Join 3,419 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Assholes in Aisle 12
July 3, 2007 8:16 AM   Subscribe

Fucking flag it and move on. It's not about YOU.
posted by mkultra to Etiquette/Policy at 8:16 AM (173 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

There are just too many offensive/derailing comments in that post to flag.

I can't believe some people can't just leave well enough alone, and feel it necessary to burst into a thread like that and announce, "Forget about the FPP, look at me, I'm trying to take a crap here, folks!"

Jesus.
posted by mkultra at 8:16 AM on July 3, 2007


For what it's worth, I think the . patrol is getting a little reactionary in there. Yeah, it's tragic, but that doesn't mean that the only appropriate response is an explanation of exactly how many moments of silence are warranted.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


One thing that particularly bothers me about that thread (and which I did a poor job of trying to stop) is that much of the venom towards the deceased is based on the word of his white-supremacist assaulters. As far as I can tell, the only reason to believe he tried to kiss a 12-year old is because some murderous thugs concocted it as a defense after the fact.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:32 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I got angrier reading that thread than I've been in a long time here on the ol' internet. Pretty despicable.
posted by ORthey at 8:33 AM on July 3, 2007


Every time a hate crime victim kills themselves, some Mefi asshole gets his wings.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:39 AM on July 3, 2007 [11 favorites]


I agree with solipsophistocracy - there is nowhere for that thread to go. I wish we didn't have so many threads like that in the blue. Best of the web? I don't think so.
posted by taliaferro at 8:43 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


wow, chudmonkey equates gang rape with "getting your ass whupped." pretty classy.
posted by shmegegge at 8:49 AM on July 3, 2007


It's perfectly alright to think an FPP is without merit. That's what the flag is for.

The behavior of immature assholes like chudmonkey and Roman Graves in that thread is more worthy of your disdain.
posted by mkultra at 8:51 AM on July 3, 2007


and I know I know, he said "aside from the sodomy thing," but that's exactly my point. there is no "aside from the sodomy thing" for this kid, and to dismiss it and then comment on the REST of the attack is a way to make the entire attack look tame and no big deal when the sodomy thing is precisely what makes the attack such a big deal.
posted by shmegegge at 8:51 AM on July 3, 2007


It doesn't really matter what one thinks about that particular post: if you have a problem which you don't think requires group discussion, flag it. If you have a problem which you think requires group discussion, bring it to MeTa. Whether or not this post was weak or strong, deserved to stay or deserved to go, doesn't factor into that at all.
posted by Bugbread at 9:00 AM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


I don't think there's an "aside from the sodomy thing" for anyone, whether they like sodomy or not. Sodomy is pretty significant no matter how you slice it.
posted by Nabubrush at 9:01 AM on July 3, 2007


Well.

Some people don't really notice when it happens.

Link.
posted by Esoquo at 9:05 AM on July 3, 2007


Ho'oponopono
posted by Burhanistan at 9:08 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I, for one, would like to salute chudmonkey for so boldy undermining the nefarious stereotype of the polite Canadian. Who says deceny's a national virtue? Not [name redacted] of Calgary, Alberta!

I think it would be a very good thing if the mods would delete chudmonkey's name from that comment. Profile pages are not indexed by google, MetaTalk threads are..
posted by Chuckles at 9:08 AM on July 3, 2007


I was pretty well astonished to receive an email complaining about what I think was a pretty innocuous comment I made trying (in vain of course) to dampen naysaying diversions. Let's just say that the emailer doesn't seem too popular here or in the original thread.
posted by peacay at 9:15 AM on July 3, 2007


Original poster here...and my first FPP. Yeah, it didn't lead to the most productive discussion, so perhaps not the best (nor the worst) FPP ever. However, my original intent was not to set off a stream of "."'s or post as OMG OUTRAGEfilter; a couple points that I had anticipated someone might want to discuss that made the case notable beyond "hispanic kid gets raped, testifies before Congress one year later, then kills himself" were brought up here.

I'll agree that it was a clumsy first FPP. I'd try to do better next time. The one or two constructive comments on that were welcome, though perhaps they could have been directed to MeTa or my email address, instead of a repeated in the thread over and over.

I'm stunned, however, by how many people felt the need to object to the worthiness of the post itself....by bringing up whether or not the victim "asked for it." Sad, ironic commentary about how stigma and judgment from the snickering junior-high set followed this kid into death as well. FWIW, I'm also disappointed at the number of people who fed the troll(s), well meaning or not.

It's a gorgeous day outside and I have the afternoon off, so I'm letting go of the whole thing.
posted by availablelight at 9:15 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


And already two more comments with his name. This is bad, bad, bad! Assuming it is his real name, you absolutely shouldn't be taking it here, no matter how big an asshole he is in your mind.
posted by Chuckles at 9:16 AM on July 3, 2007


As an aside, there is at least a billion and one awful things that happen each day to the poor wretched humans on this otherwise lovely planet. It doesn't behoove one to press the outrage/empathy/that's awful button so wantonly. Rather, it would be far more beneficial to establish a daily practice of just sitting quietly and finding some measure of peace in one's own inner situation which can have an astonishing effect on one's own environment and relations. What else can you do to help other than that? Moaning on the internet is less efficacious than screaming at the void (I'm of course guilty of both).
posted by Burhanistan at 9:17 AM on July 3, 2007


To be fair, Alberta is Canada's Texas.
posted by WinnipegDragon


Dude, you live in Winnipeg.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:17 AM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


peacay, how astonished? More so than the emailer would be seeing his email reposted here?
posted by dobbs at 9:18 AM on July 3, 2007


I think it would be a very good thing if the mods would delete chudmonkey's name...

Agreed — and attempting to Googlebomb somebody's name ought to warrant an immediate, lifetime ban.
posted by cribcage at 9:21 AM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


attempting to Googlebomb somebody's name ought to warrant an immediate, lifetime ban

If that were to happen, there'd be a fair number of bannings of long-time users.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:24 AM on July 3, 2007


This kind of shit is why it is a bad idea to associate your identity with Metafilter.

There are too, too many vindictive assholes here who get pissed about whatever has their panties in a bunch and have no qualms of launching jihad against the person who offended them. Disagreeing with someone is not enough. You must destroy them!

So the guy said something you don't like. BFD.
posted by dios at 9:27 AM on July 3, 2007


Ah, well, thanks for giving me a reason to quit this site (again) for awhile. Hope I can stay away longer...
posted by Burhanistan at 9:28 AM on July 3, 2007


All this Firstname Lastname-ing is getting pretty fucking ugly, regardless of how much you disagree with the guy or think he's a dick.
posted by dersins at 9:28 AM on July 3, 2007


On failing to preview, what dios said.
posted by dersins at 9:29 AM on July 3, 2007


hold on - you just discovered the fact that 99% of all metafilter comments are fuel for "look at me syndrome"?
posted by Stynxno at 9:29 AM on July 3, 2007


dobbs, I'm not going down that path. It wasn't particularly rude but seemed to draw conclusions that I imagine very few people on earth would assert with a straight face, given the contents of my comment. But I have said a hundred things on this site more deserving of a browbeating email, which is why I found it to be an astonishing incident. Not unpleasant particularly, just.....very much not expected.

And what's with this childish 'name the guy' shite?
posted by peacay at 9:29 AM on July 3, 2007


NotMetafilter: It's a gorgeous day outside and I have the afternoon off, so I'm letting go of the whole thing.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 9:30 AM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


attempting to Googlebomb somebody's name ought to warrant an immediate, lifetime ban

If that were to happen, there'd be a fair number of bannings of long-time users.


as it should if they commit said offense.
posted by Stynxno at 9:31 AM on July 3, 2007


peacay, fair enough.
posted by dobbs at 9:33 AM on July 3, 2007


If that were to happen, there'd be a fair number of bannings of long-time users.

