LOLZ RELIGION!!1!1

November 30, 2007 10:48 AM

Do we really need two LOLZ RELIGION!!1! posts in one day?
posted by proj to Etiquette/Policy at 10:48 AM (103 comments total)

They're both fine. And the Harpur followup doesn't exactly fit the "LOLZ RELIGION" framework.
posted by Roach at 10:54 AM on November 30, 2007

Yes, we do.

[this thread is closed to new comments]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:55 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yes, we do.

But thanks for your concern!
posted by kbanas at 10:56 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Roach -- the posts themselves do not fit in the LOLZ RELIGION framework, but the ensuing comments (especially in the Pullman post) quickly do.
posted by proj at 10:56 AM on November 30, 2007

Take it to the BBQ.
posted by Memo at 10:57 AM on November 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

Roach -- the posts themselves do not fit in the LOLZ RELIGION framework, but the ensuing comments (especially in the Pullman post) quickly do.

No need to kill the posts...
posted by C17H19NO3 at 10:57 AM on November 30, 2007

Take it to the BBQ.

That's gonna be big.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2007

I thought LOLZ RELIGION was for, you know, funny stuff.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2007

No more or less than we needed this MeTa post.
posted by boo_radley at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

I miss ye Olde Meta-Filtere.
posted by Mister_A at 10:59 AM on November 30, 2007 [6 favorites]

We used to have to submit our comments on punch cards.

You fucking kids now.
posted by kbanas at 11:00 AM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Two different religions doing two different ridiculous things. Ergo, two different posts.
posted by JDHarper at 11:00 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm waiting for a third.
posted by dead_ at 11:08 AM on November 30, 2007

So your problem is that some people are making overly-broad blanket statements deriding religion?

What do you propose to ameliorate this issue?
posted by Greg Nog at 11:09 AM on November 30, 2007

No, we don't, but we've got 'em and by godfrey we're gonna choke 'em down.
posted by languagehat at 11:10 AM on November 30, 2007

I miss when it was þe Olde Meta-Philtre; you drank it and hallucinated all these comments. (Actually, it wasn't all that different...)
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:14 AM on November 30, 2007

*sigh* They're not that bad. Neither of the posts is done badly, or with editorializing, despite my unnecessarily snarkish comment to the contrary in Brockes' post.

And in a day, they'll be off the front page.
posted by koeselitz at 11:15 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

The links in the Pullman post are good.
posted by gaspode at 11:16 AM on November 30, 2007

I thought the Sudan post was a shit post (four fucking links to BBC news? Hurray! you know how to click on "Related Stories") but there has been some very interesting comments in there so I guess that is what is saving it. Looking at that thread though, is like peering over the lip of a churning volcano and feeling the lava underneath. She could blow at any moment captain! Either that or my breakfast burritos are coming back to haunt me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:16 AM on November 30, 2007

No one expected the spanish inquisition either...
posted by blue_beetle at 11:17 AM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Eeeew! Languagehat swallows! Who knew!
posted by Wilder at 11:18 AM on November 30, 2007

The more the merrier.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:23 AM on November 30, 2007

I'm waiting for a third.

State science curriculum director resigns
Move comes months before comprehensive curriculum review.

The state's director of science curriculum has resigned after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design.

Chris Comer, who has been the Texas Education Agency's director of science curriculum for more than nine years, offered her resignation this month.
...
Comer's resignation comes just months before the State Board of Education is to begin reviewing the science portion of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the statewide curriculum that will be used to determine what should be taught in Texas classrooms and what textbooks are bought.

Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said the issue of teaching creationism in schools has not been debated by the board in some time.

"There's been a long-standing policy that the pros and cons of scientific theory must be taught. And while we've had a great deal of public comment about evolution and creationism at state board meetings, it's not been a controversial issue with the board."

posted by caddis at 11:27 AM on November 30, 2007

Did we really need BOTH "Volcano" and "Dante's Inferno?"
Did we really need BOTH "Prefontaine" and "Without Limits?"
Did we really need BOTH "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact?"

The answer: yes. A thousand times yes.
posted by ORthey at 11:33 AM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Pass that shit over here, ORthey, it smells dank.
posted by Mister_A at 11:34 AM on November 30, 2007

I have renamed your lame callout "Mohammad".
posted by found missing at 11:35 AM on November 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

Yeah, it's too bad I have too much respect for MeFi to start posting a bunch of LOLAtheix post, just for balance.

