very broadest sense where there's a notion of "rights". Some people say they apply to people and animals and other people say they apply only to people. The former group might call the latter group "hypocrites" for supporting rights in one case and denying them in the other case. But of course if you're in the latter group, that accusation makes no sense because the two things have nothing to do with each other (in your view).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:36 AM on June 13, 2007

Hey, maybe dios has it: maybe the Mods should go back through the archives and delete every single instance of "on-topic but overtly harsh comments" from everybody. Even those slung at or by ParisParamus.

Note, cortex, I ain't had to bring up my previous anythings, other Mefites (including those defending konolia here) have gladly done it for me -- and their "harsh" comments very seldom attracted any disfavor from Mods or ordinary Mefites. Indeed, anybody with enough dedication and free time can find hundreds of examples that were neither deleted nor shouted chivalrously down. If I can take 2.5 years of having things I said elsewhere thrown in my face everybody should be able to: it's part of "being a responsible adult," which anybody of "average" intelligence over the age of 18 should be expected to manage. (Maybe someone should start a WussyFilter for those for whom kid-safe AOL chatrooms are too "wild west.")

And cortex, please don't insult me by misconstruing my statements as some "S&M game," unless you'd say the same of, say, Voltaire or Patrick Henry (two role models I'll never quite equal). I regard this as a matter of principle, a principle I hold even when nobody pays attention. Besides which, if one is going to mandate Niceness, should not cheap shots like your latest one at me be outlawed as well? What as that if not an instance of the very thing you're "forbidding" here?
posted by davy at 10:42 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

my genetic preference for overeating declawed cats should not prevent me from getting circumcised in an SUV, and anyone who disagrees is a fucking bigot.
posted by quonsar at 10:44 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Actually, konolia did kill my pet.
posted by found missing at 10:44 AM on June 13, 2007

"Did Rosa Parks overreact? She only had to sit at the back of a bus--they didn't string up her dog or threaten her family. Were those who rioted in Chicago being thin-skinned? I mean, so what if they drank from a different fountain: nobody skinned their cat, right?"

I hope that when you said that, you had an American flag flying behind you as the brass band swelled. I mean, for your "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" moment.

Because if you're seriously unable to grasp at least a basic difference, here's one: The state's implicit violence backs up laws, and that implicit violence is on a totally different level than the moderate (NPI) remedies available to the moderators on an online message board. So quit indulging in the culture of whiny martyrdom here, because your sanctimony should be saved for one of those moments where it's called for.
posted by klangklangston at 10:47 AM on June 13, 2007

Deleting the first was fine. Deleting the 2nd is one I disagree with.

Do you believe the second comment was made in good faith? Seems like OC was daring the mods to delete it to make a point. Which maybe it did. *shrugs*
posted by Cyrano at 10:49 AM on June 13, 2007

languagehat, your argument only makes sense if konolia doesn't vote and doesn't influence people that vote. Taken within the current political climate of the U.S., it's ludicrous to say that a person's anti-gay marriage stance doesn't harm gays.

Case in point, I have no problem with you thinking I'm an asshole. Or with you thinking that, I dunno, white dudes over 6' tall are assholes. (Rock on, crazy dude, doesn't bother me.) I have a minor problem if you and a million other folks think white dudes over 6' tall are assholes. (Sorta sucks to live in a climate of hatred when I haven't done anything to hurt anyone.) I have a major problem if several million people just voted that white dudes over 6' tall can't get married, can't have kids, etc.

BTW, I do not think "hypocritical" means what you think it means. It is entirely appropriate for Person A to defend Person B -- *even if* (get this) Person A has zero stake in the matter -- if it's the right thing to do. I'd go so far as to say that the tendency NOT to do this is one of humanity's greatest weaknesses.

Specifically, you're actually stating that a heterosexual man, matteo, should NOT stand up for gay rights. Would you also say that a white man should not stand up for a black man's rights -- and, indeed, a white man that supported racial equality in the '60s is a "hypocrite"? Really??

(And regarding matteo..., attack the message, not the messenger.)

dios: The reasonableness of the outrage and vitriol directed to konolia must be analyzed in the context that she is advocating a point of view which has been the operating assumption of effectively the entire globe for the last 3,000 years.

Wait, are we talking about homophobia, racism, sexism, slavery, or what here? Point being: Are you really implying that any behavior is A-OK as long as there's significant historical precident? Or are you just urging a little temporance, that konolia is simply a product of a historically pervasive culture of hate?
posted by LordSludge at 10:50 AM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

davy, no one does that, at least not as much as you seem to think it happens. You often bring up your previous comments, challenging people to attack you, and when you are ignored, you'll bring it up again, and people ignore you. You are not some marytr to free speech, dude, and your desire to leap in to claim attacks on you is misplaced. Get off the cross.
posted by Snyder at 10:51 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

"But you can't argue that she's being hypocritical or contradictory because, by definition, she'd have to agree to your claim that the two things are alike, and subsequently argue that they should be treated differently, to be hypocritical or contradictory. But she doesn't agree to your claim that they're alike, therefore she's not being hypocritical or contradictory."

While I think that you're raising an interesting perspective, I think you're wrong here. If this definition of hypocrisy was adopted, you would define hypocrits out of existence. Everyone can come up with a minute and faint justification for why their behavior is subject to a subtle, slightly different set of rules, or why it's still ethical within the framework they advance, even if it requires some cognative dissonance.
I think hypocrisy is a charge brought too often, but I disagree that your construction is the proper way to solve the problem.
posted by klangklangston at 10:52 AM on June 13, 2007

I hereby propose this solution to this problem.

posted to feature requests
posted by interrobang at 10:55 AM on June 13, 2007

"languagehat, your argument only makes sense if konolia doesn't vote and doesn't influence people that vote. Taken within the current political climate of the U.S., it's ludicrous to say that a person's anti-gay marriage stance doesn't harm gays."

Ludicrous? Not hardly. First off, you're conflating her actions here with her advocacy elsewhere. Second off, you're ignoring confounding actions. Third, you're trying to establish some sort of bizarre slippery slope that links her comments here going unchallenged with the oppression of gays.

I mean, I know things suck for gays who want to marry, but when you have to include "millions of others" in order to pillory konolia, you have to step back and think that maybe you're the one reacting based on emotion rather than sense.
posted by klangklangston at 10:56 AM on June 13, 2007

Specifically, you're actually stating that a heterosexual man, matteo, should NOT stand up for gay rights. Would you also say that a white man should not stand up for a black man's rights -- and, indeed, a white man that supported racial equality in the '60s is a "hypocrite"? Really??


I don't know exactly what languagehat thinks, but I think it's less about matteo fighting the good fight and more about (at least on metafilter,) about matteo bragging that he is the only truly just man and taking every chance to remind us that we're a bunch of hypocrites and rascals who aren't dedicated to social justice like he really is.
posted by Snyder at 10:57 AM on June 13, 2007

And regarding matteo..., attack the message, not the messenger.

Sort of like matteo did when he excreted yet another frothing string of insults above? Oh wait...
posted by Krrrlson at 10:57 AM on June 13, 2007

Do you believe the second comment was made in good faith? Seems like OC was daring the mods to delete it to make a point. Which maybe it did. *shrugs*

if the mods started deleting every comment not made in "good faith", metafilter will turn into how it looked in 1999.
posted by Stynxno at 11:05 AM on June 13, 2007

Good deletion. And as usual, ethereal_bligh and languagehat are correct and show their capacity to analyze an issue without their personal political views tainting the water.

It's pretty piss poor to see people excusing patently shitty behavior merely because the person is advocating their policy choices.
posted by dios at 12:18 PM on June 13 [+] [!]


That's right, dios! I'm really glad to see that you finally understand that your personal political and social views shouldn't color your analysis of an unrelated . . . wait, what's that? I'm just getting something . . . this just in:

The reasonableness of the outrage and vitriol directed to konolia must be analyzed in the context that she is advocating a point of view which has been the operating assumption of effectively the entire globe for the last 3,000 years.
posted by dios at 12:52 PM on June 13 [+] [!]

THIRTY-FOUR MINUTES, ladies and gentlemen! Not a new world record, not a new MeFi record, hell not even a new dios record, but still a pretty impressive turnaround.
posted by The Bellman at 11:07 AM on June 13, 2007

“While I think that you're raising an interesting perspective, I think you're wrong here. If this definition of hypocrisy was adopted, you would define hypocrites out of existence. Everyone can come up with a minute and faint justification for why their behavior is subject to a subtle, slightly different set of rules, or why it's still ethical within the framework they advance, even if it requires some cognitive dissonance.”

That's a good point. But I think that we can tell the difference between a sincere, defensible belief that (to use the language I've been using) two things are different and an insincere or indefensible claim that two things are different.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:07 AM on June 13, 2007

languagehat, your argument only makes sense if konolia doesn't vote and doesn't influence people that vote. Taken within the current political climate of the U.S., it's ludicrous to say that a person's anti-gay marriage stance doesn't harm gays.

and your argument only makes sense if you're saying that any time anyone posts an opinion about ANYTHING they're harming those who disagree with it

so anyone who says the iraq war is bad is aiding the enemy and harming our troops

and anyone who says that ralph is not a metaphorical viking when he sleeps is hurting vikings ... or ralph ... or sleeping people

i get the feeling that what you're really saying is that some opinions shouldn't be permitted here or anywhere
posted by pyramid termite at 11:07 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

And regarding matteo..., attack the message, not the messenger.

There, fixed that for you.

The Bellman: I have no idea what you're trying to say except that you can't stand dios.
posted by languagehat at 11:11 AM on June 13, 2007

“I don't know exactly what languagehat thinks, but I think it's less about matteo fighting the good fight and more about (at least on metafilter,) about matteo bragging that he is the only truly just man and taking every chance to remind us that we're a bunch of hypocrites and rascals who aren't dedicated to social justice like he really is.”

Yeah, but it's not even just that. Being self-righteous is not a rare character trait on MetaFilter. Where matteo goes beyond the pale is that he is intensely supercilious and insulting about it. The man basically deserves to get his ass kicked, but a banning would suffice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:11 AM on June 13, 2007

Yeah, The Bellman, I really can't see your point there. Maybe you didn't understand mine.
posted by dios at 11:15 AM on June 13, 2007

And cortex, please don't insult me by misconstruing my statements as some "S&M game," unless you'd say the same of, say, Voltaire or Patrick Henry (two role models I'll never quite equal).

davy, it wasn't intended as a sexualization of anything. I don't think a sex-neutral reading of 'sadism' and 'masochism' as general behavioral descritpion is unreasonable, especially in an asexual context, but I apologize if I gave you that impression.

And none of the above is intended as a cheap shot: I sincerely mean it when I say that you bringing up these things makes the question of others bringing it up moot. I'd be just as frustrated at konolia if her comment in the miscegenation thread had included some line about "and don't EVEN get started on the gay marriage thing because that's TOTALLY different". Do you see what I'm saying?
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:20 AM on June 13, 2007

Man, I can't believe the bile being directed towards matteo in this thread; I've been saying for months that the guy's been a no-trick jackass ever since he up and decided we didn't deserve his FPPs.

Get off my bandwagon, latecomers!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:24 AM on June 13, 2007

i get the feeling that what you're really saying is that some opinions shouldn't be permitted to stand unchallenged here or anywhere

There, fixed that for you.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:29 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

dios & LH:
Bellman interprets dios's claims in the comment at 12:18 PM to mean that he (dios) "finally understand(s) that (your) personal political and social views shouldn't color your analysis"; he also interprets a comment just 34 minutes later to show that dios is doing precisely that: excusing and contextualising her behaviour because it it traditional and the dominant mode in recorded history (a small part of human history, it has to be said).

Thus he makes the claim that dios is a hypocrite par excellence.

Clear now?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:30 AM on June 13, 2007

dios is doing precisely that: excusing and contextualising her behaviour because it it traditional and the dominant mode in recorded history which matches his personal political and social views.

Oops - sorry, forgot that last bit.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:32 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not Fark. We're Metafilter, and Metafilter is best at everything.
posted by Otis at 11:35 AM on June 13, 2007

interrobang has a pretty good idea.
posted by COBRA! at 11:39 AM on June 13, 2007

Yep, it's A Brand New Day. Everyone leave bunnyfire alone.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:41 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

“The reasonableness of the outrage and vitriol directed to konolia must be analyzed in the context that she is advocating a point of view which has been the operating assumption of effectively the entire globe for the last 3,000 years. ”

I think dios makes a good point here, but he doesn't express it as well as he could have.

The key words in that are outrage and vitriol. Those connote a strong moral judgment against konolia, that she's a bad person because she opposes gay marriage and thinks gay sex is a sin.

That's a distinct-but-related matter to whether her belief is true or whether her acting upon her belief causes others harm. I think that her belief can be false and her acting upon that belief can be causing harm without her being a bad person and without it being just to direct outrage and vitriol at her personally.

And a big part of what makes the difference is the cultural context.

While I think that racist beliefs are wrong throughout all space and time, and while I think that racist beliefs cause harm throughout space and time, I do judge a contemporary racist more harshly than I judge a racist from a hundred years ago. I don't think I'm unusual in that respect.

And that difference in judgment isn't irrational. When a particular wrong and harmful belief is held almost universally then it is easy for a good person to get it wrong. When it is held very rarely, it's hard for a good person to get it wrong. A contemporary racist has to work at being a racist in a way that past racists did not. A past racist had to work at seeing beyond racism in a way that a contemporary racist does not. Good faith, good intentions are much more likely in the case of past racists than present racists.

We're right now only just past the very birth of gay rights. Only a small minority of people that are themselves in only a small minority of cultures are willing to see homsexuality in a non-negative light. It's true that konolia has more opportunities to see past her bigoted beliefs about homosexuality than did her ancestors. Even so, these bigoted views are still the majority view. It's simply true that a good person, even in contemporary US/European culture, can have bigoted beliefs about homosexuality. It's not just true that they can, but it's true that they're likely to.