As others have put more delicately, SFW?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:33 AM on July 3, 2007


I kinda just picked up the "name the guy" shite because it was just sitting there -- I guess it's remotely possible that mentioning his name here a whole bunch of times could do him some harm, but I can't really see how. What he said in the linked-to thread was enormously douchetastic, but if I really thought repeatedly citing his name could lose him a job, I would have resisted temptation.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:35 AM on July 3, 2007


I think it would be a very good thing if the mods would delete chudmonkey's name

Another agreement here. Posting someone's name and location in conjunction with an expression of outrage at something they have said has a hint of, well, violence to it. It seems to imply that there is some sort of action that could/should be taken that involves name and location. Even if that is not the commentor's intent, it is important to recognize that there can be negative fallout from these kinds of comments (I speak from the experience of having been blogged about in this way, and having received some fairly negative fallout from it).

And given the fact that the outrage directed towards chudmonkey is for his refusal to acknowledge that the fallout for a(n alleged) act was far worse that the person deserved, the outraged people commenting here should know better.
posted by carmen at 9:36 AM on July 3, 2007


I can't really see how [it could do harm]

When someone googles his name, they will find his MeFi profile. He is good enough to reveal himself to users hear, but that doesn't mean he wants everyone in the world finding out about the shit he says online.
posted by Chuckles at 9:37 AM on July 3, 2007


here, ARGH!
posted by Chuckles at 9:39 AM on July 3, 2007


first he's raped by a patio table umbrella pole.
i'm betting he was pushed from the ship by a deck chair.
posted by quonsar at 9:39 AM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


but if I really thought repeatedly citing his name could lose him a job, I would have resisted temptation.


Well, then it's interesting that in the last few minutes you've removed your name from your profile, kittens for breakfast.
posted by dersins at 9:40 AM on July 3, 2007 [5 favorites]


"there is no "aside from the sodomy thing" for this kid, and to dismiss it and then comment on the REST of the attack is a way to make the entire attack look tame and no big deal when the sodomy thing is precisely what makes the attack such a big deal."

Y'know, aside from that Holocaust thing...

"Yeah, it didn't lead to the most productive discussion, so perhaps not the best (nor the worst) FPP ever."

Availablelight, perhaps the problem was that the point of Metafilter is not to engender a discussion about whatever crap you happen to find. While the chuckleheaded anti-intellectual "plate of beans" bit is bullshit, it does reflect the general truism that MeFites can have a discussion about ANYTHING. The filtering part is to keep us tinpot pundits talking about links to websites worth talking about. Any time you do newsfilter, you'd better realize that if you're not working to a higher standard than the art/culture posts, it's going to be a clusterfuck as the least informed and most vocal demogogues pontificate with their whetstones wet.

It was a shitty post, and one that you should have avoided as your first. And "not the worst ever" is not a redeeming point.
posted by klangklangston at 9:42 AM on July 3, 2007 [5 favorites]


Availablelight kept trying to promote discussion, but kept getting shouted down. It's a story with some interesting aspects, but when the Most Noble Order of the Holy Period shows up, discussion is over.
posted by Methylviolet at 9:44 AM on July 3, 2007


Well, then it's interesting that in the last few minutes you've removed your name from your profile, kittens for breakfast.

I find it telling that you LOOKED, "dersins"!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:44 AM on July 3, 2007


Posting someone's name and location in conjunction with an expression of outrage at something they have said has a hint of, well, violence to it.

Oh for pete's sake, I wasn't inciting violence. The subtext of my comment was that if chudmonkey -- whose name and what appears to be his primary email (which he himself has posted in an AskMe thread before) is on his user page -- is going to say such things, then presumably he has the courage of his convictions to stand by them.

If the mods think it was ill-advised, I apologize and will respect whatever decision they think is best.
posted by scody at 9:45 AM on July 3, 2007


Googlebomb comments removed. It'd be really great if y'all could cut that shit right out henceforth.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:46 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


The promoting violence claim is...a little ridiculous, but I do see the point here. I'm more concerned that a completely unconnected person who happens to have the same name could get shit on as a consequence of such behavior, and I apologize for my thoughtlessness in that regard.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:49 AM on July 3, 2007


as it should if they commit said offense.

I'd love to see it happen. One particular offender should get the boot for that shit right quick.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:51 AM on July 3, 2007


Dave Faris keeps googlebombing himself. you should remove all his comments too.
posted by quonsar at 9:51 AM on July 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


scody writes "The subtext of my comment was that if chudmonkey -- whose name and what appears to be his primary email (which he himself has posted in an AskMe thread before) is on his user page -- is going to say such things, then presumably he has the courage of his convictions to stand by them. "

Yes, but it's the courage, presumably, to stand by them as one of a billion other comments. When you googlebomb someone, their real name doesn't appear in every MetaFilter thread, just the one you want to call attention to. Which makes it the very first comment that someone will see. If they're really lucky, the person searching will then read through the rest of their comment history and make a balanced determination, but few folks in human resources or visa application departments have that kind of time.
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 AM on July 3, 2007


Scody, you cut out the part of my comment where I said "regardless of what the commentor intends." We aren't in control of how others interpret our response, and saying "here's the name and location of a person who's beliefs are wrong, just sos ya know" is the kind of comment that can readily be interpreted in a violent or otherwise negative way, whatever you think or intend the subtext to be.

Saying that this can lead to violence may seem ridiculous to people who haven't had their name and location put up on the net in connection with negative comments about their person. As someone who has had this experience, I respectfully disagree.
posted by carmen at 9:55 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Point taken.
posted by scody at 10:03 AM on July 3, 2007


Hopefully you've learned your lesson mkultra. Making a Meta thread is almost always a bad idea because it achieves nothing but giving assholes another space in which to be assholes and draw more attention to their asshole behavior. Let's be clear that this sort of behavior is all well and good on Mefi (boys will be boys!) and move on.
posted by nixerman at 10:06 AM on July 3, 2007


so let me see ... someone posts an fpp ... someone posts some disdainful comments about it ... and then someone decides to bully people into silence about the fpp by publishing real names

instead of whining and crying about what someone says about an fpp in the thread, maybe YOU guys should follow your own advice and flag it

unless you think bullying and outing people is a better means to deal with it

how ironic this happened in a thread about a thread about a gang rape and curbstomp ... and you people thought you were "different"
posted by pyramid termite at 10:07 AM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


I...think posting someone's name (when they've posted it to their profile themselves, for all of that) is quite a bit different from gangrape, thank you very much. It's even quite a bit different from essentially calling the victim of a gangrape an inconsiderate pussy for committing suicide in the wake of his trauma. I see why posting the name was wrong (now), but seriously, let's try to keep some fucking perspective on this shit.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:12 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I...think posting someone's name (when they've posted it to their profile themselves, for all of that) is quite a bit different from gangrape, thank you very much.

it's the same mentality at work ... don't like it? ... change your mentality
posted by pyramid termite at 10:14 AM on July 3, 2007


It's not even remotely the same mentality. Great googly moogly.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:14 AM on July 3, 2007


pyramid - I strongly disapprove of googling bombing in this context and I'm glad the name was removed. I just think you're way out of line.

The mentality in this thread is that someone should be held accountable for their actions (I think Metafilter has built-in accountability enough and that googlebombing is not appropriate here). The skin heads believe that brown people deserve to be brutalized, dehumanized and ultimately killed because of their race.