I have yet to meet an atheist who wasn’t smarter than the average bear, and I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who was capable of any sort of complex reasoning.

already covered on mefi atheist idiocy

So burn the churches down
Stand on watch 'em burn
burn to the ground

obviously prejudiced discussion masquerading as honest investigatons

insightful discussions that isn't at all hysterical
posted by oddman at 11:36 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Do we really need at least two LOLRELIGIONZ?

Both posts are newsworthy and interesting. I'm sorry for your loss.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 11:37 AM on November 30, 2007

i just want to be clear that I understand this:

the problem is that two posts have been made about religious groups doing something rather remarkable in a negative sense. that is the problem?

I'm not precisely what's so LOLZ about a bunch of people marching to demand the death of a teacher.

and let's be honest, outside of any criticism of the catholic church whatsoever, if we had to eliminate any mention of the catholic league being absurd we could never mention them again on this site for any reason whatsoever ever again.
posted by shmegegge at 11:38 AM on November 30, 2007

There's been a long-standing policy that the pros and cons of scientific theory must be taught.

Scientific Theory
Pro: Useful for modeling and predicting natural phenomena accurately and reliably.

Con: After two decades of math, EM theory, and quantum mechanics, I still have no fucking idea how magnets work.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:38 AM on November 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

Why aren't magnets silver and red and U-shaped anymore? That's what I'd like to know. I know, BBQ it.
posted by Mister_A at 11:43 AM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I still have no fucking idea how magnets work.

I don't have your problem, but then, I don't use that blasphemous name; I just call 'em "Magic God-Rods".
posted by Greg Nog at 11:44 AM on November 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

Heh, my co-worker has christened* dinosaurs "Jesus Dragons", which I think is super.




*pun intended.
posted by Mister_A at 11:46 AM on November 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

LOLPOPES
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:47 AM on November 30, 2007

shmegegge:

The problem is that any given member of the two religions discussed doing anything out of the ordinary is apparently a chance for everyone to stand around saying, "JESUS, these religious people are so goddamned DUMB."
posted by koeselitz at 11:47 AM on November 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

that's a problem with the commenters, not the post, no?
posted by shmegegge at 11:48 AM on November 30, 2007

Just to be clear, now all posts that even mention religion are LOLZ whatever? For better or for worse, religion in general and fundamentalism (of many stripes) in particular are rather significant driving forces in cultural and political events. I think that discussion thereof is pretty fair game.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 11:49 AM on November 30, 2007

You're correct.
posted by koeselitz at 11:50 AM on November 30, 2007

You're calling out these for LOLxian? I'm pretty Catholic and I found the Pullman links interesting and the other one OK. There's some good candidates concerning both the links and ensuing discussion for LOLxian, and these are not them.
posted by jmd82 at 11:54 AM on November 30, 2007

LittleMissCranky: I couldn't agree with you more (it's an argument I make very frequently). Unfortunately, laughing and pointing fingers and making fun don't do anything to help us understand or explain these things as driving forces. This is my complaint. I actually think we should talk about religion MORE because merely plugging our ears and saying LALALALA won't make it go away nor will it stop it from being a primary motivating factor in many, many peoples' lives.
posted by proj at 11:54 AM on November 30, 2007

And to be clear, again, I'm sorry for the poorly constructed callout. The posts are not terrible (especially the Pullman one, which I found interesting) -- it's the discussion that so quickly devolves. I don't know what the solution is.
posted by proj at 11:55 AM on November 30, 2007

Let's talk about tea cozies.
posted by 2sheets at 11:55 AM on November 30, 2007

Heh, thanks for linking the Pullman page, missed that one.
posted by Phire at 12:00 PM on November 30, 2007

proj-Why don't you try to make a reasoned argument in the threads? Your comments in the threads don't seem to present any real alternative to what it is you're decrying.
posted by OmieWise at 12:01 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Wait, WTF, I just read the Pullman thread, and it's mostly just praise for the books. Weak fucking callout. Grow some faith.
posted by OmieWise at 12:11 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can I just say that I am not mad about the word LOLZ RELIGION? It makes me think that I am going to see a series of pictures, such as an image of Jesus on the cross, surrounded by sans serif type reading I CAN HAZ RISEN?

