Or you could just not say anything.

March 16, 2008 5:15 AM

If you feel the need to call the OP a douchebag, attack his phrasing, or lecture him for "body image baggage," please do it in this MeTa instead of shitting in the question.
posted by nasreddin to etiquette/policy at 5:15 AM (148 comments total)

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.
posted by RussHy at 5:30 AM on March 16, 2008

On second thought, the third one was an honest attempt at being constructive. So scratch that. But honestly, the OP is not going to develop a sexual attraction to overweight people, not even if you teach him all about how the media is evil and promotes unrealistic images of women's bodies. The heart has its reasons, which reason knows nothing of.
posted by nasreddin at 5:33 AM on March 16, 2008

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.

Why is he a douchebag?
posted by nasreddin at 5:35 AM on March 16, 2008

That second linked comment is offensive because that noob thinks Metafilter works like Digg.
posted by pieoverdone at 5:41 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

The OP tried to avoid this by saying "I won't try to couch my concerns in anything but incredibly selfish terms", is dealing with a loss of sex interest in his now-hostile spouse, and is probably on track for a divorce. Either way, he's in a rough spot and admits that he's not trying to sugar-coat his own perspective. If that isn't the right time to call someone a douchebag, what is?


P.S. RussHy, you're a douchebag
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:51 AM on March 16, 2008

Actually that thread is going surprisingly well. With a little clean up it'll probably be quite constructive and helpful to the poster.
posted by orange swan at 5:52 AM on March 16, 2008

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.

No. It didn't. May I direct you to the thread below this, where Miko is congratulated for her helpfulness and patience in AskMe threads? Go read every one of her AskMe answers and see how it's possible to gently point out that someone is misguided. I'm pretty sure that you won't see the word "douchebag" in any of her answers.

I'm most disappointed in the way you posted your insult separately so you could still look like a reasonable person after it was deleted. I see this kind of drive-by nastiness sometimes, like "I can be a complete dick and only the poster and a handful of other people will notice before it gets deleted, and then I can put on my innocent hat again" and it's a shitty thing to do. It sets a horrible example for new people who might think that sort of answer is acceptable, it makes us look like assholes, and it's a bunch of unnecessary work for Jessamyn.

I'd really like it if we could all exercise more restraint when we see someone doing something we don't like. I know it's sometimes really, really hard to not call someone a douchebag, but the right thing to do is flag it and then sit on your hands. (Or try to be more like Miko; I'm not sure how she responds so calmly and convincingly to people who make me want to claw my face off, but she's got the touch. And wouldn't this place be so extra extra awesome if we all tried to be even the tiniest bit more like her?)
posted by stefanie at 5:54 AM on March 16, 2008 [32 favorites]

I want to be a tiny bit more like stefanie.
posted by Dr. Curare at 6:11 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.

Like hell it did.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:29 AM on March 16, 2008

I'm with RussHy on this one, at least in spirit.

Nothing provokes my frustration more than an anonymous poster going with the, "My wife's a fat slob, can anybody help me save my marriage? By the way I don't want anyone to tell me I'm a shallow jerk" approach. Guess what buddy, you have become one. I guarantee you the waist size of the woman you married is not the source of the problem, and the sooner you stop treating yourself as her solution (just because you happen to weigh less? Huh?), the better. She either has problems with herself, or with you, that she is not willing or able to admit to, and you're shallow enough to see it as, "she just won't stop eating - I can only take so much fucking of my fat wife". And then have the audacity to post the above-mentioned sentiment on an anonymous forum in a way that seems caring and thoughtful, but really isn't at all?

I might have to cheat on her because she's too fat? I'm so tired of being a half block ahead of her on my bicycle? Poor baby. End the AskMe pity party approach and go to counseling. God knows your setting yourself up for a marital disaster thinking things through in this way.

And in the spirit of ending on a positive note, be lucky you have a wife.
posted by phaedon at 6:31 AM on March 16, 2008 [7 favorites]

It absolutely had to be said.

No, it didn't. Askme is designed to help people. Calling them names isn't helping, it's just making you feel better 'cause you can get up on your self righteous horse and look down your nose at someone.

Just answer the damn question and if you can't do that flag it, move on or vent in Metatalk. And please don't try to justify shitty behavior by saying it "had to be said". That's childish.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:35 AM on March 16, 2008

pieoverdone writes "That second linked comment is offensive because that noob thinks Metafilter works like Digg."

More so because it's an anonymous question and therefor has already been vetted by one of the trinity.
posted by Mitheral at 6:45 AM on March 16, 2008

Well OK, it didn't absolutely need to be said. I was being a douchebag. But I thought over my first post and decided it was an honest answer to a dishonest question and that made me angry so I posted the insult, which was immature and surprisingly satisfying. Don't you agree, 0xFCAF?
posted by RussHy at 6:47 AM on March 16, 2008

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt. I don't think it's shallow to say that I have never gotten an erection from Jabba the Hutt. The thread says a lot more about the insecurities of some people who are worried that they look like Jabba the Hutt than it does about the OP.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:51 AM on March 16, 2008 [46 favorites]

phaedon: I agree that the OP sounds like a fucking twat, and I echo your sentiment whole heartedly. Still, though, comments like, 'oh hey, by the way you're a douchebag,' might be better suited for a mefi mail or a discussion in the grey, if only so that, two years from now, when someone goes to an old AskMe after googling around for solutions to his/her own spouse-weight problems, what he/she will find is a series of helpful comments (critical or otherwise) and not a bunch of shit. And I think there are ways to integrate the message, "you should perhaps look inside and meditate on the level of douchebaggery involved in your current dilemma," without the kind of shitty comment RussHy provided.
posted by farishta at 6:52 AM on March 16, 2008

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt.

I suspect the ensuing community consensus that is about to be hurtled at you will be that if you really, really loved Jabba, you'd muster the strength to change your sexual desire. This is the same process that Ted Haggard is trying, but with less Jesus^TM
posted by 0xFCAF at 7:01 AM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Well OK, it didn't absolutely need to be said. I was being a douchebag. But I thought over my first post and decided it was an honest answer to a dishonest question and that made me angry so I posted the insult, which was immature and surprisingly satisfying.

FTFY. And don't do that shit any more.
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on March 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

Community consensus? Hardly. I think maybe two people out of 30 suggest that OP should/will/must find his wife/Jabba sexually attractive.
posted by b33j at 7:20 AM on March 16, 2008

Well OK, it didn't absolutely need to be said. I was being a douchebag.

I don't see it so you must still be composing your apology in the original thread, where the person you gratuitously insulted might read it.
posted by shothotbot at 7:22 AM on March 16, 2008

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt. I don't think it's shallow to say that I have never gotten an erection from Jabba the Hutt. The thread says a lot more about the insecurities of some people who are worried that they look like Jabba the Hutt than it does about the OP.

Dude, turn your XBOX back on.
posted by phaedon at 7:25 AM on March 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt.

I don't think that's the issue, Mayor. What rubs me the wrong way about the question is that anonymous is largely unapologetic in his contempt for his wife's weight gain and just wants a quick fix (because clearly, she can just get back to her his ideal weight if she wants to), and his attitude seems to say "if you think I'm a douchebag, or want to tell me to change at all, then fuck off."
posted by oaf at 7:30 AM on March 16, 2008

More embarrassing is that those comments that have been called out here have received favorites. Positive feedback for jackasses.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:35 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

What a beautiful start to a brand new week.
posted by dawson at 7:39 AM on March 16, 2008

...has already been vetted by one of the trinity.