Maybe I missed something, but these are not the same. Simply because you can point out an equivalence does not make it so.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:21 AM on July 3, 2007


er, that should read "someone should be account for his/her actions." My bad.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:22 AM on July 3, 2007


"it's the same mentality at work ... don't like it? ... change your mentality"

Oh, bullshit. How is gangrape the same mentality as posting someone's name to googlebomb them? That's like saying a jaywalker has the same mentality as a murderer. Knock off your sanctimony.
posted by klangklangston at 10:26 AM on July 3, 2007


Googlebombing doesn't make someone accountable, though. Regardless of what I think of chudmonkey's comments, a bunch of folks grabbing the "real name" baton and running around waving it is nothing more that a form of petty revenge whose consequences can go far beyond what the self-righteous anticipated and their designated offender deserves.

Now, outing each and every sockpuppet, that would be making people accountable for their actions on MeFi...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2007


it's all about how people react when they see the "other" ... but, go on, keep telling each other your shit doesn't stink and you're too GOOD to persecute others if it makes you feel good

there's much evidence to the contrary on this site for those with an open mind, starting here

but i'll finish this because it's not my task in life to make people face truths they don't want to face
posted by pyramid termite at 10:31 AM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


but i'll finish this because it's not my task in life to make people face truths they don't want to face

Dude, do you know who else felt that way? That's right. A little fella I like to call...Adolf Hitler. pwn3d!

Is there like some higher level of self-righteousness where you can somehow look smugly down upon the self-congratulatingly self-righteous for their self-righteousness? Seriously, it's starting to make me dizzy. Yes, none of us are perfect; yes, all of us -- definitely including you -- still maintain that we're less imperfect than some others (e.g., obvious assholes like chudmonkey). This could make all of us closet nazis, but it probably just makes all of us people. You can face that truth or not.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:39 AM on July 3, 2007


People agree and disagree with all kinds of sentiments, I don't think it's really appropriate to say oh now in this thread we only get to have people who agree post.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I disagree.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:43 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


pyramid termite, whatever good point you may have about treating people respectfully is undermined by the incredible idiocy of claiming that the same mentality excuses both gangrape and googlebombing. You appear to have a faulty personal interaction meter.
posted by OmieWise at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2007


I've been kind out of the loop around, lately. Could somebody please diagram out the current Hiearchy of Douchebaggery so I can keep up? All I can tell from a brief scan is something about mathowie selling his soul to Ann Coulter for a working iPod, and how Google seems to have developed a new gang rape module. Am I missing anything?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'll cop to being thoughtless (driven by being appalled by chudmonkey's utter callousness), but not malicious. I'm half-Luddite on my mother's side, so the thought of googlebombing didn't even enter into it for me.

As for the rest of you crypto-nazis, though, I can't say.
posted by scody at 10:51 AM on July 3, 2007


Most of us have sufficient online presence (like it or not) that the idea that Google-bombing could work did not enter into it for me; I just thought it was funny to say the guy's name over and over. I'm like a six-year-old sometimes. A six-year-old HITLER.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:54 AM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


kittens for breakfast, that reminds me of an entirely true anecdote about about my 6-year-old nephew, who has recently learned -- via the History channel, I think -- who Hitler was. When I was over at my sister's house recently and asked him to help me set the table for dinner, he turned to me and said cheerfully, "Hitler never set the table."
posted by scody at 11:06 AM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


I have this overwhelming urge to type the word YAWN... Yes, the word YAWN... as in Y-A-W-N.

Yep, that's right. That's what I said. Yawnie yawn yawn! YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN.

[Hopefully renders nasty posters temporarily incapable of further typing due to incapacitating fits of yawning]
posted by miss lynnster at 11:10 AM on July 3, 2007


I think pyramid termite is just expressing himself poorly here. The mentality he's discussing is the "make the punishment outweigh the transgression" mentality. Viewed from that perspective, yeah, it's the same mentality. The skinheads think of miscegenation as a transgression, and make their punishment far outweigh it. Some people here think insulting a crime victim who commits suicide is a transgression, and make the punishment far outweigh it.

However, while the mentality may be the same, the degree is totally totally dissimilar.

It's like comparing a kid who tortures ants to Jeffrey Dahmer: yeah, the mentality is the same: they both enjoy watching other living things suffer. However, the degree is so incredibly far apart that it makes the comparison silly. However, the comparison being silly doesn't mean that the mentality is different.

I think that's what pyramid termite was getting at.
posted by Bugbread at 11:12 AM on July 3, 2007


You know who else never set the table, scody's nephew?

That's right: Stephen Hawking.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on July 3, 2007


When I was over at my sister's house recently and asked him to help me set the table for dinner, he turned to me and said cheerfully, "Hitler never set the table."

*shudder*
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on July 3, 2007


(fwiw, googlebombing never even crossed my mind when I repeated scody's sentiment. three times.)

instead of whining and crying about what someone says about an fpp in the thread, maybe YOU guys should follow your own advice and flag it

pt, all of the entirely justified haranguing you're receiving about "violence" is ignoring one more thing you're wrong about. Flagging an FPP is easy, because there's one thing to draw attention to. By the time several pissers wander into a thread and post multiple times, it's gone beyond individual flagging into trainwreck. This particular thread went even beyond that.
posted by mkultra at 11:42 AM on July 3, 2007


Bugbread— Right, so pyramid termite's expressing himself poorly is the same mentality as Adolf Hitler poorly expressing his anti-semitism.

Oh, wait, no, I meant "That's retarded."

I applaud your attempt to rationalize it, and I can, on some level, understand the point you were seeing in his comment, but it's still stupid.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on July 3, 2007


Threadcrapping is lame, but this was a really terrible news/obit filter post that basically amounts to tragedy porn. People do really heinous things to each other, and it's not hard to find these stories if one wishes to dwell on them. What sets this particular guy so above the others as to warrant a metafilter eulogy? Offing himself on a pleasure cruise? Drunken passes at a twelve year old?

Racism is intolerable, and the brutality of the attack was inhuman. But that is borderline child molestation. The beatdown wasn't just about miscegenation. If I caught a 16 year old messing with a twelve-year old, I'm not sure I'd express myself entirely with words.
posted by Manjusri at 12:03 PM on July 3, 2007


I guess it's remotely possible that mentioning his name here a whole bunch of times could do him some harm, but I can't really see how.

It doesn't matter. It's against the guidelines. It doesn't matter what anyone intended and not really worth going back and forth over. If we see people linking people's usernames and real names (other than the person whose name it is, standard disclaimer, blah blah) we'll remove it. This is especially true if the person whose name it is complains.

This does NOT INCLUDE people who have usernames that are basically their actual names or who have used their own actual names frequently in MeFi conversation (e.g. calling y2karl "karl" is not generally a huge transgression though if he doesn't like it, please don't do it anyhow). Otherwise the issue of whether there is or is not harm or whether you were or were not trying to be a jerk about it doesn't really matter.

