Battle of the Flickr All-Stars

Plus, I know her a bit (I'm on her profile) and she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like somebody held her at gunpoint and said "Let me photograph you scantily clad or else."

What I'm saying is that she chose to represent herself to the world that way. You might say "that doesn't mean we have to ogle her" and I have no particular opinion on that part - my point of contention is that you are saying 'she deserves better' regarding a view of her that she has direct culpability in promoting.

If you're a friend, then presumably you think her smart enough and mature enough to make her own decisions about self-presentation.
posted by Ryvar at 11:11 AM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

Or what kittens for breakfast said.
posted by Ryvar at 11:12 AM on December 29, 2007

It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes

She is not being reduced to mere tits and ass, the post specifically says "also, Guðleifsdóttir is hot 1, 2,3.", which means in addition to everything, she's hot.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:16 AM on December 29, 2007

yay for the new metafilter!
posted by PugAchev at 11:17 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I understand that she is the most frequent subject of her photos, and she is partially nude in some of them. That's fine... they're amazing photos.

What I'm still not getting what that photo has to do with the subjects of theft or censorship. Why not link to the photo that was deleted? It's on her blog.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:19 AM on December 29, 2007

She clearly considers herself an artist, and it is crass and sexist in that context to suggest that we should admire her equally for her pulchritude. On the other hand, among the self-portraits she chose for her on-line portfolio is at least one that's pure cleavagey cheesecake and not an particularly interesting picture otherwise, so I'm not gonna hate the poster for pointing out something that she already made part of her public persona.

I will hate him for misspelling "Iceland" twice in a post that links to the Wikipiedia page, and for implying that I might find "Guðleifsdóttir" hard to pronounce.
posted by nicwolff at 11:21 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

To the extent the subjects of the post are something like 1) here's an interesting bit of internet/flickr drama and 2) here's also an interesting photographer, the fact that one aspect of the photographer is that she's apparently admired for her physical beauty and doesn't mind posing to show it is relevant to the subject in that it gives us more information about the photographer.

That said, it's also a totally lame and childish thing to put in the fpp.

Like typewriter, I didn't know about the drama or the photographer beforehand.
posted by psmith at 11:22 AM on December 29, 2007

As expected, it didn't take too long for someone to go for the sexist mindcrime angle in order to bitch pettily about the deletion of a previous post.

Calling women hot is now verboten. Stand by for prohibitions on calling certain puppies cute, pointing out that gay pride parades feature skimpily dressed men, and carrying more than an ounce of liquid or wearing shoes while posting or browsing.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:23 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

nicwolff, cortex (sorry I said it was matt upthread) decided that this subject wasn't suitable for the blue months ago. Why keep this one (especially when it sucks on a number of levels)?
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:24 AM on December 29, 2007

I flagged it as racist, because I mistakenly believe that Iceland is inhabited by a race of bosomy blond women.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:25 AM on December 29, 2007 [10 favorites]

There are millions and millions and millions of pictures of women in bikinis -- and less! -- on the web. I'm sure some of them even freely chose to have those pictures there. Do you want everyone linking to those pictures too, with comments about whether or not they're hot?

This post is "OMG BOOBIES!" and should be discouraged.
posted by occhiblu at 11:25 AM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Krrrlson - I'm not being petty; I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:26 AM on December 29, 2007

Christ almighty, fucktard. It's still Christmas - get over yourself. Oh noes - pictures of a girl! The Sexism Pendulum swings the other way and suddenly it's a crime to link to a picture posted by a girl of herself?

Or maybe it's just a crime to get a post through which someone else failed at. Whinging little cock.
posted by benzo8 at 11:28 AM on December 29, 2007

The last sentence is "OMG BOOBIES!," not the whole post. Given the controversy not too long ago regarding the OMG HAWT GEEK GIRL, I'm surprised the OP included the last sentence at all. Maybe he hasn't been paying attention?

Or, what shmegegge said.
posted by chihiro at 11:29 AM on December 29, 2007

*checks date*

?

Fucktard? When did this site turn into somethingawful?
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:30 AM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

Do you want everyone linking to those pictures too, with comments about whether or not they're hot?

Saying the FPP isn't sexist isn't the same thing as saying it's a great FPP.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:32 AM on December 29, 2007

That's fair, and I flagged it as sexist. But I get the feeling you're making this about having your post being deleted, and less about this post being the problem.

Not really. I said what I meant. This FPP sucks. It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:54 PM on December 29 [+] [!]

I'm not being petty; I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:26 PM on December 29 [+] [!]

So which is it?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:35 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Am I to understand that the only possible purpose to a photograph of a woman in a bikini is to point out how sexually desirable she is?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:37 AM on December 29, 2007

I'm trying to understand why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.

Judged by your peers on Metatalk, you may unfortunately find this to be found to be a poor rationale for deleting a post. Better to have stood firm with the (valid, IMO) sexism criterium — more leverage there.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:39 AM on December 29, 2007

Krrrlson - The post sucks; flickr apologised; she still has an account; she still posts (carefully); there's no reason to make an FPP. Plus, the last bit is stupid.

The fact that other posts on the same subject were deleted merely supports my argument.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:39 AM on December 29, 2007

Blazecock Pileon - the sexism isn't even as important as the fact that this is a non-story. It was a non-story months ago. Hell, I'd almost forgotten about it.

Rebekka is worthy of an FPP; this isn't it.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:41 AM on December 29, 2007

Am I to understand that the only possible purpose to a photograph of a woman in a bikini is to point out how sexually desirable she is?

Sometimes the purpose is sell to beer...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:42 AM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

"To sell," even. Need coffee. Gah.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:43 AM on December 29, 2007

It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!'

the sexism isn't even as important as the fact that this is a non-story

When making a callout, focus clearly on a specific point of contention and don't let go. Vagueness gives the inevitable pileon patrol ammunition to fire back, particularly if it seems like your criticisms are motivated by some other injury.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:50 AM on December 29, 2007

I didn't click on any of the "She's hot" links, because it just seemed like a setup for a Rickrolling.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:57 AM on December 29, 2007

I guess my problem is that I have several criticisms :-) It sucks on a number of levels.