But the threads are never that, and, therefore, disappointing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:11 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why yes!
posted by the dief at 12:14 PM on November 30, 2007

Yes, and we need this too, becuase without it I would have missed one!
posted by Big_B at 12:21 PM on November 30, 2007

I don't know what the solution is.

See those two yellow buttons down there? Don't click on em.
posted by Big_B at 12:22 PM on November 30, 2007

LOLZ RELIGION!!1!one
posted by C17H19NO3 at 12:22 PM on November 30, 2007

NO U CAN HAZ NO ROOM AT TEH INN
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:27 PM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Reminds me. Time to go get some drugs to frame the big bad libs. They have it coming!
posted by jmd82 at 12:27 PM on November 30, 2007

Yes. Religion doesn't need any help.
posted by phrontist at 12:33 PM on November 30, 2007

look maw i iz ridin invizble d0nkey inta town
posted by Mister_A at 12:36 PM on November 30, 2007

Jesus we totally need to do the LOLCATZ abridged King James bible.

So you hear me, Jesus?
posted by Mister_A at 12:37 PM on November 30, 2007

Mister_A: here you go.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Jesus we totally need to do the LOLCATZ abridged King James bible.

Ask and ye shall receive. *ahem* I mean, YOU CAN HAZ.
posted by turaho at 12:47 PM on November 30, 2007

dammit
posted by turaho at 12:47 PM on November 30, 2007

Aw, hell. Why not.
posted by Greg Nog at 12:49 PM on November 30, 2007

So you hear me, Jesus?

donut fear unto you a kitteh is born
posted by Stynxno at 12:50 PM on November 30, 2007

Donut fear unto you too, man.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

DAmn that lolcatz bible needs to work on abridging... tanx fur linx dough krash!!
posted by Mister_A at 12:53 PM on November 30, 2007

DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A METAWHINGE ABOUT A POST EVERY DAY, OR CAN THIS BE THE ONLY ONE, PLEASE ?
posted by iamabot at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2007

Well, this was constructive. I suppose I should have known better. To be honest, I'm not sure what I hoped to achieve but, whatever it was, I didn't. Please return to snarking.
posted by proj at 1:09 PM on November 30, 2007

I just realized that mathowie is an anagram of MetaHiWo.
posted by ORthey at 1:10 PM on November 30, 2007

It's also an anagram of

I AM THE ... OW!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:18 PM on November 30, 2007

Well, this was constructive. I suppose I should have known better. To be honest, I'm not sure what I hoped to achieve but, whatever it was, I didn't. Please return to snarking.

You didn't answer my question, but I notice you've got the self-righteous thing down pat.
posted by OmieWise at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

proj, if it makes you feel any better, my first MeTa post was very similar, and it didn't achieve anything either.

YES WE CAN HAS GODZ POSTS LOL KTHXBYE.
posted by languagehat at 1:22 PM on November 30, 2007

OmieWise: Well, you're probably right. I have, in the past under a different account, tried to contribute to the debate only to be ignored or snarked at. The study of religious behavior is something to which I have devoted my graduate studies (full disclosure: I am not a believer, nor am I a religious person) because I believe it is one of the most important social factors in the world today. I get frustrated quite often with academics' treatment of religion (derision, ridicule, and outright malice) who often adopt the attitude that SOME DAY these idiots will find their brains and stop believing. Unfortunately, people have been making that prediction for hundreds of years but it just hasn't happened.

A lot of this has spilled over to my comments here and probably short-circuited something in me to call this behavior out even if it wasn't totally manifest in some cases (although I think we all agree that religion is not something that MeFi "does well"). I apologize. It's a sore spot for me. I wasn't at all trying to be self-righteous (despite your unnecessarily snide remark implying the contrary) merely referring to the fact that a majority of replies here are snarks, injokes, or simply noise. If that's self-righteous, then so be it. Otherwise, you can save your comments.
posted by proj at 1:25 PM on November 30, 2007

I AM HU AM
posted by cog_nate at 1:25 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wasn't at all trying to be self-righteous (despite your unnecessarily snide remark implying the contrary)

I'm not convinced it was unnecessarily snide. It got a constructive response from you, in contrast to this callout and your comments in the thread, neither of which promoted the kind of discussion you seem to be after.