Googlebombing as I understand it is more like the miserable failure thing, not just trying to make someone's real name and username show up nearby one another.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:05 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wow, now this is what I call Old Skool MetaTalk.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:05 PM on July 3, 2007


If I caught a 30-year-old messing with a 12-year-old, I'm not sure I'd express myself entirely with words, either. I'm quite sure I would not express myself that way, however. If I caught a 16-year-old messing with a 12-year-old...? If by "messing with" you mean "consensual kissing," I don't think I'd do shit, to be honest. I don't think that's statutory anything, and if I didn't know them well enough to know their ages, I might not realize there was an age gap at all. And mind you, this is all working from the premise that the attackers were even telling the truth. On the whole, what you're presenting is an impossibly weak argument for just starting to excuse actions you yourself describe as "inhuman"...I don't think there's much for a devil's advocate to work with on this one.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:13 PM on July 3, 2007


Aaaaaand this is why after two years of membership, I continue to refrain from posting an FPP. Every time I see something cool, thought-provoking, or worthy of discussion, I realize that posting on the Blue brings more trouble than it's worth dealing with. So I save it for later or print it out or discuss it with people I know won't be mocking my interest in it, or reacting like a pack of rabid dogs to the fact that we're discussing it at all, in violation of ever-shifting standards of community acceptance, which are really just the hollering of a select few.

My $5 was worth Ask Metafilter alone: I'm happy I'm getting a lot out of that area of the site, and that's where I plan to stay.
posted by mdonley at 12:16 PM on July 3, 2007 [7 favorites]


klangklangston writes "Right, so pyramid termite's expressing himself poorly is the same mentality as Adolf Hitler poorly expressing his anti-semitism."

I dunno, I think he expressed it pretty well. Now, if the reality were that Hitler secretly loved Jews, and that was his way of expressing it...

But, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that pyramid termite was right on target (hence my "kid burning ants versus Jeffrey Dahmer eXtreme cOmparison"), just that it wasn't completely nonsensical, just mostly so.
posted by Bugbread at 12:22 PM on July 3, 2007


But, if it weren't for this thread, I'd have thought chudmonkey's real name was Ann Coulter.

Of course, I fully support deleting his name from this thread, along with deleting his account and his entire posting history. But I am not a moderator. I am not even moderate.

I am especially sickened by those who called the victim's original 'transgression' to be "borderline child molestation". Stop watching the "Catch a Predator" show and return to the real world. Speaking as one with someone very close to me a victim of heinous child sexual abuse, you have trivialized her suffering and life-long damage as much as you trivialized David Ritcheson's. Shove a flag up your ass and move on.
posted by wendell at 12:23 PM on July 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


pyramid termite, whatever good point you may have about treating people respectfully is undermined by the incredible idiocy of claiming that the same mentality excuses both gangrape and googlebombing. You appear to have a faulty personal interaction meter.

Oh, come on. This "that's insane!" response to pyramid termite's point is a knee-jerk response to what is (rightly) seen as an inappropriate comparison of two things that are greatly different...in degree. But PT said "mindset" and he's exactly right. Gang rape is a thuggish, group-oriented attack on someone intended to humiliate/shame them as much as possible. So is google-bombing. Jaywalking and car-jacking a city bus for a joyride are the same mentality even though, in degree, they are so disimilar as to be laughable. Well, the same is true of gang-rape and google-bombing.

It would have served pyramid termite better had he made explicit that he is aware that the differences in degree are so stark and extreme that it's a difficult comparison he was making; but the underlying point is a sound one and he was right to make it.

People have an ugly tendency to band together and brutally punish someone they think has transgressed boundaries of decency. That's exactly what the gang-rapers were thinking, and that's exactly what a bunch of people google-bombing someone is thinking. The fact that everyone here agrees that the gang-rapists were wrong in their judgment about trangression and the google-bombers are right in their judgments about transgression should be beside the point. What people should be more aware of is that this impulse of ganging up on someone and then embarrassing them publicly is a bad thing that, even when motivated by the right reasons, ends up making the world a little worse rather than a little better.

It's not about YOU.

mkultra, I think you and others are guilty of this yourselves as you are judging everyone else behavior through the lenses of your own very strong responses to the content of the post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:24 PM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


Jaywalking and car-jacking a city bus for a joyride are the same mentality even though, in degree, they are so disimilar as to be laughable. Well, the same is true of gang-rape and google-bombing.

My point. I don't disagree that there's an element of ugliness to any dogpile (this wasn't much of a dogpile, though...), but drawing any kind of comparison between nearly raping someone to death with a length of pipe and posting a person's name (not even an "outing," since that person posted his own name to his profile) on a message board...I'm sorry, but this like at an Ann Coulter level of preposterously far-fetched overblown bullshit. There is no intelligent argument to be made for it. I would be offended as hell by the comparison were it not too incredibly ludicrous to be taken remotely seriously.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:33 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


If I caught a 16 year old messing with a twelve-year old, I'm not sure I'd express myself entirely with words.

Assuming, of course, that you'd know on sight that the 16-year-old is 16 and that the 12-year-old is 12.

I caught Paul Wight (aka The Big Show, a WWF/WWE wrestler) being interviewed on some Late Night show quite a few years ago. As per his name he's freakin' massive, but seemed like an all around nice guy. He was telling the tale of his first kiss...

Apparently, when he was a young teen (13 or 14) he was dating a young girl of approximately the same age. However, because of his pituitary condition he was already rather tall, beefy, and had to shave - basically he looked somewhere in his 20s. So him and his little girlfriend were rollerskating at a roller-rink. They take a break and go off to a somewhat private spot. As he goes in for his first kiss, a security guard races up behind him, jerks him away and throws him to the ground. As I recall, only his girlfriend screaming and yelling that he was her age - not some 20-something creep - stopped the whole scene from escalating and having the cops involved.
posted by CKmtl at 12:44 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


kittens for breakfast writes "drawing any kind of comparison between nearly raping someone to death with a length of pipe and posting a person's name"

I think that's the dissonance right there. Some people are reading pyramid termite's comparison as between raping someone to death and posting a person's name, while others are reading it as a comparison between the way of thinking that lies behind them.

Like: "I feel about fermented bean paste the way Pol Pot felt about factory owners" - Some people would interpret that as basically true, because I really, really despise fermented bean paste. Others would think it ludicrous, because they'd think of it as a comparison between myself and a brutal murderer of millions of people.
posted by Bugbread at 12:48 PM on July 3, 2007


not even an "outing," since that person posted his own name to his profile

MetaTalk is crawled by Google, your profile page is not. I don't have a dog in the Hitler fight, as per usual, but regardless of what you think about the naming names part of this, it's against the guidelines and having your name in your profile doesn't mean it's kosher to use it on the rest of the site.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:55 PM on July 3, 2007


"My $5 was worth Ask Metafilter alone: I'm happy I'm getting a lot out of that area of the site, and that's where I plan to stay."

Then hustle your ass back over there pronto, before you ruin any more of the gray with your reasonableness.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2007


mkultra, I think you and others are guilty of this yourselves as you are judging everyone else behavior through the lenses of your own very strong responses to the content of the post.

Oh, come off it. The objectionable stuff in the post was neither invited by the FPP itself nor welcome by anyone with any shred of humane dignity.

A more appropriate analogy to draw might be about feeling the need to compulsively announce yourself in every situation, regardless of whether you have anything to add.
posted by mkultra at 1:00 PM on July 3, 2007


Can we have kittens for breakfast
Mommy dear mommy dear
They gotta have 'em on Metafilter
Where everyone's a genius

(No wait, that's not as profoundly parodic as I thought, never mind.)
posted by davy at 1:01 PM on July 3, 2007


Aaaaaand this is why after two years of membership, I continue to refrain from posting an FPP. Every time I see something cool, thought-provoking, or worthy of discussion, I realize that posting on the Blue brings more trouble than it's worth dealing with. So I save it for later or print it out or discuss it with people I know won't be mocking my interest in it, or reacting like a pack of rabid dogs to the fact that we're discussing it at all, in violation of ever-shifting standards of community acceptance, which are really just the hollering of a select few.