That makes directing vitriol konolia's way itself wrong. She's not Fred Phelps, she's not going out of her way to amplify her bigotry. She's simply asserting something that a majority of people still believe. She's not being hateful about it. There needs to be evidence that konolia is actually a bad person before being vitriolic to her is an appropriate response. I don't see that evidence.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:41 AM on June 13, 2007 [6 favorites]

'...rules is rules, and if we didn't have rules then where would we be, eh? That's right, FRANCE!'
posted by dash_slot- at 11:45 AM on June 13, 2007

dash_slot, I was just previewing a comment I was going to make in response to you, but I just read Ethereal_Bligh's articulation, and he states it better than I. Read that in light of my earlier comment you are accusing me of being hypocritical about. And abandon this bullshit assumption you tacked on the end that konolia's position "matches [my] personal political and social views." That is a factually incorrect assumption on your part not based on anything I have said that is causing you to misread what I said about konolia and accuse me of hypocrisy. In the future, instead of making assumptions about me and trying to hold your assumptions against me, why don't you just ask me first?
posted by dios at 11:51 AM on June 13, 2007

Konolia's redemption: Gay OP with a partner and raising a child and Konolia offered neutral, if not downright warm, advice.
posted by sneakin at 11:52 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

“it is traditional and the dominant mode in recorded history which matches his personal political and social views.”

Is that true? I'm not aware of his beliefs on gay rights. Perhaps he supports them.

I know that I do, and strongly. Yet I just supported what dios said.

The deep, underlying problem here and elsewhere is that people aren't content to proving other people wrong—they feel the need to prove other people as bad people. In fact, they usually just skip the "proving them wrong" part and jump straight to the "accusing them of being bad people" part. That's why accusations of hypocrisy are so common: hypocrisy is bad-faith. A hypocrite isn't just wrong, they're being a bad person, too.

This is also why there's such a strong tendency to attempt to psychoanalyze people in arguments about ideas and beliefs. We have this disturbing need to believe that people with opposing beliefs must be bad in some way—they're lying, they're willfully delusional, they have hidden motivations, whatever. At MetaFilter and elsewhere, almost the instant two people with opposing opinions engage against each other the argument becomes competing claims of bad faith. Hell, I just did it today in the illegal immigration thread.

If we could learn to restrain ourselves from this vice, the world would be a much better place. That's asking too much, obviously, but making MetaFilter a slightly better place by trying a bit harder to avoid this would be a start.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:54 AM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

And cortex, I sincerely mean it when I say that in your previous comment to me in this thread you dug at me by alluding to things I said previously in other threads. I don't have time this afternoon to document what I mean by this, but unless you're a glutton for punishment you'll trust me on this: you yourself have done what y'all now mean to outlaw. Many of us have, for as long as Metafilter has existed. It's one of those things that makes this place interesting for grownups.

As I see it it was konolia's right to speak as she did in the thread we're metatalking about now as in previous instances ("Free Speech"), and it was OC's right to call her on it ("peer review").
posted by davy at 11:55 AM on June 13, 2007

dios is doing precisely that: excusing and contextualising her behaviour because it it traditional and the dominant mode in recorded history which matches his personal political and social views.

As this issue is concerned, those views have been specified in vague terms here, something to do with gay marriage being bad because "body parts don't line up".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:03 PM on June 13, 2007

Thanks, dash_slot-, for precisely explaining my post while I stepped out for lunch. Of course LH, EB and dios understood it perfectly well -- they aren't stupid, for whatever else they may be -- but it's nice of you to step in and spell it out.
posted by The Bellman at 12:05 PM on June 13, 2007

EB, I'm not going to give a free pass to ignorance and bigotry just because it's a 'majority view.' That's just ridiculous.
posted by NationalKato at 12:07 PM on June 13, 2007

EB, that last comment was simply brilliant and totally accurate. Part of creating a working civil society is marking off a space where ideas are debated, not people. MeFi is occasionally good at this, but not always, particularly when the ideas/people involved are not leftist.
posted by nasreddin at 12:17 PM on June 13, 2007

It's simply true that a good person, even in contemporary US/European culture, can have bigoted beliefs about homosexuality. It's not just true that they can, but it's true that they're likely to.

Wha?!!?

I think that you are bending over backwards to be scrupulously fair, EB. And consequently, you've fallen over and lost all balance.

It's true that in contemporary Europe, a good person (sic) - how to judge that? Good person? Strewth! - is likely to be homophobic?

You need to get out more, mate. That does not meet a prevalent European standard definition of good: not here in Blighty it doesn't, anyway.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:19 PM on June 13, 2007

The man basically deserves to get his ass kicked, but a banning would suffice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh

I disagree with matteo the majority of the time, but he hasn't done anything to get banned. Besides, I'd rather watch you try to kick his ass.
posted by justgary at 12:21 PM on June 13, 2007

The legal right to gay marriage is not a topic I care about much personally (for complicated and irrelevant reasons), but if it's going to be discussed, there are certain things that discussion should include. The similarities and differences between the cultural understanding of gay marriage and that of inter-racial marriage is one of those things. Depriving konolia of the opportunity to introduce a novel (to that thread) point on that topic may have prevented a nasty flame-war, but it also prevented the possibility of discussion of aspects of the subject at least as interesting as those that were covered.
posted by sfenders at 12:21 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

dios:

in my explanation of Bellman's point of view [which he acknowledges the accuracy of], did you assume that, because I understood his position, I owned his opinion as well?

Is that why you are so put out, and calling it bullshit?
posted by dash_slot- at 12:23 PM on June 13, 2007

pyramid termite: and your argument only makes sense if you're saying that any time anyone posts an opinion about ANYTHING they're harming those who disagree with it

Nooo... I'm arguing that if an opinion, exercised politically, deprives other people of basic human rights, then that opinion harms other people. It's very simple if you substitute "gays" for "blacks" in a modern civil rights context. (Although that looks to be the bone of contention here, which I doubt we'll resolve before thread's end.)

i get the feeling that what you're really saying is that some opinions shouldn't be permitted here or anywhere

On the contrary: I welcome differing opinions on Metafilter, along with an open discussion of those differing opinions -- a "peer review", as mentioned above. It's a *great* forum for this.

On the thread subject, I'm about 60-70% on the side of "shouldn't have been deleted" because I think the parallel is strong, and I'd love to see the contrary viewpoint explored (and, I believe, probably debunked). I'm 30-40% "good delete" because it did get a bit personal/witch-hunt-y/ohnoflamewar-y. Of course, this could have been avoided by phrasing the observation/accusation more generally or by softening the blow.

on preview: What sfenders said, but I'd concede that it's gotta be a tough balance between "interesting, fruitful discussion" and "impending flamewar". Rock on, admins!
posted by LordSludge at 12:27 PM on June 13, 2007

Did you assume that, because I understood his position, I owned his opinion as well?

Is that why you are so put out, and calling it bullshit?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:23 PM on June 13

Well, not at first. It was the second post that you added the last part. That's the part that I think is bullshit, and that I read as your commentary. If its not, then my comments are directed solely at The Bellman, not you and please accept my apologies for mis-reading that.
posted by dios at 12:32 PM on June 13, 2007

"I sincerely mean it when I say that in your previous comment to me in this thread you dug at me by alluding to things I said previously in other threads."

Davy, stop being batshit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:38 PM on June 13, 2007

“EB, I'm not going to give a free pass to ignorance and bigotry just because it's a 'majority view.' That's just ridiculous.”

I didn't say that anything should be given a free pass because it's a majority view. I said that the assumption that ignorance and bigotry arise from a personal failing is more likely to be false in the case of a majority view than a minority view.

“It's true that in contemporary Europe, a good person (sic) - how to judge that? Good person? Strewth! - is likely to be homophobic? ”

Excerpt from the Eurobarometer 66 (December 2006):

“The survey also shows that openness towards homosexuality tends to be quite limited. On average, only 32% of Europeans feel that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children throughout Europe. In fact, in 14 of the 25 Member States less than a quarter of the public accepts adoption by homosexual couples. Public opinion tends to be somewhat more tolerant as regards homosexual marriages: 44% of EU citizens agree that such marriages should be allowed throughout Europe. It should be noted that some Member States distinguish themselves from the average result by very high acceptance levels: the Netherlands tops the list with 82% of respondents in favour
of homosexual marriages and 69% supporting the idea of adoption by homosexual couples. Opposition is strongest in Greece, Latvia (both 84% and 89%, respectively) and
Poland (76% and 89%).

One has to remember that homosexual marriages (or similar union between to persons of the same gender) are allowed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden and in the UK.”

Across all EU countries, there are high levels of some anti-homosexual bigotry of one form or another. Unless you believe that the only good, well-intentioned people are the relative few who hold to no anti-homosexual bigotries whatsoever, then I think you can safely say that any given random good person in the EU is likely to have one or more anti-homosexual beliefs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:39 PM on June 13, 2007

EB, I'm not going to give a free pass to ignorance and bigotry just because it's a 'majority view.' That's just ridiculous.

It's not about giving "a free pass to ignorance." It's about treating people like people, with respect, even when we believe they are wrong.

There are ways to tie in the fight for interracial marriage with the fight for gay marriage, but what OC did was not that. There does not exist a universe where speaking to someone in that tone would change someone's mind about anything.

The guidelines against personal attacks exist not only for politeness' sake. If you want to actually appeal to someone's better nature and to communicate an idea, you're going to have a try a bit harder than through simple nastiness.

Giving in to that nastiness is giving a free pass to ignorance, because that is where it best flourishes.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:41 PM on June 13, 2007

Accepted.

I understand what you and EB are saying, I think, but I disagree.

What is most wonderful is seeing that - whatever her opinion of gays - konolia has dropped the biblical justifications, and this allows her real human compassion to shine through in comments made elsewhere on this site.

I never, ever thought I'd see the day when I would mark her comments as favourites. But in our small ways, we celebrate and acknowledge progressive change.

Cortex has repeatedly made the point in this thread: when the enemy stops shooting, he ain't your enemy no more. The armistice is a prerequisite to developing peace. We need to see that a bit more here, friends.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:43 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

There's a lot of guys getting kind of ...... rough with each other in this thread.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:43 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

That does not meet a prevalent European standard definition of good: not here in Blighty it doesn't, anyway.

By which you mean "does not meet my definition of good." Don't you see that you're assuming anyone who holds konolia's views can't possibly be good? You're assuming what you want to prove—what pedants call "begging the question." EB's point (with which I thoroughly agree) is that good people can have bad, even repellent, views. I learned this by examining my own family decades ago. Of course, if you only hang out with people who share your views, this may be hard to grasp, but it's true nonetheless.
posted by languagehat at 12:44 PM on June 13, 2007

Sticherbeast, I absolutely agree with and appreciate your point. I guess I'm just far too close to the subject of gay rights, seeing as it directly and explicitly affects my friends and immediate family. This, unfortunately, sometimes results in letting emotion get the best of me.

I don't condone OC's nastiness, but I also feel that the underlying connection he was trying to make is a valid one. I do hope to see my views on gay rights become the legally accepted view. And perhaps, just maybe, holding up that mirror to people like konolia when they speak about racial civil rights is a step in the right direction. Change one mind and all that...you know?
posted by NationalKato at 1:01 PM on June 13, 2007

Unless you believe that the only good, well-intentioned people are the relative few who hold to no anti-homosexual bigotries whatsoever, then I think you can safely say that any given random good person in the EU is likely to have one or more anti-homosexual beliefs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:39 PM on June 13 [+] [!]

I see you quote my exasperated repetition of your use of the word 'good' without defining it - again. So to be clear, as I usually shirk from using the word good as it is hard to find a common meaning with it, I do "believe that the only good well-intentioned people are the relative few who hold to no anti-homosexual bigotries whatsoever." You don't?

In defending that position, you surprise me. I had you down as a principled believer in equality across the board. You live & learn, right?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:03 PM on June 13, 2007

I have posted to my blog.
posted by konolia at 1:06 PM on June 13, 2007

Get off my bandwagon, latecomers!

Hey man, I was not liking matteo before it was cool.
posted by Snyder at 1:12 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, but it's not even just that. Being self-righteous is not a rare character trait on MetaFilter. Where matteo goes beyond the pale is that he is intensely supercilious and insulting about it. The man basically deserves to get his ass kicked, but a banning would suffice.

You said 10 times better than me.
posted by Snyder at 1:18 PM on June 13, 2007

I sincerely mean it when I say that in your previous comment to me in this thread you dug at me by alluding to things I said previously in other threads.

davy, I apologize for any misunderstanding here, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I have zero interest in drudging through your posting history or hanging it out on display. I was referring only and specifically to the content of your comment in this thread, the one I replied to, wherein you made direct reference to past stuff:

does that mean people are now obligated to stop resurrecting my so-called "anti-semitic" and "pedophile-defending" comments?

I have no intention of ever attacking you about any of that, but the implication that I'm willfully digging at you be even responding to your comment is completely unfair.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:22 PM on June 13, 2007

“Sticherbeast, I absolutely agree with and appreciate your point. I guess I'm just far too close to the subject of gay rights, seeing as it directly and explicitly affects my friends and immediate family. This, unfortunately, sometimes results in letting emotion get the best of me.”

That's understandable, I often feel the same way. But languagehat's brother is gay. My best friend is gay. You're not the only straight person with a personal interest in this and who feels very strongly about it.

“I do ‘believe that the only good well-intentioned people are the relative few who hold to no anti-homosexual bigotries whatsoever.’ You don't?”

Of course I don't.

“In defending that position, you surprise me. I had you down as a principled believer in equality across the board. ”

I am a principled believer in equality across the board. Being unwilling to personally condemn other people who hold beliefs I think are wrong does not amount to renouncing a belief in equality.

Being sure that all good and well-intentioned people have the same beliefs as one does, and that all people who hold differing beliefs are necessarily not good and well-intentioned is a mindset I usually associate with childish warmongering Presidents of the United States more than I do with leftist Brits.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:25 PM on June 13, 2007

For a thread about not holding grudges, there sure are a lot of grudges being held.
posted by Dave Faris at 1:26 PM on June 13, 2007

LH:
we're all used to using personal senses of the word 'good'. I avoid it where I can - and wish I had put the word in inverted commas where you quote me, to emphasise it's imprecision.

That does not meet a prevalent European standard definition of 'good': not here in Blighty it doesn't, anyway.

I well understand the fallacy you point out. I was in fact trying to underline it myself, but failed.

Using the word 'good' undefined in conversation is itself BTQ, no? We have not agred what it means. I think that I could not be clearer though: no acceptable definition would include discrimination against gays.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2007

I had you down as a principled believer in equality across the board. You live & learn, right?