One of the what? We're not working on creating Religium 2.0 here, are we? Are we?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:48 AM on March 16, 2008

his attitude seems to say "if you think I'm a douchebag, or want to tell me to change at all, then fuck off."

And rightly so, IMO. He's saying that he's thought this through, and the issue is a deal breaker for him.

He cares about her sufficiently to be asking how he can open a constructive dialogue with his wife on the issue, but he's not interested in derails about how he needs to change to learn to embrace her whole hurf-durfness.

Now maybe it *is* sufficiently shallow to not want to live with someone who is larger than their ideal weight. Presumably, if that's a deal breaker for his wife, then she'll let him know that when she learns of his views.

Until that point, he's entitled to ask how best he can address this issue that's obviously a very real problem for him.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:49 AM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

*erects hut. jabbas to himself in it.*
posted by jonmc at 7:52 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Even if she does get thin, she'll eventually get old. Check back in 15 years for another post from the same guy.
posted by PatoPata at 7:52 AM on March 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

Nothing provokes my frustration more than an anonymous poster going with the, "My wife's a fat slob, can anybody help me save my marriage? By the way I don't want anyone to tell me I'm a shallow jerk" approach.

An AskMe thread is nowhere to be calling someone a "douche".

Besides, if the guy married a sleek gazelle of a wife, chances are he's wired to keep banging a sleek gazelle of a wife (keeping in mind the effects of age). Asking her to lose weight is totally fair, as long as the OP also acknowledges ways in which he himself will change in order to save the marriage.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:52 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.

This is basically never, ever true. If you're angry about an asker's stated opinions or behavior or attitude, there are about a thousand ways to communicate that, directly and without pulling punches even, that don't involve doing something when you knew better.

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt.

This is a willful misreading of that actual thread.
posted by cortex at 8:04 AM on March 16, 2008

I got no time for jibba, Jabba.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:07 AM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Fool.
posted by goo at 8:13 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Weird. He wanted to know why his attempts to talk to her were unproductive and how to be productive about it. A valid answer is "being a choad about it gets in the way of having a productive conversation." There are two problems, and his is the one he should solve first if he honestly wants to sort the situation out.
posted by majick at 8:17 AM on March 16, 2008

This is a willful misreading of that actual thread.

Perhaps, but there's no shortage of people who want to tell him how he *should* feel about the issue, rather than answering the question as asked.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:18 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Which is a reasonable objection, and one Mayor Curley could have made if he wanted to instead of dropping a little shitbomb like that into the conversation here. It's not AskMe, so it's not so much a clear violation, but it's still an obnoxious bullshit approach to the situation and it'd be nice if people wouldn't do that sort of thing so readily around here.
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on March 16, 2008

Goddamnit. I sat on that question for DAYS knowing it was going to wind up in MetaTalk and yet at the same time... it seems dickish to delete someone's genuine-sounding question just because people here are adolescents about (both sides of) weight issues. I thought the link to the Savege Love column was about the best since, even though Dan Savage was sort of churlish about it, you could see that it's a pretty easy situation to fuck up in someone's eyes no matter what you do.

I knew better, but it was worth it. It absolutely had to be said.

This is basically never, ever true.

Quoted for emphasis. I'm pretty comfortable stating a new pseudopolicy that if you "knew better" and crapped in an AskMe thread anyhow (as evidenced by MeTa statements or that passive-agfgressive winking that we see in AskMe answers somehow) you can contemplate that with a week off from MeFi.

I don't know why not shitting in the thread is a difficult thing to do, but I'm at a loss for how to curtail this sort of nonsense.
posted by jessamyn at 8:24 AM on March 16, 2008 [11 favorites]

People here overwhelmingly assume that one's weight is a choice (no one asked if the poster's wife has gone through a pregnancy recently, is on medications that might cause her to gain weight or even if she is eating more than when she was thin.) So maybe it would be interesting to see how "constructive" the reaction would be to a poster whose spouse is getting old in an unattractive way? She absolutely refuses to get Botox or dye her hair. He's adamantly opposed to hair transplants or restructuring his diet to include lots of healthy anti-aging antioxidants and Omega-3s. It would be really too bad to have to cheat over this, but the person I married just isn't doing it for me any more.
posted by transona5 at 8:31 AM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I'm with RussHy on this one, at least in spirit.

Okay, be with him in spirit, just don't do it in the Green. We gotta, gotta remember that the Green is a service site where people come to get helpful answers to the questions they ask. It is not the moral stage upon which the souls and toils of our time shall be judged and laid bare to the almighty mob.

There is point of view in everything. Deconstructing a question post because it is based on a strong point of view is not some emperor-has-no-clothes kind of act. It's just unhelpful. You're trying to help someone else who didn't come to AskMe and whose voice you haven't even heard.

AskMe can only do so much. At best you can help the person who posted the question answer it. You can't liquefy the underlying character mortar that led them to ask it and reshape them into someone else who wouldn't have that problem in the first place. Ambitious to think you can, yes, noble of intent, perhaps... but stupid.
posted by scarabic at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

So I'm alone in jerking off to Jabba the Hutt?
posted by xmutex at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2008 [6 favorites]

but it's still an obnoxious bullshit approach to the situation

FWIW, I thought it was an attempt at saying exactly the same thing -- albeit in a more obnoxious manner, I'll concede.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2008

And I won't claim to know Mayor Curley wasn't trying to be purely clever rather than a mixed does of clever and asshole, but he's got a long history of jerkish behavior that kind of undermines the benefit of the doubt someone might otherwise get extended.
posted by cortex at 8:37 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

MeTa has been overrun with these Askme call outs and it really seems to be getting out of hand. I understand someones desire to have a dialogue about site policy but time and time again we seem to be going over ground that has been well covered and discussed.

Just this month there has been 1, 2,3,4 all of these call outs can be handled without bringing them here, all of these topics have been covered and nothing new has been said in any of them that hasn't been said last month or the month before. Seriously is this just a bunch of showboating? What is so hard about reading the guidelines and flagging things when the don't measure up to them?
posted by nola at 8:45 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

nothing new has been said in any of them

You didn't really read that fourth link did you? Because it got very interesting very quickly.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:35 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Seriously is this just a bunch of showboating? What is so hard about reading the guidelines and flagging things when the don't measure up to them?

I don't spend enough time here to watch every AskMe thread, but the impression that I get is that trollish behavior is on the rise in AskMe, and there's an increasing number of posters who feel justified in dropping snarky one-liners, acting like assholes, and otherwise shitting in the green.

I know that AskMe is the dearest part of the site to me. I've had an amazing range of difficult questions answered there. If somebody had gone off in my question thread where my sister was trapped in Lebanon about how she was stupid for going there in the first place, I would have had a cow.

jessamyn is suggesting now that we're going to start seeing timeouts for bad behavior in AskMe. I'm all for it. This isn't a question of whether we should delete comments or not. It's whether we should be allowing people to get by with free passes for shitting in AskMe, especially when they already know better.
posted by onalark at 9:43 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

mixed does of clever and asshole

Oh deer!
posted by Floydd at 10:01 AM on March 16, 2008

MeTa has been overrun with these Askme call outs and it really seems to be getting out of hand. I understand someones desire to have a dialogue about site policy but time and time again we seem to be going over ground that has been well covered and discussed.

I suppose you think meetup announcements and pony requests are more interesting?
posted by nasreddin at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2008

I posted the insult, which was immature and surprisingly satisfying.