I'll assume that your non-posts would have been good and we've missed something by driving you away from posting them. But as far as I'm concerned, I feel confident that the effect you are whinging about here dissuades far more crap posts than good posts. That's a good thing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:04 PM on July 3, 2007


Oh, come off it. The objectionable stuff in the post was neither invited by the FPP itself nor welcome by anyone with any shred of humane dignity.

Come off it, yourself. I get the impression from what you've written here and some comments in that thread that "objectionable stuff" not only includes the "blaming the victim" comments, but all other comments that dont' reflect less than your level of outrage, including those that question the appropriateness of the post. That's making it about you, making your sensibility that benchmark for everyone else's behavior.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:07 PM on July 3, 2007


[Insert pithy profundity here.]
posted by davy at 1:08 PM on July 3, 2007


"That's making it about you, making your sensibility that benchmark for everyone else's behavior."

But Bligh, you do it too. That's what the Internet is for, that and pr0n, assuming they're not the same thing, right?
posted by davy at 1:10 PM on July 3, 2007


jessamyn: but regardless of what you think about the naming names part of this, it's against the guidelines and having your name in your profile doesn't mean it's kosher to use it on the rest of the site.

Ok, JESSAMYN! Whatever you say, JESSAMYN! We'll all listen to you, JESSAMYN!

Oooo, burn! Hot like fireworks!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:13 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


MetaTalk is crawled by Google, your profile page is not. I don't have a dog in the Hitler fight, as per usual, but regardless of what you think about the naming names part of this, it's against the guidelines and having your name in your profile doesn't mean it's kosher to use it on the rest of the site.

I was replying to the Hitler argument -- my only excuse re: the guidelines argument is poor memory. I do understand now that this is something that's simply not done.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:14 PM on July 3, 2007


Kittens: By "inhuman" I meant to convey something much worse than inexcusable. You are correct that I may be reading too much into "a drunken pass". That could describe anything from a reasonably innocent kiss to a sexual advance. Given the circumstances, I made a (possibly unwarranted) assumption that it was more the latter.

Wendell: Molestation is an umbrella term that can apply to an unwanted sexual advance. This does not trivialize its more severe forms. Nor does David's mistake trivialize his suffering, but it does reflect on his character.

A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance and, if such occurred, it would warrant corrective action. I think we are all clear that what actually happened in no way resembled a reasonable response. Pyramid's observation on the irony of the mob vigilante justice mentality this thread evoked is dead on.
posted by Manjusri at 1:15 PM on July 3, 2007


I get the impression

Well, that's your problem, not mine. If you want to pick fights based on invented scenarios, then, you might want to try high school.
posted by mkultra at 1:15 PM on July 3, 2007


"A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance."

Prove it. Show me rigorous peer-reviewed scientific studies.
posted by davy at 1:24 PM on July 3, 2007


But Bligh, you do it too.

I try not to.

Well, that's your problem, not mine.

Okay. I'll then toss aside my attempt at agreeableness via qualification of subjectivity, which you've used against me, and talk in absolutes as you and others are wont to do.

You're upset at more than just blaming the victim comments. You're complaining that everyone isn't giving the subject of the thread the amount of respect it deserves. You're using your own evaluation of the importance of the subject matter of the thread as the benchmark against which the behavior of other people is being condemned. That's as self-involved as those you are criticizing.

Furthermore, you're demonstrating this in this thread. You're dripping with outrage and taking offense at things like my mild criticism and reacting with hostility. Why? Because you're all worked up about this. You. You're all worked up about this.

It's perfectly fine to get all worked up about something and to complain about other people's behavior. We do that every day here. But the hypocrisy of the complaint that people who aren't taking the thread as seriously as you are is "making it all about themselves" is really quite annoying. Your standard for the correct behavior in that thread is no more privileged than is those you are criticizing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:31 PM on July 3, 2007


"A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance."

Prove it. Show me rigorous peer-reviewed scientific studies.


We don't need scientific studies for that. It's what the applicable law says. Just like 12 year olds can't join the military or enter into a binding contract. It's not possible. If you don't like it, write your state legislature demanding the age of consent be lower to 10 or 11.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:35 PM on July 3, 2007


A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance and, if such occurred, it would warrant corrective action.

I think you're thinking of a twelve-month-old. Laws vary, but if you're talking about a case of two minors -- as this was -- I'm not sure things are so cut and dried. And again, it's pretty far removed from the point anyway...there is NO circumstance that makes what happened to his kid in any way justifiable, and certainly not this one, even if things happened exactly as his openly racist attackers -- not the most reliable source! -- claimed.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:36 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Such comments as Manjusri's doctrinaire assertion concerning the capabilities of all given "minors" are, to quote E_B, "making your sensibility that benchmark for everyone else's behavior." If one must do so one should at least be talking about something with some basis in fact, such as "what goes up must come down" or even "high levels of LDL cholesterol are correlated with arterial damage." Otherwise I'll go on equating "a twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance" with "exactly 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin."
posted by davy at 1:36 PM on July 3, 2007


No wait, that's not as profoundly parodic as I thought, never mind.

You should probably work on having these realizations before you comment, rather than after.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:37 PM on July 3, 2007


A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance.

When I was fourteen, and a twelve-year-old cousin of a friend of mine sat down next to me, put her head on my shoulder, and then kissed me, I can assure you that I was a fourteen-year-old who was capable of consenting to a sexual advance.

It stopped after a little making out (and FWIW I didn't know she was twelve) but you've got to remember that when you're hanging out with kids within a few years of your age, it's hard to tell how old they are, and physical/emotional maturity varies quite a bit from person to person.

Or, better: how old are you? Now, run around and figure out how many of your officemates are your age exactly, how many are no more than two years in either direction, and how many are more than that.
posted by davejay at 1:39 PM on July 3, 2007


Manjusri: "A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance."

Me: "Prove it. Show me rigorous peer-reviewed scientific studies."

Pater Aletheias: "We don't need scientific studies for that. It's what the applicable law says."

Another "applicable law" said "the Earth is the center of the Universe and the Sun revolves around it." Scientific studies, once they were done, disproved that.
posted by davy at 1:41 PM on July 3, 2007


A twelve year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual advance...

That's completely true in a legal sense in many jurisdictions. Whether that's true in a common language use of "consent", and with a mind toward a commonly understood degree of "informed" qualifying that consent, is another matter. A lot of people are inclined to take legally necessary fictions, like age of consent, to be a description of reality, which they are not.

Personally, I think quite a few twelve-year-olds are capable of informed consent to a sexual advance and, in general, are old enough to have sex with whomever the like. The problem, though, is that "quite a few" is far fewer than "all" or "most" and how do we tell them apart? The upside of allowing the relatively rare twelve-year-old capable of having sexual autonomy is dwarfed by the downside of allowing the much larger number of twelve-year-olds sexual autonomy who are not capable of having it. Thus we make a sweeping, all-inclusive rule. Like we do in so many other cases.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:44 PM on July 3, 2007


"You should probably work on having these realizations before you comment, rather than after."

Did you try not to do that too? "Making your sensibility that benchmark for everyone else's behavior," I mean.
posted by davy at 1:47 PM on July 3, 2007


mkultra writes "If you want to pick fights based on invented scenarios, then, you might want to try high school."

Did he actually explicitly say he wanted to pick fights based on invented scenarios? Or was that just your impression about what he said?
posted by Bugbread at 1:50 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


...it does reflect on his character.
And a lot of assholes believe your character has to be above a certain arbitrary standard to deserve sympathy as a victim. I, for one, would consider it more tragic than ironic if his attackers suffer similar fates to his (and at a 'PMITA' prison, they just might).