But, yes. Thanks for the timely advice. 'Tis my first call-out. I actually thought that someone would've deleted it by now.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:57 AM on December 29, 2007

because it just seemed like a setup for a Rickrolling.

If. Only.
posted by chuckdarwin at 11:58 AM on December 29, 2007

why a post which is identical to a deleted post should be allowed to stand.

Yours wasn't identical and you seem to be a bit obsessive on this topic. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to compare two posts and yet people try to do it often. This post was better, even with the stupid part on the end.
posted by jessamyn at 12:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

So, like, this artsy chick, she's hawt, dude?
posted by orthogonality at 12:19 PM on December 29, 2007

I respectfully disagree, and I fail to see how something that happened so long ago is worthy of a new and sexist FPP.
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:23 PM on December 29, 2007

I disagree too. This is a crappy post and guaranteed to elicit dumb sexist comments.
posted by languagehat at 12:31 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

you seem to be a bit obsessive on this topic

Uh, yeah, maybe a bit. He has 1/3 of the comments in this thread.
posted by graventy at 12:34 PM on December 29, 2007

Y'know, I'll just never get used to how much drama mere boobies can inspire.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:36 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Mere boobies? You're understating the very foundation of this thing we call the internets.
posted by found missing at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

There's interesting material in the FPP, even if it is poorly presented. Just glancing over the FPP before reading the links, I would be interested in:

* Was this a case of a wrong license being chosen (a la the post about Virgin using Flickr photos in their ads)?
* Was it outright theft?
* Was the photo originally deleted because the Flickr was more concerned about the rights of a business than the original photographer?
* Being sexually attractive is a definite advantage in this world. Is the photographer leveraging this? Are her photos otherwise unremarkable? Is she being ironic? Is she possibly curious as to whether "genuine" art photos get anything like the views of boob shots? Does she expound on this in any way?
* What are her photos like?

There is also the prurient interest in looking at a lovely young woman in a state of undress.

So sexist? Perhaps as it is presented, but as been noted the photographer is an active participant in this, and exploring why might be more interesting than saying "I'd hit it." But chuckdarwin does have an interesting point about the original deletion. Even if it was a mistake and flickr apologized, the scenario and the gallery's use of the photos was interesting. Killing that original FPP seems to be more akin to protecting flickr than deleting because of "mehness."
posted by maxwelton at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Killing that original FPP seems to be more akin to protecting flickr than deleting because of "mehness."

Mods don't like to see other mods criticised, I guess. Or, they didn't want an FPP that openly calls out people at Flickr and Yahoo!.
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:44 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

It is a puzzler:

The last line is sexist.

This topic was rejected months ago not based on form but content.

Both of these things are true; chuckdarwin, having made the old deleted post, is more likely than anyone to remember the deletion. So what? That doesn't make him wrong, about either thing.

So why jump on him about this MeTa post? Knee-jerk disagreement? No room for sour grapes? Lack of basic understanding of how these things have worked in the past?

He's right on both counts, whether conflict of interest exists or not. Saying he's wrong is dopey, no matter who you are and who he is.

It's true that consistency in moderation is a fool's goal, though, so once mods show up in this thread and lay down the law, even if they're being just as myopic as the other dopes here, the case is closed.

It's not like there's a double standard here, because a double standard requires consistency and the mods aren't robots. But chuckdarwin has a couple good points, and the reason this post stands is a mystery.

Life's full of mysteries. Maybe the discussion made this post a good one. It wouldn't be the first time a stated policy was turned on its ear. Nor would it be the first time someone's legitimate point was trashed by bored bullies.

Crazy little thing called love.
posted by breezeway at 12:48 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

chuckdarwin, your presentation in the old post was a link to a bbc news bit summarizing a situation that had been settled by the time you made your post, but you spun it in the post as a sort of Bad Shit Going Down thing; you included in the first comment a (not damning but not remotely helpful in a this-will-go-well sense) admission that you kinda knew the subject; and for all that, your post provided none of the background and links to her actual photography that you yourself seem here to think are important to a worthwhile post about her.

I don't see these as identical posts.

The "she's hot" tag on the end seems a bit tone-deaf considering recent events, but not everybody has been reading metatalk and it strikes me, too, as more meh than deletable. It's not a great post, but it's not an awful one either and it certainly serves her as a photographer to be discovered by Mefi readers better than your post back in May did.
posted by cortex at 12:58 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue

The more frat-boys masturbate the less they reproduce. She's taking one for the team Yo.

(Somewhat Fratist)
posted by vapidave at 12:58 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

While we're back on the offensiveness/sexism issue, maybe this user can have his/her username changed. I'd like to suggest the following options - change it to:

(a) pudendum
(b) fundamentalist
(c) agent provocateur
(d) dworkin
(e) apple

Vote early, vote often.
posted by Rumple at 12:59 PM on December 29, 2007

I don't see these as identical posts.

I don't either. This one sucks.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:03 PM on December 29, 2007

This one sucks.

Flagged as suckist
posted by found missing at 1:09 PM on December 29, 2007

sucksist?
posted by found missing at 1:11 PM on December 29, 2007

I dunno what sucks worse, the FPP or chuckdarwin's whiny ass call out...
posted by wfrgms at 1:25 PM on December 29, 2007

If I don't look at photos of her boobies, do they truly even exist? Metafilter, get to work on this one.
posted by Brocktoon at 1:31 PM on December 29, 2007

If I don't look at photos of her boobies, do they truly even exist?

Depends. Did they make a sound when they fell?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:36 PM on December 29, 2007

She's so hot she's making me sexist.
posted by wemayfreeze at 1:45 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

chuckdarwin's original post seemed to focus on the Flicker unlicensed-use controversy. This one, despite its regrettably sexist last bit seems to be more about the photos themselves (and that last bit, as has been pointed out, is also about photos the artist has chosen to include). That's a pretty substantial difference, I'd say.

