IraqFilter Really Sucks.

IraqFilter Is Awful. Is there some wide swath of MeFi users who derive a lot of enjoyment or benefit out of posts like this, which seem to surface whenever somebody pens an op-ed that criticizes the Iraq war (i.e., fairly frequently)? Here's the pattern: (1) op-ed is published; (2) op-ed is copied to MeFi; (3) posters say how bad President Bush is; (4) a poster or two will defend the administration; and (4) posters will attack the defenders until they no longer respond. Am I the only one who thinks that is tedious?
posted by Slap Factory to MetaFilter-related at 7:51 PM (416 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

War is hell.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:59 PM on July 22, 2007 [2 favorites]

MeFi is often called a "community blog."

While it may be tedious, it's the collective thought/opinion of the community that reads the site.

I just skip over it when I'm sick of it, and you should too. If you are incapable, perhaps MeFi isn't the right community for you?
posted by twiggy at 8:00 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Hey! Look out for that bus!"

"Shut up about the oncoming bus. I want to look at furries doing dance routines."

Splat.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:00 PM on July 22, 2007 [3 favorites]

In agreement with the tedious-ness. I'm beginning to feel the same way after this thread discussed something similar.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:03 PM on July 22, 2007

Am I the only one who thinks that is tedious?

no, you're just the only one who chose to spread that tedium to metatalk today
posted by pyramid termite at 8:04 PM on July 22, 2007 [2 favorites]

That's right. Because I can't see a fucking bus without you banging me over the head.
posted by found missing at 8:05 PM on July 22, 2007 [4 favorites]

Two posts on the war by the same user four days apart seems a bit much. However standing by itself today's post isn't deletion-worthy.
posted by gubo at 8:07 PM on July 22, 2007

If you think y2karl just posts whatever opinion pieces he finds, you're nuts. Save your vitriol for something worthy of it: calling out karl is old and busted. The new hotness is complaining about your deletions.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:09 PM on July 22, 2007

No, I'm wrong. The new new hotness is complaining about relationship-filter and rehab-filter in askme. That heroin MeTa is a thing of beauty!
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:11 PM on July 22, 2007

Absolutely. We have discussed this approximately 100 times here. Shall I lay out all the arguments and get it over with?

Talking Points for Side A:
*Iraq is important
*I like posting about Iraq and I am a member of this site
*Many people like these posts
*If you don't like it don't click on it
*Censorship is bad
*We have to rally opposition to this war
*If you don't like Iraq posts it is because your head is in the sand or perhaps up your ass

Talking Points for Side B:
*Metafilter is supposed to be the best of the web
*We can read this same shit everywhere else
*You can talk about this shit everywhere else
*Politics poisons the site and drives away users who are not part of the group think
*These posts are pretty much all the same
*Making web posts against the war to people who are already against the war is just jerking off
*Get your own blog fuck wit

I missed a few points on each side, but that is the gist of it.
posted by LarryC at 8:14 PM on July 22, 2007 [18 favorites]

If you're referring to rockhopper defending the war, I wouldn't defend that guy one bit. He's either a fucking moron neocon or he was trolling. Hopefully he never comes back after his week off.
posted by puke & cry at 8:16 PM on July 22, 2007

As far as IraqFilter goes, y2karl's are pretty damn good.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:16 PM on July 22, 2007

In a perfect world I would have just killed the thread with the above, but alas, this sucker will go to 200 comments it it doesn't get closed first.
posted by LarryC at 8:16 PM on July 22, 2007

y2karl's posts take craps that are better posts than almost everything else here.
posted by mkultra at 8:22 PM on July 22, 2007 [8 favorites]

On the plus side, there was a banhammer in the current thread.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:23 PM on July 22, 2007

That post was a little week, but most of y2karl's Iraq posts are quite good and not just posts to Op-eds. Also we don't have as much Iraqfilter as we did say a year or two ago. If you really can't stand two posts in a week, maybe you are thinking about the issue a whole lot more than you let on.
posted by afu at 8:24 PM on July 22, 2007

Know, your week.
posted by found missing at 8:26 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

As far as IraqFilter goes, y2karl's are pretty damn good.

Especially as they are usually indented, making them easier to spot & skip past.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:26 PM on July 22, 2007

Wow, I take it Rockhopper wrote some ban worthy comments that were deleted?
posted by LarryC at 8:27 PM on July 22, 2007

As far as IraqFilter goes, y2karl's are pretty damn good.

I agree, however I personally dislike them for MetaFilter for a few reasons. The blockquote format doesn't fit in with the rest of the site and the IraqFilter posts are almost always in that format. The same with taking up the first four inside comments with more blockquotes and links. It's just not the way MeFi is supposed to work. It's classic GYOB activity. There are always a small group of people who enjoy them and I think at this point they're being skipped by most MeFites. They get flagged a lot (it used to be they'd get some "fantastic" flags, less so now, but stil some favorites) and are hard to moderate as they often result in a lot of infighting and insulting in the comments. And at the same time the comment sections are almost always rehashing pretty similar stuff. The same people taking the same sides.

If they were once every month or two or so, I think I'd feel differently. As it is, I honestly feel that they're IRAQ UPDATE posts which means that, from a moderator perspective, none of them are different from any other and if we took a stance and removed one of them then we'd have taken some precedent-setting stance to basically disallow this sort of post. They're in a class by themselves so you either need to keep them all or delete them all, there's no other way they break the guidelines in any strict sense.

I know that calling these posts "tedious" does tend to get the "well don't you think the Iraquis think the war is tedious, when they're not busy getting killed?" and yes, the war is terrible in my opinion. However, another post to MetaFilter about the same terrible war that is, in most cases still being terrible in the same ways, seems to me to not really be the sort of thing we shoudl encourage or continue to sustain here. I basically hand off deletion choices for these posts to mathowie or cortex because I feel like I've made up my mind about them. I'd like to see y2karl get his own blog for them. I think people would read them.
posted by jessamyn at 8:29 PM on July 22, 2007 [14 favorites]

Wow, I take it Rockhopper wrote some ban worthy comments that were deleted?

He made some dumb remark, then turned it into a game about himself, as he did in a few other threads. Something like: "look at me, you silly leftiez! I'm on a cross! Whee!"
posted by Burhanistan at 8:30 PM on July 22, 2007

We shouldn't discuss any and all developments in regards to Iraq on MetaFilter.