Pyramid's observation on the irony of the mob vigilante justice mentality this thread evoked is dead on.
The whole concept of the "MetaFilter Mob Mentality" is nothing more than an excuse for inexcusable behavior. The pressure AGAINST groupthink here is so strong, that "me too" comments (including the "just adding my respects" period) are attacked as often as not. If you READ the thread, you will find that the nature of most of the attacks on the trollmonkey and his ilk were not in the "I agree with x" format, but rather the "these other people didn't say it right... here's what I FEEL and I MEAN." If you gathered a hundred MeFites together in real life and put Adolf (yes, I Godwined) Hitler in front of them, they would hurt each oter as much as they hurt Der Fuhrer. This is not an Echo Chamber. A semi-overwhelming majority of commenters may agree on one or two points, but they can be relied to bring up dozens more points that no one can agree upon. That's what's good about MetaFilter.
posted by wendell at 1:52 PM on July 3, 2007


Pater Aletheias writes "We don't need scientific studies for that. It's what the applicable law says. Just like 12 year olds can't join the military or enter into a binding contract. It's not possible. If you don't like it, write your state legislature demanding the age of consent be lower to 10 or 11."

Er, well, if we're going by the law, the kid who made the sexual advance also wasn't capable of consent, either. Gets a bit confusing when both parties are underage. If I remember my Texas law correctly, it's a 2 year difference for under-age folks. That is, if a 13 year old has sex with a 12 year old, both are incapable of consent, both are victims under the law, and there is no legal action taken. If it's a 15 year old and a 12 year old, neither is capable of consent, but the 12 year old is more incapable than the 15 year old, so the 15 year old gets punished.
posted by Bugbread at 1:57 PM on July 3, 2007


Personally, I think American school districts should start Sex Education in grade school, increasing its depth and detail each grade as we do with math or reading, so that, if a 12 year old has sex (whether s/he meets whatever criterion one uses for judging "fitness to consent") s/he will at least know how to avoid pregnancy and/or STDs; condoms and other such non-prescription birth-control devices should also be provided free for the taking to anyone, as scientific studies (which can be found online) have shown that such barrier methods are likely to help in preventing pregnancy and STDs.

(Which has even less to do with the ostensible subject of this thread or that one in the Blue, but sometimes I just feel like talking some based-in-fact sense about the Real World.)
posted by davy at 1:59 PM on July 3, 2007


By the way, what does "hate crime" have to do with that assault? Does being in the same Census category make it okay for a bunch of punks to shove a metal pipe up somebody's rectum?

And is it as "tragic" when someone kills himself after being the victim of a pickpocket? What about after other misfortunes, like twisting an ankle?
posted by davy at 2:10 PM on July 3, 2007


I was wondering if anybody thinks the reaction against the initial FPP and this thread is about the crux of the story, that an Hispanic kid was beaten up because of a tenuous reason to explain away the significant racial element. Perhaps the overt racism makes people feel uncomfortable and they don't like to face these feelings, and instead wish them to just disappear... you know, "flag it and move on."

At the same time, the .'ers and their sanctimony is little grating, too.
posted by gsb at 2:13 PM on July 3, 2007


If you gathered a hundred MeFites together in real life and put Adolf (yes, I Godwined) Hitler in front of them

Note for PDX 8th Anniversary Meetup: hire impersonator.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:24 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


You're upset at more than just blaming the victim comments. You're complaining that everyone isn't giving the subject of the thread the amount of respect it deserves.

I'd like to see where, exactly, I do this.

Furthermore, you're demonstrating this in this thread. You're dripping with outrage and taking offense at things like my mild criticism and reacting with hostility.

No, I'm responding to a less-than-valid criticism directed at me by pointing out its flaw. You popped in here to be provocative and create drama out of nothing- don't be surprised that it's not received kindly.
posted by mkultra at 2:25 PM on July 3, 2007


Said cortex: "Note for PDX 8th Anniversary Meetup: hire impersonator."

Are there any cortex impersonators? Should there be?
posted by davy at 2:42 PM on July 3, 2007


Personally gsb, I think this thread and the one it's about are just excuses to play Duelling Sanctimonies. Maybe eventually they'll harmonize about something, e.g., "Cancer Is Bad."
posted by davy at 2:48 PM on July 3, 2007


I'm going to hire myself and bill Matt.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:48 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'd like to see where, exactly, I do this.

Pretty much in everything you type.

I'm not going to speak for whatever-his-name-is, cause I ain't him, but I think the two opinions I expressed were totally valid. I hate the fucking moral outrage posts and all the sanctimonious asses that come with them. They. Are. Pointless. We're not at our weekly church group, we're on a website that's supposed to stimulate us with interesting topics of conversation, or at least with interesting topics. "." or "OMG I'M SO UPSET TOO" are not either.

Also, yes, I understand I'm the devil for makin' a joke about a dead person put through something awful. God forbid any of the Period Patrol do such a thing in their day to day lives, yeah? What a piece of shit I must be! So excuse me while I go tune up my fiddle.
posted by Roman Graves at 2:52 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


OMG! I too am upset at all the sanctimonious asses and their "." comments! And everybody else should be upset too! There ought to be a law against moral outrage!
posted by davy at 2:58 PM on July 3, 2007


There is. It's called the Law of Diminishing Returns.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:01 PM on July 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


I thought that was the thing about the long tail of post-Christmas retail backflow.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:04 PM on July 3, 2007


dios, wendell (et.al) - well said.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:10 PM on July 3, 2007


et.al is my middle name.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:11 PM on July 3, 2007


Only I pronounce it with the long "E".
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:12 PM on July 3, 2007


you et al? poor al.
posted by jonmc at 3:14 PM on July 3, 2007


We're not at our weekly church group, we're on a website that's supposed to stimulate us with interesting topics of conversation, or at least with interesting topics. "." or "OMG I'M SO UPSET TOO" are not either.

It's inherently interesting. Cruelty and its consequences, and human tragedies of all sorts (and on both sides here) and their aftermaths are right up there with the most enduringly interesting stuff around. We always will find it interesting and horrible, and we'll probably always take sides too.
posted by amberglow at 3:16 PM on July 3, 2007 [4 favorites]


It's funny, cause I kind of agree with Roman Graves in that there's not much to say about witnessing a tragedy, but I kind of agree with amberglow in that awareness of events is in and of itself interesting, even if I can't contributing anything more than "wow, that's really awful" to the discussion.
posted by jonson at 3:23 PM on July 3, 2007


jesus. i'm fairly new to posting on mefi. now i'm sorry i gave even $5 to this place. what a bunch of callous, spiteful, ignorant, hateful, fucking obnoxious, sociopathic assholes. ...who, on top of it all, are fucking stupid to boot. if you think the thread site isn't going to be too meaningful, why bother to post on it? repeatedly?

Fixed that for you.

Wasn't there a thread in the grey in which someone (a mod?) gave the definitive answer to all these new members who want to talk about their $5 whenever they get sand in a tender spot? Well, I for one would like to take this opportunity to welcome the noobs to the grey.

Ha-ha! Matt got your five dol-lars, Matt got your five dol-lars! He and the cabal are barbecuing circumcized cats and de-clawed homosexual xtians while voting for George W Bush with your five dollars! Neener neener nee-ner!
posted by Methylviolet at 3:39 PM on July 3, 2007


They. Are. Pointless. We're not at our weekly church group, we're on a website that's supposed to stimulate us with interesting topics of conversation, or at least with interesting topics. "." or "OMG I'M SO UPSET TOO" are not either.