My tip for the stealtho-sexist among us: If I'd done this post and wanted people to see those pics of her without the wink-wink nudge-nudge aspect of the post, I'd have said something like, "The artist also does self-portraits."
posted by not that girl at 1:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

MetaFilter is a moderated community, which has MeTa for all sorts of ribaldry. And also [she's] hot posted on the Green is simply crass and eminently deleteworthy
posted by Neiltupper at 1:56 PM on December 29, 2007

pls translate
posted by found missing at 1:59 PM on December 29, 2007

"And also [she's] hot" posted on the Green is simply crass and eminently deleteworthy

This the second time in as many days that someone has referred to the Metafilter main page as the "Green." It honestly looks blue to me.

Am I colorblind? If I had to describe one of the Metafilter sites as "green," I would've picked AskMe.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 2:04 PM on December 29, 2007

I respectfully disagree

Yeah, we got that. And then we got it again. And again. And again.

Maybe you can stop assuming we're all dumb and consider your point made. You've already got nearly a third of all the comments in this thread, I think that's enough. Take a breather and let the dice fall as they may.
posted by splice at 2:05 PM on December 29, 2007

Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man. Alas.
But then would people have been as hot on stealing her photos? Hmmm.

Oh, these damnable boobies. Always getting in the way.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:08 PM on December 29, 2007

Christ almighty, fucktard. .... Whinging little cock.
posted by benzo8 at 2:28 PM on December 29 [+] [Flagged]

Settle down dude. Its a post, he didn't run over your dog.
posted by shothotbot at 2:08 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well I for one am utterly offended.

Not exactly sure at what, but when I work it out, I'll let you all know.
posted by Frasermoo at 2:16 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Just discovered this thread and laughed a lot.
"Also, she is hot 1 2 3" is sexist? A kleenex please. Does somebody take
PC too seriously or does somebody use PC only as an excuse because one of
his postings was deleted? Come on dude, get a life. Metafilter is not a
competition.
BTW chuckdarwin, my post is different than yours. I was not aware of your
post but I it talked about the stir. My post talks about the stir too but it is mainly about her beautiful pictures. And yes, the person who took them is beautiful too. I doubt that she minds the label.

Screwed up my post a little bit. I am not a native speaker and of cause
the spell checker did not pick up "island" (Iceland in German) since it
is a legit word and even makes some sense in the context. Sorry, will try
harder the next time.

I don't take pictures but enjoy seeing beautiful pics. Love to browse 2Photo sometimes. Check it out.

Evil sexist Yoyo_NYC
posted by yoyo_nyc at 2:18 PM on December 29, 2007

Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man.

That's optimistic of you. If she were an ugly girl, and had the gall to put photos of herself online, it's quite likely to conversation would've focused on her hideousness.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 2:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

I agree that the timeliness of the post is debatable, but I saw the original post that chuckdarwin made before it was deleted, and this one, and I prefer this post because it showcased her work, which was at the center of the whole debate. She'll get more attention for her photos through this post. Sorry it didn't work out in your favor, cd, and the new fpp does sound rather frat boyish at the end, but it's still a more complete post than yours was.
posted by misha at 2:20 PM on December 29, 2007

chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to respectfully disagree
posted by found missing at 2:23 PM on December 29, 2007

(TOTTALLY DARWINIST)
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:27 PM on December 29, 2007

--"Also, she is hot 1 2 3" is sexist?--

Yes, it is. You're defining her in terms of her beauty which may be fine and dandy among your mates but is actually one of the off-putting constructions women see on this website making them leave. They spend their lives dealing with the 'hot or not' labelling and, as I understand what they've said in a few Meta posts in the last month, it's something that they'd rather not have to deal with or see here. It also sets posts up to become "I'd hit it" sexual objectification. If it's self-evident that someone is beautiful, why do you even need to point it out anyway?

--My post [..] is mainly about her beautiful pictures.--

And that's where you should have left it. Her pictures are gorgeous. Personally I thought the kids and the sky ones were best. Her posting bikini shots of herself isn't quite the same thing as saying "please make a comment here or on another website whether or not you think I'm hot".

In my perfect world, the post would stay and there would be a red line through the last sentence and an advisory stating that that sort of commentary is unnecessary and in fact likely to hinder the quality of the discussion.
posted by peacay at 2:35 PM on December 29, 2007 [10 favorites]

Are people allergic to even the slightest hint of a male gaze? Harden up, for fuck's sake.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2007

"If it's self-evident that someone is beautiful, why do you even need to point it out anyway?"

Am I not sexist already in realizing that somebody is beautiful without pointing it out?
posted by yoyo_nyc at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2007

That's optimistic of you. If she were an ugly girl, and had the gall to put photos of herself online, it's quite likely to conversation would've focused on her hideousness.

Aye. And there's the rub. Such is life in the girlzone.

P.S. -- Meanwhile, that Rembrandt dude... he sure was hot. 1 2 3 Amirite?
posted by miss lynnster at 2:47 PM on December 29, 2007

(Oops! 2 was supposed to be this, not 1 again.)
posted by miss lynnster at 2:49 PM on December 29, 2007

Plus, I know her a bit- isn't that in and of itself reason for deletion?
posted by Sailormom at 2:52 PM on December 29, 2007

You're defining her in terms of her beauty

Again, the post DOES NOT do that. It's an afterthought compliment. Debate whether it was necessary all you want, but please realize the poster was not defining her solely by her beauty or breasts.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:59 PM on December 29, 2007

The valiant yet surprisingly noncommittal rebels ardent flagwaving boyzone defense had proved resurgent. Increasingly emboldened by the confusion and dismay, they charged up the molehill toward glory, stopping at the summit to scratch their crotches and stare steely-eyed into a future much more like the past, the good ol days when certain folks knew their place and didn't complicate things.

"I'd hit it" I said, to cheers. I'd hit it.
posted by cashman at 3:01 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

Actually miss lynnster, Rembrandt was a handsome man.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can we delete chuckdarwin's FPP for a second time?