I won't speak for EB, but I don't think it's fair to 1) totally reject as beyond the pale anyone who doesn't agree with a cherished belief of yours and 2) then lump in with those ill-intentioned people (or whatever adjective you prefer) anyone who doesn't join you in rejecting them. I believe in equality across the board, and I would be delighted if there were some way to convince everyone who doesn't that they're wrong, but all of human history plus my personal experience teaches me that that ain't gonna happen. Still, to make bridges with individual humans who disagree, to even have a hope of getting through to them, you can't just reject them out of hand and treat them as the Enemy. People's minds can change. And even if they don't, even if they still hold repellent views, they can still act in ways that any reasonable person would define as good, even heroic. If you were in a burning building, would you refuse to be saved by a homophobic fireman?

Look, I completely sympathize with your outrage. But taking it out on people like konolia doesn't do any good. Why not save it for those who actually do bad things? I'm pretty sure that whatever konolia's theological ideas and opinions about what might happen in the hereafter, she'd help someone who needed it without checking on sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
posted by languagehat at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2007

For a thread about not holding grudges, there sure are a lot of grudges being held.

I RESENT THAT REMARK
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:28 PM on June 13, 2007

And at some point it always boils down to, "Hey, man, shrug it off! (And move to Massachusetts, maybe)"

Well -- all's not settled regarding gay marriage in Massachusetts these days. Tomorrow is a very important day regarding gay marriage here in the Commonwealth.
posted by ericb at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2007

Boy, this thread moves fast.

Using the word 'good' undefined in conversation is itself BTQ, no? We have not agred what it means. I think that I could not be clearer though: no acceptable definition would include discrimination against gays.

I accept your demurrer about "good," but my objection to your position still holds.
posted by languagehat at 1:30 PM on June 13, 2007

Well -- all's not settled regarding gay marriage in Massachusetts these days. Tomorrow is a very important day regarding gay marriage here in the Commonwealth.

Things can change in a heartbeat. Bigots don't get much sleep, for lots of reasons.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2007

EB:
you've read me before, clearly (though left-libertarian is a better fit, I feel). never before have I been compared to your childish warmongering President, though the first adjective seems a little ad hom. Ne'er mind, eh?

I will leave it by saying that 'good' is far too ambivalent a concept, in a world where people do terrible things all the time believing they are good. I have not intended to condemn anyone, just their beliefs and opinions and actions where they are unfair, bigoted and prejudiced.

LH:
People's minds can change. Indeed - I spotted that upthread.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:36 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, good luck. Here's to hoping that Mass is progressive enough to stand behind one of the few right decisions made on gay marriage.
posted by klangklangston at 1:37 PM on June 13, 2007

People's minds can change. Indeed - I spotted that upthread.

Yeah, sorry, I just read that now—I somehow missed that whole section of the thread. My apologies.
posted by languagehat at 1:39 PM on June 13, 2007

I'm going to hold this against all of you for years to come.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2007

If you, amberglow, are truly "hurt" by something konolia says on MetaFilter, you need to grow some thicker skin. Presumably you are very comfortable with your sexuality, and very confident that gays and lesbians deserve certain rights. I would think, therefore, that it would be impossible for the personal opinions of one slightly unstable middle-aged woman from North Carolina (or wherever) to wound you.

Konolia and i have emailed back and forth--to no avail. You see how you like it when you're repeatedly compared with criminals and murderers and pedophiles even after being told repeatedly by many people how offensive it is. You see how you like it when someone repeatedly demonizes you out of "love" and because she's seen the light, and if only i would too none of this would be insulting or something. This has been going on for a very long time, and it doesn't stop being insulting--especially when until just recently she was determined to jump into any gay-related thread to spout her prejudice over and over.

It has gotten better recently--i didn't know it was because matt and jess actually spoke to her. You guys call what Optimus said over the top, but it was just insults--just like Konolia's to all of us, repeatedly and repeatedly. If one isn't acceptable the other shouldn't be either.

I have thick enough skin--i won't sit and be repeatedly insulted anywhere--especially in our shared community, where there are clear guidelines about it. It's actually because Konolia has such support here, and so many defenders, that many just gloss over the hatred and bigotry she spews. Those of us who it is directed at don't gloss over it. If she spoke about African-Americans the way she does about us she would have been banned ages and ages and ages ago. She's still here tho--isn't that interesting? This is about what's acceptable here--how much of a personal insult? Is it ok if it's supposedly biblical or Christian? Is it never ok? Where's the line? Apparently you'd rather insult me in turn for being hurt by it, instead of condemning those who do the insulting--Go knock yourself out. I don't sit still for that shit--ever.

If you insult and deride and slur others, you should expect complaints and the same treatment in return. Konolia deserves what OC said--she's slung it out way more than enough herself.
posted by amberglow at 2:10 PM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

It's a Brand New Afternoon.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:14 PM on June 13, 2007

Apparently you'd rather insult me in turn for being hurt by it

This is the real, bitter irony that results from the original comment deletion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:19 PM on June 13, 2007

Well, at least she wrangled some traffic for her blog out of all this.
posted by justgary at 2:19 PM on June 13, 2007

Just read this whole thread (you guys are so lame) and konolia's blog entry. Here is what I think:

There is no possibility for rational discussion with someone who believes in invisible sky wizards, because they can always just say "You make a good point, but what you don't understand is that the invisible sky wizard sent a magic tea kettle to sing the song of truth which says that I can't agree with you" or some such shit. You can't reason with that. What do you say when someone cites the magic singing tea kettle? You got nothing. Therefore, all attempts at reasoning with people that believe in the land of make believe are pointless and must be abandoned. As soon as someone starts in with the magic tea kettle shit, you just have to say "Oh you're crazy. Good luck with that, but please don't bother the adults while they are talking."

That said, there is no more sense to sniping at them than there is to badgering the mentally ill. The mods aren't here to fight for truth justice and the unAmerican way. They are here to make this a good website. Based on that criteria, this was a good deletion.
posted by ND¢ at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2007

the invisible sky wizard sent a magic tea kettle to sing the song of truth

Kinda like this.
posted by ericb at 2:27 PM on June 13, 2007

Amen. Konolia has consistently been one of the nicest, politest posters around here, regardless of certain views which I (like the vast majority of MeFites) do not share;
Oh! I see now! She's nice and polite when she's repeatedly slinging her bigotry and insults and lies about us! That really does make it all ok then--thanks, languagehat.

Not. Hatred and bigotry and demonization even if expressed nicely and politely is not ok. That you give Konolia a free pass because of her manner--and not the content of her speech--is really sad.
posted by amberglow at 2:33 PM on June 13, 2007

Apparently you'd rather insult me in turn for being hurt by it, instead of condemning those who do the insulting--Go knock yourself out.

I wasn't insulting you. I was expressing a skepticism that you are genuinely "hurt" by what konolia, of all people, has to say about gays and gay marriage. I believe that what she says matters to you not at all, except insofar as you can use it to help portray yourself as a victim. Perhaps I'm wrong and you cry yourself to sleep at night because konolia doesn't like your lifestyle. If so, I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope you can get some help, because if the beliefs of some unstable woman on the internet are that painful, I can't imagine how you get through life in the real world.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:34 PM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Thanks NDc. The thing this thread really needed was a useful and productive derail about invisible sky wizards. That always clears discussions right up.

Oh, and here. I thought you might like this.
posted by dios at 2:34 PM on June 13, 2007

If you insult and deride and slur others, you should expect complaints and the same treatment in return. Konolia deserves what OC said--she's slung it out way more than enough herself.

Hear, hear.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:37 PM on June 13, 2007

Yes cause I am always on about atheism. I calls em like I sees em baby.
posted by ND¢ at 2:37 PM on June 13, 2007

I was molested by an invisible sky wizard. Never saw it coming.
posted by COBRA! at 2:44 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

If nuts can't explain their bigoted viewpoints without invoking disgust for "body parts that don't fit together", then invisible sky wizards may as well suffice.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:44 PM on June 13, 2007

In space the sky, no one can hear see you scream molest.

When you are an invisible wizard.

With your invisible stars and moons on your invisible pointed hat.
posted by ND¢ at 2:48 PM on June 13, 2007

“Hatred and bigotry and demonization even if expressed nicely and politely is not ok.”

Merely asserting that gay sex is a sin is not hateful or an example of demonization. Maybe she's made stronger statements than that, but I've not seen them.

I do think such a statement is an example of bigotry. But it's a mild bigotry that doesn't come close to rising to the level of "hatred" and "demonization".

It is possible for a good person to hold to a wrong and bigoted belief. I think konolia's an example of this. I think she's a good person who doesn't deserve to be vilified, as you're doing here. She's not a villain. Fred Phelps is a villain. Pat Robertson is a villain. konolia is not a villain. You're not doing the cause of gay rights any favors by being willfully ignorant of the difference.

As for fairness, I think your claim of MeFi tolerance for anti-homosexual bigotry is nowhere near as valid as the claim by some that MeFi tolerates sexism and misogyny. And MeFi has been remarkably tolerant of patently false, provocative, stereotypical anti-Christian bigotry...from you, for example.

I have a hard time taking seriously anyone's moral judgments and accusations when they only speak up when it's their ox being gored.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:51 PM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

If nuts can't explain their bigoted viewpoints without invoking disgust for "body parts that don't fit together", then invisible sky wizards may as well suffice.

The worst thing about invisible sky wizards and their molestations is that they don't care if body parts fit together. They find a way to make it work.
posted by COBRA! at 2:53 PM on June 13, 2007

I was expressing a skepticism that you are genuinely "hurt" by what konolia, of all people, has to say about gays and gay marriage. I believe that what she says matters to you not at all, except insofar as you can use it to help portray yourself as a victim.
Opposing hatred and insults and bigotry and the hurt they cause is not about portraying yourself as a victim at all, but about the opposite--it's about empowerment and drawing lines in the sand publicly about what's acceptable and what's simply hatred and bigotry--no matter what kind of justifications the original statements are couched in or what kind of manner they're expressed in. No one is made of steel. All insults and slurs hurt their targets, especially from a person who is defended the way she is here and held in some esteem. There's no call for the kind of shit she slings, especially in a place with clear rules about insults. Absolutely no call.

I'm sorry it always takes matt and jess so long to stop this kind of thing when it's directed at us gays and lesbians, while people who slur others--fat people, for instance--get banned immediately. Konolia isn't banned and never was. A double standard, many think.

Some would rather that no one made a fuss about her statements. Some would rather people focus on her manner or her belief in what she says. Some would rather turn the tables, and insult those who won't just simply put up with the status quo--We see lots of that here in this thread. It's not about the one spouting hatred but about those calling her out for it. Sad.

When Konolia paints herself as an enlightened person in terms of race in opposition to her parents and their own brands of hatred couched in religous terms, yet fails to see how she's done the same thing here for ages in terms of gays and lesbians, even people without a stance in this fight will question and point it out. You see some of them here as well, which is nice.
posted by amberglow at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

"I was molested by an invisible sky wizard. Never saw it coming."

Really, because when I molested an invisible sky wizard, I never saw him coming.
posted by klangklangston at 3:05 PM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

It is possible for a good person to hold to a wrong and bigoted belief. I think konolia's an example of this. I think she's a good person who doesn't deserve to be vilified, as you're doing here. She's not a villain. Fred Phelps is a villain. Pat Robertson is a villain. konolia is not a villain. You're not doing the cause of gay rights any favors by being willfully ignorant of the difference.

It's not for you to decide who i should think is a good person or not, darling. I don't presume to do that for you. You think what you want, and you defend who you want. I find it sad. I find it misguided. I find it to be wrong, especially when you who defend her do not hesitate to condemn others for their perceived faults or "thinskinnedness" or "drama", etc. Puzzling, even.

A villain is as a villain does--some picket funerals, and some just tithe to those who use that money to insert their specific religion and "morals" into our laws and demonize me and mine. Some go on CNN and demonize me, and some just vote GOP, which has an explicitly anti-gay platform, or for State Amendments to their Constitutions forbidding me all rights. Some bash and kill gays, and some just read and follow their church-issued voter's guide, which itemizes who's pro-gay and who isn't and who they should vote for in all races. Some villains lead systems that oppress others, and some happily follow those people. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

"I'm sorry it always takes matt and jess so long to stop this kind of thing when it's directed at us gays and lesbians, while people who slur others--fat people, for instance--get banned immediately."

My eyes, they might roll right out of my head!
posted by klangklangston at 3:07 PM on June 13, 2007

Diabeetus kills fat people dead.

Bring on the bannanation.
posted by ND¢ at 3:11 PM on June 13, 2007

My eyes, they might roll right out of my head!

Seriously?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:12 PM on June 13, 2007

One generally valid rule of thumb: when someone villifies you and yours repeatedly in your shared community space (one of your "homes", if you like), you condemning and villifying them because of that is usually justified, and certainly not unexpected or misplaced at all.
posted by amberglow at 3:12 PM on June 13, 2007

Merely asserting that gay sex is a sin is not hateful or an example of demonization.

This is true. Konolia would say (and has said) that extra-marital heterosex is equally a sin, thus "demonizing" likely the majority of metafilter participants...

To say "I think what you do is wrong" is not the same as "I hate you" or "I despise you."

Of course the reason konolia's opinions are taken so personally by many mefites is that they seem equivalent to saying "I think who you are is wrong." That is not (I think) what she intends to say, but that is how she is heard.

As a long-time reader and rare contributor to Metafilter, I've found this discussion thought-provoking. Thanks for that.
posted by torticat at 3:13 PM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

"Seriously?"

Totally. My eyes, they're like paddleballs.

"One generally valid rule of thumb: when someone villifies you and yours repeatedly in your shared community space (one of your "homes", if you like), you condemning and villifying them because of that is usually justified, and certainly not unexpected or misplaced at all."

One generally invalid form of fallacious reasoning: tu quoque.
posted by klangklangston at 3:14 PM on June 13, 2007

Because someone is not the CEO, originator, or ringleader but simply the local branch representative does not give them a pass or exemption.
posted by amberglow at 3:15 PM on June 13, 2007

To say "I think what you do is wrong" is not the same as "I hate you" or "I despise you."