Our time is best spent talking about David Beckham's Galaxy debut (OMG ... Katie Holmes Cruise and daughter Suri were there !!!).
posted by ericb at 8:40 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

"developments"
posted by found missing at 8:44 PM on July 22, 2007

Our time is best spent talking about David Beckham's Galaxy debut

That wouldn't be Best of the Web, either.
posted by deern the headlice at 8:45 PM on July 22, 2007

I think rockhopper was a systemic problem child, not so much that he made some annoyingly trollish/look at me! comments in one thread, but that that is almost exclusively what he does/did.

There have been a number of Iraq threads already deleted within the past few days, so I think the roar is a little less then you would think. Flag 'em if you want, or even drop a note to an admin. These days I think such actions are more beneficial than Meta.
posted by edgeways at 8:48 PM on July 22, 2007

If they were once every month or two or so, I think I'd feel differently.

Looking y2karl's history they do seem to be about every month or two. Two in July, none in June, one post about Desert Storm in May, one in April and one in March. Unless you are deleting some of his Iraq related posts, he doesn't seem to post them that much. He does post a lot of Politicsfilter, but I think his post's qaulitry are usually above average.
posted by afu at 9:00 PM on July 22, 2007

I'd like to see y2karl get his own blog for them.

I seem to recall him saying clearly that he's not interested in doing that, and further (although I'm more hazy about this) that that is because he has an audience here.

Me, I have no problem with the occasional post about the Iraq debacle and the dissolution of America and all of that, for what it's worth. I understand the impulse of outrage and despair that drives people to make them, I think, even if I don't allow myself to get similarly worked up about it. And watching people argue on the internet is more fun than actually doing it sometimes.

The posts feed my schadenfreude in a pleasing way, and hell, anything's better than another wanky Youtube 1-linker.

Am I the only one who thinks that is tedious?

Yes, yes you are. You are special, and you are smart. We love you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

a poster or two will defend the administration

I wouldn't call those comments any sort of defense. They are worthless driveby sort of nonsense. Just LGF filler noise. Guys like Rockhopper don't stick around to "debate" or defend they make some goofy strawman statement and then run.

I like most of Y2Karls posts. They are most definitely NOT typical newsfilter. After all heaven forbid we be reminded of the nasty business of war between Harry Potter posts.
posted by tkchrist at 9:05 PM on July 22, 2007

Also: I meant to say 'wacky' not 'wanky'. Minor difference, I know.

Also also: this thread is kinda eponysterical.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:13 PM on July 22, 2007

The only issue I have with these is the blockquotes. I wouldn't mind seeing them edited or deleted just because of that.
posted by puke & cry at 9:16 PM on July 22, 2007

As was stated y2karl has already said he has no interest in his own blog. Compared to his audience here, he'd be writing to almost no one. So although I agree with Jessamyn this callout is pointless. It's deja vu all over again.

After all heaven forbid we be reminded of the nasty business of war between Harry Potter posts.

You're assuming that people completely put the war out of their minds until they come to metafilter and then OMG there's a war! Your assumption is incorrect.
posted by justgary at 9:20 PM on July 22, 2007

You assumed I assumed. And I assumed no such thing. Your assumption is also incorrect.
posted by tkchrist at 9:35 PM on July 22, 2007

If you don't like the post, flag it and move on. It's not hard.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:38 PM on July 22, 2007

If you don't like the post, flag it and move on. It's not hard.

Also, keep names that aren't participating in the thread out of the thread. It's not hard.
posted by justgary at 9:41 PM on July 22, 2007

Excuse me?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:49 PM on July 22, 2007

Go to bed.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:52 PM on July 22, 2007

All in a days work...
posted by Derek at 9:53 PM on July 22, 2007

I like some IraqFilter. Mostly because I like watching it evolve. Bear with me for a second.

Roll back four years and some change when the war started and remember how strident and powerful those conservative voices were. How much fear they spread. How strongly they wanted to shout down anyone opposed to the war. You're just not hearing as much from these people anymore during these posts. Now it's just a pathetic little peep of protest.

If anything, I use it as a way of looking at support for the war amongst people who aren't the cheese-eating, easily-led proles who were originally bought with a three hundred dollar tax cut.
posted by adipocere at 10:08 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

That's because we ran all the thoughtful conservatives away from this site years and years ago.
posted by LarryC at 10:10 PM on July 22, 2007

If Y2 got his own blog, he'd have to post every day, rather then once every few months. Also "Galaxy" is such a wussy name for a sports team.
posted by delmoi at 10:19 PM on July 22, 2007

That's because we ran all the thoughtful conservatives away from this site years and years ago.

Name three. (One or two aren't enough to support your point - the more the better - go for five!)

And while you're at it, give me at least three examples of "thoughtful conservatives" writing anywhere else on the web, to calibrate your definition of the term. I was under the impression they went extinct years and years ago.
posted by wendell at 11:05 PM on July 22, 2007

All those in favor of replacing IraqFilter with NAMBLAFilter or BringBackSlaveryFilter raise your virtual hands.
posted by davy at 11:11 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

y2karl's posts and others like them are wonderful. I'd rather see them than a zillion one-link Youtube thingies, or any more posts about doggie dildos and/or men who love RealDolls.
posted by davy at 11:16 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

give me at least three examples of "thoughtful conservatives" writing anywhere else on the web

Hitch, P.J. O'Rourke, Mark Steyn, Andrew Coyne (probably unknown to anyone outside Canada)

The problem is, Conservatives tend to forget that war involves dying and other sorts of unpleasantness, or, if they do remember that dirty little fact, they trot out the old lie, that it is good and great to die for your country.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:20 PM on July 22, 2007

If y'all ever object to an addiction of mine please don't make me go cold turkey in a small car on the Interstate for 600 miles. It's more humane to shoot me while I'm looking at bunnies.
posted by davy at 11:21 PM on July 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

Mark Steyn?
posted by delmoi at 11:31 PM on July 22, 2007

I hope I can understand and sympathize with Jessamyn's irritation at having to clean out the stables over and over again because of these posts, even though my own appetite for them is undiminished and I always learn things I consider important from them, but as I went through this one I had (something like adipocere did, perhaps) a sense of a sudden and unexpected change in the weather.

People here are so much more worked up about Iraq than they were just two weeks ago, it frightened me a little. If the country as a whole is moving anywhere near as fast as we are on this war, anything could happen.

And most of that anything is likely to be really bad.
posted by jamjam at 11:35 PM on July 22, 2007

>>That's because we ran all the thoughtful conservatives away from this site years and years ago.

>Name three. (One or two aren't enough to support your point - the more the better - go for five!)