You are a bad member of this community.
posted by LarryC at 10:08 AM on March 16, 2008

I suppose you think meetup announcements and pony requests are more interesting?

As entertaining as some of these AskMe callouts are, I'm with nola. The number of posts whining about some element of an AskMe that caused someone discomfort is getting ridiculous.

Hot tip: You will be angered/insulted/annoyed by some AskMe at some point in your Metafilter career. Get over it now and spare the rest of us your drama.
posted by mediareport at 10:15 AM on March 16, 2008

First they suppressed the comments that were critical of fat people, and I did not speak out...
because I was fat.

Then they suppressed the comments critical of atheists, and I did not speak out...
because I was an atheist.

Then they suppressed the comments critical of polyamorists, and I did not speak out...
because I was a polyamorist.

Then they suppressed the comments critical of anything...
and we all lived happily ever after in our ever positive echo chamber.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:21 AM on March 16, 2008

To be more clear, I'm with nola on the uselessness of callouts about AskMe *questions* that make people uncomfortable. Callouts about asshole comments are slightly less useless.
posted by mediareport at 10:21 AM on March 16, 2008

That's just stupid. These callouts persist because numbskulls with no self-control make a mess in AskMe. What you're saying is like saying all of these fire truck sirens are shrill, and why can't they just relax?

If threads like this bring about a change in policy, where willful jerks are punished for their behavior that "just needed to be said," then keep em coming.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:23 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh deer!

Dam knit!
posted by cortex at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2008

There's more to this post than the wife's weight. I have a feeling the OP would be turned off (as would Jabba-hating Mayor Curley) if his wife developed a disfiguring disease or chronic illness. "It's not my fault I had to look elsewhere for sexual satisfaction; my wife's hair fell out during the chemo and it disgusted me to look at her." I have a feeling his wife suspects that his love is somewhat superficial, which is why she threatened to put on revenge pounds.
posted by Oriole Adams at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

It doesn't matter what feelings and suspicions you have about it. Even if you suspect he fucks baby squirrels, it's completely irrelevant. If you can't answer the question, your only course of action is to not comment.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:29 AM on March 16, 2008 [12 favorites]

I also can't believe that the link to that Dan Savage column, which advises the husband to say "You have gotten fat and unattractive and my sex drive is nil, so can we do something about it before I bail on you?" and characterizes the wife as "waddling", has been praised as such a great answer. "You haven't been earning anywhere near as much as you used to since you dropped that hedge fund job that was making you miserable to teach high school, and I find it hard to be sexually attracted to a man who doesn't make six figures, so can we do something about this before I bail on you? Maybe we could go to business seminars together? People who earn more have better health, so I'm really doing this for you!" Hey, it's just being honest! What happened to that?
posted by transona5 at 10:35 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Maybe I don't understand what "etiquette/policy" means in MeTa, but I was under the impression it was for working out problems that come up throughout the site that have not been covered over and over again. I didn't know it was for rehashing the same problem everytime it comes up, I thought that was what the flagging system was for.
posted by nola at 10:38 AM on March 16, 2008

The poster sounds like an intelligent and sensitive guy trying to save his marriage.

Anybody who thinks that attraction shouldn't matter in a marriage is deluding themselves.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:42 AM on March 16, 2008 [7 favorites]

So I'm alone in jerking off to Jabba the Hutt?

It's the internet. I'm betting you could find something.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:50 AM on March 16, 2008

Yeah, there is an awful lot of knee-jerk defensiveness going on in that thread. Something about weight just rings a bell for a lot of people.

If you get married and your spouse makes a significantly negative change in his or her life or lifestyle, you are allowed to bring this up with them and ask them to change it. It's not the husband being selfish here.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

nola, if you hate threads like this so much, why don't you stop reading and commenting in them? Amazingly enough, that is the whole point of this thread- if you cannot say anything helpful within the framework of a post, do not say something unhelpful because you feel like your voice must be heard. Skip it and move on. Metatalk threads like this one are valuable, whether you believe so or not- they are a reminder to the community at large that unhelpful nasty comments will not be tolerated, even in cases where the poster "deserves" it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:55 AM on March 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

Also, I should say that there are some terrific comments in that thread. I think that the OP genuinely wants to help his wife lose weight, and is genuinely asking us how to go about doing that. This is pretty much what AskMe is for.

No harm, no foul.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:58 AM on March 16, 2008

DTMFA.

Seriously. Life is too short to spend it with someone you think is gross.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:59 AM on March 16, 2008

Just because you assert these types of Metatalk threads are valuable doesn't make it so.
posted by folgers crystals at 11:00 AM on March 16, 2008

Just because you assert these types of Metatalk threads are valuable doesn't make it so.

Joined: February 22, 2008

Maybe you aren't the best authority on how this community operates.
posted by nasreddin at 11:04 AM on March 16, 2008

Maybe you aren't the best authority on how this community operates.

Yes, because February 22, 2008 was probably the first time he(or she) ever had any sort of relationship with MetaFilter. Why, it was probably the first time they'd ever been on the internet!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:07 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

transona5 , that was Dan Savage's facetious answer. Read the other links for his actual answer.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:13 AM on March 16, 2008

that was Dan Savage's facetious answer.

In the other links he makes incredibly snide responses to people who disagreed with his advice, repeatedly says that women can't handle "honesty" and gives the original poster some additional advice: "Your wife—the weight gain, the hair growth, the moodiness, the drugs—may be clinically depressed or have some undiagnosed medical condition, both subjects you could broach without touching on the boner-killing fatso stuff. But, yeah, at 10 years together you have a right to expect that your partner will maintain some base level of attractiveness. That's not about sexism—I expect the same from my boyfriend—it's about respect." Which is pretty much exactly what he said originally, while acknowledging that there is an outside chance that she may not be deliberately putting on weight to spite him. So I think his original advice was meant to be taken seriously.
posted by transona5 at 11:25 AM on March 16, 2008

nola, if you hate threads like this so much, why don't you stop reading and commenting in them?

Oh just for chance I might spy you in here dear lady.
posted by nola at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2008

jessamyn: I don't know why not shitting in the thread is a difficult thing to do, but I'm at a loss for how to curtail this sort of nonsense.
It'd probably be a short-term pain in the ass (due to whining meta after email after meta after email) but the solution is probably to start coming down hard on people who shit up askme threads. Say, if you get a post deleted, the first time you're banned for a week. Escalating for those that don't get it through their skulls. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any negative consequences for it other than, you know, you guys who try to clean up.
posted by Drastic at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2008

Don't you think that's a bit drastic? Sorry.
posted by nola at 11:43 AM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Nah, the plan for a one week timeout sounds good, especially if you're doing something you know you shouldn't be doing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2008

I support negative feedback from mods for negative comments, but I think it would be useful to have a warning first before a time-out - askme has lots and lots of new people on a regular basis and there is a slight learning curve for the helpful, question answering atmosphere of the green (even with the faq, etc).
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2008

I think many of us (myself included) have feelings and opinions that we may or may not openly express that qualify us as being douchebags ourselves. We can't all be like Fred Rogers!

But what is more important is to have the ability to identify these feelings/opinions, question them and make an effort to change one's way of thinking.