No, that's not what she's said at all. Go visit the archives if you wish. It's not what we do.
posted by amberglow at 3:18 PM on June 13, 2007

“villifies ”

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:21 PM on June 13, 2007

There are a billion comments in this thread and no one emailed me to let me know about it. :(

So, like an idiot, I re-posted a similar but less - uh, personal - comment which was deleted. And to be honest, if konolia has actually turned over a new leaf and doesn't think that homosexuals are going to burn in hell forever then I totally support jess or cortex or Matt or whoever actually did the deleting and I apologize to konolia.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:27 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Thanks, OC, that's cool of you. I can't really say what she thinks about the afterlife at this point, but she seems to be keeping it reined in on the site lately, so, yeah.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:34 PM on June 13, 2007

Really, because when I molested an invisible sky wizard, I never saw him coming.

Try a little more foreplay next time.
posted by InfidelZombie at 3:40 PM on June 13, 2007

But if the second comment was less personal (and it was) why was it deleted? I still think OC's background info on her views was important to the thread. and worth keeping, if not in the more hostile* first version, at the least in the gentler second.

(*deservedly so, IMO, but that's not my point here.)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:41 PM on June 13, 2007

I'm sorry it always takes matt and jess so long to stop this kind of thing when it's directed at us gays and lesbians

Please don't do this. The amount of effort we have spent trying to make this work out for everyone involved has been fairly substantial. We got a lot of email from you and other people in a short time period, konolia was banned, only let back in when she promised to clean up her act or be banned for good, and to the best of my knowledge she's kept that promise. Mathowie and I both have told you and other GLBT members of the community (and everyone else really) to please let us know as soon as you see a problem happening if you do and we've been proactive about it.

I'm not patting myself on the back for it I'm just saying we take these things seriously and I think we act like we take these things seriously. If we're not meeting your standards tell us specifically how we're not -- no one got banned for a slur on fat people, for example -- and please take into account that there are 50,000 other people (maybe 500-1000 regulars) whose standards we are trying to at least address if not meet.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:41 PM on June 13, 2007

Man, I just read the thread now. Let's see: Ethereal Bligh got all internet tough guy on matteo, languagehat doesn't like me anymore (what the fuck, dude?), and konolia got her own blog. What a weird day.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:47 PM on June 13, 2007

I look forward to the part of the MeFi podcast where you discuss this.*

(*blatant attempt to sneak in an "I miss the mefi podcast" where it doesn't belong)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:49 PM on June 13, 2007

If you, amberglow, are truly "hurt" by something konolia says on MetaFilter, you need to grow some thicker skin.

Yes'suh, we so sorry for bein' uppity and all. We be takin' no o'fence.

Wait -- fuck that.

It's the folks at Stonewall, members of ACT UP and countless others, some using "in your face tactics" and ruffling a few feathers along the way, who have had a hand in advancing civil rights and mutual respect for all in the face of virulent hate -- often espoused by many self-professed "followers of Christ."

As a proud gay man here on MeFi, I'm going to continue to take on the "konolias" ("Hee, hee -- you said Cornholio") directly, if and when I see them promoting bigotry here -- implicitly or explicitly.

It's not about thick skin; it's about disavowing words/ideas that promote inequality, etc.
posted by ericb at 3:50 PM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

No, that's not what she's said at all. Go visit the archives if you wish. It's not what we do.

Sigh. I don't have time for it. I maintain that konolia has taken issue with actions, not orientation. (That link, btw, is from the thread when Matt gave konolia a timeout.)

I'm not defending anything konolia has said on its merits. I'm only pointing out the difference between what she intends to communicate, and how it is heard. I find it interesting, that's all--and helpful for understanding why these discussions rarely change minds.
posted by torticat at 3:54 PM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

... no one got banned for a slur on fat people, for example ...
Really? (and i believe there definitely were more instances than just this one.)

Jess, when people speak up about Konolia's slurs, those people invariably get insulted. It's wrong and it sucks. Go tell others to Please don't do this.
I'm not interested in staying quiet for more insults on top of, and occasioned by, Konolia's long history of them. Don't expect us to sit happily for more bs like this "drama" revival.

Matt has not been quick at all to respond to anti-gay rhetoric and slurs and personal insults here throughout my history as a member-- if you're doing so now, good. Metatalk contains years of examples of slaps on the wrists or no action at all for terribly bigoted and hateful and personally insulting anti-gay shit. It also contains many many examples of people insulting those who dare to raise it here.
posted by amberglow at 4:11 PM on June 13, 2007

WHAT
THE
FUCK
MATT / JESSAMYN / CORTEX

IF WE CAN'T TALK TO AND ABOUT EACH OTHER, THEN METAFILTER IS NOT A COMMUNITY.

Thank god we have metatalk.
posted by blasdelf at 4:27 PM on June 13, 2007

Yes, we can talk to and about each other, but what you are saying is you want to keep calling someone a fucking drunk after they get clean. I know you guys got a big hate on for Konolia, but if she is not deserving of your anger when she is avoiding the topic. I am totally with the admins on this one. Give it up guys. Community, like marriage, means respect, even respect after bad behavior. If you continually dredge up past wrongs you will wreck your marriage, and your community. Wait until she insults you again before you attack her. Attacking her for past wrongs is just petty.
posted by caddis at 4:41 PM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

I maintain that konolia has taken issue with actions, not orientation.

I've always had trouble accepting "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" as an honest statement. Same with "I don't meant to judge, but..." It's always felt more like a preemptive cover for justified accusations that the speaker is being judgmental. But maybe that's something for me to work on.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:56 PM on June 13, 2007

You're right, caddis. Just because the site has been deeply steeped in petty grudge-match bickering for years and years and years, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be that way tomorrow, right?
posted by Dave Faris at 4:58 PM on June 13, 2007

languagehat doesn't like me anymore (what the fuck, dude?)

Yeah, sorry about that. I overreacted (and was in a bad mood anyway). I normally appreciate your acerbic take-no-prisoners approach, in part because you don't get personal. I felt you crossed the line here. But there was no need for me to go all toss-him-overboard. My apologies.
posted by languagehat at 4:58 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Mathowie and I both have told you and other GLBT members of the community (and everyone else really) to please let us know as soon as you see a problem happening if you do and we've been proactive about it.

What was that about kid glove treatment? Time and again I've ascertained that a hissy fit from amberglow is enough to bring the admins in line, staring at the floor and shuffling their feet apologetically. Where do I fork over $5 for that premium account?

If nuts can't explain their bigoted viewpoints without invoking disgust for "body parts that don't fit together", then invisible sky wizards may as well suffice.

Funny, I thought you would have been all about letting someone turn over a new leaf, Alex Reynolds/Rothko/Blazecock Pileon.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:20 PM on June 13, 2007

Thanks, OC, that's cool of you. I can't really say what she thinks about the afterlife at this point, but she seems to be keeping it reined in on the site lately, so, yeah.

So it's don't ask / don't tell, then, right?

Just checking.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:21 PM on June 13, 2007

"Really? (and i believe there definitely were more instances than just this one.)"

From five years ago? And the dude got banned for BEING A DICK, not for his fat jokes. It's shit like that that makes me think maybe Dave's right.

I mean, seriously, the cliché about oxes and goring? That's you, dude. Feel free to stand up for Konolia the next time the MeFi Atheist Brigade runs in. Otherwise, take this brief moment to acknowledge that while gay people have many things to be upset about, not every instance of someone failing to accept you to your level of comfort has to provoke a Stonewall riot. Her views are retarded on this, but taking a Two Minute Hate or wanting Matt to declare a denunciation holiday so that you can lash out with whatever screedlets are at hand? Fuck, dude, c'mon. You're both smarter than that and a better person. Don't be the uptight liberal stereotype. You're not going to convince her, and everyone else around here knows how stupid her position is. I mean, sheesh, have a little faith.

(And lay off the bullshit about the admins allowing some phantom victimization— five-year-old bannings are weak sauce no matter what).
posted by klangklangston at 5:25 PM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

Funny, I thought you would have been all about letting someone turn over a new leaf, Alex Reynolds/Rothko/Blazecock Pileon.

Well, the Blazecock version has been pretty awesome - more thought, more insight, less anger.
posted by caddis at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

So it's don't ask / don't tell, then, right?

Where the alternative is, what, go after people for the things you presume they're thinking?
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2007

When you're a high level telepath like me an' Professor X, sure, why not?
posted by klangklangston at 5:33 PM on June 13, 2007

That's (one of many reasons) why I'm not a Mod, heh, no idea Cortex, no idea.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:34 PM on June 13, 2007

I think cortex thinks I'm prettier than I think I am, but I don't think cortex knows how pretty I really am. I hate cortex.
posted by cgc373 at 5:34 PM on June 13, 2007

MeFi has been remarkably tolerant of patently false, provocative, stereotypical anti-Christian bigotry...from you, for example.

I have to get all serious and say that's the number one form of bigotry on here and konolia gets insulted in pretty much every thread i've ever seen her post - i wouldnt condone it if she stuck a burning cross on your lawn but i really wouldnt blame her as some of you have been pushing her buttons for years and now you're getting on your high horses.i'm detecting that some of you are actually disappointed that she's no longer saying whatever misguided stuff she's been coming out with - it just looks to me like you want to get her banned and this homophobia thing is just a convenient wee thing to hang your hat on.
To have the people who've been goading her for years turn round and treat her like she's some kind of jackbooted oppressor says more about her detractors than it does her and it looks incredibly hypocritical.

I hate to say this amber - but you're not at your best when you're trying to get people thrown off the site, now it's konolia , it was somebody before that and it will be somebody after that, it just doesnt make you look good and i think you're better than that to be honest.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:34 PM on June 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

/eb
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:35 PM on June 13, 2007

And doughnuts. I hate doughnuts.
posted by cgc373 at 5:35 PM on June 13, 2007

Of course the reason konolia's opinions are taken so personally by many mefites is that they seem equivalent to saying "I think who you are is wrong." That is not (I think) what she intends to say, but that is how she is heard.

I just get mildly annoyed by her presumption (and quickness) to define her particular beliefs as normative and thus speak ex cathedra for all Christians and for Christianity in general. "IMO" is apparently not in her vocabulary.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:36 PM on June 13, 2007

I too need to apologize to Optimus Chyme for attributing his reposted comment in the original thread to bad faith.

Sorry man.

And on preview: the Blazecock version has been pretty awesome - more thought, more insight, less anger.

I agree. It would be a shame if someone held his previous Mefi incarnations and/or bannings against him.
posted by Cyrano at 5:38 PM on June 13, 2007

The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you all. Even the fags and bible-thumpers.

No, wait, it's hates you all.

Crap. These golden plates are a bitch.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:39 PM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

“Metatalk contains years of examples of slaps on the wrists or no action at all for terribly bigoted and hateful and personally insulting anti-gay shit.”

That's simply false. There's very little tolerance for anti-gay rhetoric on MetaFilter. It's certainly punished more quickly and with less provocation than is sexist rhetoric. Your claims of being persecuted on MetaFilter are absurdly exaggerated.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:42 PM on June 13, 2007

Crap. These golden plates are a bitch.

Not all gold is bitchy. Just ask Flip Romney!
posted by ericb at 5:43 PM on June 13, 2007

And doughnuts. I hate doughnuts.

I knew it!
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:44 PM on June 13, 2007

Mmm. Donuts.

Cortex lurve them Voodoo Doughnuts.
posted by ericb at 5:49 PM on June 13, 2007

Voodoo Doughnuts -- well, heck that's link to Voodoo Doughnut in Portland, but in the wrong state (OR)! The right Portland is indeed in the grand ol' state of Maine!
posted by ericb at 5:55 PM on June 13, 2007

Funny, I thought you would have been all about letting someone turn over a new leaf, Alex Reynolds/Rothko/Blazecock Pileon.

That's a fair comment, Krrrlson. I wasn't on my best behavior with those previous accounts, and after apologizing privately to a few people I was rude to, though I won't claim to be a saint, I'm hopeful that my current account has shown a better side of me (and I even ignored repeated and deliberate goading from you and another creepy user when I came back, as difficult as that was!).

In any case, with respect to Konolia, I've been quite polite to her, irrespective of your concerns regarding leaf-turning and her.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:56 PM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Metatalk contains years of examples of slaps on the wrists or no action at all for terribly bigoted and hateful and personally insulting anti-gay shit.

To the tune of "New Orleans" from a certain cartoon:

Long before Web 2.0,
Where Diggers digg and play,
Lived a site the damned called home.
Hear their hellish roundelay:

Metafilter!
Home of faggots, kikes, and meatbeards!
Metafilter!
Mudslinging pissfest Metatalk threads!
If you want to go to hell you should go and post,
In the Sodom and Gomorrah that mathowie hosts!

Metafilter!
Trolling, flaming, offensive, rude!
Metafilter!
Noisy, angry, insulting, mean!
Metafilter!
Ugly, hateful, vindictive, and bitter!

Metafilter!
posted by Krrrlson at 6:07 PM on June 13, 2007

In any case, with respect to Konolia, I've been quite polite to her, irrespective of your concerns regarding leaf-turning and her.

That include calling a bigoted nut upthread?
posted by Krrrlson at 6:11 PM on June 13, 2007

That include calling a bigoted nut upthread?

Nope, because that comment wasn't directed at her.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:15 PM on June 13, 2007

My apologies, then.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:18 PM on June 13, 2007

I just get mildly annoyed by her presumption (and quickness) to define her particular beliefs as normative and thus speak ex cathedra for all Christians and for Christianity in general. "IMO" is apparently not in her vocabulary.

She can pretend to speak for all Christians all she wants. That's just hyperbole. It's when she speaks for GOD that makes me feel she's simply to be dismissed as irrational.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:28 PM on June 13, 2007

My apologies, then.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:47 PM on June 13, 2007

What was that about kid glove treatment? Time and again I've ascertained that a hissy fit from amberglow is enough to bring the admins in line, staring at the floor and shuffling their feet apologetically. Where do I fork over $5 for that premium account?
Bull. Absolutely. Prove it. I've gotten years of shit from people here--from 111 to dios to Paris Paramus to paleowhatever to... Go have your "hissy fit" somewhere else. I'm far more often told to stop it, as we've just seen, along with the lovely words you and others sling.

And klang, you too prove my point. :
not every instance of someone failing to accept you to your level of comfort has to provoke a Stonewall riot.
No one's rioting at all. We're speaking with each other about a topic that i find very important, and about slurs and bigotry and how we feel as a result (of course, you guys are simply belittling that entirely--good job!).

Keep slinging them, boys. I'm here all week. It's not quite as amusing as you think--hissy fits and Stonewall riots...hmmm...