You weren't talking to me, but OK, off the top of my head, if I remember correctly: evanizer, UncleFes, and MidasMulligan (who I loathed, but who was at least thoughtful).

The meaning of the word 'conservative' has, of course, been so polluted by small-brained shouters in the media and on the internet and here and everywhere else in recent years as to be rendered meaningless.

There is nothing wrong with being 'conservative', any more than there is with being 'liberal'. They are both sensible and perfectly valid ways of ordering one's beliefs, no matter how often stupid people whip out the words as knee-jerk pejoratives so they can construct easy targets out of their neighbours.

If the current American government actually were conservative in any real sense, you wouldn't be ass deep in unwinnable foreign wars.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:37 PM on July 22, 2007 [3 favorites]

If these posts were popping up several times a day, then, sure, it would get annoying. Even then I'd simply look down five lines to the next fpp.

As it is, I appreciate y2karl's posts, especially in light of the ~~beginning of the end of western civilization~~ fucked-up situation we find ourselves in these days.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:39 PM on July 22, 2007

It's true. y2karl's posts are utterly tedious. The ensuing discussion is invariably merely an idiotic chorus nitwits congratulating each other for opposing the war punctuated by nitwits taking needlessly combative opposing stances. This is largely because the average Mefite has the political intelligence of a hummingbird, but there you go.

Anyway, it's been complained about before, and it's not going to change. Sorry.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:51 PM on July 22, 2007

The meaning of the word 'conservative' has, of course, been so polluted by small-brained shouters in the media and on the internet and here and everywhere else in recent years as to be rendered meaningless.

Exactly. The word "Conservative" has come to mean pro-war and the word "liberal" or "left" now means "against the war" or at least "angry about the war". There are lots of thoughtful people who might otherwise be considered "conservatives" but who don't like the war, making them "liberals"
posted by delmoi at 11:56 PM on July 22, 2007

Unless you are deleting some of his Iraq related posts, he doesn't seem to post them that much.

As for the war, it just isn't going away. I am sick of it, too, sick and horrified and sad and confused but it just isn't going away for me at all. What have we become ?

Here, look at the Iraq tags. Yes, the first two are mine. Now scroll down. Scroll all the way through the beginning of June. Look at all that. I made two posts. Two posts of quotes and links with no added language. Two post in two weeks which are also two posts in two months. I'm not planning on doing any more soon.

It's impossible to look at this from the God's eye view when you are a principal. But a few things are clear to me. I don't post crappy links. My posts are always a lot more than an op-ed. They are quotes of and links to well written pieces providing a wealth of information and what opinons are given are informed opinions from people with considerable expertise and background related to the topic on hand.

I don't write anything anymore--I quote everything because I will get heat for even writing a title in my own words. The same links,were they not as a courtesy designed to be instantly recognizable, and. most especially. were my name not on them, would draw never draw a complaint not a flag. Two posts in two months, providing bit more information than just an op-ed. Do I feel singled out ? Fuck, yes. That's how I see it. But, like I said, it's impossible to be objective when people are taking shots at you. But I just don't think two posts in two months is breaking the machine.

I rarely comment beyond providing additional links. I regret ever reacting personally to what someone has written but sometimes I do. Beyond that, I am not responsible for what other people say, either to or about me or to or about anyone else.

I do not regret posting only two posts in two months. That does not seem a horrible abuse of the system to me.

I did note this at the Iraq tag page:

Users that often use this tag:
jessamyn (60)
dilettante (39)
insomnia_lj (34)
amberglow (33)
digaman (32)
homunculus (31)
y2karl (29)
blue_beetle (28)
kirkaracha (22)
CKmtl (21)
Rumple (20)

I, ahem, am by no means at the top of that list.
posted by y2karl at 12:06 AM on July 23, 2007 [10 favorites]

Oh come on, that's nonsense, Steven, for all but the handful of doctrinaire True Believers (of which I admit there are a small but vocal number).

But just in case, I'm calling dibs on His Holiness Pope Moonbat I.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:29 AM on July 23, 2007

jessamyn and dilettante are at the top of the list because of their back-tagging efforts; note that neither of them has ever posted any actual FPPs with that tag, if thats the, ahem, point youre trying to make.

and its a little disingenuous to claim that you're unfairly singled out - i recognize that the war in iraq, the war on terror, guantanamo bay, vietnam, and iran are different topics, they all still fall under "american foreign policy is a mess".

i count 14 of those so far this year, which is two per month on average, and theyre rarely very interesting and never even-handed. i mean, i fully agree with your point of view on iraq and the bush administration, but frankly as soon as i see the "y2karl blockquote" my eyes just glaze over and i skip past it without reading at this point. sorry, but these posts kind of suck.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 12:54 AM on July 23, 2007 [4 favorites]

y2karl, those numbers are very skewed because of the tagging of old posts.
posted by peacay at 12:58 AM on July 23, 2007

If the current American government actually were conservative in any real sense, you wouldn't be ass deep in unwinnable foreign wars.

There are many policies from this government that are certainly conservative, which people can find legitimate fault with: using the government to foment the public's hatred of anyone who isn't straight; dismantling unions, public education and social insurance programs; creating a legally favorable climate for industries to pollute profitably, poisoning our food, air and water; illegally funding religious activities with tax dollars; increasing corporate consolidation in violation of the spirit of antitrust principles; cutting capital gains taxes to line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the country, etc. etc. etc.

Coulteresque rhetorical tricks have poisoned words, rendering language impotent in that you can't accurately criticize conservatives and their activities, without being labeled with some pejorative of one left-wing flavor or another, or being accused of various seditious tendencies.

Facts don't matter any more. As the Lancet and Johns Hopkins studies show, for example, it's about how emotional you are in denying reality that counts.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 AM on July 23, 2007

There be evidence in favour of previewing after reading through the thread.
posted by peacay at 1:00 AM on July 23, 2007

Oh come on, that's nonsense

I beg to differ; I think SCDB's idea has validity. Just looking at the most recent thread, all the standard shibboleths are there -- Bush, Blackwater, Rumsfeld, Rove, and characterizations from the Brits in the audience that the idiot Americans are too stupid to even read the reports from the obviously biased corporate media. It's all just very ... predictable ... now.