If we, as readers feel that a poster's comments reflect a possible personality flaw, I think we need to always consider the following:

1) We never know the whole story. We are limited to a few lines when true understanding of the situation can take a lifetime to achieve. So it is extremely unfair to make any kind of conclusion about the O/P based on a couple of lines or paragraphs.
2) We are limited to the OP's writing abilities (or lack thereof). If an OP does not know how to best express him/herself, there can be a lot of misunderstanding that can arise
3) We can never help anyone by insulting them, no matter how convinced we are of their deservedness of said insult. We are only satisfying whatever emotional feelings of rage we might be feeling (justified or not).
4) If we truly want to help someone, we need to tell them what they need to do right, not tell them (and punish them for) what they are doing wrong. We learn what is right by being taught what is right, not be being taught what is wrong and then doing the opposite.
5) As I mentioned above, there is a difference between someone's feelings and someone's attitude toward said feelings. For example, I could have feelings of hatred for puppies. I am not responsible for having these feelings, but I am responsible my actions because of these feelings (will I decide to hurt puppies or will I decide to figure out why I hate puppies and get help)

So in the case of the OP who asked the question about his overweight wife, if anyone felt that he was being shallow, arrogant, etc., they should realize that these are his feelings. And if they feel that he is too accepting of these feelings, they should simply explain why they feel that such acceptance is wrong.

Finally, we all have expectations and priorities in life. And they are not all the same. For the OP, these priorities/expectations might include a sex life with a "hot gazelle" (I like that term!). We have the right to question it, to disagree with it and to hate it, but we need to express our thoughts and opinions respectfully.

Imagine what a peaceful world we would live in if we all lived this way! _(Sigh!)
posted by bitteroldman at 11:57 AM on March 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

I propose a Metafilter Wall of Shame where the mods post the usernames of people who have posted deleted comments in the past week. We can then mock and throw tomatoes at those people.
posted by Justinian at 12:02 PM on March 16, 2008

Something about weight just rings a bell for a lot of people.

I can tell you why it's personal for me. I am close to "underweight", but I know that I may not be that weight forever and I am constantly bombarded with messages that it's still not thin enough. The Times had an article the other day about how the Spitzer scandal has resonated with women who fear that their husband may be seeing prostitutes on the side. I'm not sure how other women feel, but there is no question that I would rather be Mrs. Eliot Spitzer than be married to the man who wrote to Dan Savage about how repulsive his wife is.
posted by transona5 at 12:17 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

Seriously. Life is too short to spend it with someone you think is gross.
I sincerely hope that your eventual partner/spouse doesn't feel this way in case you develop a cancer that involves you having to undergo a colostomy, or if you develop ALS and your partner will be the one wiping your butt and mopping your chin as they feed you.
posted by Oriole Adams at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

That "I'm admitting I'm selfish" to absolve himself thing is an annoying technique. I would've told Anonymous that his attitude stinks and that yes, we've discussed this EXACT issue several times before and that he's not a special snowflake and by the way, when's the last time he made dinner and yeah, buddy, you're both going to get old.

But I didn't want to shit in the thread, so I just didn't post a response. Little did I know that I had achieved a moment of restraint apparently requiring superhuman strength. Go me!
posted by desuetude at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

but I know that I may not be that weight forever and I am constantly bombarded with messages that it's still not thin enough

I understand where you're coming from (men are bombarded by messages about how we're inadequate as well, they just don't have to do with weight mostly) but our own insecurities have nothing to do with th OP's question and shouldn't be taken out on him. He really does have a right to bring up an issue like this with his spouse.
posted by Justinian at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2008

our own insecurities have nothing to do with th OP's question and shouldn't be taken out on him.

Like desuetude, I didn't post in the thread, pretty much for this reason. But some people did point out, from a position of what you might reasonably call insecurity, that such a conversation would be absolutely devastating, and that was a decent answer.
posted by transona5 at 12:30 PM on March 16, 2008

I sincerely hope that your eventual partner/spouse doesn't feel this way in case you develop a cancer that involves you having to undergo a colostomy, or if you develop ALS and your partner will be the one wiping your butt and mopping your chin as they feed you.

I disagree, and I hope they do feel this way. If I'm struck with some horrible, debilitating illness, there's absolutely no reason it has to ruin both of our lives. I don't think I would appreciate that degree of self-sacrifice from a partner. It seems foolish to me.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:42 PM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Dave Faris writes "More embarrassing is that those comments that have been called out here have received favorites. Positive feedback for jackasses."

That's not necessarily what a favourite means, could be people just watching to see if an inappropriate comment has been deleted.

nola writes "Maybe I don't understand what 'etiquette/policy' means in MeTa, but I was under the impression it was for working out problems that come up throughout the site that have not been covered over and over again. I didn't know it was for rehashing the same problem everytime it comes up, I thought that was what the flagging system was for."

Meta is at least a little about being a place to vent without derailing too.

Justinian writes "I propose a Metafilter Wall of Shame where the mods post the usernames of people who have posted deleted comments in the past week. We can then mock and throw tomatoes at those people."

Unfortunately many of the habitual offenders would see appearance on the wall as a goal rather than a deterrent.
posted by Mitheral at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think it would be useful to have a warning first before a time-out - askme has lots and lots of new people on a regular basis and there is a slight learning curve for the helpful, question answering atmosphere of the green (even with the faq, etc).

We can usually tell the difference between a misstep by a new user and the same old shit from the same old people. There's nothing really about timeouts or banning that's automated, so we'll definitely keep this data point in mind. We write emails to new users all the time saying "oh hey you're new here you might want to take a look at the AskMe guidelines because we've deleted a few jokey responses and thought you might want to know why..." and usually, not always but almost always, it goes pretty well.
posted by jessamyn at 12:52 PM on March 16, 2008

Rephrase the question in your mind in the most charitable way possible. If it ends up something you could answer, answer. If not, don't.

I read this one as, "I'm no longer sexually attracted to my wife. I really love her, and don't want to leave her, cheat, or offend her. I'd rather address the cause of the problem. What can I do? I already know Y, so don't bother telling me that.

Answers that say, in effect, "Y!"... or even "Y, douchebag!" probably could be better phrased as "Well, I'm afraid there's really no better alternative to Y. In my experience, Z and W don't work."
posted by ctmf at 1:25 PM on March 16, 2008 [9 favorites]

Could people please stop comparing the gaining of a few pounds to permanent disfigurement and devastating terminal illness and people needing their asses wiped? It's offensive and weird and just a tad over the top.

Also, I think anon doesn't deserve the grief he's getting. He just sounds frustrated as anyone in such a situation would be. I hope he takes the counseling advice to heart though because it sounds like there is a lot more going on than just a weight problem and the resentment is strong on both sides.

Rephrase the question in your mind in the most charitable way possible. If it ends up something you could answer, answer. If not, don't.

I read this one as, "I'm no longer sexually attracted to my wife. I really love her, and don't want to leave her, cheat, or offend her. I'd rather address the cause of the problem. What can I do? I already know Y, so don't bother telling me that.

Answers that say, in effect, "Y!"... or even "Y, douchebag!" probably could be better phrased as "Well, I'm afraid there's really no better alternative to Y. In my experience, Z and W don't work."

Yes, this! Everyone do as ctmf says and everything will work out just fine.
posted by LeeJay at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2008

If mathowie would allow an image, perhaps pb could post a "NO SNARKING ZONE" sign on AskMe.
posted by Cranberry at 1:58 PM on March 16, 2008

Mr. President Dr. Whatever: caring for the people you love in this life is a blessing. Perhaps the highest blessing. Sex, parites, food, being fabulous are distractions. Even dogs and cows are able to pursue their own satisfaction. Taking care of others is not something that "ruins" your life. It is the holiest thing you can do. I hope for your sake you can understand that some day.
posted by milarepa at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2008 [9 favorites]

I disagree, and I hope they do feel this way. If I'm struck with some horrible, debilitating illness, there's absolutely no reason it has to ruin both of our lives. I don't think I would appreciate that degree of self-sacrifice from a partner. It seems foolish to me.