Sgt, i've never ever called for her to be banned at all--i wanted her to stop the slurs and insults and bigotry. She has, apparently. It doesn't wipe all the past away, and it won't until she reaches out and changes her tune. I won't hold my breath--separating her from the threads doesn't make her a better person or act as apology or excuse. We've emailed about it too, and been civil then too.

I and others also have all been polite to her in those threads she was in--far more than you probably think. Go look.
posted by amberglow at 6:53 PM on June 13, 2007

No, amberglow, you want her to say she was wrong for thinking that homosexuality is wrong and it seems you won't be satisfied until she repents to you. It goes against her religion and she won't. I disagree with that religious dogma, yet hounding her until she gives up her religious views is just as bad. Please, just let sleeping dogs lie. It's fine to seek to change her mind, but dragging the issue into every thread in which she posts, or whatever, will not change her mind and will instead just turn opinion against you, not against your cause, but against you.

When you go to work do you sit down with all the Republicans at lunch and tell them how evil they are? (yeah, they are, they are selfish and bigoted, as a party at least). That would make for a pretty functional workplace, no? If they bring it up, fine, but to attack them this week for something they said last week, well that is just dysfunctional. Stop it.
posted by caddis at 7:24 PM on June 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

I'm going to hold this against all of you for years to come.
posted by CitrusFreak12

If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:25 PM on June 13, 2007

ok amber i'll go and have a wee peek.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:29 PM on June 13, 2007

Well, at least she wrangled some traffic for her blog out of all this.

Dude, you're my dude, but that was harsh.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:30 PM on June 13, 2007

ok amber i'll go and have a wee peek.
posted by sgt.serenity

After reading this entire thread, I just read that sentence as "...i'll go and have a weak pee."

It seemed to make as much sense that way as some of the other comments.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:46 PM on June 13, 2007

So... According to her blog, Konolia doesn't think there was any real need for Optimus Chyme's comment to be deleted, and according to his post, Optimus Chyme doesn't seem to think it's a big deal that it was deleted. Pushing 300 comments. Oh what a world.
posted by nanojath at 8:03 PM on June 13, 2007

ah, see what you mean now.

further down the road of that thread, it turns out any christians who aren't 'born again' won't be going to heaven - it's just kind of gibberish really - personally i just dismiss it.
I have very little understanding of the actual power and effect evangelical christians have in the us - so it must be difficult to just ignore certain comments if you live there.
I don't see either you or Konolia as bad people or wrong or whatever but i would say that konolia is the perfect example of someone who learns from their mistakes in metafilter who doesn't deserve the mighty go-bot himself jumping down her throat.
Is the gay rights cause so weak it needs optimus defending it ?
Learning from your mistakes is what makes metafilter a real good place to be part of, unless i'm mistaken and konolia's gone and posted triumph of the will on her blog - anyone got a link for it ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:08 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

It was over-the-top, but exactly true and needed to be pointed out. Konolia has been very openly condemning and very very judgemental about all of us here who are gay or lesbian for a very long time. It's no secret, and if Konolia is ashamed of her behavior, she can apologize to us anytime. She knows she hurts us.
It should not have been deleted.
I hate to do this, because I like konolia a lot and she is at least honest enough to put forward views that are not popular. But the attitude that it's OK for blacks to marry into your family but not some other minority group deserves a call-out. Saying that you can't bring what people say in other threads up is against everything a community is about and Optimus Chyme was right to do so. Attacking her personally (the last sentence) was just plain wrong, though and the comment should have been deleted because editing what people write is even more wrong than leaving it there.
posted by dg at 8:49 PM on June 13, 2007

Hmm, I need to learn how to write English gooder.
posted by dg at 8:50 PM on June 13, 2007

Cortex, maybe we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm talking about is that since I've been here some Mefites have not blushed to pop into a thread discussing, say, Maoist movements in Lithuania to point out, often with links, "Huh, in this thread over here davy's defending anti-semitic pedophiles!" Nor am I (obviously) the only one that gets what I'll now call "konoliated": for at least as long as I've been around here it's been pretty common in general. It's a bit silly to start insisting on "no unflattering cross-references" now, and it would still be silly if say krrlson, quonsar or I were the person inspiring the chivalry instead.

About the subject inspiring the discussion, I myself try to be consistent in my "policy statements", e.g., in my stand on gay marriage: I don't approve of the institution of marriage even when its gay people doing it, but I can't see forbidding any one group of people the same disgusting behavior that everybody else is encouraged to indulge in. But then I'm not likely to be tripped up by any inconsistency concerning marriage because I seldom address it; given that my pet peeve is Free Speech, I'm more likely to read accusations of hypocrisy if I fail in any one case to defend anybody's right to say anything (including their right to call me a hypocrite).

Anyhow. I've received worse insults than OC's to konolia over subjects as trivial as my literary tastes, and I'm pretty sure I've been equally harsh whether there was reason to or not. Whatever. What people don't realize is that participating in this public forum makes each of us a Paris Hilton in a smaller pond: if we don't want to read attacks we might not like we don't have to become public figures, and nobody can attack anybody's view of ex-Soviet retro-Stalinists unless that person has publicized those views. (I recommend an asbestos union suit.)

And now I'm very tired. If I've made anything like sense herein I'm truly sorry.
posted by davy at 9:44 PM on June 13, 2007

Hey, I inspire plenty of chivalry.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:45 PM on June 13, 2007

Yeah, but I think he meant from actual people.
posted by dg at 9:55 PM on June 13, 2007

This thread totally depresses me. But mathowie, jessamyn, and cortex are da bomb. Beer's on me next time we're at the same meetup, mods.
posted by dw at 10:59 PM on June 13, 2007

You know that image I linked to above? I request that the righthand panel of it be used as a tiled background for this thread, a la the orange kottke thread, for all eternity.

kthxbye
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:11 PM on June 13, 2007

i wanted her to stop the slurs and insults and bigotry. She has, apparently.

great - now when will you stop complaining about it?

It doesn't wipe all the past away, and it won't until she reaches out and changes her tune. I won't hold my breath--separating her from the threads doesn't make her a better person or act as apology or excuse.

so what? ... is it your life goal to make konolia a "better person"? ... is it your sworn mission in life to hold on to every insult and hurt until everyone begs you for forgiveness for what they've done or said or thought about you?

is there a reason why you can't just regard konolia as this person who you have low expectations of?

life's a bitch, the world sucks and people fight, get over it ... save your energy for the real bastards you run into and let this petty online shit go

which part of "100 years from now, no one will remember and no one will care" and "right now, 1 billion chinese don't know and don't give a shit" don't you understand?

learn these two phrases ... there is GREAT wisdom in them
posted by pyramid termite at 12:53 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cortex, maybe we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm talking about is that since I've been here some Mefites have not blushed to pop into a thread discussing, say, Maoist movements in Lithuania to point out, often with links, "Huh, in this thread over here davy's defending anti-semitic pedophiles!"

Okay, I think we're synced up. I think that behavior is lousy, and the sort of thing that we're keeping our eyes out for. Enforcement is never going to be perfect, but you're damned right that I'd be inclined to zap that shit if I saw it, all else aside.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:14 AM on June 14, 2007

It should be noted that for most of the time you've been here, Amber, the site was moderated by one lone person who, let's be honest, was more likely to let things slide a little than either Jess or Cortex seem to be now. (In fact, I'd guess that despite Matt's sole contribution to this thread, the original message by OC would have probably stayed if it was still just him running the show.)

So it's probably not safe to assume that just because things have been one way for all this time, they're going to continue down that path in the future, because the weather conditions have definitely changed.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:34 AM on June 14, 2007

I disagree with that religious dogma, yet hounding her until she gives up her religious views is just as bad. Please, just let sleeping dogs lie. It's fine to seek to change her mind, but dragging the issue into every thread in which she posts, or whatever, will not change her mind and will instead just turn opinion against you, not against your cause, but against you.
I haven't hounded her at all. I have never ever dragged the issue into every thread she participates in. It always was exactly the opposite, as a matter of fact. I'm discussing it here because this is where we discuss these things--and because of the continuing insults and attacks here in this very thread (and other MeTa threads) towards those like me who think it's ok to bring it up, and towards those who understand what a violation of the rules here (and common decency) it was for so long. That's it.

is there a reason why you can't just regard konolia as this person who you have low expectations of?
Actually, that very thing is made much harder when she's constantly defended--and most importantly when the slurs are compounded, and when those pointing out her hatred are routinely attacked and derided each time we do so-as happened now---again.
Is there a reason why you guys can't just not do that? It seems impossible for many of you. It also seems like just an another attempt to shut down a conversation, and mock others. It would be nice to let sleeping dogs lie, but you keep waking them up as well by flipping the focus onto all who called her out. You guys don't just do knee-jerk defending of her, but actively pile on to further the insults. Is there a reason you guys can't stop attacking those of us hurt by her?

Dave, i think you're absolutely right about matt--i've said so many times before. Unfortunately that doesn't make it better. It made it worse all during that time, with her, and with the others. It compounded it -- just as further slurs and insults here in this very thread compound it.
posted by amberglow at 7:24 AM on June 14, 2007

I'm told to and stop the hissy fit, and stop the Stonewall Riot, and about drama, etc--why is that?

Why are some of you compellled to jump in to do that every time there's an issue about anti-gay rhetoric here? But i'm the one who's supposed to let sleeping dogs lie? Bull. Don't make rules for me that you yourselves don't ever follow.
posted by amberglow at 7:32 AM on June 14, 2007

sgt. serenity: Is the gay rights cause so weak it needs optimus defending it ?

Here in the US? Absolutely. State after state has enacted anti-gay-marriage legislation, and only a handful of states have been able to buck the trend. I think it's well past the time that all people of good conscience take a stand against anti-gay bigotry.
posted by malocchio at 8:32 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Take it for what it's worth, but Eleanor Clift predicted on the last McLaughlin Group that gay issues would not be a wedge in the 2008 election.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:43 AM on June 14, 2007

I get the impression that konolia has expressed some more general anti-gay ideas in the past, and those ideas are why this MeTa is so contentious. That is exactly why Optimus Chyme's comment, no matter how much you think she deserved it, was inappropriate in the MeFi thread. The comparison between gay marriage rights, and interracial marriage rights was ripe for discussion, but konolia's history was not. Let her be her own hangman.
posted by Chuckles at 8:53 AM on June 14, 2007

Actually, that very thing is made much harder when she's constantly defended--and most importantly when the slurs are compounded, and when those pointing out her hatred are routinely attacked and derided each time we do so-as happened now---again.

it's a DEAD issue on this site because she's stopped doing it here ... and you are being criticized because you refuse to recognize this

you are carrying on a vendetta ... you claim this is about "anti-gay rhetoric" but NO ONE USED ANTI-GAY RHETORIC in the posts that started this mess

YOU and OC brought it up ... she didn't

it seems to me that if the admins are willing to make an agreement here with her that she shouldn't be posting her beliefs on this issue here, then you ought to have the decency to respect it by not getting on her case about what she's no longer posting here ... and if you're not willing to hold up that end of the bargain, i don't know why she should be made to hold hers
posted by pyramid termite at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Perhaps we just need a list of subjects that konolia is allowed to post about freely without anybody getting themselves all riled up about her being either a.) a horrible anti-gay bigot who should go die in a fire or b.) a stupid believer in magical invisible sky pixies. Puppies, rainbows, the price of tea in western Albuquerque grocery stores, maybe?

If we're not going to limit her that way and yet want to say that she's fair game for any opinion she posts that can be in any way related to her position regarding homosexuality or her religion, then everybody else has to be fair game as well. Sauce for the goose.
posted by Dreama at 10:29 AM on June 14, 2007

Well -- all's not settled regarding gay marriage in Massachusetts these days. Tomorrow is a very important day regarding gay marriage here in the Commonwealth.

BTW -- Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ban Defeated -- By a vote of 151-45, the proposed amendment banning gay marriage has been defeated in the Massachusetts Legislature!
posted by ericb at 10:50 AM on June 14, 2007

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ban Defeated

Well that's just great news.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:53 AM on June 14, 2007

Yay!
/proud Mass resident
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2007

I've gotten years of shit from people here--from 111 to dios to Paris Paramus to paleowhatever to...
posted by amberglow at 8:53 PM on June 13

"Years of shit from me?" That's not even remotely true. Yes, I did give you shit at one point, but not because I wanted to persecute you or hate gays. Rather, I gave you shit because you were obnoxiously gaytastic. Look, I don't give a crap about your sexual orientation and don't judge you because of it. In fact, I can't for the life of me figure out why we even hear about it so much. And that is why I gave you shit. Your entire identity seems to revolve around your orientation and belief it is a persecuted class of people that needs special protection as you are engaged in this death struggle against discrimination in the world (and of course anyone who is not militantly on your side is a hateful homophobe). This gives rise to your virulent, unending, painfully repetitive and shrill advocacy of your political views all over this site. That to me is obnoxious. Not because you are gay, but because of your behavior. Whether it be Mac/PC fanboys, atheism/religious warriors, or whatever, when people are constantly and obnoxiously going on about their *thing* it gets annoying. I gave you shit initially because of that attitude. And then you pull that "darling" shit which is both insulting and pandering.

But that occurred about, what, for about a month 3 years ago? I don't think I've said more 10 words to you until now since then after I got an email asking me to leave you be. I don't say this to excuse my behavior. I just say this in case you didn't get it and because you comment I quote about is misleading. I don't hate you or persecute you because you are gay; I have no animus towards anyone based on their orientation. I don't care if you are attracted to your fricking computer and like to stick it your floppy drive. I really don't care, it matters not to me. But when you start beating me over the head with it, is starts to annoy me. And it really starts to annoy me when I am told that I can't tell a joke because someone is offended. Of course someone is offended a joke, that's part of the reason why its a joke.

If you want to say I gave you shit, then yeah, I did. I also stopped years ago because I was asked to. So please don't run with the meme that I am some big homophobe and have been gay-bashing you for years. It's just not true.
posted by dios at 11:23 AM on June 14, 2007 [3 favorites]

Why are some of you compellled to jump in to do that every time there's an issue about anti-gay rhetoric here? But i'm the one who's supposed to let sleeping dogs lie?

It's because there exists a double standard that people don't like to admit to. That stuff is less tolerated now than before, but it pops up from time to time, nonetheless. Even mentioning it will get you abuse.