I wonder if this is how it felt to be an engineering major at Berkeley in 1972. Everything's going to hell in a handbasket around you, the summer of love is long over, and the yawning reality of Vietnam is still there. Every damn night in the dorm room common area, it's this "fuck Nixon" shit. There's no "Best of the Web," because the Web hasn't been invented yet. There's no World of Warcraft, obviously -- Dungeons and Dragons won't be invented for another two years. All that's left is roller disco, racquetball and reefer.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:05 AM on July 23, 2007

honestly steven:

I've been advocating war, but I doubt that this web site had any significant influence on decision making in the Whitehouse. While I do know that some government workers read it, I seriously doubt anyone in a position of authority even knows I exist. Nonetheless, I do feel a degree of responsibility; since we're going to embark on a war I've been advocating, I can't disclaim any negative results from the war once it starts.

as the guy who wrote that, you can take your warm and fuzzy and shove it up your ass. you might find your "degree of responsibility" up there.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:14 AM on July 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

The comment immediately preceding mine is a fantastic example of why Iraq war threads are worthless.

It's completely irrational. SCDB's feeling about the war at its outset have absolutely nothing to do with the merit of Iraq war threads posted by someone else today! It's vulgar, too, to boot.

Basically, it's an obnoxious piece of complete nonsense that serves no purpose whatsoever, and it's absolutely representative of the war-related dialog on the site.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:29 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

There are many policies from this government that are certainly conservative, which people can find legitimate fault with: using the government to foment the public's hatred of anyone who isn't straight; dismantling unions, public education and social insurance programs; creating a legally favorable climate for industries to pollute profitably, poisoning our food, air and water; illegally funding religious activities with tax dollars; increasing corporate consolidation in violation of the spirit of antitrust principles; cutting capital gains taxes to line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the country, etc. etc. etc.

I thank you for making my point. None of these things are conservative in any way that makes sense in terms of what the word has actually meant if we reach back further than a few decades; since then the words liberal and conservative have been hijacked by people (it would seem, people like you) to use as a too-easy blanket term for all the things you don't like, politically, and more particularly and unhappily, as I suggested above, to demonize those with whom they disagree.

Don't mistake me. The greasy weasel fuck swine who are running the American government have done all of these things you list (and have for decades, just a little less nakedly than now, perhaps), and I'd be just as happy as the next rabid lefty speed-typing Valuable Internet Opinion spouting dipshit to see them strung up by their own guts. More so, perhaps.

What I object to (quixotically, of course) is sloppy use of language that obfuscates and distracts and creates animus between people who should be searching for common ground, precisely because they order their beliefs about things that transcend politics in different ways.

Coulteresque rhetorical tricks have poisoned words, rendering language impotent in that you can't accurately criticize conservatives and their activities, without being labeled with some pejorative of one left-wing flavor or another, or being accused of various seditious tendencies.

Yes, those in power and those who mouth their turds with opportunistic abandon are very good at hijacking language, and getting better. But it's naively tribal to insist that they're the only ones who are doing it.

There's something to be said for giving back as good as you get, I suppose. One just wishes that people would be a little smarter, and a little less frightened.

I beg to differ; I think SCDB's idea has validity.

And I in turn beg to differ: characterizing what he had to say as an 'idea' (as opposed rote repetition of comforting mantras) is over-kind. 'Valid' is not the same as 'true'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:31 AM on July 23, 2007

Basically, it's an obnoxious piece of complete nonsense that serves no purpose whatsoever, and it's absolutely representative of the war-related dialog on the site.

Jeez, you really don't like Metafilter very much, do you, Mr President? So it has seemed recently, anyway.

Someone with such an amusing username really shouldn't be so grinchy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:32 AM on July 23, 2007

I like Metafilter just fine. Not a big fan of politics and war threads, though.

And I do like bitching.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:37 AM on July 23, 2007

Don't we all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:40 AM on July 23, 2007

Man, stavros is on a roll tonight.

A KAISER ROLL
posted by ludwig_van at 1:42 AM on July 23, 2007

A KAISER ROLL

*cries*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:44 AM on July 23, 2007

alright, alright, i'll tone down the fucking vulgarity. jesus in a wheelchair.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:48 AM on July 23, 2007

546 Days.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:49 AM on July 23, 2007

I thank you for making my point.

To be fair, I did not make your point. These are the same activities that have defined conservatives for years. Perhaps liberal meant something different back in the days of Adam Smith, but those days are long past and it is reasonable to use descriptive terms for modern discourse.

Indeed, you had made my point by reinventing, or redefining the terms "conservative" and "liberal" to be equal:

They are both sensible and perfectly valid ways of ordering one's beliefs

This ironic, if false equivalence makes any criticism of conservatives impossible, despite clear distinctions on the non-Iraq points I listed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:50 AM on July 23, 2007

Iraq Is Awful. Is there some wide swath of neocons who derive a lot of enjoyment or benefit out of wars like this, which seem to surface whenever some tiny group of nutjobs commits terroist attacks the US? Here's the pattern: some extremist flies a plane into a building; America breaks international laws and invades a country with no evidence or plan whatsoever; hundreds of thousands of mostly Arab people die for no reason; and said invaded country becomes so unstable that it falls into civil war. Am I the only one who thinks that is criminally insane behaviour?
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:54 AM on July 23, 2007

These are the same activities that have defined conservatives for years.

Yes, well, that's why I suggested looking back more than three decades or so might be useful.

Whatever. There are times where one gets an inkling that it's just not possible for you and another person to understand one another, no matter how hard you try, sad times when language just doesn't seem to be working the way you want it to, perhaps because you're just not using it well enough.

This is one of those times.

You insist on using words, especially those two that are so charged and so increasingly (even by your own admission) meaningless, in a different way than I do, and in a way that I think is counterproductive and contributory to the political-culture deadlock that grips American and other western societies.

But I'm not going to browbeat you -- if what I said already doesn't make sense to you, nothing I can add will make much of a difference, I suppose.

That's OK. I don't mind if you disagree -- my point was and is that it's more productive to at least make the attempt to find common ground than it is to fall into Attack Mode, which is, despite what we're told and shown every day, a lack of bravery, not evidence of it.

Failure to find common ground is always an option. It's the attempt that matters.

The depressing but hilarious irony of course is that we actually agree politically on most things, I suspect.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:02 AM on July 23, 2007 [3 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks that is criminally insane behaviour?

It's not a crime to be insane around these parts.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:03 AM on July 23, 2007

But it helps!

*badump-tish*

Thank you folks -- I'll be here 'til Thursday! Don't forget to tip your waitstaff!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:04 AM on July 23, 2007

in a way that I think is counterproductive and contributory to the political-culture deadlock that grips American and other western societies.