Your criticisms are fair, and I agree that in general MeFi doesn't have very good religious conversations, but I do disagree with your characterization of the Pullman thread. In general I think that scolding does far less than engaging the issues, and I've seen snark overcome in many threads by just a few people confining themselves to substantive conversation. On the other hand, suggesting that people are getting it wrong, but not doing anything different, does seem to me to be self-righteous. That's not the end of the world, but it doesn't make you case as well as your last comment here.
posted by OmieWise at 1:56 PM on November 30, 2007

I look forward to reading "Take it to the BBQ" at least once in every metatalk thread for the next week or two.
posted by Kwine at 3:14 PM on November 30, 2007

Unfortunately, laughing and pointing fingers and making fun don't do anything to help us understand or explain these things as driving forces. This is my complaint.

proj, I agree with you in principle, but that doesn't really seem to be the case in either of these two posts. As others have pointed out, a few people make sweeping statements about religion, but even in the comments I don't see the "haha, let's point and laugh at the religious" vibe.

Don't worry about this thread. Everyone loves this kind of thing more than they'd like to admit. Including me.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:31 PM on November 30, 2007

A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into an Internet.
posted by Smallpox at 3:31 PM on November 30, 2007

projPoster writes "merely referring to the fact that a majority of replies here are snarks, injokes, or simply noise."

I think sometimes people's disagreement or rejection of a suggestion or callout manifests itself in snark. It's a way of saying, Uh, no, but without being so direct. I mean, sometimes being "snarked at" is part of debate, you know? This ain't NPR.

Anyway, to cut out the snark, I didn't see a problem here. YOU SMALL MALODOROUS RODENT.
posted by chinston at 7:02 PM on November 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hmm. Well, that's more straight-up insult. Sorry!
posted by chinston at 7:03 PM on November 30, 2007

I for one think LOLXTIANS! has officially jumped the snark. But as one whose real life is lived in LOLDARWINIST! land I always enjoy these threads. I also wonder why langaugehat doesn't go ahead and give into his temptation to flame out spectacularly in one of them. (I know this is one of his buttons and also about the only time I don't think "wow, I wish I could have said that so eloquently" after reading one of his comments.)
posted by TedW at 8:52 PM on November 30, 2007

And to be clear, again, I'm sorry for the poorly constructed callout. The posts are not terrible (especially the Pullman one, which I found interesting) -- it's the discussion that so quickly devolves. I don't know what the solution is.

The solution is to flag the comment(s) you don't like. That will bring the comment(s) to the mods attention. They'll either remove them or they won't. If they don't and you're still worked up about the comment(s), email the mods. Simple, eh?
posted by deborah at 9:17 PM on November 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

Hear hear, deborah.
posted by waraw at 9:58 PM on November 30, 2007

In the meta we don't LOL the religions, we LOL some of the religious, teh funneh ones expecially the contradicting hypocrite extremists, while others LOL all the religions without knowing why and they are, in turn LOLLED themselves.

But I didn't see that the LOL was on me !
posted by elpapacito at 3:14 AM on December 1, 2007

With the way things are, a more timely question might be are two per day enough?
posted by nthdegx at 3:59 AM on December 1, 2007

He who LOLs last, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLs.
posted by Brockles at 6:13 AM on December 1, 2007

I also wonder why langaugehat doesn't go ahead and give into his temptation to flame out

Grrr! That makes me so mad! All right, I'm gonna CUT OFF MY FINGERNAIL!

...OK, I think I need to work up more steam. I'll get back to you.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on December 1, 2007

*trims fingernail in solidarity*
posted by everichon at 10:38 AM on December 1, 2007

Mu!
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2007

I don't even understand what most of these replies mean.
posted by proj at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2007

proj, set Babelfish to "snark"
posted by Quietgal at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

MetaTalk: I don't even understand what most of these replies mean.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:03 PM on December 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

MetaTalk: set Babelfish to "snark"
posted by nthdegx at 2:35 PM on December 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can we close this to new comments now?
posted by proj at 3:16 PM on December 1, 2007

Why, don't you like what people have to say in answer to your query?

Oh are you done? Well then allow me to retort
posted by nola at 6:28 PM on December 1, 2007

My goodness, quoting pulp fiction - arent you terrifically edgy ?
I certainly won't be messing with you !



Proj, there's no actual point bringing up this stuff anymore as the admins think it's perfectly fine, you could explain the whole domino theory thing about harrassment to one group spreading to another group but i don't think they're quite going to grasp that one.