Not that I endorse the second awful FPP on this topic. I just think it'd be a good way to spite chuckdarwin.
posted by mullacc at 3:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [7 favorites]

Okay, well maybe he's just not my type I suppose. Which is convenient. Since he's dead & all.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:05 PM on December 29, 2007

Her posting bikini shots of herself isn't quite the same thing as saying "please make a comment here or on another website whether or not you think I'm hot".

she must be new to the internet then.
posted by Frasermoo at 3:06 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

cute? cute? is that all you can say?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:07 PM on December 29, 2007

It is a great post! The post points us to a gallery of stunning photographs that few of us would otherwise have seen. Best of the web, you know.
posted by LarryC at 3:10 PM on December 29, 2007

miss lynnster, is it just me or does the look on Rembrandt's face seem a little annoyed? Almost as if he knew we'd be objectifying him, 400 years later. :-)
posted by chihiro at 3:10 PM on December 29, 2007

chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to respectfully disagree

Not yet. He is from England and just annoyed because I am German. So just don't mention the war to him. I mentioned it once but I guess I got away with it...
posted by yoyo_nyc at 3:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

I think we can all agree that anyone, hot or not, that makes themselves the focus of their art, deserves criticism for vanity at least. Didn't Philip Roth explore the concepts of art and artist? And didn't Thomas Pynchon take being separate from your art to such a degree, that the mere idea of Thomas Pynchon the reclusive artist, took hold?

Or we can have a whole debate on whether attractive women (and men) get helped along in life. They do, for no other reason but their attractiveness, as do kids born into wealthy families. Sometimes the issues are larger than they seem. But yeah, what a bad way to go around presenting the fact that she had a ton of comments and support, oh and by the way, she's incredibly attractive.

It is akin to doing a post on Mark Zuckerberg and then going, "this rich dick went to Philip Exeter, put that he enjoyed fencing (really!) on his Harvard application (really!) and didn't apply for financial aid (really!) and is now richer than the rest of you will ever be." When really presenting the facts without the commentary would have been sufficient in forming my opinion. He could be a swell dude who just had some help, a lot more help than most of us get, but you don't need to go and shove classism in America down my throat. So posting something along the lines of "her favorite model is of herself," is a lot less crass way of saying it and takes the issue away from sexism while still letting the discerning reader know that her personal appearance, at least in some way, is going to play into this.
posted by geoff. at 3:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think you'd be singing a different tune if Rembrandt had painted himself wearing a speedo.
posted by found missing at 3:17 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Dead IS my type.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:39 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think you'd be singing a different tune if Rembrandt had painted himself wearing a speedo.

Well, give or take the invention of lycra, he pretty much DID!
posted by miss lynnster at 3:45 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry. I haven't Haimburgled in a while. Old habits die hard.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:45 PM on December 29, 2007

Boobies and girls in bikinis can be hard to find on the internet. Even though I am a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman, I often come to Metafilter to find this type of content.

Sometimes I even have to look at what I initially thought was just a post about a good photographer just to find this hawt girl content. But often I can pick just about any post on just about any topic and shortly find comments about boobies and such.

I can't imagine where else I might want to regualrly visit on the internet instead of Metafilter, because it's not like I ever want to just have an interesting discussion that doesn't involve boobies. Why would I leave?
posted by Anisoptera at 3:46 PM on December 29, 2007 [14 favorites]

Here's the /sarcasm tag for those who were still unsure.
posted by Anisoptera at 3:49 PM on December 29, 2007

You aren't a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman? I'm so confused.
posted by found missing at 3:53 PM on December 29, 2007

This the second time in as many days that someone has referred to the Metafilter main page as the "Green." It honestly looks blue to me

Blue! Blue! It's all these fucking Xmas colours everywhere!
posted by Neiltupper at 4:03 PM on December 29, 2007

You aren't a straight, 40-something, college-educated woman? I'm so confused

You have to read the whole sentence. Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.
posted by Anisoptera at 4:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

chuckdarwin will be here momentarily to ~~respectfully disagree~~ bitch and moan.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:13 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

chuckdarwin: You're clearly not an unbiased observer here. You're pissed that your FPP was deleted, and this one wasn't. Well, this one had more links and it wasn't an immediate reaction. As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds. Some women actually do like people admiring their bodies, as long as they stay in control.
posted by delmoi at 4:19 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Rebekka's photographs: 'Look, I have boobies!'
Metafilter: "Look, she has boobies!"

I fail to see the problem. If she is going to post photographs of herself in a bikini then everyone is free to pile on. Or are they "art?" Because they don't look a lot like art to me.
posted by fire&wings at 4:22 PM on December 29, 2007

Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.

No need to attack. I think your comment is GREAT. I've NEVER seen anything like it on MeTa before.
posted by found missing at 4:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Or are they "art?" Because they don't look a lot like art to me.

Handy guide:

Naked woman, looking at camera, fake boobs: Porn
Naked woman, looking away from camera, real boobs: Art
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:25 PM on December 29, 2007 [18 favorites]

Wait wait, I just looked at her Flickr page- she keeps sets organized by how many favorites her pictures have? FAIL.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:27 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Metafilter hates attractive women.
posted by xmutex at 4:28 PM on December 29, 2007

As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds. Some women actually do like people admiring their bodies, as long as they stay in control.

For heaven's sake, the issue isn't only whether she minds. I mind. Other users mind. Calling a woman hot may not be sexist; continually commenting on women's looks, as if it's always an important consideration when discussing women, is. I'm tired of it. It makes me feel like shit. I wish people would stop it.
posted by occhiblu at 4:30 PM on December 29, 2007 [19 favorites]

Really, guys?

Again?!
posted by shakespeherian at 4:34 PM on December 29, 2007

As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds.

What occhiblu said. Who cares whether she minds? The question is whether it's good for MetaFilter. It's not, and I somehow thought we'd settled that awhile back. Depressing to have to fight these battles over and over for the very first time.
posted by languagehat at 4:36 PM on December 29, 2007

I think we can all agree that anyone, hot or not, that makes themselves the focus of their art, deserves criticism for vanity at least.