Those aren't criteria one should use to determine what a word means.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:09 AM on July 23, 2007

Keep fighting the good fight, stavros.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:13 AM on July 23, 2007

Wha? I didn't in any way imply that they were. You're reading me precisely backwards, there, for some reason.

A word means what people agree its meaning to be, either explicitly or implicity. Descriptivism, hoopla woo.

I think that a lot of aggressively political people use certain words in certain ways in bad faith (in my opinion), to convenient demonize those with whom they disagree, that they would rather fling epithets than have an actual discussion, because it's easier and more fun.

That they use the words (that is, conservative and liberal) in ways that are limited and politicized, and that do no justice and much harm to the actual history of thought and belief the words have always represented, well, that's a bummer.

But my argument is not with the meanings that the words have come to have, even if I think it's corrupted -- it's a fool's game to argue that people are using words wrong in some way ("...but 'gay' means 'happy' damn it!"), when most people use them the same way.

My argument (or part of it) is the way in which the words are used, and that they are not a cause but a symptom of...

Ah the hell with it. It's dinner time.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:27 AM on July 23, 2007

It also reassures the participants, making them feel warm and fuzzy by being part of the group, as they all tell one another, "See! We were right after all!"

They were right all along. Really, it's like claiming that people who assert that the Earth orbits the Sun are partaking of some "secular religious ceremony" when they do so.

By any measure, Iraq is a goddamned train wreck. Stating a baldly self-evident fact is not at all akin to worshipping Invisible Sky Buddies in the absence of any supporting evidence.
posted by trondant at 2:33 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sometimes I feel as though there are fifth columnists on MetaFilter, whose sole mission is to disrupt intelligent discussion and obscure truth. I'll bet that as a part of considered and deliberate Republican strategy, there is an action plan to join and troll websites and newsgroups that have an anti-administration slant.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:53 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Huh? Y2k's posts usually include specific details and developments. It's not his fault if it degenerates into the usual wailing and gnashing in a more general way. Sure, you could call that "updatefilter", Jess, but I think most of us would agree that the "people are tired of Iraq -- let's give them something fresh!" approach to media that pretty much all of the traditional outlets bow to is nothing short of despicable, despite saying a good deal about its audience.

As for:

The same with taking up the first four inside comments with more blockquotes and links. It's just not the way MeFi is supposed to work.

Are they wikipedia links and quotes? No. They're meat. Not the way MeFi is supposed to work -- well sure, when people can't be bothered to read a single page article before weighing in with the comments (and I've been as guilty of this at times as anyone), expecting people to digest even more material in one sitting seems a stretch. But it's not a single 2-hour video clip as some have posted, where you either watch it entirely, or remain blind to the whole of the fpp's subject. This is additional material; read it if you want. Some do; and they do. Other's don't, and they don't. Who whinges about the inside material? I haven't heard anyone. Maybe because they'd be embarassed to say "I don't want to work that hard. Sorry. This subject is not worth my time."

And they should be embarassed.

Wait, my mistake:

frankly as soon as i see the "y2karl blockquote" my eyes just glaze over and i skip past it without reading at this point. sorry, but these posts kind of suck.

You remind me of the guy I know who wouldn't go see Bowling for Columbine... because of the name. I mean, "Bowling for Columbine?" His eyes would just glaze over. BOR-ING.
posted by dreamsign at 3:19 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

It was a decent post. It didn't bother anyone but you.
posted by bardic at 3:20 AM on July 23, 2007

Meatbomb, I don't think that's the case. It's more that a lot of people feel so helpless and scared about the war that they don't want to read about it anymore.

"If I ignore this tumour, it'll just go away!"
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:20 AM on July 23, 2007

Whatever. There are times where one gets an inkling that it's just not possible for you and another person to understand one another, no matter how hard you try, sad times when language just doesn't seem to be working the way you want it to, perhaps because you're just not using it well enough.

Despite your dismissal, conservatism has a clear descriptive meaning and you are redefining it in your comments to something which is not a common or useful definition.

Conservatives do very specific things to the country through their policies, which are not performed by liberals — to return to one of the examples provided: with few exceptions, conservatives voted along party lines for 2003 capital gains tax cuts, while liberals voted against those cuts.

You and I may share similar ideological views, but you should understand that it really hurts discourse to muddy the waters in the manner you have done, through feel-good false equivalence of conservatism with liberalism.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:23 AM on July 23, 2007

By any measure, Iraq is a goddamned train wreck. Stating a baldly self-evident fact is not at all akin to worshipping Invisible Sky Buddies in the absence of any supporting evidence.

This needs to be said often.

Folks, the reason why we can't have a reasoned, dispassionate discourse about Iraq on MeFi is because there is no reasoned discourse to be had. It's a clusterfuck. It's a disaster, a fiasco.

None of the war supporters here can rationally argue otherwise, so they hide behind this game of "Oh, it's so tedious, can't we talk about something else?" and, "Oh, the weight of your community opinion is suffocating me! Help! Police!", or, my personal favorite, "I refuse to debate this topic because you've all been hoodwinked by your orthodoxy! You wouldn't be capable of seeing the light even if you wanted to!"

There is a good argument to be made that MetaFilter shouldn't become IraqFilter 24/7. As pointed out above, though, y2karl doesn't make much more (on average) than one Iraq post a month. We can tolerate that.

What we shouldn't tolerate is this bullshit messiah-complex victimization game where grown men are apparently rendered intellectually helpless by the cruel glare of anti-war mefites.

Oh, the humanity! Can't we find a nice, comfortable place to warmonger in peace?!?
posted by Avenger at 3:50 AM on July 23, 2007 [3 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks that is tedious?

Stop bitching and start posting.
posted by caddis at 4:03 AM on July 23, 2007 [3 favorites]

Despite your dismissal

Ass. I was dismissing noone but myself -- I was trying to have the grace to suggest that the failure to communicate lay with me, not you. Clearly that was a mistake. I'm out of patience.

You and I may share similar ideological views, but you should understand that it really hurts discourse to muddy the waters in the manner you have done, through feel-good false equivalence of conservatism with liberalism.

Oh fuck off. I should have known better than to try to engage you in good faith in the first place. I really should have. If I'm muddying waters for you, it's because you're either not clever enough or not openminded enough to make an attempt to hear what I'm saying. The waters, son, are crystal clear.

As near as I can tell, when you say conservative, you do not mean 'one favouring traditional views and values', you mean 'my political enemy'. When you say liberal, you do not mean 'one not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas' you mean 'my political tribe'.