So, how does shitting in the thread solve this problem?
posted by oneirodynia at 3:40 PM on July 3, 2007


And everybody else should be upset too! There ought to be a law against moral outrage!

I don't recall saying any of that. The last thing I'd do is ask everyone to agree with me.

In a way, jonson, I agree with both of us too. Human tragedy/nature is interesting, in itself. Most reactions to it aren't.
posted by Roman Graves at 3:41 PM on July 3, 2007


I hate the fucking moral outrage posts and all the sanctimonious asses that come with them. They. Are. Pointless. We're not at our weekly church group, we're on a website that's supposed to stimulate us with interesting topics of conversation, or at least with interesting topics.

If you think a post is fluff, flag it. If your only point and purpose in commenting in a thread is to express how much you think it's pointless, don't be surprised when those who disagree with you take issue with it.

I can't stand Buffy. I think it was a bad TV spinoff of a bad movie. Sarah Michelle Geller makes me want to rip my eyes out and strangle myself with my own optic nerves. We're not at our weekly fanboy comic-shop pizza party. And yet I didn't shit up and down your Buffy post, because I know there's some people who, for reasons I can't fathom, enjoy everything Buffy.

The little green 'N comments' links on the front page don't scream out "Click meeeee. Read meeeeee. LOVE MEEEEE!!"* If you don't like certain topics, don't read posts about them.

*If you actually hear them screaming those things, antipsychotics might be in order.
posted by CKmtl at 3:43 PM on July 3, 2007


Aaaaaand this is why after two years of membership, I continue to refrain from posting an FPP. Every time I see something cool, thought-provoking, or worthy of discussion, I realize that posting on the Blue brings more trouble than it's worth dealing with.

But ya know what... throw it to the wall and see what sticks. Be choosy, sure. But it doesn't have to be any more "trouble" for you than the original post. You don't have to oversee it. You don't even have to comment. Some people will like it, some will hate it, some won't read it. It might get deleted.

I have posted very few FPPs in 2.5 years here. (MeFi: 17 posts, 706 comments | MetaTalk: 4 posts, 558 comments | Ask MeFi: 8 questions, 710 answers). Mostly, because almost every idea I have had has been done before. But when I do find something I think is share-worthy, I toss it up there. I've had at least one deleted. I've had at least one instigate more controversy than I intended. But, guess what? It's OK. Life goes on. MeFites can be notoriously snarky, and some of them can be jerks. But you can't take it personally.

If you have something worth sharing, share. If you don't want to, that's ok too.
posted by The Deej at 3:53 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


Methyl, where'd you find that quote? I don't see it here...
posted by klangklangston at 4:21 PM on July 3, 2007


In the original thread, Klang -- here.
posted by Methylviolet at 4:38 PM on July 3, 2007


And now that comment's gone.
posted by puke & cry at 4:48 PM on July 3, 2007


"That is, if a 13 year old has sex with a 12 year old, both are incapable of consent, both are victims under the law, and there is no legal action taken."

You would think so, but in reality they get charged with abusing each other.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:56 PM on July 3, 2007


now i'm sorry i gave even $5 to this place.

I know how you feel; I once spent about $5 on a really bad hamburger.

As for the sanctimony, I always thought that '.' represented an efficient way of saying "I have nothing specific to say, but I wanted to let you [the poster] know that it had an impact on me, so thanks for posting it." You know, an acknowledgement.

But maybe I'm wrong; maybe it means "look at me, I'm a sanctimonious fucktard." It's a fine line, you know?
posted by davejay at 4:59 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]


mr_crash_davis writes "You would think so, but in reality they get charged with abusing each other."

Yeah, but it's state law, and that case was Utah. My comment was about Texas (where I'm from, and where this particular crime happened). The only problem is that my knowledge is extremely old and minimal, based on some sort of legal discussion in a class in high school (circa 1990/1991), where people were trying to figure out who they could date (basically, lots of 17 year olds dating 16 year olds who were worried that in a year, they'd be adults, and their girlfriends would still be minors, and does that mean they'd go to jail for "dating").
posted by Bugbread at 5:05 PM on July 3, 2007


101 fpps here. My personal posting style is to slip in a serious one here and there in between ones about cupcakes that taste like mojitos, Mr. T memorabilia, and vintage sex ed videos. Breaking it up is good, you learn what works & nobody ever calls you boring or predictable. My first post had a MeTa about the nasty comments it inspired too, and that totally freaked me out for a while. But you learn, as The Deej says, to not take it personally.

He's totally right... you learn that it's really good to throw stuff out and see what sticks. Some posts don't work. Some do. Often I'm very pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised, and if I didn't just take the leap I'd never know. (I honestly didn't expect the alcoholic cupcake one to get 40 favorites, I thought people were going to tell me this isn't "recipefilter" or something). I've had a handful of fpps deleted, and I've learned that none of that matters at all. Just like The Deej says, it's okay! Life goes on! And none of it is actually about me or you. Honestly, if people decided my post about musical vegetables was promoting violently murdering innocent carrots, that wouldn't have any effect on my life or change the axis of the sun. And likewise if I got busy and decided to not post for a year, metafilter would go on just fine without me.

Once I stopped caring what anyone else thought and didn't put any pressure on myself, I started having a lot more fun with it & enjoyed this site far more. If you want to make an fpp, the best rule I've found is just to make the quality of post that you might enjoy seeing here. And after you make it, there's no pressure to moderate it if you don't want to... you can walk away from it and never look at again if that's how you feel that day. There are numerous posts I've done that with. If the comments derail and inspire a MeTa, quite often it has nothing to do with the OP whatsoever. If the post was bad and it's your fault, it'll be pretty clear. Otherwise it's not something you need to feel any responsibility for.

Moral of the story: what The Deej said. Don't let this kind of thread scare you off from making an fpp if you want to. Jump on in! The water's pretty warm usually.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:16 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: What The Deej said.

HA! Thank Divine Miss L. :)

posted by The Deej at 5:27 PM on July 3, 2007


I once spent $5 on a New Fast Automatic Daffodils album. Or maybe it was a Blue Aeroplanes album. Either way, it was way disappointing.
posted by klangklangston at 5:30 PM on July 3, 2007


They always tell you the water's warm, so just jump in, but then once you jump in it's actually freezing and the warm spots are all just pee.
posted by The World Famous at 5:41 PM on July 3, 2007


[miss lynnster, did you mean that to go in another MeTa thread?]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:55 PM on July 3, 2007


You popped in here to be provocative and create drama out of nothing

No I didn't. And I wasn't provocative1. Being provocative would require that I use the sort of overheated language and hostility that you've been using. And your post itself just drips with drama.

Man, you're sure caught up in some weird rush to be as hypocritical as possible. You accuse other people making the thread about themselves and in doing so go about it in a way that makes it about you. You accuse me of confusing "seems like" with "is" and then you do the same thing to me, twice. You accuse me of being provocative but ignore that provocative nature of your post and your first comment. You accuse me of creating drama, when your reaction in-thread, your post, and your comments in this thread are all. about. the. drama.

So, what gives? Is this some sort of satirical performance art?

1. Compare the comment you are calling provocative, “mkultra, I think you and others are guilty of this yourselves as you are judging everyone else behavior through the lenses of your own very strong responses”, to “and feel it necessary to burst into a thread like that and announce, "Forget about the FPP, look at me, I'm trying to take a crap here, folks!" Jesus.”. Which is provocative?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:58 PM on July 3, 2007


Wow. Can someone please kick chudmonkey in the nuts for me? kthx.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:59 PM on July 3, 2007


[miss lynnster, did you mean that to go in another MeTa thread?]
posted by jessamyn


Jessamyn, I think misslynnster was referring to this.

posted by The Deej at 6:37 PM on July 3, 2007


Wasn't there a thread in the grey in which someone (a mod?) gave the definitive answer to all these new members who want to talk about their $5 whenever they get sand in a tender spot?