No, we cannot all agree. I certainly do not.

If she is going to post photographs of herself in a bikini then everyone is free to pile on.

I so love "she asked for it" in all its post-modern variations. We've come a long way, baby.

Because they don't look a lot like art to me.

That is because you are apparently unable to see past the tits.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:38 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

No need to attack. I think your comment is GREAT. I've NEVER seen anything like it on MeTa before.

Not an attack at all, more of an apology for possibly being unclear. Thanks for the compliment. Let's just have the tagline and get back on topic.

Metafilter: Sorry if it's difficult for you to understand.
posted by Anisoptera at 4:38 PM on December 29, 2007

As far as the "sexist" stuff, well she put this picture in an "erotica" group. I don't think she minds.

So if someone posts porn to the front page, and everyone in the thread says 'd00d i wanna cream her face!' it isn't sexist?
posted by shakespeherian at 4:40 PM on December 29, 2007

Wait wait, I just looked at her Flickr page- she keeps sets organized by how many favorites her pictures have? FAIL.

Bingo. Thank you. I've seen her work over the past year or so. The floating apple thing was cool but I find it difficult to get hipsterections over her arty narcissism. FAIL indeed.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 4:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I recall chuckdarwin's earlier post about this, and I found it interesting as heck (despite, or perhaps because of the "shit is going down" tone)
like maxwelton suggests though, a post on this topic could be much better. The one on the front page now sadly sucks because what could have been an interesting copyright in the digital age (and what it means for your rights dear reader) discussion, will now turn into "sexy in photos" or "sexy female photographers" talk. Meh.
posted by dabitch at 4:47 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's sexist to reduce a good artist to mere tits and ass, yes.

I dunno. I understand that people shouldn't be valued only for looks and sexiness is more than appearance and all this 'hawt,' 'boobies' talk is bad for society and the children and will cirve your spine and stop the country from winning the war and all that happy horseshit...

BUT,

at the end of the day humans (male and female) are animals. We like looking at pretty pictures and our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it. All the other stuff is embroidery and self-justification, ultimately, and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superfical. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? Who the hell knows. Take it up with evolutionary biology.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

So if someone posts porn to the front page, and everyone in the thread says 'd00d i wanna cream her face!' it isn't sexist?

Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?
posted by jonmc at 4:57 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

In any event, it was on popular favorites on delicious today, so until/unless Metafilter is "Del.icio.us -- Distilled" it was pretty poor anyway. AND regardless of the photo being in an erotica group, it was OMG BOOBIES. Do a post on erotica on Flickr and include those photos, fine, but if this is about what happened to her, make it about what happened to her. Unless you think we should care about it because she's hot.
posted by Medieval Maven at 5:10 PM on December 29, 2007

Glad everyone enjoyed the holidays. Back to work, MeFi!
posted by absalom at 5:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think before we act hastily, we need to see pics of yoyo_nyc's boobies.
posted by chlorus at 5:12 PM on December 29, 2007

For heaven's sake, the issue isn't only whether she minds. I mind.

I don't. Other's don't.

Calling a woman hot may not be sexist; continually commenting on women's looks, as if it's always an important consideration when discussing women, is.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The original poster made one comment. Does he have a history of making such comments?

I'm tired of it. It makes me feel like shit.

Really not trying to be offensive her or insensitive here, but if such an innocent (though immature) comment makes a person feel like shit, isn't that the person's issue? Again, not trying to direct this at you personally, but the general you.

I understand that women can get frustrated with sexism and agree that they have every right to feel that way. I worry though when pretty much any and every instance of a guy commenting on a women's appearance is lumped together with all the other sexist shit out there. There are differences.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?

...and therefore its reduction of women to objects isn't sexist?
posted by shakespeherian at 5:27 PM on December 29, 2007

There may be differences, sure, but when a picture of a girls talking is suddenly intentional softcore porn in people's eyes, yeah, this is a bit too much male gaze taking over. This isn't just about what comment is and is not appropriate. Think about it; if everything you did, every bit of art you tried to produce, every commentary you tried to make was turned into someone's wank fantasy, wouldn't you start to feel a little silenced? As if the only worthwhile statement is the part that gives someone a boner. It's dismissive and annoying, both the thoughtless comments and the constant misunderstanding of why it's dismissive and annoying.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:28 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]

Dismissive and annoying, and a gratuitous and stupid conclusion to the post. It's being lumped in with all the other sexist shit out there because it is the other sexist shit out there.
posted by goo at 5:31 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

It was a fine post and you are just spitting sour grapes because your post was deleted. How lame.
posted by caddis at 5:40 PM on December 29, 2007

our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it... and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superficial.

Kindly refrain from speaking for me. Especially incorrectly.

but if such an innocent (though immature) comment makes a person feel like shit, isn't that the person's issue?

How about if it's MetaFilter's issue? This is a post about copyright. The appearance of the photographer, even if she is her own subject, is entirely irrelevant. And yet, the boys on the blue cannot fucking resist pointing out that OMG she has boobies.

It does not, to say the least, engender an environment where women are treated respectfully or as equals.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:40 PM on December 29, 2007 [6 favorites]

Um, isn't the primary function of porn the facilitation of sexual fantasy?

...and therefore its reduction of women to objects isn't sexist?

My point was that in porn (I'm not talking about the stuff in the FPP) pretty much everyone involved is a sex object. That's the function of porn.

Kindly refrain from speaking for me. Especially incorrectly.

I'm not 'speaking for you' but I've heard enough women drooling like schoolgirls over some new 'hot guy' who just got hired at work or some movie star stud to realize that women do this shit, too. That's just life. Like I said, at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.
posted by jonmc at 5:46 PM on December 29, 2007

This is a post about copyright.

Sorry that you see it that way but this was just the hanger. The main purpose was to show her beautiful pics. I would not have posted this if I had not liked the art. I also would have posted very different if the posting had been focusing on copyright.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 5:49 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Like I said, at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.

i've got a great idea - why doesn't someone start a new activist group - women against biology?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:03 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

she deserves better than a frat-boy masturbation post on the blue.