I don't know about you, nor, from what I've heard, do I much care to at this point, but for my part there are things about which I favour traditional views and values, and there are other things where I prefer to push back against orthodoxy. These are the meanings of liberal and conservative that I thought were clear enough that I didn't need to do more than gesture at upthread. Perhaps you are less a complicated human being that a political cartoon. I don't know.

I leave the irony of your dogmatic insistence on labels while self-selecting as 'liberal' for the reader parse out to their satisfaction. (And aren't you the reincarno-puppet of the guy who flamed out over the use of the phrase 'drama queen', anyway? If I'm right about that (I may be wrong), the irony of you tossing around politically-charged epithets is even richer and more delightfully sad.)

You should know that your kind of dogged insistance on labelling those with whom you disagree represents everything that is worst about the political cadre to which to claim allegiance, and is exactly the reason that people like me will take great pains, whenever possible, to dissociate themselves from the doctrinaire blinkered rhetoric of the ostensible Left, even if we share surface similarities in political agenda, to an only slightly lesser degree than we are appalled by the equally banal mirror-nonsense coming from your opponents over on the Right.

Your country is doomed, thanks as much to you as to Ann Coulter or any of the rest. You think there's a battle to be won when the war was decisively lost the minute you adopted the intolerant language and attitudes of your hated enemies.

You know the hoary cliché of the bearded revolutionary who, once in power, becomes precisely the sort of hateful despot he once despised?

Go look in a mirror.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:14 AM on July 23, 2007 [11 favorites]

Despite your dismissal, conservatism has a clear descriptive meaning and you are redefining it in your comments to something which is not a common or useful definition.

The word conservative has many definitions, and the political one meaning "right wing/neocon/moralizing/whatever" isn't at the top of the list in any dictionary. Non-politicized people (that is, most normal people) would describe MetaFilter as an extremely conservative website.

On preview: yeah, that too!
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:26 AM on July 23, 2007

Dinner was pretty tasty, by the way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:35 AM on July 23, 2007

A KAISER ROLL

*cries*

Mr. Sub! God, are they still around? They did hot subs way better than anyone else (though their cold subs kinda sucked compared to Subway; and I hate Quiznos).

Er. And now back to the bloodletting.
posted by dreamsign at 4:49 AM on July 23, 2007

It's all fun and games until someone turns me into a sandwich.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:55 AM on July 23, 2007

Thanks, Twiggy. I get it now. You should write a FAQ.
posted by Slap Factory at 4:58 AM on July 23, 2007

IraqFilter is a "group hate" for lefties. It's a way of bonding socially by reaffirming membership in the group and reaffirming ideological integrity. It also reassures the participants, making them feel warm and fuzzy by being part of the group, as they all tell one another, "See! We were right after all!"

-Steven, MetaFilter, today

Right now the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, in thrall to their extreme wing, and trying to peddle a message full of recriminations. But they'll soon realize that their message of hatred, panic and shame isn't selling to the majority of voters here, and they'll either fade into political insignificance for the next 20 years, or (far more likely) the idiots will get marginalized and more-practical voices will emerge. Within a year, the argument will no longer be about whether we should have gone in. It will be about what we should do next.

-Steven, OpinionJournal, July 24, 2003 (That was, by the way, simply the first search result for your name and "Iraq.")

So, yeah, Stevie. I can definitely imagine how the "group" you spent a few, you know, years berating for not sharing your idealistic vision about Iraq having been completely fucking right all along might be, shall we say, annoying to you. If by "warm and fuzzy" you mean I don't find myself as implicit in the death of over 3,500 Americans as I do you because my voice happened to be just a bit more practical, then yeah, snuggles all around.

Ass.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:59 AM on July 23, 2007 [14 favorites]

-Are they wikipedia links and quotes? No. They're meat.-

dreamsign, perhaps part of what jessamyn is hinting at (and sorry j if I'm misinterpreting you) here is that this meat that you speak of is not so much additive as it is repetitive - it is merely a quote from the page which is linked. This site is about the links remember. Why not just post the link +/- a quick line of introductory text and let us get on with it? It's a lecture -vs- invitation thing.

There have been well-thrashed arguments that suggest that by adopting this form of presentation consistently that y2karl is somewhat contemptuous of 'his' audience either because he doubts they will click through, he thinks they are incapable of distilling out the salient points themselves or because of some righteous belief that by pummelling people with a barrage of words, at least some of the important points will get through the thick skulls of the readership. Alternatively he is providing a service for the drive-through set who wish to simply glean a quick overview and keep moving on their merry way.

I confess to wavering on the presentation issue. But my own view matters little. All the arguments have been expressed here to the nth degree and to y2karl's credit, he has opted not to blockquote with small text any more, so that's something. Do I find his general presentation disrupting to my normal reading style of the site? Yes, to a degree...sometimes. But ultimately I always find myself aligning with those that advocate for diversity so this is something that I would never call out myself. It is bloody annoying when you enter a thread and you want to see what people are saying and are faced by screen after screen of quoted text. That side of the presentation does bug me. But it's a few spacebars downs and not that hard a task to skip it I suppose, so again, my dislike never gets up to any great level of annoyance. {And although it says more about my tolerance perhaps, when I'm faced by such a barrage, I'm actually less likely to go and read the article or even the copied quote -- so it can easily be viewed as a selfdefeating style choice.}

y2karl is high profile and that always impacts on how the subject matter will be accepted. I don't think he posts too much on the war but because of his profile he is probably better off being a bit more careful about spacing them out, particularly because much of what he presents are long-view pieces. These can, depending on your viewpoint, just be seen as update filter, skirting close to the line of being pulled because they're not within the ambit of 'new, not seen by many' criteria.
posted by peacay at 5:04 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

I like y2karl's posts.

And, if the resultant "hee-hee, we were right!" that follows his posts seems a little self-congratulatory, it's well-deserved. Roll back four years and change - it was not an easy thing to be anti-war (or at least this war) in America when there were a lot of folks screaming for Ay-rab blood. It took a little courage to say in front of anyone, "Well, to be fair, if we're going to go after someone, there's this dude in North Korea who really gives me the willies ..."

Just go back and look at the approval ratings for both the President and the war. Huge numbers. When all of the "we will be greeted as liberators" and "it'll only cost fifty billion" rhetoric was going on, you had to be careful about airing your doubts.