I don't know which is sadder^*: that you'd actually hope to be abandoned because of a health problem, or that you view supportive changes in a relationship as necessarily 'sacrificial'.

Here's hoping that you were just being flippant.

^*I don't mean that in the aggressive 'pathetic' sense of the word; it actually makes me a bit sad.
posted by CKmtl at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Douchebag.
posted by orthogonality at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2008

Wow milarepa, while I agree with you in principle, I can't remember the last time I read a post so condescending in tone. Consider the possibility that in our uncertain world, wisdom is useless unless taken with at least a grain of salt and more than a bit of humility.
posted by drpynchon at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2008

drpynchon, you know, you're right. I resist coming to metafilter because I find myself tempted to roll around in all the snark against my better judgment. I think it's time I left.
posted by milarepa at 2:32 PM on March 16, 2008

Maybe I don't understand what "etiquette/policy" means in MeTa, but I was under the impression it was for working out problems that come up throughout the site that have not been covered over and over again. I didn't know it was for rehashing the same problem everytime it comes up, I thought that was what the flagging system was for.

Realistically, there's a can't-step-in-the-same-river-twice aspect to this: not everybody is here for every thread, especially over the long arc where the active userbase (and particularly th metatalk-active subset) may have changed significantly between iterations. There's an aspect of covered ground that comes out whenever a topic comes up again, yes, and for some people this is the third or fifth or tenth time they've seen the discussion—but for some folks its the first.

So while I sympathize with the feeling that, okay, we've discussed this already, that's more of a old-timer or metatalk-faithful perspective than a universal one. It's a given that topics are going to recur; if you don't feel up to the rehash, then, hey, sit this one out, and that's fine. As much as the grey may sometimes turn out to be an entertaining or enlightening place, that's not what it's for and not every thread is going to make everyone's day.
posted by cortex at 2:34 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

milarepa, let me be clear: I have a lot of respect for you, and I think it would be a great loss to us if you left MeFi. Just take some deep breaths, step away for a day, go out and play in the sun, maybe get a slushy, and come back to continue to help make this a better place than it already is. As the note says, everyone needs a hug.
posted by drpynchon at 2:48 PM on March 16, 2008

I don't think I would appreciate that degree of self-sacrifice from a partner. It seems foolish to me.

Ah, libertarian love.
posted by dirigibleman at 2:55 PM on March 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I don't know which is sadder*: that you'd actually hope to be abandoned because of a health problem, or that you view supportive changes in a relationship as necessarily 'sacrificial'.

Here's hoping that you were just being flippant.

No, I wasn't being flippant. I would hate for someone to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to care for me. I wouldn't want someone to stay with me out of a sense of duty once changing circumstances had turned me into a person that they would never have wanted to be with in the first place.

I don't see supportive changes in a relationship as necessarily sacrificial, but they easily can be. Different people will draw the line in different places, and I don't feel I can tell people what they ought to be willing to give up and what they ought not.

In the Asker's case, he apparently can't bring himself to be sexually attracted to his fat wife, and sex is apparently so important to him that he can't be happy without it. I just don't see an obligation to sacrifice one's own happiness to be with another person, irrespective of what it actually is that makes one happy.

milarepa: I didn't reply to your comment because I don't believe in "blessings" or "holiness," so I'm afraid we'd just be talking past each other.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:02 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

Sad that milarepa left before he could share further. I have a feeling this subject might be close to his heart these days.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:05 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

And rightly so, IMO. He's saying that he's thought this through, and the issue is a deal breaker for him.

And that makes him a douchebag.
posted by oaf at 3:15 PM on March 16, 2008

That's not necessarily what a favourite means, could be people just watching to see if an inappropriate comment has been deleted.

Perhaps you're right. But I suggest that doing that will only make the person feel like they're receiving praise for their behavior nonetheless.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:16 PM on March 16, 2008

And that makes him a douchebag

Bullshit. We don't have enough information in the question to judge whether this is true or not.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on March 16, 2008

Milarepa's post about caring for others being holy was very beautiful, and made me cry. I hope too that he comes back. I don't think his post was snarky or condescending at all - it was strong, with strong feeling - perhaps people are afraid of strong feeling these days?
posted by By The Grace of God at 3:24 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I suggest that doing that will only make the person feel like they're receiving praise for their behavior nonetheless.

We've had the discussion about the fact that favorites aren't necessarily positive feedback and that people use them for different purposes before. If people insist on believing that the only possible reason people favorite something is because they agree with it and want to high five/butt slap/give a cookie to the author of said favorite, then that's up to them, but favorites are simply bookmarks, not "praise".
posted by biscotti at 3:49 PM on March 16, 2008

No, I wasn't being flippant. I would hate for someone to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to care for me.

I would hate that, too, and I can't say that I love the idea of someone I love being tied down to caring for me. But I would want to do it for them, no question. When I was in middle school, I watched a couple at our church deal with the wife's ALS. We met her relatively late in her diagnosis- she was already having trouble walking and speaking. We watched as she slowly lost her ability to walk, speak, do anything without assistance. We had dinner with them one night at their house and all she could do to communicate was moan and he never lost his patience with her. I don't know how he did it. But that's the kind of spouse I want to be, should it come to that. Everybody gets old and falls apart at some point- I'm seeing it now with the couples at my church, the ones who have been married for 50 or 60 years. Are they glad they've sacrificed what they have to be married? I can't say, but seeing what they're going through, I'd prefer the people I love to go through it with someone as opposed to going through it alone.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:54 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

re:holiness of staying with a severely disabled partner:
substitute "most adult" or "most fully human" or "best" for "holiest".
This doesn't mean we need to stay with partners no matter what - for example if they become cruel or if our interests diverge or etc. But taking care of your partner of many years if they become severely disabled? That's a good and noble thing to do. It's not foolish. That's what love and longterm partnership are about: taking your partner's happiness/needs as part and parcel of your own happiness/needs.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:06 PM on March 16, 2008

I'm not trying to judge other people cause I have friends who I love very much who might feel the same way as the OP, and I know they are good people. But I'm with TPS on this; I would hate that, too, and I can't say that I love the idea of someone I love being tied down to caring for me. But I would want to do it for them, no question.

But I tend to be loyal as a dog, and about as smart.
posted by nola at 4:10 PM on March 16, 2008

Perhaps you're right. But I suggest that doing that will only make the person feel like they're receiving praise for their behavior nonetheless.

A person so inclined will find validation regardless, "favorites" or no.
posted by desuetude at 4:32 PM on March 16, 2008

re:holiness of staying with a severely disabled partner:
substitute "most adult" or "most fully human" or "best" for "holiest".

I don't think "adult" really has a lot of independent normative content. As far as I can tell, it's just used a shaming mechanism. As for "human," I don't like the idea of dehumanizing people who don't stay with a severely disabled partner. There's nothing good down that road.

As for "best," that seems highly dependent on the circumstances and how you weigh the various interests involved. Perhaps the labors of the non-disabled partner serve to enrich him or her, but maybe they just make him or her bitter and depressed.

This is an easy question in the former case, but I don't think we can just ignore the hard case.

But taking care of your partner of many years if they become severely disabled? That's a good and noble thing to do. It's not foolish.