Chuck, you have to be a bit less rescuer here and a little more couldn't care less if you're going to win this womans heart.
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:05 PM on December 29, 2007

It sucks when the people who are wrong are proud to be wrong, and justify their wrongness with non-arguments ("deal with it") and elusive reductions ("we're all shitheads, so are you"). It's worse when key controversies are based on false dichotomies: "she's hot" and "she's ugly" are not opposites, and saying "she's hot" does not mean "she's pretty."

"She's hot" is a judgment of sexual attractiveness, and is thus the equivalent of saying "I would like to fuck her." Few men would describe their mothers or sisters as "hot" for this reason.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, assuming a very basic level of social ability, that many people would be offended to know that this photographer is someone they would like to fuck.
posted by breezeway at 6:07 PM on December 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

our first mental reaction on seeing a beautiful person is to lust after it... and though they wont admit it publicly women do this as much as men and are just as looks fixated and superficial.

This comment is based on a basic misunderstanding of the issue. Again. Women do this lusting as well, but here's what they don't do: when a man produces art, or makes music, or keeps a tech blog, or whatever, women may well have their moments of lusting, but they don't replace the voice of the man with their lust, making everything that man says, does, or produces about that lust. If anything, female lust only makes a man's original message or perspective louder (see George Clooney). This is less about whether or not you find this woman attractive in her pictures and more about how we as a community choose to react to women's work.

Additionally, just because there are boobs in a picture doesn't make it porn. We have boobs. They are a part of us. They are not part of you, and they are not presented solely to titillate you. Just because you're titillated doesn't make the picture about you and your titillation.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:09 PM on December 29, 2007 [11 favorites]

It makes me feel like shit.

ah, finally.

it really boils down to that, something makes somebody feel like shit in a site with 70,000 users. triggering a user's insecurities, or bad memories, or simply interfering with one's comfort zone is a mortal sin. after all, mathowie had the audacity, back when the site was free, to take a tiny Suicide Girls ad and all hell broke loose and he was yelled into retiring the ad -- it's all about individual comfort zones, after all. I mean, that's why the front page (of the basically irrelevant blue, since the most successful part of the site -- and, I assume, the moneymaker for the owner -- is AskMe anyway) is reduced to a silly list of recycled pablum and youtube music/cartoon link dumps -- god knows they're inoffensive, after all. that's what counts, they don't make people feel bad about themselves -- weblog as ~~conversation~~support group..

For years it's been impossible to post about the overweight for the same reason -- "It makes me feel like shit", and mathowie had to deal with the emails of the easily offended. easier to kill the posts than to delete all the comments from the infidels who may point out that maybe, in some cases, not all, some, calorie intake and nutrition may be the root cause of obesity -- god forbid: over here, nutrition and body weight are blissfully unrelated -- the people have spoken.

Same for religion, it took what, 20 deletions before a post about Richard Dawkins made it unscathed and undeleted? Because hearing that the guy one prays at night might not exist, well, "It makes me feel like shit". so to hell with science if science is offensive.

The Disneyfied, G-rated MeFi's front page, on any given day now, is a bit of a joke, really. And the MeFi PC police -- so deliciously trigger happy with that "flag" button to better bully the admins into submission -- is especially guilty. It's important that the site does not offend anyone ever, no matter how delicate their comfort zone. Who cares if it sucks, really, as long as it's inoffensive.

One more thing: this is the Internet, where for better or worse the most searched item is something like "Lindsey Lohan blowing a horse": I'm actually surprised by how well behaved the contingent of childish "she's hot!!!" commenters is in this site -- god knows they're much more unruly in the comments sections of vastly more successful sites such as, YouTube or flickr. You want the Internet without some nerd somewhere ogling a cute woman's photo? (because after all these same guys are sadly lacking in real life interaction with attractive women and the Internet is their best -- only -- shot). good luck with that.

Me, I just hope that Google or Yahoo buy AskMe (and it's satellites) very soon -- Matt will get his well-deserved mountain of cash, and the PC police will write some very surly emails to Sergei Brin or something

Not that the post about the Icelandic photographer was particularly good -- boring postcard-like uninspired shots of fields and horses are cool if you think Anne Geddes is an artist, otherwise, not so much. And who cares about how the photographer looks? Possibly, a few jerkoffs. But without them, there'd be no internet. And certainly no IT departments. So what can you do.
posted by matteo at 6:10 PM on December 29, 2007 [21 favorites]

Only in the sense that people would be shocked, shocked, to find sexual attraction going on on the internets. LMAOROTFL.

Oh hai. Ize in yr photo site turnin u on.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:14 PM on December 29, 2007

You know, I'm just itching to find ~~an excuse~~ a hanger for a FPP about Will Smith - maybe something vaguely political or historical - so I can add in the totally irrelevant fact that the man is both hot and uncircumcised. Then we can all talk about cocks for a change, perhaps over tea and sanitary towels.

yoyo_nyc, the next time you intend to make a post that isn't about copyright, I suggest you construct it in such a way that 52 of the 86 words are, in fact, not about copyright. Then you can protest with much more righteous indignation.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:14 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

at the end of the day, we're just animals, no matter how hard we try to deny it.

Hey, I'm an animal right from the beginning of the day, y'know what I'm saying? Roowwwwrrr!!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:17 PM on December 29, 2007

You know, I'm just itching to find an excuse a hanger for a FPP about Will Smith - maybe something vaguely political or historical - so I can add in the totally irrelevant fact that the man is both hot and uncircumcised. Then we can all talk about cocks for a change, perhaps over tea and sanitary towels.

knock yourself out.
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Y'know, I'll just never get used to how much drama mere boobies can inspire.

Not a Homer fan, then?

D'oh!
posted by spiderwire at 6:21 PM on December 29, 2007

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ~~Nazis or Hitler~~ fat people approaches one.