Part of being smart is recognizing when you've backed the right horse and rewarding yourself for it.
posted by adipocere at 5:31 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

Too much focus on Y2K here. The OP's point was that the large total numer of Iraq posts has rendered them all tedious.
posted by LarryC at 5:51 AM on July 23, 2007

this meat that you speak of is not so much additive as it is repetitive - it is merely a quote from the page which is linked

I get the lecturing aspect, though I think it is just enthusiasm for the subject. But in the last Y2k fpp, for example, I count one "block quote" and one quote leading to a whole other article. More of the latter and less of the former would, admittedly, be better.
posted by dreamsign at 5:53 AM on July 23, 2007

I, ahem, am by no means at the top of that list.

y2karl, not only am I part of the backtagging project, there was also a time when you didn't want to add the iraq tag to any of your posts about iraq and I did it instead. Ahem.

in the last Y2k fpp, for example, I count one "block quote" and one quote leading to a whole other article.

Counting the more inside links there are five blockquotes for a total of almost a thousand words. If someone said to me "I'd like to make a thousand word MetaFilter post, what do you say?" I'd say "No, never, that is never okay. That is outside the range of what MeFi is for, please find another way to make your post."

At this point we're in the awkward situation of ignoring flags on y2karl's Iraq posts [this last one got a lot after this thread went up, but it was still topping the list even before] because, as I said, they don't technically break a guideline, some people just don't like them. So, every time they make it to the top of the flag pile and every time (I think) we ignore them. That feels bad, to me. It's a departure from how we do things usually.

If it was a one-time thing I'd feel fine about it, but this comes up every few months. People flagging them must be frustrated. On the other hand, it's clear that deleting these posts -- or god forbid editing down those huge front page blockquotes -- is going to start a MeTa thread that is exactly the opposite of this one.

If they weren't good links we wouldn't be having this discussion we'd just delete them. However if they didn't have big jarring blockquotes and seven hundred words of more inside we wouldn't be having this discussion either because they'd be easier to skip, wouldn't mess up the look of the front page (I know it's petty, but it's many people's complaint) and wouldn't seem like such hobby horse posts from someone who, in my opinion, is using the MeFi audience as his own soapbox. y2karl could easily change that and he doesn't.
posted by jessamyn at 6:24 AM on July 23, 2007 [2 favorites]

None of these things are conservative in any way that makes sense in terms of what the word has actually meant if we reach back further than a few decades

Reaching back to Adam Smith and Edmund Burke for definitions of liberal and conservative is silly. And in any case, many of the listed things are inherently conservative, even in a Burke sense.

"using the government to foment the public's hatred of anyone who isn't straight" is merely a pejorative, but basically accurate, way of describing the inevitable consequence of strongly favoring traditional mores against a changing tide. Last I checked, favoring the preservation of traditional mores is an inherent part of what conservatives are.

"dismantling unions, public education and social insurance programs" is just a pejorative, but accurate, way of describing the general favoring of owners over workers, something that's been a part of conservatism for a long, long time, and the general small-government perspective of conservatives that's strongly related to the previous lack of government involvement in them.

"creating a legally favorable climate for industries to pollute profitably, poisoning our food, air and water" arguably expresses the conservative urge against regulation in general, though some conservatives have always been conservationists and antiindustrial.

"illegally funding religious activities with tax dollars" again merely reflects a negative view of the same inherently conservative urge to maintain traditional norms.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:33 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Hey! Look out for that bus! Bus! Guys, another bus! Check out this bus! Bus update: buses still running, getting hit a possibility. Did you see that bus? Latest on buses! That bus really almost hit you, you should be more careful, you know? Here's a pamphlet on bus safety. Bus! Bus! Bus! Buses suck, am I right? Blogger decries bus hazard. Great AP newswire - all about buses! Who will stand up against big buses? Incorrect bus schedules posted? Who's responsible? Bus fares: they lied! Bus exit strategies. OMGBUS. The buses haven't even begun to run yet. Exhaust fumes may have harmed pedestrians, experts say. Stepped up bus preparations. Mass transportation: the logic of buses. How the press can prevent bus incidents. What to ask before your next bus ride. From the people who brought you buses. Transportation secretary estimates 30,000 buses run each week. Debating the bus body count. Transportation... or terror? BUSES ARE IMPORTANT! Why was my bus post deleted? It was a totally new up to the minute perspective on buses!"
posted by Wolfdog at 6:36 AM on July 23, 2007 [6 favorites]

Bold prediction: As the '08 election approaches, the difficultly inherent to modifying the guidelines and explicitly stating (at a minimum) what topics will be subject to greater scrutiny by the admins (and the resulting MeTa threads) will appear trivial compared to moderating the daily deletion complaint/encouragement.

PS: I think this post stay in the absence of any reason why y2karl would have believed it would have been deleted.
posted by loquax at 7:04 AM on July 23, 2007

Counting the more inside links there are five blockquotes for a total of almost a thousand words.

Whoah, don't know how I missed those. Though again, all but one from different articles (however, mostly supporting the thesis, rather than adding something new in their own right).

At this point we're in the awkward situation of ignoring flags on y2karl's Iraq posts

That sucks. I'm not being facetious. That does suck. I would suggest taking some solace though by mentally subtracting the number of favorites to the thread (in this case, at present, 14) from the number of flags, but then it starts to look like a whole digg-up digg-down machine.

wouldn't mess up the look of the front page (I know it's petty, but it's many people's complaint)

They... ? I'm speechless.
posted by dreamsign at 7:10 AM on July 23, 2007

I have a hard time understanding where the ambiguity lays. A ~1000 word front page post is damn near the definition of GYOB material, even if readers here find the information interesting. This isn't even close to being on the borderline; this is pretty much well beyond the bounds of what MeFi typically allows (and wants).

If the information in y2karl's posts is so valuable and there isn't anywhere else on the internet to find it, he should start his own blog and hope that he gets a MeFi link once in a while when he posts something new or interesting. Sadly, though, I think this is unlikely, precisely because the information is not unique or hard to find. It's just a big ol' rollup of stories you could find elsewhere with little effort.

MeFi really doesn't need a bi-weekly rollup thread for any topic -- least of all one for which it is nigh impossible for the resulting thread to turn into anything other than a circlejerk.
posted by tocts at 7:20 AM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]

However if they didn't have big jarring blockquotes and seven hundred words of more inside we wouldn't be having this discussion either because they'd be easier to skip, wouldn't mess up the look of the front page (I know it's petty, but it's many people's complaint)...

That's hilarious, because the last time I checked we don't have to thumb across a two page advertisement in the NYT like y2karl is fucking Soros pissing in your breakfast bowl of ignorant slapdash. All that's required to "skip" these posts is a modicum of intellectual discipline and a brief spasm of reflection - I'd consider that a more accurate assessment due to the fact that interior motivations of those who would wish to burn karl at the stake are never examined in full.