Amberglow, my painfully-learned advice is to let it lie — you'll get piled on regardless by shrill homophobes, and given the parties involved you just can't win. Even responding to their garbage drags you down closer to their level. Let them hang themselves by their own petard.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:15 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

(hoist.)
posted by Dave Faris at 12:31 PM on June 14, 2007

Dude, it's hoist themselves by their own petard.

That's it, I've lost all respect for this thread.
posted by nanojath at 12:38 PM on June 14, 2007

curse you live preview
posted by nanojath at 12:39 PM on June 14, 2007

"No one's rioting at all. We're speaking with each other about a topic that i find very important, and about slurs and bigotry and how we feel as a result (of course, you guys are simply belittling that entirely--good job!).

Keep slinging them, boys. I'm here all week. It's not quite as amusing as you think--hissy fits and Stonewall riots...hmmm..."

I apologize if my shot went broad, amberglow, but ericb was the one who brought up Stonewall, obliquely comparing the take-no-shit attitude here to their militant advocacy.

Which is a ridiculous and over-the-top comparison, given the stakes, scale and effects.
Which I'd think you'd notice, were there not a fair amount of the cadre activism mentality left over in you and those you consider your allies (where ideological purity and devotion to the cause are the primary values extolled).
posted by klangklangston at 12:49 PM on June 14, 2007

I don't care if you are attracted to your fricking computer and like to stick it your floppy drive.

I learned a little something about myself when my first reaction was "what kind of freak still has a floppy drive?"
posted by brain_drain at 1:28 PM on June 14, 2007

I apologize if my shot went broad, amberglow, but ericb was the one who brought up Stonewall, obliquely comparing the take-no-shit attitude here to their militant advocacy.

Stonewall is Godwin's gay brother?
posted by dw at 1:29 PM on June 14, 2007

If we're not going to limit her that way and yet want to say that she's fair game for any opinion she posts that can be in any way related to her position regarding homosexuality or her religion, then everybody else has to be fair game as well.

But we are limiting her, through the moderators. They've said as much.
posted by dw at 1:42 PM on June 14, 2007

But we are limiting her, through the moderators. They've said as much.

And she's living up to those limits and it's still not enough for her detractors, so something has to give, doesn't it?
posted by Dreama at 5:06 PM on June 14, 2007

And she's living up to those limits and it's still not enough for her detractors, so something has to give, doesn't it?
It is enough.

Yes, I did give you shit at one point, but not because I wanted to persecute you or hate gays. Rather, I gave you shit because you were obnoxiously gaytastic.
Do you even read the things you type? WTF?
posted by amberglow at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2007

Which I'd think you'd notice, were there not a fair amount of the cadre activism mentality left over in you and those you consider your allies (where ideological purity and devotion to the cause are the primary values extolled).
It should be no surprise, especially when the cracks and insults fly each time any of us raise our heads and pipe up. People tend to speak up and band together when there's always derision and insults in response to any and all voiced grievances. (Love the commie lingo, btw--it's better than the gay slurs, but not by much.)
posted by amberglow at 5:48 PM on June 14, 2007

But when you start beating me over the head with it, is starts to annoy me.
I don't beat anyone over the head--it's more often the other way. This thread is about it. It's only threads related to it that i ever speak in, and it only has been since i've been a member.

Just because you would rather I don't speak of it anywhere here at all and you paint all talk about it as excessive, that does not give you or anyone right to insult and slur me this way. I'm sorry you still don't realize that.

It's tragic. Please skip all the "gaytastic" threads so you won't have to suffer my words, and my "beating you over the head". Go slur some other people for a change, maybe.
posted by amberglow at 6:00 PM on June 14, 2007

Yes, I did give you shit at one point, but not because I wanted to persecute you or hate gays. Rather, I gave you shit because you were obnoxiously gaytastic.
Do you even read the things you type? WTF?
posted by amberglow

Translation: I wasn't giving you shit because I'm a bigot; I was giving you shit because I have animosity against you personally.

(Sadly, I think he wrote that in some sort of bizarre attempt to make you feel better about him giving you shit.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:41 PM on June 14, 2007

Translation: I wasn't giving you shit because I'm a bigot; I was giving you shit because I have animosity against you personally.
(Sadly, I think he wrote that in some sort of bizarre attempt to make you feel better about him giving you shit.)

Sadly is right. The animosity is all attributed to one thing.
posted by amberglow at 8:41 PM on June 14, 2007

Hey man, pass me some of that shit.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:42 PM on June 14, 2007

...directing vitriol konolia's way [is] itself wrong. ... She's simply asserting something that a majority of people still believe. She's not being hateful about it. There needs to be evidence that konolia is actually a bad person.... I don't see that evidence.

[A] Konolia has been schooled time and again, yet chooses to remain ignorant. Her views on the subject can be compared to Behe's views on evolution: beyond errant.

[B] Konolia's actions in the past (including picketing, pamphleteering, and political action) have caused harm to fellow citizens. She is more than just her words on the screen. Unlike most blowhards on MeFi, she actually does what she says.

[C] Konolia has a long history of hurting MeFi members by her statements and her actions.

Would we tolerate an out-spoken, wholly ignorant white supremecist on MeFi? No. Well, sad to say, Konolia is no differnt.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 AM on June 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

Also, it seems that konolia has promised to re-invent herself again. Promises to not pull the religious hate-on shit any more, right? Well, then, why doesn't she complete that transition by taking on another new user name. She's ditched her history before, she can do it again. Problem solved; if she's at all discreet, no one would ever have associated the new her with the old her.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:09 AM on June 15, 2007

From my user profile:

My grandmother's name was Konolia. She was kinda the black sheep of the family; married four times, divorced twice, widowed twice, all before she turned fifty. (She lost one husband when he fell asleep on a railroad track and was decapitated. I have seen the newspaper clipping.)

She was skinny as a rail, she drank, and she had a tattoo on her arm, filled in by the time I came along.

She loved me overwhelmingly and unconditionally. I had her wrapped around my little finger. She sang to me-old blues songs, and not a few were a little bawdy. Not in front of my mom, naturally.

She died when I was around fourteen. Turned out she had a tumor that no one, including her, knew she had. Mom found her in bed, dead.

I miss her.


I think I'll keep my username.
posted by konolia at 5:41 AM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

why doesn't she complete that transition by taking on another new user name.

been there, did that

Keep your name and keep your cool Konolia. Some of us like having you around, even if we do disagree on some things.
posted by caddis at 6:01 AM on June 15, 2007

Aye.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:02 AM on June 15, 2007

och aye.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:16 AM on June 15, 2007

Aye, well...

konolia is a valued member - (as and when she keeps to guidelines like the rest of us. It should go without saying.) - and provides a service needed in a 'community of like-minded souls': breaking up the echo chamber. I nod more sincerely when amberflow comments than when she does, but I am seeing a little more that I can agree with in her comments.

So - it's all good, right?

Brand New Day, 'nall that.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:16 AM on June 15, 2007

Translation: I wasn't giving you shit because I'm a bigot; I was giving you shit because I have animosity against you personally.

That's close enough. The problem is he is an obnoxious militant. Not because he is the thing he is militant about.

(Sadly, I think he wrote that in some sort of bizarre attempt to make you feel better about him giving you shit.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:41 PM on June 14

Nah. I wasn't trying to make him feel better. I was just trying to be clear on the source of the animus so that he doesn't misrepresent the issue. Like he did following your comment showing his inability to view himself outside his outside his persecution complex (thus proving my point) when we posted this:

Sadly is right. The animosity is all attributed to one thing.
posted by amberglow at 10:41 PM on June 14

He either doesn't read or can't be bothered to understand the point.
posted by dios at 7:57 AM on June 15, 2007

Like he did following your comment showing his inability to view himself outside his outside his persecution complex (thus proving my point) when we posted this:

Mmm, this freudianslip is delicious. Just a hint of nutmeg, like Mom used to make.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:24 AM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

Because you peg me as someone whose entire identity is defined by my gayness you wholly attribute everything to it, and you don't like gays who speak up--i read and understand very well. I've been here a while, and remember how you've done the same to Rothko and others as well.
It's your own biases and perceptual filters that cause you to insult and slur me in response. You need to stop this shit, or you need to stop participating in the "gaytastic" threads (like this one, no?) since that's where it pops up.

Gay men here are some trigger for you to go off. It's clear as day, and has been for a long time.
posted by amberglow at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2007

What is it they say about the allegedly repressed tendencies of people who are extraordinarily bothered by gay men? Oh I forget. Nevermind.
posted by ND¢ at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2007

I was just trying to be clear on the source of the animus so that he doesn't misrepresent the issue.

Gaytastic!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2007

This is a neat little rhetorical trick. You can be obnoxious as you want, but I can't call you on it because that makes me a homophobe and suggests "repressed tendencies."

I don't know any other way to say it then to be clear that I don't have any problem with homosexuality. You apparently are unable to accept the fact that I could be fine with homosexuality and just dislike you because you are militant in your identity. I dislike your behavior just like I dislike militant Mac/PC fanboys, militant atheists/theists, shrill partisans, and the like. It really is just you. I promise.

I like digaman. He is a gay man and a political interested person (who probably is a lot like you). He is a good person who is passionate about his beliefs. The difference between the two of you is that he is not a repetitive and obnoxious militant about his orientation and political beliefs, and he doesn't constantly accuse others of being homophobic and persecuting of him.

how you've done the same to Rothko and others as well.

Care to name "the others"? Didn't think so. It is not a mere coincidence that the only other name you could put out there was another person who has been at the top of the contribution index since he joined/banned/joined/banned/joined and is equally obnoxious and militant in his views.

I know it makes it easier for you to just think that I am a homophobic gay-basher because then the problem is with me and not with your actions. But you're wrong. And it's just one of the other reasons why you are obnoxious. Anyone who doesn't like you must be a homophobic bigot, right amberglow? It couldn't be that you are just an obnoxious person... of course not because you are a special snowflake, right darling?
posted by dios at 9:13 AM on June 15, 2007

Are we all going to call each other darling now? Because I think that would be cool . . . darlings.
posted by ND¢ at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2007

I dislike your behavior just like I dislike militant Mac/PC fanboys, militant atheists/theists, shrill partisans, and the like. It really is just you. I promise.

What is it they say? That we usually hate those who display the traits we hate about ourselves?
posted by Dave Faris at 9:19 AM on June 15, 2007

You can be obnoxious as you want, but I can't call you on it because that makes me a homophobe and suggests "repressed tendencies."

Interestingly, people aren't permitted to call dios on his bad behavior without him inevitably dragging out his own persecution card. He truly is the most un-darling Wendy Pepper of Metafilter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

What is it they say? That we usually hate those who display the traits we hate about ourselves?
posted by Dave Faris at 11:19 AM on June 15

Ahh, yes. So, what it is again that I am militant about?
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on June 15, 2007

Ahh, yes. So, what it is again that I am militant about?

Other than penis art?
posted by dersins at 9:35 AM on June 15, 2007

Well, yeah. Besides ASCII penis art.
posted by dios at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2007

I missed something, dios. Are you militantly for or against penis art?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2007

DARLING!
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2007

This is a neat little rhetorical trick. You can be obnoxious as you want, but I can't call you on it because that makes me a homophobe and suggests "repressed tendencies."

No. You are always slurring and insulting me--and always throw in antigay insults and slurs, and always about the topic in general, exclusively. You aren't simply obnoxious to me generally or insulting to me as one person to another, but obnoxious specifically and exclusively concerning one issue regarding me -- and my contributions here.

If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you're a duck--just as you love to paint me as a solely one-issue "obnoxious" "militant", etc. Funny how that works both ways, no? I'd stop protesting if i was you.

You think gay Mefites are ok when they don't volunteer it or post about it, or call out bigots---understood. You couldn't prove my point more if you tried. Some of us are fighters, and some aren't. You're a fighter yourself, yet you don't get it at all.
posted by amberglow at 12:17 PM on June 15, 2007

You think gay Mefites are ok when they don't volunteer it or post about it, or call out bigots---understood. You couldn't prove my point more if you tried. Some of us are fighters, and some aren't.

Yeah, digaman is one big Uncle Tom isn't he. He's not a fighter like you.
posted by Snyder at 12:32 PM on June 15, 2007

No one said that at all, Snyder. Don't twist my words.

Digaman doesn't pipe up when slurred or to defend others who are. Digaman actually sticks to mostly marriage threads on the topic, i find. He doesn't jump in (unlike both dios and me, btw)--which is not at all calling him an Uncle Tom.

Why is Digaman held up by dios as a "good gay Mefite" in opposition to me?--that's a more telling question. Would a good rightwing or GOP Mefite be quieter? Would a good environmentally conscious Mefite be quieter? Would a good liberal Mefite be quieter? etc. Is it the level of volume and activism on those topics that makes someone not insultable or slurable or the reverse?

And, of course, given that dios himself is not quieter and does stick his neck out himself and is an activist too, why use that as the criteria?
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on June 15, 2007

It's about what makes him lash out--What makes him uncomfortable and angry, and what doesn't. And who that comes from. The supporters here who aren't publicly gay here or gay at all don't receive the treatment those of us who are get. No one jumped in to slur and attack fff for agreeing about konolia--why is that? No one slurred or derided him, yet for those of us most directly impacted--it's open season.

I've made it clear the insults and slurs make me uncomfortable and angry, and i will fight them. Others do so too. That's not going to change.
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on June 15, 2007

The worst part of this, amber, is that the ones who do this stuff only get away with it because they're anonymous.

These creeps don't have an ounce of courage to post their real names, because they know they're wrong and are afraid of having their bigoted views tied back to them personally.

Attacking folks like us behind the veil of anonymity provided them by the Internet is about as greasy and cowardly as it gets.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:09 PM on June 15, 2007

"(Love the commie lingo, btw--it's better than the gay slurs, but not by much.)"

Actually, I was thinking of the Bill Ayers memoir I read, when he talked about the beginnings of the Weather Underground and how they'd hold daily "self-criticism" sessions to talk about how they could be more devoted to the cause (and how those sessions were a big part of the ultimate isolation and violent "perversion" of his leftist ideals). Really, it'd be more Maoist than blanket commie. But since you thought that I was posting gay slurs, you might not catch the nuance there either.