Anyway, at least you had a wee try, so well done.
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:38 PM on December 1, 2007

as the admins think it's perfectly fine, you could explain the whole domino theory thing about harrassment to one group spreading to another group but i don't think they're quite going to grasp that one

Golly, have auditions for the role of quonsar 2.0 begun already?
Rule one for playing quonsar: If you need more than one line, you're doing it wrong.
Rule two for playing quonsar: At least be half right once in a while.

Considering that the recent move to discourage sexist behavior is predated and in some ways echoes the admin's efforts to discourage LOLXTIAN-type crap (Like proj says, neither of the FPPs fit that mould) from clogging the front page, that's a goofy thing to say, and a wrongheadedly cheap shot to boot.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:40 PM on December 1, 2007

Who the fuck said I was trying to be edgy bitch? You want to see edgy come hang out where I work for a week, you won't think I'm edgy, just every other mother's son I fucking step over to get a days labor in you stupid git.
posted by nola at 12:53 AM on December 2, 2007

More to the point you're hung up on the idea of "hip" and
"edgy" -ness of the clip I linked, and as such can't even begin to see the lovely interplay between the subject and context of theme at work. You might as well have called me out for using Botticelli as a framework for allegory, you've no sense of proportion here and show a lack of understanding that you pretend to aspire to, by suggesting such base motives on my part, you simple twit.
posted by nola at 1:09 AM on December 2, 2007

I've never pretended to be q at any stage, i just like the guy , now calling people names when youre discussing harrassment and it's causes ? That's very clever. Tell you what, i'll flag you and lets see if the admins do anything ok ?
They won't of course.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:00 AM on December 2, 2007

Proj, there's no actual point bringing up this stuff anymore as the admins think it's perfectly fine, you could explain the whole domino theory thing about harrassment to one group spreading to another group but i don't think they're quite going to grasp that one.

sgt., it's kind of hard to know how to respond that that, because it's a flat-out false assertion—we put a lot of thought into the topic, on-going, have discussed it a lot in previous metatalk threads, and do delete some of the stuff. Probably less of it than we'd be inclined to if we just running with what we do and don't like.

But these threads in particular weren't so bad that either of them got nixed. I think a lot of the religious backlash that comes out on mefi threads is lame, and I'd like to see less of it, but it's not a simple binary where we either aggressively stamp out any hint of anti-religious sentiment OR we're evil religion-hating idealogues. And when you dismiss the idea that we even care about it or are able to grasp the basic implications, it sounds a lot more like a Fuck You than a good-faith contribution to the discussion.

So if you want to clarify where you're coming from, I'm cool with that and will try to respond, but right now I don't feel like you're even carrying your share of the conversation on this one.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:33 AM on December 2, 2007

And when you dismiss the idea that we even care about it or are able to grasp the basic implications, it sounds a lot more like a Fuck You than a good-faith contribution to the discussion.

No, not really, but thanks for putting words in my mouth and dealing with the couple of personally abusive remarks three comments up (which you havent actually done, what a 'good faith' discussion you were all having before i showed up) - it just proves my original statement which i have no intention of justifying or retracting.
Perhaps you can design a wee subsite where you don't turn a blind eye to offensive comments ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:33 PM on December 2, 2007

What part of "the admins think it's perfectly fine" or "i don't think they're quite going to grasp that one" isn't you putting words in our mouths? You're being super dismissive about something and asserting something that's flat-out false. Can you cite us thinking that LOLRELIGION stuff is just peachy keen, please, so I have any idea where you're coming from?
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:45 PM on December 2, 2007

"...LOLRELIGION stuff is just peachy keen...
posted by cortex at 8:45 PM on December 2 [+] [!]"

Caught the tiger by the tail, if I do say so myself.
posted by Kwine at 5:59 PM on December 2, 2007

I didn't realize comparing someone to quonsar qualified as personal abuse.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:05 PM on December 2, 2007

I'll go ahead and cop to the fact I was down right rude to you upthread sgt.serenity. So there's no need for a formal hearing on it now. Which should allow you to get back to your main point. I'm sorry for being a dick to you, but you kind of asked for by sarcasticly saying I certainly won't be messing with you ! Well I could hardly help but put you to the test after that. This thread had already got me cheesed off so you took extra grief, my bad. Back to the matter at hand then, if you like.
posted by nola at 6:17 PM on December 2, 2007

Hi Sarge, can you change what you just said so i er..... understand your point better ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:23 AM on December 3, 2007