One mental process, one extra roll of the scrollwheel. How dare he foist such a goddamn crucible of indecision upon every member of this community with his self righteous quotations! The bastard!

Are you honestly trying to propose that in the medium we are currently debating there is not enough "room" for an adequate amount of YouTube/FarkLite/Horseshit coverage due to the inherent nature and formatting of y2karls posts? I'd respectfully laugh in your face if that is truly the administrative perspective.

...wouldn't seem like such hobby horse posts from someone who, in my opinion, is using the MeFi audience as his own soapbox. y2karl could easily change that and he doesn't.

The most ignorant, expensive, illegal, immoral occupation since Vietnam is a hobby horse?

Maybe y2karl should take a cue from his other muse, the southern music scene of old; "throw on some blackface and dance like a jiggaboo karl, we want another drink and we don't want no' mo' o' yo' serious nonsense 'round these parts! Ya'hear! Play that fucking music and shut your mouth!"

Are there really not enough dumbass distractions in the world for you people? Must asinine cubicle pop culture shitfuckery bloat every cavity of this website like the rotten fucking corpse it is slowly beginning to resemble? When will we be collectively decayed enough to the point where there is no longer cognitive dissonance between what someone may view on the front page and the putrid tar that pumps through their whithered heart? Who fucking cares, because at that point we won't have a collective pulse between the lot of us.
posted by prostyle at 7:22 AM on July 23, 2007 [4 favorites]

...Ahem.

I figured it was an artifact of something to do with tagging but staring me in the face there the irony was. Even so, excluding the top two, my name is not even fifth on that list.

"Hey! Look out for ~~that bus~~100, 000 dead! ~~Bus~~ 600,000 dead! Guys, ~~another bus~~ 975,610 dead!

Somehow, put that way, it's just not as funny.

A million dead ? Not noteworthy, nothing to see here, move along.
posted by y2karl at 7:35 AM on July 23, 2007

I can't decide if 975,610 fails at being fpp-worthy because it's an update or because it wasn't formatted prettily.

But see that million is just pure hyperbole.

Oh hold on... ok, now it isn't.
posted by dreamsign at 7:45 AM on July 23, 2007

At this point we're in the awkward situation of ignoring flags on y2karl's Iraq posts

I'm a huge, huge anti-war person, and I enjoy y2karl's posts, but if his posts are consistently topping the flagged list, then it may be time to start pruning them.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on July 23, 2007

And to be honest, there are THOUSANDS of eloquent attacks on the morality, tactics and strategy of the War On Teror, written by people left, right and center and a new one at this point isn't particularly noteworthy or 'best of the web'.

I don't think anyone needs convincing at this point. Metafilter is overwhelmingly left-liberal and anti-war.

I'm not sure what piling on at this point really accomplishes. We're well past the point where the general public needs to be convinced that the whole thing was rotten business.
posted by empath at 7:52 AM on July 23, 2007

I'm kind of glad I missed this clusterfuck since I was anxiety-ridden and drunk last night and I robably would've lipped off in a way that wouldn't have helped anything.

Now, with nothing in my system except coffee and cigarrettes, I can say that I'm of two minds here. I've known karl (in the cybersense) for a long time, and I like and respect him and in a general way agree with him. And like most people here, I'm angry about the war and concerned about where it's all heading. And I believe that generally he's just voicing something similar with no ill intent.

What I can do without is what happens after the threads, the usual mudslinging and speechifying by the usual suspects that accomplishes nothing except building up grudges. But that's not karl's fault.
posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on July 23, 2007

One of the arguments often aimed at against war posts is that "there are lots of places on the web you can read about the war." The argument is specious. I can read about the war a lot of places, and I do, but in all the years of his posting, I have only seen one of Y2Karl's links somewhere else before he posted it to MetaFilter. Being able to read about the war is not the same as being able to read quality, informative, in-depth material about the war. Karl gives us that, and I am grateful for it. Links to articles that are all over the web should get the axe, and they do. The times when I have made a political post, I tried to make sure the subject wasn't on any of the popular sites.

Another argument that always accompanies that one is that "there are lots of places you can discuss politics," and it's specious, too. I have not found any other site that has the same level of discussion as MetaFilter. Other sites either ban political discussions outright, allow mass feces-flinging, or are complete echo-chambers of one stripe or another. I understand that political posts are difficult to moderate, but the moderation is what makes the discussions work. I'm grateful for that, too.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:58 AM on July 23, 2007 [5 favorites]

"See! We were right after all!"

As a cleverer man than I once said:

"Remember that living well is the best revenge. A simple corollary of this is that maintaining an anime blog is the opposite of "living well" and thus the worst revenge, so if you are in a pissing match with someone who does spend all his time protesting to the Internet that he really does shut his eyes when the naked cartoon children are on screen, honestly, then all you really have to do is sit tight and wait for history to rack up enough points on your side."

Dibs on "His Beatitude Moonbaticos Baselios Chief Fluffnstuff I"
posted by octobersurprise at 7:59 AM on July 23, 2007

I'm a huge, huge anti-war person, and I enjoy y2karl's posts, but if his posts are consistently topping the flagged list, then it may be time to start pruning them.

Terrible idea, IMO, dreamsign. y2karl's posts are also favorited quite a bit- political or otherwise. In the world of MeFi, he's a highly polarizing figure, and you can't reward one bleating side without the other. So, what, we delete the posts and then sidebar them?

Metafilter is overwhelmingly left-liberal and anti-war.

empath, I think most of the entire online population is slightly more anti-war than the entire U.S. population, which is pretty solidly anti-war at this point. As Arianna Huffington points out again and again, opposition to the war isn't a left-right issue, it's just common sense.

I do not, however, think MeFi is "overwhelmingly" left-liberal. Speaking as someone who fits that label, I find it annoyingly Libertarian.
posted by mkultra at 8:06 AM on July 23, 2007

In the world of MeFi, he's a highly polarizing figure, and you can't reward one bleating side without the other.

I think that might be overstating it. He's like any other prolific poster. Sometime's he's interesting, sometimes not. YMMV. But he's generally an OK guy with some strong opinions, but that makes him more or less like everybody else here.
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on July 23, 2007

IraqFilter Really Sucks. July 22, 2007 7:51 PM Subscribe

IraqFilter Really Sucks.
July 22, 2007 7:51 PM Subscribe