Which is really where I kind of understand dios's point— I agree with you on nearly every political question (though sometimes I have tactical disagreements), but when I've disagreed with you I have felt like you, and this is something that I remember tangling with Blazecock on too (though I'd hasten to add that I think he's 1000 times better lately), I have felt like there's a tremendous amount of lashing out and an immediate retreat to the language of difference. If I disagree, it's not because two people can disagree, it's that I can't ever understand because of who I am. Which may, on some level, be true, but I doubt that it is to the level that I frequently feel like you present.
And I understand, perhaps better than most, the role that rhetoric plays, and the role that assertations of difference (and differénce) play in rhetoric, and I understand at least somewhat why you do what you do (especially given the broader political context). But there's no allowance made for individuals when everything is formulated against this larger persecution (which is real, I totally agree). It's the same as having to sit through the strident lectures in any class that involves gender politics or identity politics— the constant feeling of "Yeah, yeah, I get it. Can I just get a pass on the tubthumping?"
Dios gets it too; he's not an idiot. Konolia I won't speak for one way or another (call it my anti-fundamentalist prejudice). They just disagree about priorities or tactics or whatever. And instead of accepting that, there's a constant refrain of "Well, then, you must not REALLY get it." It's all True Scotsman and shit.
And frankly, that means that you don't get it— You, and a fair number of other folks on MeFi, have your pet issues and you don't understand that to many of us folks, even mildly disinterested, that means that you and your opponents appear to both be dicks.
Like I said, I know that you're a bigger man than that. But goddamn if you don't give me an excuse to doubt that now and then.
posted by klangklangston at 5:37 PM on June 15, 2007

Amberglow, we are more alike than we are different.

And no one is going to give either one of us a pass.
posted by konolia at 5:54 PM on June 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

No one said that at all, Snyder. Don't twist my words.

Ok, fair enough, I think I get what you were saying now, even if I do think you're wrong. I apologize for my misuderstanding.

The supporters here who aren't publicly gay here or gay at all don't receive the treatment those of us who are get.

Bullshit. ericb didn't get "piled on," and this whole thread was about OC, and he's not gay. The reason alexreynolds/rothko got piled on was becasue he was unbelievably obnoxious and insulting, not because he was gay, which you were totally unable to admit at the time, and still can't admit.

It's not that you're passionate, it's sure as shit not that you're gay, but it's because you love to stir up shit and make some poor bad faith arguements. Not everything is a referendum on gay rights and not everyone who thinks you're historonic and have a persecuction complex and a big case of last-word-itis is out to get you because they are homophobes or enablers.

You say insults and slurs make you hurt and angry, and that people here enable and defend konolia or let anti-gay shit fly, but, in this case there was no actual slur at all, so your accussing people of doing something that was not possible to do, and asmuch as condemning them as homophobes if they don't agree. If you consider "giving a pass" to "not bringing it up every chance we get," then fine, it's a pass, but some people are not interested in expending energy to simply show of their ideological purity every chance they get, or constantly show the eviiiillll, eviiiillll homophobes the error of their ways. You'll go after any possible percieved attack, ciriticism, or insult on yourself or your allies as if it were some horrible homophobic crime, regardless if it is our not, but you never seem to step up to the plate when when one of said allies decides to troll or throw insults, which dosen't give me a hell of a lot of sympathy for you.

You have no conpunctions about holding Christians to some bullshit collective responsibilty, and you've proclaimed a love for bitter and insulting politcal flamefests, you defend the most egregious shit coming from anyone who think agrees with you politically, and you have the gall to criticise those who disagree with you as slinging slurs and bigotry. Hell, I probably agree with at least 80-90% of your principles, but no one owes you an explanation when they disagree, either tactically or otherwise. Maybe if you displayed some real desire to have meaningful conversations, and not just score political points, to not just praise your "team" and take down the "enemy," I'd care more about your feelings.
posted by Snyder at 6:08 PM on June 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

It's not that you're passionate, it's sure as shit not that you're gay, but it's because you love to stir up shit and make some poor bad faith arguements. Not everything is a referendum on gay rights and not everyone who thinks you're historonic and have a persecuction complex and a big case of last-word-itis is out to get you because they are homophobes or enablers.
See--I don't make everything a referendum on gay rights--only threads here on gay issues--and when people specificially use my sexuality as a bludgeon to insult me, no matter what the issue was originally. I don't slur others this way, until they do it first.
I don't think the whole world is out to get me, nor do i act that way here. I don't do these things--so stop it. go read my posting and commenting history on all the issues i comment in before you paint me. Read it and stop making shit up. We all have records here of our comments--go look sometime.

I disagree with many people here about all sorts of things--from foreign affairs to politics to sexuality to rights to pop cultural things to dead celebrities to racial things to religious things, etc--very often--i agree very often too. It's when certain people immediately get personal and insulting and bigoted and slurring about it and only using anti-gay slurs that i go off.

I have meaningful conversations here every single day with many people on a wide range of topics--most of us do. I'm sorry that's all invisible to you. People simply have to stop the personal slurs and insults as automatic responses. It's intrinsically not ok to do that--to anyone. I haven't gone after every possible perceived attack at all either--you can look that up too.

I have stuff to do--if you have more statements to make of me or my contributions here, go wild. It's always fascinating to analyse others--especially when you're not interested in the actual record.
posted by amberglow at 6:40 PM on June 15, 2007

oop--one more thing: And frankly, that means that you don't get it— You, and a fair number of other folks on MeFi, have your pet issues and you don't understand that to many of us folks, even mildly disinterested, that means that you and your opponents appear to both be dicks.
See--that's where we differ. I really don't understand why those who purport to be even mildly disinterested (or anyone actually) must immediately resort to that "language of difference" as you politely call it--or even jump into a thread at all that's not even about me to insult me. Nor do i understand why further use of that language in response to aired grievances about that very language is ever called for, or acceptable here at all--for anyone about anything. Call me out if i hurt you. Call me out if i personally insult you. Call me out if i reduce you to some imagined stereotype instead of responding to your actual words here. Why is it ok for others to do that? Why shouldn't they be called out? And why should calling out equal antigay slurs? Why should disagreement equal that? I don't paint everyone (not even konolia) that way--go look it up.


(ok, now i'm done)
posted by amberglow at 6:49 PM on June 15, 2007

“Maybe if you displayed some real desire to have meaningful conversations, and not just score political points, to not just praise your ‘team’ and take down the ‘enemy,’ I'd care more about your feelings.”

I've tried very hard to understand amberglow. I think I can safely say that he's completely earnest and it's not about scoring abstract political points. It is about politics, and it is about "us" and "them". That's the filter through which he comprehends his emotional experience of the world. Amberglow is extremely subjective.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:57 PM on June 15, 2007

Amberglow, we are more alike than we are different.
And no one is going to give either one of us a pass.

flagged for insulting Amberglow.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:17 PM on June 15, 2007

Why is that an insult? I"m not dogging Amberglow here. He's very passionate about his beliefs and so am I.

By the way check our favorites list. Unless something has changed in the last 24 hours he is on mine and I am on his.
posted by konolia at 7:37 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

you and your opponents appear to both be dicks

That, sir, is what is required for any true gay relationship! And -- the "make-up" sex rocks!
posted by ericb at 7:38 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

And while I am at it let me state for the record Amberglow and I have had meaningful discussions, and I felt he had treated me quite cordially while still being passionate about how he saw things.
posted by konolia at 7:39 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have felt like there's a tremendous amount of lashing out and an immediate retreat to the language of difference.

Klangklangston, calling a gay man "gaytastic" instead of offering measured, thoughtful criticism of that person's reasoning or point of view is fairly hateful — and unsurprising, given the person who is saying it.

I'm not going to pretend that it will ever happen soon, but it would be good to see the Metafilter community stand up against that kind of hateful speech, much as it stands up — and rightly so — to anti-Semitic or racist speech.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:11 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

I didn't actually flag it of course but, frankly Konolia, your casual bigotry drives me nuts, and it brings out the worst in me. I truly find your "apples and oranges" statement mind-bogglingly disingenuous, dangerous, and hateful.

I'm well aware that I overreact and get personal, and it isn't the first time, and after posting the above I did immediately regret it. And as I've done before, I absolutely 100% apologize to you for the tone of it, but I do not for a second apologize for the feelings behind it.

I can be an asshole, and a pompous jerk, and I know this (see my profile,) but you're the one trying to justify one kind of marriage bigotry while claiming "it's totally different from the other kind of marriage bigotry that was bandied about as God's will back in the day by people equally convinced they knew what he liked or disliked." I truly feel that people like you have caused hatred and misery for so many who wanted nothing more than to love each other in peace without being told "God wanted you separate," be it for race or religion or orientation, or for simply being unlucky enough to be in this week's "God hates the following of his people for how he made them:" newsletter says.

I truly do apologize that my personal issues on this have led me to lash out at you from time to time. It's not appropriate. But the very existence of your glaring and conveniently self-beneficial blindspot is "inappropriate" to me. And I can only take solace in the knowledge that your views will die out in time. Just as happened and is happening to those who would have condemned, or worse, your family for the love celebrated there.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:23 PM on June 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

Apology accepted...I'll have to leave it at that, for obvious reasons.
posted by konolia at 8:37 PM on June 15, 2007

Amberglow and I have had meaningful discussions, and I felt he had treated me quite cordially while still being passionate about how he saw things.

The mark of a reasonable and intelligent gentleman. Refreshing. We could certainly use more of that here and less of those types whose comments run more toward the "shove a broomstick up yer ass" variety.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2007

We could certainly use more of that here and less of those types whose comments run more toward the "shove a broomstick up yer ass" variety.

I said I was sorry.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 9:31 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

thanks, konolia--many here insulting me really haven't read the threads i participate in, i don't think--at all. It's the usual kneejerk piling on with the usual personal slurs thrown in.

It doesn't mean we're friends, and it doesn't mean that each can't seriously wound the other--even if that's not the intention. Finding a person hateful is different from whether we find the other's actions and/or words hateful or hurtful or biased or wrong or evil or whatever. And i don't find people themselves hateful until they continually slur me personally (see some here, for instance)--or they continue to slur me and mine even after repeatedly being made aware of how deeply hurtful and impactful their words and actions are to me, and in the world--whether that is their intention or not. (see my view of konolia, for instance--what's different is that she never gets personal, unlike some, but usually keeps it broad and general.)

It's actually possible to disagree with others without being personally insulting and hateful, even if one or the other or both may think the other's words are insulting and hateful. It's a tricky balance tho.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 PM on June 15, 2007

Konolia and I did pretty well in that Haggard thread, i think.

Maybe there's a little hope--that she'll have a "see the light" moment, of course. ; >
posted by amberglow at 10:12 PM on June 15, 2007

“I truly find your ‘apples and oranges’ statement mind-bogglingly disingenuous, dangerous, and hateful.”

That's because you're narrow-minded or lack imagination. This defect on your part then leads you to erroneously conclude that someone who doesn't agree with you must therefore be disingenuous and hateful.

“...calling a gay man ‘gaytastic’ instead of offering measured, thoughtful criticism of that person's reasoning or point of view is fairly hateful”

It is not fairly hateful. It's faintly pejorative. If you inflate any speech that's even mildly negative into hate-speech then you either lack good judgment or are being self-servingly dishonest.

Do I think that there's some mild anti-gay bigotry revealed in some things that dios has written in the past on this subject? As a matter of fact, I do. In that context, then, this recent comment of his that tried to argue that it's not about any bigtory and that it's all about a particular user's behavior is not convincing. Note, though, that he did try to offer an argument in addition to his gaytastic complaint. At any rate, gaytastic isn't hate-speech, it's just sufficiently clumsy to cause suspicions that it's a substitute for hate-speech. Even so, reckless and hyperbolic accusations of hate-speech do more harm than good by turning it into a rhetorical contest token rather than the serious accusation it should be.

This is also of course true for making accusations of hatefulness on the basis of good-faith disagreements. This is really egregious when the justification is an accusation of bad-faith where bad-faith is equal to "no one who disagrees with me on this could do so in good-faith". How repulsively convenient.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:13 PM on June 15, 2007

That's because you're narrow-minded or lack imagination. This defect on your part then leads you to erroneously conclude that someone who doesn't agree with you must therefore be disingenuous and hateful.

I know many people who disagree with me in whole or in part on this issue. I do not, unfortunately for your analysis, find them all disingenuous or hateful.

Konolia's historic (I freely admit, not recent,) viewpoints, particularly her attitude in expressing them, combined with her, to my mind, hypocritically similar personal situation, are why I use those words. You may not agree with that assessment or my reasoning, but let's not read my mind and decide I feel that way just because she, like so many people who range from the maliciously bigoted, to the well-meaning but misinformed, to the simply uncomfortable, happens to disagree.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:25 PM on June 15, 2007

(I believe they are still her current viewpoints, but I intended to acknowledge they were no longer being brought up in the manner or frequency they once were. I messed up the phrasing there though.)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:26 PM on June 15, 2007

This is also of course true for making accusations of hatefulness on the basis of good-faith disagreements. This is really egregious when the justification is an accusation of bad-faith where bad-faith is equal to "no one who disagrees with me on this could do so in good-faith". How repulsively convenient.
How repulsively convenient it is to so easily ascribe such bad-faith motives to only one person in a disagreement between 2 people. If you assume that some who accuse others of bad faith or hatefulness are always acting in bad faith themselves -- purely out of the other's disagreement with their own personal views, all disagreements involving that person must of course be pegged as him always acting out of bad faith. It doesn't matter what disagreement, or where, or when, or why, or about what topics, or with who, or anything. Very repulsively convenient to not even have to assess each situation individually as long as certain people are involved. Works well for you, does it? You find it convenient, so i guess it does.
posted by amberglow at 10:36 PM on June 15, 2007

“Konolia's historic (I freely admit, not recent,) viewpoints, particularly her attitude in expressing them, combined with her, to my mind, hypocritically similar personal situation, are why I use those words.”

Okay. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to read your unqualified statement as an unqualified judgment. It's valid that you are making that judgment in a larger context. But you should have indicated that larger context when you made your accusations.

I think it's pretty clear just within this thread that people are making the same accusations simply on the basis of her stated belief and nothing more. Specifically, the claim made several times in this thread is that any intelligent person would see that the two things are so similar that only someone being disingenuous would claim they are not. I strongly dispute that claim and I think it is narrow-minded. It's particularly harmful because this kind of thinking allows people to assign bad-faith and worse to everyone with whom they disagree.

“Works well for you, does it?”