I think it really depends on what the experience does to you. Moral accolades are of little use to someone who feels they wasted their life. Staying with a severely disabled partner may be a good and noble thing to do, but it's a supererogatory good.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 4:42 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure why people should get all upset. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we should all abide with Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America's wishes that, should he be crippled or suffer some terrible disease of the lower intestine, we should all let him stew in his own piss, shit and dribble. As per his wishes. Forever and ever, amen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:51 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

Blazecock Pileon, do you feel clever when you hammer out a zinger based on an intentionally obtuse and uncharitable reading of someone else's post? Does feigning an inability to understand discourse seem witty to you? Serious question.

I imagine you pumping your fist and letting out a snorty little laugh every time you do it, and I'm curious if this is at all accurate. Thanks.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 5:00 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Blazecock Pileon, do you feel clever when you hammer out a zinger based on an intentionally obtuse and uncharitable reading of someone else's post? Does feigning an inability to understand discourse seem witty to you? Serious question.

You should have asked me if I have stopped beating my wife, yet. I doubt very much you are being at all serious.

A better question still is whether someone making such a statement, having a history of such statements, should be taken seriously in the first place. My "zinger", as such, is only about the ridiculousness of taking your comments in this particular thread seriously.

However, if you're really being serious, then so am I, and as a fellow taxpayer I humbly thank you for choosing not being a further burden on society in those infirm years to come.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:10 PM on March 16, 2008

A better question still is whether someone making such a statement, having a history of such statements, should be taken seriously in the first place.

I don't think I've ever said anything about this topic on this site. What are you talking about?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 5:15 PM on March 16, 2008

He probably means a propensity for making provocative comments.

Now, who wants ginger snaps?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:20 PM on March 16, 2008

I don't think I've ever said anything about this topic on this site. What are you talking about?

I think you understand perfectly well, I won't waste my time to elaborate beyond saying that I don't think you're being serious, in general, on many matters discussed on this site, including this particular topic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:21 PM on March 16, 2008

Sockpuppet posts intentionally provocative comment to get a rise out of the Metafilter? Alert the media!
posted by Dave Faris at 5:41 PM on March 16, 2008

I don't think "adult" really has a lot of independent normative content. [etc]
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:42 PM on March 16 [+] [!]

I intended "adult" in a normative sense - as we mature, we should aim toward being more adult. I'll spell out what I mean, in case you don't like the term and would like to substitute another. In another age this idea would've been something like being a "real man" in the sense of fulfilling your responsibilities, doing the hard things that you don't want to do and for which you don't get a reward, etc. Other things being equal, people like this are morally admirable and we should aspire to be like them. For myself I find it very hard to make sense of what gives our lives meaning without something like this (our ties of consideration and responsibility to other people, which ties are not based only on whether those people make us happy right now) at the bottom of it. Of course there are lots of complex situations, and there are cases where it will be ok or even better to leave one's partner when the person is in decline. I don't mean it's easy to figure out what duty requires. But I think you were suggesting that (a) we don't have such duties, and (b) if we choose to act in what I characterized as the adult way it's "foolish", that there is no good in it.

So I'll say again: I don't think it's foolish, and I think something like milarepa's point is exactly correct, supernaturalism notwithstanding.
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:08 PM on March 16, 2008

But I think you were suggesting that (a) we don't have such duties, and (b) if we choose to act in what I characterized as the adult way it's "foolish", that there is no good in it.

Hate to come to Mr. President's defense but that's not what he said. He was suggesting that in the relationships that he enters into that sort of thinking and implicit assumption of commitment doesn't exist, and I assume his associates/friends/lovers/what-have-you are aware of this. If he derives his happiness from having "lesser" (for lack of a better word) attachments, would be happy to live fast, suck the marrow out of life while he still has his hair, and die alone with neither friends/family at his side or any regrets about it then more power to him as long as the people in his life knew to expect nothing more. Just because to you, the meaning of life depends on conventional notions of sacrifice and family, doesn't mean that should apply to everyone else. Some people are happy hermits. Some people are happy hedonists bouncing from one casual sexual relationship to another. Some people are even happy anarcho-libertarians. Maybe some people can contribute nothing to society, never find true love by your definition, and still be happy as a clam playing World of Warcraft all day. Perhaps better these than to be miserably married. Call it base if it makes you feel better. I don't know. But I do know that if you feel like your life is ruined by making a sacrifice for someone else, and you're going to be miserable about it, then maybe in that scenario, it ain't such a good idea. People who entertain "adult" sacrifices (by your definition) really wouldn't have it any other way, as hard as those sacrifices may be -- the alternative would be unthinkable to them.

I never got the sense that Mr. President was imposing his world view on everyone else, but the backlash he got suggested to me that the opposite wasn't true. Maybe I'm wrong and he's just being a trolling provocateur, but that wasn't the sense I got.
posted by drpynchon at 7:00 PM on March 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm neither a good Xtian or Buddhist, but my heart goes out President Dr. Steve Elvis America, I've pondered it for hours, and my pity will be lost on him, but to proudly declare "I didn't reply to your comment because I don't believe in "blessings" or "holiness," so I'm afraid we'd just be talking past each other" reminds me of old racists who were proud of their hatred, it's like declaring "I'm willfully illiterate!" or "Hey y'all, I just shit my pants" or, like an ESL student thinking they are saying something entirely diffrent, declaring "I'm very superficial". I don't like this Elvis impostor one bit, I'd prefer Mao as a room mate, and I note that the profile is tellingly obscure.
posted by dawson at 7:49 PM on March 16, 2008

Oh great. The simple-minded, insipid, belligerent Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America has disgusted milarepa so much that he's left us. Why couldn't it have been you who left, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America"? I want you to go away.
Amazingly, I'm restraining my public comments here, and taking it to the personal pvt email level.
posted by dawson at 7:56 PM on March 16, 2008

I didn't reply to your comment because I don't believe in "blessings" or "holiness," so I'm afraid we'd just be talking past each other" reminds me of old racists who were proud of their hatred

Wait... not believing in religious blessings and holiness is the same as hate and racism? You've gotta be kidding me. Whatever you may think of Dr. Steve etc, the comment about not replying because he doesn't believe in god is really inoffensive. Or at least it should be.
posted by Justinian at 8:21 PM on March 16, 2008

Being an ass via MeMail and then telling everyone about it is neither discretionary nor particularly restrained, dawson. This thread's got enough ugly in it as is.

Merit or value, not so much.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:29 PM on March 16, 2008

Could it be that milarepa and Mr. President are both right?
posted by stubby phillips at 8:38 PM on March 16, 2008

A. I don't think I would appreciate that degree of self-sacrifice from a partner. It seems foolish to me.
[...]
B. I would hate for someone to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to care for me. I wouldn't want someone to stay with me out of a sense of duty once changing circumstances had turned me into a person that they would never have wanted to be with in the first place.

I don't see supportive changes in a relationship as necessarily sacrificial, but they easily can be. Different people will draw the line in different places, and I don't feel I can tell people what they ought to be willing to give up and what they ought not.
-- MPDSEA

ok. drpynchon, I'll try again. From his initial comment (A), I thought MPDSEA was stating the case too strongly to begin with -- saying that the decision to stay with a severely disabled partner was foolish and something he wouldn't appreciate -- i.e. he was saying it was bad, not just optional.

From his later comment (B), it looks more like he's describing his own feelings (I wouldn't want someone to make that sacrifice for me personally, others can feel however they like) and not addressing the question of whether making a sacrifice like that is bad/unnecessary in an absolute sense.