I said this once, and I reckon it bears repeating, even if I have no idea who to direct it to: "I'd just like to tell anyone who ever has or will mention their precious five dollars that I paid my five dollars ($5.7993 CAD!!!) with the expectation that admins will do their best to ensure the site is clear of your moronically shitty cruft."

And puke & cry's dropped a few bon mots on the subject if I recall correctly. We're rockers, not mods, though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:41 PM on July 3, 2007


The post in question exists for one purpose: to start protracted arguments among members. There is nothing enlightening or 'best of the web' about it, nothing to really 'discuss'. If every terrible incident that's occurred in the world was hurriedly reported on the front pages of MeFi, the front page would be right shite.
posted by deern the headlice at 8:05 PM on July 3, 2007


I hate to say this, but does anyone else get the sense that this thread degenerated (at times) nearly as quickly as the FPP, if not quite as completely? The amount of energy wasted in these 'let's talk about talking to one another about talking, plus dull in-jokes' exchanges is remarkable.

I think MeFi represents five of the best dollars I've spent in the last decade, but this FPP-related chatter runs strictly counter to that feeling.

Just because people can shit all over one another given any conversational prompt doesn't mean they should, for Christ's sake.
posted by waxbanks at 8:14 PM on July 3, 2007


I don't understand why posting a controversial comment in a controversial thread counts as shitting.

This is kind of like the comments sections of major political blogs, where any poster who is of the opposite political persuasion instantly gets accused of being a troll.
posted by nasreddin at 8:33 PM on July 3, 2007


This thread did not entertain me. I want my five bucks back, or I'll GOOGLEBOMB YOU ALL!
posted by Kwine at 9:24 PM on July 3, 2007


Just because people can shit all over one another given any conversational prompt doesn't mean they should, for Christ's sake.
posted by waxbanks


Flagged as noise, derail, breaking the guidelines, and FISHED IN!!!!!!!!
posted by The Deej at 9:26 PM on July 3, 2007


Being provocative would require that I use the sort of overheated language and hostility that you've been using.

No, it would require things like coming late to the discussion solely to (a) make points that have already been made so you can (b) make an unsubstantiated personal swipe.

Man, you're sure caught up in some weird rush to be as hypocritical as possible. You accuse other people making the thread about themselves and in doing so go about it in a way that makes it about you.

I fail to see how this is the case. Again, I ask you to provide specifics, which you seem reluctant to do.

You accuse me of confusing "seems like" with "is" and then you do the same thing to me, twice.

Refer to my previous statement. All of my comments toward you come back to your original criticism, which I've said is incorrect and which you've admitted formulating based on inference rather than fact.

You accuse me of being provocative but ignore that provocative nature of your post and your first comment.

If calling out the assholish behavior of some members of the site makes me provocative in your book, then so be it. I've been called far worse by far better.
posted by mkultra at 10:33 PM on July 3, 2007


mkultra, remember that when you gaze into the abyssEthereal Bligh, the abyssEthereal Bligh also gazes into you.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:34 PM on July 3, 2007


If calling out the assholish behavior of some members of the site makes me provocative in your book, then so be it. I've been called far worse by far better.

I'm not calling you a name or insulting you, you doltish putz, I'm simply pointing out that saying fucking flag it and move on, it's not about YOU" and putting words in other people's mouths in the form of a faux-quote, "Forget about the FPP, look at me, I'm trying to take a crap here, folks!" is more provocative
pro·voc·a·tive (prə-vŏk'ə-tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

Tending to provoke or stimulate.
...than my mild and reasonable "mkultra, I think you and others are guilty of this yourselves as you are judging everyone else behavior through the lenses of your own very strong responses". Claiming that I posted my comment to be provocative is a stupidly, laughably hypocritical accusation for you to make.

I appreciate this thread, though, because now when I read a post or comment by mkultra I'll remember you well enough to think to myself, "oh, it's by that egregiously imbecilic unself-aware drama queen fuckwit who can't take the mildest of criticism and embarrasses himself by shoving his head up his extraordinarily hypocritical asshole." What's a hypocritical asshole? I don't exactly know, but after this exchange, I'm quite sure you have one.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:31 AM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fucking flag it and move on. It's not about YOU.

funny how community standards changed so quickly in one day, isn't it?

but, as is so often the case, it's all according to whose ox gets gored
posted by pyramid termite at 6:43 AM on July 4, 2007


>> "And everybody else should be upset too! There ought to be a law against moral outrage!"

> "I don't recall saying any of that."

That could be because you didn't, exactly; I did! Please try not to be confused, I've got enoug for both of us.

> "The last thing I'd do is ask everyone to agree with me."

Why not? I often feel that if everybody agreed with me the world would be a better place. But then I'm so special I can be a sanctomonious asshole without posting pointless dots.

As for Ethereal Bligh and his disagreeing interlocutors, I think they might try a decent laxative.

(Hey quonsar, have any cute amoeba pictures?)
posted by davy at 7:28 AM on July 4, 2007


You know what's interesting, there is this site called 'claimID' which was supposed to help people associate their names with themselves on search engines, or something like that. It doesn't work, in fact the site now has a page rank of zero. In fact, it doesn't seem like it's indexed at all.

Metafilter, on the other hand, is definitely indexed. If you posted a guy's name in the blue it would definitely show up on search results for his name, unless it was all over the internet.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 AM on July 4, 2007


delmoi, Google just found 803,000 listings for people with my first & last names. Lawyers, doctors, newspaper reporters...

O fellow Mefites, help me pick a unique, meaningful and intelligent name.
posted by davy at 9:48 AM on July 4, 2007


wilma cohen felcher?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 AM on July 4, 2007


Benjamin Dover?
posted by Methylviolet at 10:58 AM on July 4, 2007


Artemus Gordon?
posted by vronsky at 11:29 AM on July 4, 2007


william of ockham had a brother, mike ... he didn't have a razor though, just a sheepskin
posted by pyramid termite at 12:18 PM on July 4, 2007


You guys like to argue a lot amongst yourselves, I notice.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 6:26 PM on July 4, 2007


It's more or less the hamster wheel on which the community runs, Henry.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:34 PM on July 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


And they say there is no such thing as perpetual motion..
posted by Chuckles at 6:53 PM on July 4, 2007


I do have a dog in this fight and he will mess you up.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:59 PM on July 4, 2007


having your name in your profile doesn't mean it's kosher to use it on the rest of the site.

Beware of email addresses too.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:18 PM on July 4, 2007


O fellow Mefites, help me pick a unique, meaningful and intelligent name.

My secret weapon is to do lots of good or neutral stuff that gets indexed by Google, which washes out lame attempts to smear my name.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:16 PM on July 4, 2007


O fellow Mefites, help me pick a unique, meaningful and intelligent name.

Ella Bella McDivot.

This is actually the name of a child at my kids' daycare. It's only the best name in the history of mankind is all.
posted by davejay at 12:00 PM on July 5, 2007


that is a fab name, davejay : >
posted by amberglow at 12:37 PM on July 5, 2007


cool name davejay

reminded me of this article i read recently.

help me brand my baby
posted by vronsky at 2:32 PM on July 5, 2007


I loved that baby-branding article, Vronsky. LOLyuppies.
posted by Methylviolet at 7:41 PM on July 5, 2007


« Older Can we get someone else to do ...  |  Update to the White Glove Trac... Newer »

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