No, actually. I am basing my judgment on this particular circumstance, contrary to your weird claim that I make this judgment about one party "all the time".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:39 PM on June 15, 2007

Even so, reckless and hyperbolic accusations of hate-speech do more harm than good by turning it into a rhetorical contest token rather than the serious accusation it should be.
That's only true if you hold certain repulsively convenient assumptions about those who are calling out the speech--and not assumptions about those who are repeatedly using it as a derogatory and insulting weapon in conversations here.
posted by amberglow at 10:53 PM on June 15, 2007

Let's unpack this:

You're disagreeing about calling something hate-speech by categorizing the accusation itself here as reckless and hyperbolic--that's actually a bad-faith disagreement on your part, and we've also already been told that the person who makes these accusations either lack good judgment or are being self-servingly dishonest. You also stated that it was some defect on your part then leads you to erroneously conclude that someone who doesn't agree with you must therefore be disingenuous and hateful.

This is all accusing that person of acting in bad faith in their accusations, while your very disagreement here itself is in bad faith because you've already decided why the other person is making the accusation they are instead of listening to them telling you why they are making the accusation they are. You dismiss that out of hand because you've already decided why, which is totally bad faith--you yourself have decided that someone who doesn't agree with your characterization of the comments that led to the accusations is reckless, dishonest, lacks good judgment or is self-servingly dishonest, etc.
posted by amberglow at 11:16 PM on June 15, 2007

This tactic of yours is very tiresome. If someone tells you that you are behaving badly, your first response is to say "don't be personal". If that doesn't work, then your second response is to attempt to turn the argument on the accuser. In the second case, ithe attempt is always belabored.

You have been explaining why you consider these various things as hate speech and your explanation is insufficient. When someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater and they say that it's because they "felt hot", then their explanation is insufficient and their alarm was reckless. When they also admit that they dislike the proprietor, it's not bad-faith to conclude that they either lack good judgment or are being self-servingly dishonest.

When that person tells someone annoyed with their bad behavior that he/she is being dishonest, self-serving, or lacking good judgment in accusing that person of lacking good judgment, or being dishonest and self-serving in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, then we've reached the level of farce.

Accusing someone of hate-speech is a serious moral accusation. Don't abuse it by hurling it at anyone that you feel has hurt your feelings.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:31 AM on June 16, 2007

This is all accusing that person of acting in bad faith in their accusations, while your very disagreement here itself is in bad faith because you've already decided why the other person is making the accusation they are instead of listening to them telling you why they are making the accusation they are.

the thing is there's no way anyone can answer or rebut your current argument without being accused of bad faith by you ... the great amberglow knows everyone's motives for posting things and if he determines that someone is hateful and is speaking hate-speech, mere mortals like us must agree or be acting in bad faith

fundamentalist liberalism in action ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 AM on June 16, 2007

Round and round the cobbler's bench, the monkey chased the weasel. The monkey thought it was all in fun. Pop! Goes the weasel.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:50 AM on June 16, 2007

Amberglow, I know you're upset, but don't let Metafilter's anonymous, homophobic weasels get to you. They are small-minded, petty losers and they know it, so they try to drag you down with them.

They've shown that they are just not worth any ounce of emotional energy you give them — seriously.

Don't reduce yourself to their level or validate their garbage by responding to hateful speech. You're better off for it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2007

And it's a beautiful day outside.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2007

the great amberglow knows everyone's motives for posting things and if he determines that someone is hateful and is speaking hate-speech, mere mortals like us must agree or be acting in bad faith

And EB is not doing this same exact thing how? And you too. Enough--don't accuse me of doing what you yourself do all the time, even here.
posted by amberglow at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2007

If you throw accusations of hate speech around like beads on Madi Gras, and then accuse anyone who disagrees with you either is at least glossing it over, and in any event, is acting in bad faith, not giving gays the same consideration other groups get, but have never spoken up, and have, in fact, defended, equally (if not more so) egregious insults and attacks on people, then you do open yourself to accusations of either poor judgment or bad faith. EB and pt (and myself) are not simply projecting their opinions on you, they are observing the way you act.

Blazecock, are you going to specific with you are accusing of homophobia? Surely you aren't categorizing everyone arguing with you and amberglow, are you?
posted by Snyder at 12:47 PM on June 16, 2007

“Amberglow, I know you're upset, but don't let Metafilter's anonymous, homophobic weasels get to you. They are small-minded, petty losers and they know it, so they try to drag you down with them.”

Perhaps you're not referring to me—I am, after all, quite obviously not anonymous. But you also know I'm not homophobic. Far from it.

So I'm not sure what your advice to amberglow really is. Clearly some of us who are critical of some of the things you and he have said in this thread are neither anonymous cowards nor homophobes reacting to you out of bigotry. Maybe some others are. Whether they are or are not, you're trying to tar all critics with this brush, which is simply wrong. And if you have any decency, which I know you do, then you know it's wrong.

The irony here is that your argument is that speech counts, that it is hurtful, that is has effects in the real world, that when people say hurtful things they are often motivated by a desire to say hurtful things. I agree with all that. But has it occurred to you that accusations of hate-speech and bigotry and cowardice are themselves powerful words with consequences, hurtful words, words that shouldn't be thrown around lightly?

Both of you have a long history on MetaFilter of demonstrating that you are unable to take even the slightest of criticism. As someone who is active in supporting gay rights, as someone who cares about anti-gay bigotry as it manifests as speech in our culture and is thus a card-carrying member of GLAAD, as someone who confronts homophobes on a regular basis...these reflexive and childish accusations of "homophobia!" at every single person who has criticized you and amberglow, including those who simply fail to agree with you about these claims is, frankly, so self-serving while making a mockery of and devaluing the truly valid claims of bigotry and hate-speech that it turns my stomach.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:52 PM on June 16, 2007

EB and pt (and myself) are not simply projecting their opinions on you, they are observing the way you act.

As am i. Because they don't ever acknowledge that anyone i speak up against is truly acting out of badfaith reasons, and in fact rush to attack me for all accusations of bigotry, they immediately decide (as you do--wrongly) that i'm simply throwing accusations of hate speech around like beads on Madi Gras.
Even in threads like this itself where the slurs continue to fly and are not countered but actually considered part of some good-faith disagreements--since to you guys, it's not them who actually do sling hate speech around like beads on Madi Gras, but I who do so when i call them out.

It's absurd.
posted by amberglow at 12:59 PM on June 16, 2007

they immediately decide (as you do--wrongly) that i'm simply throwing accusations of hate speech around like beads on Madi Gras.

It's not wrong if you're doing it.

Where is the all the damned hate speech in this thread? Slurs are flying? Seriously, pretend I'm five years old. Show me, explicitly, where this stuff is, because I'm not seeing it, EB is not seeing it, pt is not seeing it, and others aren't seeing it either. A whole bunch of us aren't seeing it, and I don't think it's because we're all closet homophobes.
posted by Snyder at 1:09 PM on June 16, 2007

Perhaps you're not referring to me—I am, after all, quite obviously not anonymous. But you also know I'm not homophobic. Far from it.

I know this, EB, and you can rest assured that I am not talking about you at all. You have been restrained, polite and reasonable, though I may strongly disagree with you about your interpretation of some of the hateful speech that has been displayed here.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2007

Because they don't ever acknowledge that anyone i speak up against is truly acting out of badfaith reasons,

it's because we don't have a magical firefox extension that tells us what people are thinking when they type stuff and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt

to me, dios typing "gaytastic" is him being dumb and insensitive

to me, konolia's beliefs, (which, by the way, you are attacking her for here where she's not even allowed to defend herself effectively and she's shut up about it) are the product of ignorance and prejudice, not bad faith and hatred

but i suppose you wouldn't be able to play the martyr as effectively if the people who oppose you were merely flawed as people and mistaken rather than evil persecutors of all that is right
posted by pyramid termite at 3:03 PM on June 16, 2007

“I know this, EB, and you can rest assured that I am not talking about you at all. You have been restrained, polite and reasonable, though I may strongly disagree with you about your interpretation of some of the hateful speech that has been displayed here.”

Okay, then I apologize for some things I've said because I thought, wrongly, that such accusations were being tossed around indiscriminately and included myself and languagehat.

And I greatly applaud you on your magnanimity in saying so in the context of a comment where I said that you were thin-skinned and unable to take criticism! You've proven me wrong, and I'm glad to be proven wrong.

To be clear, though, I still don't think that anything any others have written in this thread rise to the level of hate-speech. I do agree that at least one comment raises a valid suspicion of bigotry...but I don't think that's hate-speech. I do agree that advocating against gay marriage in speech has actual, practical consequences, but I don't agree that it is necessarily malicious, or that making the distinction between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage, as konolia does, is necessarily hypocritical and inconsistent. And I especially don't agree with attributing malice to her on that basis.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2007

to me, konolia's beliefs, (which, by the way, you are attacking her for here where she's not even allowed to defend herself effectively and she's shut up about it) are the product of ignorance and prejudice, not bad faith and hatred

I do not see that ignorance can continue to be her defence. MeFi has provided her with excellent learning material.

And it is in bad faith, because people she knows and trusts on MeFi have told her how her behaviours have harmed them, yet she continues in her behaviour.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:13 PM on June 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

MeFi has provided her with excellent learning material.

opinions are not learning material and judgment is not education

some things have to be learned from slow exposure and experience and that's not going to happen here and we should ALL understand that

And it is in bad faith, because people she knows and trusts on MeFi have told her how her behaviours have harmed them, yet she continues in her behaviour.

belief is not behavior, posting is not behavior and to say that she "continues" in her "behavior" when she's been prohibited from even expressing her opinion on the matter is a flat out lie

in fact, it's downright unfair of you to continue to attack her on this when she's been prohibited from defending herself

you guys trolled her into expressing this in the haggard thread, you got her suspended for a week for it, she's now prohibited from saying anything about it and yet, that's STILL not good enough for you?

she's wrong in her views on this issue ... but that does NOT justify what i'm seeing here

she's been made to drop her end of this argument ... when will you have the decency to drop yours with her?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:50 PM on June 16, 2007

when will you have the decency to drop yours with her?

Probably the same time there is sufficient decency to deal with comments like this and this piece of garbage appropriately.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2007

that's dios' comments you linked to, not konolia's

he's fair game ... have at him
posted by pyramid termite at 8:20 PM on June 16, 2007

Just making a fair comparison. When the community stands up to that garbage, I'd be more empathetic with your concerns.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:58 PM on June 16, 2007

and this is where you start playing the victim ... you are more than capable of standing up for yourself and arguing with dios ... you even ignore that i have called his "gaytastic" comment "dumb and insensitive" and instead shift the blame to some nebulous and ill-defined community that has failed to stand "up to that garbage"

well, if you mean joe average mefi poster, he gave up in disgust over this pissing match 350 comments ago ... if you mean me, i've just proven you wrong ... and if you mean the administrators, they've already acted in your behalf by silencing konolia

in short, you won and you're still whining about it because not everyone you disagree with or are offended by has been dealt with yet

well, you know, a long time ago, when i was a participant in alt.flame, occasionally some misguided soul would post there asking us to flame this or that person because they had done something wrong to them or were stupid or something

invariably, our answer was DYOFDW - do your own fucking dirty work

and if you want to get into a pissing match with dios or whoever over what they say then fine ... you have a brain, you have a pair, you have a computer and you have an account here so you can quit sniveling, grow the hell up and DO YOUR OWN FUCKING DIRTY WORK and quit expecting "the community" to fight your battles for you exactly the way you want them fought

you want something done right, DO IT YOURSELF
posted by pyramid termite at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2007

and this is where you start playing the victim

I'm not playing a victim, just pointing out the favoritism and why I cannot feel as sorry for konolia as you do. If that upsets you, I'm sorry, but I should stress that this is not the point.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2007

i don't know why anyone should expect neutrality on a site like this ... or any site

truth is, if it were up to me, i'd allow anything but outright spam on this site, but i'm from the rough old world of usenet ... there's a fair argument to be made for some limits here, but that also entails responsibility, doesn't it? ... meaning that if you manage to get a poster to stop saying certain things or put certain ideas "beyond the pale", then you've got a certain obligation not to rub the person's nose in it or continue on with what you've already succeeded at

i do know this - the kind of thing that's been going on in this thread doesn't just alienate the anti-gay crowd, whoever they are ... it alienates people who are willing to be allies in this and there's no sane reason why people who advocate and vote on your side of these issues should feel that way here

i'm getting sick of the rhetorical excess, not just on this site, but in society overall ... it's a turn off and makes me feel that i'm wasting my time discussing things ... maybe that doesn't mean anything to you ... but if you're willing to multiply the konolias of the world by a few million and claim they are depriving you, what will you say of the the ethereal blighs and pt's of the world who are getting sick of the stridency, the bitterness and the divisiveness? ... multiply that by a few million and think about it

i have better things to do than dissect why dios says stupid things like "gaytastic" or to decry it endlessly as some kind of great crime against humanity ... so does this community ... so, whether you realize it or not, do you and amberglow

that is the point ... and i'm through with this
posted by pyramid termite at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2007

i have better things to do than dissect why dios says stupid things like "gaytastic" or to decry it endlessly as some kind of great crime against humanity

I'd prefer not to have to deal with konolia's comparable brand of bigotry, either, yet here we both are. A little fairness makes for progress, or you choose to go around Faris' cobbler's bench again.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:01 PM on June 16, 2007

And I'm just sick of having bigots fucking up our world.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:45 PM on June 16, 2007

And to be specific, fucking it up by doing shitheel things like voting to reduce freedoms, let alone engaging in political activity that is meant to increase their ability to effectively interfere with adult, informed, consensual behaviour.

Bigotry, like masturbation, is best practiced in privacy. Keep the spooge off MeFi.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 PM on June 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

It occurs to me, however, that I really don't have a dog in this particular fight, so I'll just STFU now.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:26 AM on June 17, 2007

Why is this useless thread still open? And why haven't we agreed to have freedom of speech on Metafilter, e.g., that konolia is free to espouse her faith-based bigotry and others are free to give her shit about it (or to ignore it and/or her)?

But then, like pyramid termite, "if it were up to me, i'd allow anything but outright spam on this site, but i'm from the rough old world of usenet." And if the WWW's Gated Communities hadn't drawn off damn near everybody but pornspammers and hardcore fuddy-duddies I'd still concentrate on Usenet too.
posted by davy at 1:11 PM on June 25, 2007

Why is this useless thread still open?

To give you a place to comment that's not usenet.
posted by dersins at 3:03 PM on June 25, 2007