Either way I think it's fair in response to offer reasons why those kinds of sacrifices aren't foolish, and why ties of obligation in longterm relationships aren't easily dispensed with. I felt as if milarepa's comment was on target in a certain way, but that it was couched in a supernatural vocabulary that not everyone can get on board with -- and I felt the point could be made without that vocabulary.

I'm not saying we all must always sacrifice everything to these kinds of duties. I'm saying there are, in many cases, sacrifices that are worth making, that we should make -- I'm saying it's not always foolish to do the self-sacrificing thing. It's not a waste if a wife takes care of her dying husband even though he can't communicate with her (ie, if he's "become someone she wouldn't have chosen to be with in the first place"). The mere fact that his company isn't great during those months doesn't mean she's a sucker who's foolish for not optimizing her current happiness units.

I'm not trying to oppress MPDSEA, he can have whatever moral theory he wants. (And just for clarity, I don't think any of what I've said here bears in any way on the question about the wife who gains weight.)

dawson - I think MPDSEA wasn't declaring his happy hate by saying "we'd be talking past each other" -- I think that's a perfectly fair thing to say in discussions where one side accepts a supernatural premise that the other side doesn't accept. I agree it's too bad that milarepa left.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:02 PM on March 16, 2008

Well said LM. No argument here. I just felt like maybe this one time, playing devil's advocate would bring down the vitriol in the dialogue, and I appreciate you flushing things out. Again, I agree with you when it comes to the heart of the matter and I'm sad to see milarepa go. I feel guilty about that, and wish I hadn't said what I said in the first place if it came at that cost.
posted by drpynchon at 9:18 PM on March 16, 2008

"More embarrassing is that those comments that have been called out here have received favorites. Positive feedback for jackasses."

That's not necessarily what a favourite means, could be people just watching to see if an inappropriate comment has been deleted.

Which, to wander off the prime topic a bit, is why I have something of a problem with the term "favourites". Unless the favouring system were to be extended to allow for positive/negative personal flagging (whilst keeping only the total visible to other thread readers), "tagged" or "noted" may be a better choice of word.

But, back on topic, I thought the thread overall wasn't too bad - Anonymous does seem to have more issues than his wife's weight, he did seem to pre-emptively try to stop people from looking too closely at those issues in order to deflect the focus away from his attitude and on to her physical problem, a few people called him on that in ways ranging from the snarkish to the borderline-offensive, and the rest tried to help. Personally, I think the inevitable linkage to Savage Love was less helpful than any of the other comments - Dan Savage often annoys me with his polar, dichotomous, no-middle-ground-between-selfishness-and-PC attitude.
posted by Pinback at 9:24 PM on March 16, 2008

Justinian, respectfully, I honestly don't give a sexual congress if someone profess religious faith or no, indeed I'll trust a skeptic before I will a person who never has doubts. But if a human can't see the blessing in a rainbow, or a thunderstorm, or fractals, or flowers, or the neat and even braids in the hair of a little black girl, if one does not sense holiness standing by the sea at night gazing at the stars, or wondering through the Hermitage, or, as Victoria Williams sang, in a bar, if they are so soul dead that the Grand Canyon can't move them, or a hawk riding the thermals above the Hudson at sunset, or the smile of a child, if they are so certain that they are as good as it gets in all of the myriad universes, if they can only shit on the good works of others such as milarepa or allkindsoftime, and suck at the teat of American greed, then hell yes, I equate that with racism and hatred. At least racists and loathers often find beauty in life. This Elvis character makes me wanna puke. As God, or yr mother or whomever you revere, as my witness, I'd prefer Pol Pot.
Alvy Ampersand, you are one who's remarks I often enjoy and value. But there is a mistake here in yr understanding. What I did was write my feelings here on the grey, realized it was not the place for it, so revised and truncated those comments while still expressing my outrage, and then, I wrote Dr President. Trust me, what I had to say to him I would not repeat here. I did NOT go off on him in pvt mail and then post my remarks here
LobsrerMitten, another of my favorites (so maybe I'm wrong, i'm not above considering that, I'm often wrong), I am basing my judgement, for lack of coming up with a better word, on his history as I have witnessed it. I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
I think his (her?) incentive was to piss people off, be an attention whore, and drive milarepa away.
If I am wrong, continue to point out why and how. I wish to be reasonable. But, sadly, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. This Mr President creature has been getting under my skin since day one.
And sorry to harsh any innocent bystanders mellow. I am calm, sipping a chilled wine, listing to jazz, and consoling a Chinese friend over his loss of access to youtube today. (He loves American Idol and the protests in Tibet have led to vast internet shutdowns) So I see the big picture here, I have muddled this for many hours, if you think I should take a few days off, I will.
I am angry at an individual, I am not, however, in a blind rage. And I wish no one lasting harm on any living creature.
posted by dawson at 9:27 PM on March 16, 2008

So I'm alone in jerking off to Jabba the Hutt?

It's the internet. I'm betting you could find something.

And I, for one, am betting that there's just gotta be some Jabba / Leia stuff out there...
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:39 PM on March 16, 2008

Try Livejournal.
posted by LeeJay at 9:47 PM on March 16, 2008

gaaaah!

no, i don't want to see any!
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:55 PM on March 16, 2008

No, I wasn't being flippant. I would hate for someone to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to care for me. I wouldn't want someone to stay with me out of a sense of duty once changing circumstances had turned me into a person that they would never have wanted to be with in the first place.

Is that how you would behave if it were your partner in that circumstance?
posted by Neiltupper at 9:59 PM on March 16, 2008

I imagine it would take extra coding type stuff for subsite specific timeouts, eh? Don't know if it's worth considering even, but it's something to think about.
posted by ODiV at 10:02 PM on March 16, 2008

er, make that "worth implementing".
posted by ODiV at 10:03 PM on March 16, 2008

I think his (her?) incentive was to piss people off, be an attention whore, and drive milarepa away.

How is anyone supposed to predict somebody else's remarks to their comments? I'd suggest that if anybody is sufficiently fragile as to be 'driven away' by anything anyone here has to say (provided it's within the guidelines), then they're almost certainly better off not being here.

This Mr President creature has been getting under my skin since day one.

Ah. It's not really about milarepa at all then, is it?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:03 PM on March 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

if they can only shit on the good works of others such as milarepa or allkindsoftime, and suck at the teat of American greed, then hell yes, I equate that with racism and hatred. At least racists and loathers often find beauty in life. This Elvis character makes me wanna puke. As God, or yr mother or whomever you revere, as my witness, I'd prefer Pol Pot.
...
LobsrerMitten... I am basing my judgement, for lack of coming up with a better word, on his history as I have witnessed it. I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
I think his (her?) incentive was to piss people off, be an attention whore, and drive milarepa away.
If I am wrong, continue to point out why and how. I wish to be reasonable. But, sadly, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. This Mr President creature has been getting under my skin since day one.

Oh, I agree with you that most of the time MPDSEA comments, he's intending to hassle, bother, deride, etc. Much of the time when I see his comments around here, he's a troll, that is, his whole reason for being here seems to be trying to get a rise out of people. (So, he's not analogous to Pol Pot, and not to a hardcore racist -- maybe more like Howard Stern or some other talk radio personality who, above all, wants to be controversial and be listened to, more than advocating some specific ideology. Maybe think of it this way, and try not to be angered, since that's what he's after -- but just let it go, tune out that station, and enjoy the good parts of the site.)