What's the name of this law, anyway? Surely there is one by now.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:21 PM on December 29, 2007

Oh, for fuck's sake Matteo, it's not about being fucking PC. Not that I would expect you to understand it, but it doesn't fucking matter if it makes one person feel like shit -- it matters because the way the post is structured, supposedly it lends weight to her Flickr issues that she is HAWT, which should have nothing to do with it. The poster did something stupid, appended a bad post with a worse summary of "I would hit that," and that's supposed to be a-OK? Somehow pointing out that the whole thing is stupid and also, FWIW pointlessly showcasing the user's apparent desire to nail this girl, is a bad call out? Whatever. After DarlingBri does her post about Will Smith, I'll do one about the music of Maroon5 and, oh, btw, how much I'd love to shag the shit out of Adam Levine.
posted by Medieval Maven at 6:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Am I wrong in thinking that one can say "BTW, she's hot" and not mean to be sexist, but saying that lacks class and respect and that is what we should be aiming at? A level of discourse where an offhand comment about someone being attractive (and I hate to break it to you guys, but some people have awesome secondary sexual characteristics) is taken to be just that, offhand and not intended to objectify or demean. The only way to realize that level of discourse is to very intentionally be respectful, to refrain from blurting something about how cute the subject is in a post about intellectual property and social capital and what have you... YOU CAN DO IT.

I mean, I am certainly an animal, but I'm an animal with manners, APE WILL NOT OBJECTIFY APE and so on.

I'd love to go to Iceland one day, it seems like such a singular place.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:22 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]

Shit post, boring photos, tacked on Beavis-ism.
posted by klangklangston at 6:27 PM on December 29, 2007 [4 favorites]

It's not about intentions. If a person doesn't understand this essential demeaning tendency that's built in to the way he interacts with women (online or off) by saying the kinds of things that were said in that post, intentionality doesn't enter into it. Take the time to unlearn some of the bullshit in your head that allows you to think that it's appropriate to add something like that as an offhand comment in a forum like this, that would be respectful. (I hope to god these same people don't have the balls to say things like that to women's faces!)

But as an offhand comment, Divine_Wino, every time you post I imagine jonmc giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around. I mean that in the most respectful way.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:36 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

that's hot.
posted by Stynxno at 6:38 PM on December 29, 2007

i have to wank furiously now
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on December 29, 2007

Wow, you totally misread my comment in a supercrazy way, Hidegarde, but you're right, Jonnie is always a gentleman about giving a brother a hand.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:40 PM on December 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

Oh, if only she were an ugly girl so she could be properly judged for her art as any man. Alas.
But then would people have been as hot on stealing her photos? Hmmm.

Not to pick on miss lynnster (your points are always well-taken), or to denigrate the photographer, but I happened to open the flickr-stream and then the "1, 2, 3" pictures in tabs, looked at the flickr page, then at the "hot" pictures, said "meh," and went back to the flickr stream. Sure, she's pretty. Lucky her. But those photos are awesome. Therefore this post is awesome. I'm still not sure why the bit at the end, after the jump, detracts from that awesomeness.

Am I allowed to make a crack about chuckdarwin getting the vapors, or will that be flagged as sexist? I recently learned from MeTa that the phrase is apparently verboten, which confused me, since I've always used it to refer to faux-outrage.

I would also like to call out:

1. The FPP as being temporalist, because it's out of date and therefore discriminatory against current events.

2. The multitude of posters in this thread and other recent threads making unfair and demeaning generalizations about fraternity members, many of whom go on to become valued members of the community. They also provide a crucial target for high-minded derision and an important natural resource for domestic strawman production.

3. The unacceptable -- not to mention hypocritical -- whinism on display here and throughout the gray, which has been rampant for years with nary a peep of reprobation.

MetaFilter has always been a bastion of hope for pissing and moaning and this high-falutin' dismissal of our right to complain incessantly and pointlessly is a black mark on the site's record.

I demand that it stop, right now. I will continue to stamp my foot petulantly until action is taken or I am appeased.
posted by spiderwire at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

But as an offhand comment, Divine_Wino, every time you post I imagine jonmc giving it to you up the ass, doggie-style. So hawt! I particularly enjoy it when he gives you the reach around. I mean that in the most respectful way.

The Wino would be the top in this relationship, obviously.

I'm not a crusader in the gender wars, I just have a strong distate for pieties, anybody's pieties.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2007

"MeFi can rightfully brag of being saved from pointlessness by a splendid, long list of ultracool ladies. as one of the most assholish male users here -- and God do I have a lot of competition thanks to my fellow male MeFites -- I am constantly awed by their brains and their luminous humanity, and I am very grateful for their presence here." [linky]

I knew where to find that comment matteo because I actually save things in my favourites that I want to keep; in this case because I thought you well articulated what I was thinking. I don't care whether you call it PC or anti-sexism or nerragundah or bob, but promoting an environment where we get more of this luminous humanity is worth pursuing, seems to me.
posted by peacay at 6:42 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

(my ultimate point was just that people of both genders are always going to notice and comment on people's appearances, because that's the way people are. whether it's good or bad dosen't really enter into it. I try not to get agonized over things I can't do anything about)
posted by jonmc at 6:43 PM on December 29, 2007

Matteo, are you actually arguing that mefi comments should be more like youtube or flickr comments? You hope mefi changes ownership so that it can become more like those sites? Really?
posted by ryanrs at 6:43 PM on December 29, 2007

I should add that I'm drinking some of this Zappa inspired beer right now, I just like the idea of answering 'Whaddaya drinking?' with 'Lumpy Gravy, dude.'

But I digress. This is obviously a variation on the old saw about people rising above their base urges. To which I say, why? Self-improvemet is a sham. Self-acceptance is the truly mature path.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007

but promoting an environment where we get more of this luminous humanity is worth pursuing, seems to me.

Paternalism!

Anthropocentrism!

Content-ist!
posted by spiderwire at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007

You asked if it was enough just to have good intentions, Wino. And I answered. No. It's not enough. Most people have good intentions but don't seem to have any perspective on the implications of their actions. One also needs to at least try to get a grip on that part of the equation. I fail to see how that's supercrazy, unless by "supercrazy" you mean requires some effort. Then yes, it IS supercrazy.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2007

my ultimate point was just that people of both genders are always going to notice and comment on people's appearances, because that's the way people are.

jonmc, I really suggest you take a good look at how often women are posting these kinds of comments about men (or other women, for that matter) on MeFi. Because while I see you saying "everybody does it" I'm not seeing a subset of "everyone" that possesses vaginas engaging in this kind of locker room behaviour here.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:53 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

luminous humanity

Oh, and incandescentist too! The Umbral Rights League will hear of this! For shame!

You're also being insensitive to those who suffer from synesthesia. They find the smell of your terminology offensive.

And this entire thread privileges the literate. Fortunately, though, this is the internet, so we don't have many of their kind around here. And good riddance, I say.
posted by spiderwire at 6:56 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Because while I see you saying "everybody does it" I'm not seeing a subset of "everyone" that possesses vaginas engaging in this kind of locker room behaviour here.

what about hildegarde's hot fantasies about divine wino and jonmc?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:57 PM on December 29, 2007

I'm upset to see such a crass post, yes (especially when mine was better

Better? How? OK, now this shows the crassness of your MeTa post.
posted by caddis at 6:57 PM on December 29, 2007

DarlingBri, go to Mecha and search the word 'Clooney.' Hang out at places I've worked. Plenty of women are glad to talk about men as sex objects. and you know what? I don't really care, because I realize that that's the way people are built, we have libidos, we think about fucking people. Rather a lot. If I see a pretty girl, I think about fucking her. If I meet a smart girl, I think about fucking her, If I meet a funny girl, I think about fucking her. It's the way my genes were programmed. And plenty of women were programmed that way, too. and that's fine.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on December 29, 2007

That was an attempt to turn the tables, man. I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:59 PM on December 29, 2007

NOTE: Those of you unaware of the sexism meta threads from November, please see Discussion-Point and Changes-to-make-Metafilter-more-woman-friendly. Both threads survived 1000+ comments without descending into jokey bullshit. Take that as a sign that more than a few members think sexism on mefi is a serious problem.]
posted by ryanrs at 6:59 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

But jonmc, they don't do that here. Kindly return the favor.
posted by ryanrs at 7:01 PM on December 29, 2007

I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.

Is he dressed in a police uniform at least?
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on December 29, 2007

Hildergarde: That was an attempt to turn the tables, man. I just threw you into their orgy, you with your gifted fingers.

Digitalist!

jonmc: If I see a pretty girl, I think about fucking her. If I meet a smart girl, I think about fucking her, If I meet a funny girl, I think about fucking her.

Perv.
posted by spiderwire at 7:02 PM on December 29, 2007

That was an attempt to turn the tables, man.

in all seriousness, you should make sure the table's strong enough to hold all that doggie lovin' weight
posted by pyramid termite at 7:04 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

I should add that I'm drinking some of this Zappa inspired beer right now, I just like the idea of answering 'Whaddaya drinking?' with 'Lumpy Gravy, dude.'

Libationist! (This, you must admit, it completely true.)

But I digress. This is obviously a variation on the old saw about people rising above their base urges.

Primitivist!

To which I say, why?

Relativist!

Self-improveme[n]t is a sham.

Ambitionist!

Self-acceptance is the truly mature[...]

Ageist!

[...] path.

Cartographist!
posted by spiderwire at 7:06 PM on December 29, 2007

it completely true

Oh, and all you typo-haters can stop right there.
posted by spiderwire at 7:07 PM on December 29, 2007

you're an istist, spiderwire - shame on you!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:08 PM on December 29, 2007

you know, having seen chuckdarwin's old post on the photog that someone thankfully linked to here, I'm seeing his side of this issue less and less. His original post from months ago was a serious piece of shit made even worse by how very very sincere he was in his advacy of an issue that had already been resolved. The new post was largely fine with one giant fucking stinkbomb of a last line.

But here's the thing: chuckdarwin knows the photog? huh. well, the mods know best but at this point I'm more than a little surprised that he wasn't banned in the first place. I mean, he's a good dude and shit, but if I posted a newspaper article about MY friends to mefi I'd pretty much expect a swift and merciless bannination. To then go and bitch about someone else getting away with a better post on a topic he could have been banned for posting about in the first place is really just incredibly tactless.
posted by shmegegge at 7:08 PM on December 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

(I hope to god these same people don't have the balls to say things like that to women's faces!)

Many do. The tragedy is that, all too often, they get to keep them afterwards.
posted by spiderwire at 7:11 PM on December 29, 2007

Hildegarde, really, re-read what I wrote and perhaps in general offer an apology for attacking my nonexistent sexism with some really crude homophobia. Did you leave your account logged in where a reasonably articulate and possibly concussed bigot could get a few minutes with it?

I said very clearly that the problem with the post in the FPP was that it was disrespectful, that the poster was possibly (I don't want to assume) not aware that saying the subject of the post was "hot" was demeaning to her and to women in general and therefore a bad thing to do. In an ideal world we could shrug off someone saying "oh yeah, also that person is cute" and accept it as an offhand comment, but we don't live in that world, so rather than argue that any kind of discussing of physical attractiveness is sexism, we should approach that matter as an issue of being respectful and having class so that people who instinctively argue that saying someone is good looking cannot possibly be sexist are countered with the point that their defense doesn't matter, what matters is not making people feel uncomfortable.

Instead you had a tremendous brainfart and decided that what I said (which FUCKING INCLUDED A DISAGREEMENT WITH JONMC, who is my beloved friend, who I disagree with often and still consider my beloved friend) was worthy of some kind of crazy comment about him sodomizing me, as if that was a punishment for me being sexist. You associate me with Jonmc (which is fine, we are good friends), so you seem to have some notion of my comment history here, but you also assume that I have a history as an apologist for sexist comments, when in fact I have the exact opposite comment history. So yes, you were being really crazy and I resent your implications extremely.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:12 PM on December 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Battle of the Flickr All-Stars December 29, 2007 10:35 AM Subscribe

Battle of the Flickr All-Stars
December 29, 2007 10:35 AM Subscribe