I just think that one single sentence (we'd probably be talking past each other) wasn't offensive in the way you were seeing it.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:12 PM on March 16, 2008

Any chance we can end this derail & get back to the original point?
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:16 PM on March 16, 2008

And yeah, I would be surprised if it were MPDSEA's intention to drive milarepa away. I think those comments were in line with his normal commenting style, or even a bit milder ("we'd be talking past each other" seems like a good way to avoid getting into a big fight about religion, for example).

I'm guessing that TPS is exactly right, and milarepa has gone through some very difficult medical issues in the last month or so that made him especially aware of the importance of family sacrifices etc, and also that made him think "I want to use my time on earth well, and if I get upset whenever I'm on this website, I could probably use my precious time doing something else". It's a shame for us, but might be a good choice for him.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:20 PM on March 16, 2008

Ubu: the part about Jabba porn?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:41 PM on March 16, 2008

No Peter, it's not all about milarepa.
It like this, you can have doubts about some shady character and he can just piss you off by his rotten, smug, self-righteous attitude w/o it being something you can put yr finger on. Then you discover, say, the person has been, oh I don't know, photographing your children obsessively, so you allow yrself to feel and express outrage.
So I posted my first comment there, went to add milarepa as a contact (which I had been meaning to do for a spell) so that he obviously chose not to spend his energy here ('i object to yr 'driven away' verbiage, if someone leaves that means to you that they are somehow 'weak? I swear to you that if several people just ganged up on you and made you look like a tool you'd say 'hell with this' and move on. That does not = 'weakness'. MetaFilter is not some human litmus test on an individuals ability to cope with dissenting viewpoints.) only to discover he's left. Then I became ...slightly peeved.
Anyway, if I didn't shit here, I farted, and it's not like I need the last word. So unless there is a specific question/accusation I'll bow out at this time. And give whoever needs one a bear hug.
UbuRoivas. I didn't intend to hijack the thread. I thought the original question had been more or less covered and didn't want to start yet another 'call-out' thread. Apologies for diverting the discourse.
Now would someone please explain the Jabba porn motif thingy? I feel as if I;m missing something precious in my life here...
posted by dawson at 10:43 PM on March 16, 2008

OK, here's the Jabba thing, and why it's central to the issue. At the moment, Mayor Curley has 31 faves for this comment upthread:

The community consensus is that if your spouse starts to resemble Jabba the Hutt, you are obligated to somehow be sexually attracted to Jabba the Hutt. I don't think it's shallow to say that I have never gotten an erection from Jabba the Hutt. The thread says a lot more about the insecurities of some people who are worried that they look like Jabba the Hutt than it does about the OP.

Now, I was one of those who favourited it, although I don't agree entirely - especially with the last bit, although I think there's a ton of projection involved in a lot of responses to the OP.

Here's how I see it, broken down:

1. Everybody has the prerogative to find certain things personally attractive or unattractive.

2. The OP's wife has crossed one of his boundaries, and he no longer desires her physically.

3. Meanwhile, we have the criticism that men, media & advertising etc do nasty things to womens' body images, and this should be condemned*, along with the shallow objectification of women & their reduction to mere physical objects of desire.

What I saw happening was perhaps that people were transferring & projecting point 3 onto the OP, making him into some kind of sacrificial lamb for the broader feminist principle, when I think it's perfectly OK for him to have his preferences, along the lines of point 1.

The same situation could also easily be reversed, say with a husband going to seed after marriage (eg becoming lax about personal grooming, growing a beer belly etc) and I'm sure the criticisms wouldn't be quite so strident. This left a bitter hint of anti-masculism in my mouth.

* interestingly, men apparently prefer women about two dress sizes larger than the women think, and all that indoctrination doesn't quite work in the end
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:04 PM on March 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

(now i've gotta take off for a St Pat's day thing, so i'm not taking a dump in the thread & pissing off. will be back later in case anybody is in the slightest bit interested in discussing the above)
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:20 PM on March 16, 2008

no, i don't want to see any!

Well you read my fanfic then?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:20 PM on March 16, 2008

I honestly believe that people who flatly object with the style and nature of precursory remarks made by an OP in the setting up of his/her question should be allowed, even encouraged, to express their contempt within the context of the original thread. I can relate to users who are frustrated by having to accept the terms of a question that is phrased in a way that runs antithetical to an understanding of some aspect of human relations that they hold close to their heart, lest they be censored by the mods and then shut down by fellow members in the ensuing MeTa thread.

I understand that AskMe OPs need to be treated with dignity and that responses need to fall within a certain scope. But I don't understand why the record can't show that some people think this OP sounds like a douchebag. It is my understanding that in an ideal cleanup, RussHy's remarks would have been deleted immediately and this MeTa thread would never have followed. And frankly I find this thread to be more insightful than the one that spawned it, if not at the very least a vital part of the overall conversation.

Derogatory remarks aside, it seems like the conversation is not allowed to build organically to the point where people are allowed to share their different world views on sensitive topics without being shat on for breaking the "rules of etiquette". And just as MeTa serves as a wonderful relief valve for AskMe wreckage, it has to be said of this place that it is too often that subject-oriented dissent digresses into personal ridicule and animosity, and the inevitable implosion of a contributor. This is a fault of the system, and I think it's retarded to see people go because some guy somewhere has a problem screwing his chunky wife.
posted by phaedon at 11:55 PM on March 16, 2008

But I don't understand why the record can't show that some people think this OP sounds like a douchebag.

What "record" are you talking about? Askme is designed to help the person asking the question, that's it. There is no official record of who said what and why. Either answer the question or don't.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:13 AM on March 17, 2008

Sometimes, I look at these threads billowing up, and as I scroll down through all the quoting, responding, and the "Wait, are you saying that x is the same as y?!" I think, man, wouldn't it be great if all of these people could just work it out in some kind of big wrestling match?

They'd get just as far in terms of establishing ideas and changing each others' viewpoints, and it'd be more uplifting to watch. After three back-and-forths, it's probably best to just get in a ring and have a submission grappling contest.
posted by ignignokt at 1:23 AM on March 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

"I want to use my time on earth well, and if I get upset whenever I'm on this website, I could probably use my precious time doing something else".

This is probably good advice we could all listen to.
posted by Dave Faris at 4:41 AM on March 17, 2008

I can relate to users who are frustrated by having to accept the terms of a question that is phrased in a way that runs antithetical to an understanding of some aspect of human relations that they hold close to their heart, lest they be censored by the mods and then shut down by fellow members in the ensuing MeTa thread.

I can, too, which is why it frustrates me so much when people who have a reasonable objection to the framing of a question or a situation choose to express it in a lousy fashion instead of just civilly and fairly including that objection in their answer in a way that doesn't violate the letter or the spirit of the guidelines. Direct, unsugarcoated honesty is one thing; calling someone a douchebag, etc is another.

Wanting to express your contempt for the asker is not one of the things AskMe was intended to facilitate. Don't do it, or don't go to AskMe.

Derogatory remarks aside, it seems like the conversation is not allowed to build organically to the point where people are allowed to share their different world views on sensitive topics without being shat on for breaking the "rules of etiquette".

The green can and does accommodate a degree of organic conversation in threads—its not hard to find where there's a question with a less-than-clearcut answer or path thereto. What's a problem is specifically when that conversation starts becoming more about two users disagreement with eachother than about answering the question, or more about an answerer's dislike for the asker or their question or how they framed it. Civil, helpful, on-topic question-answering organic conversation is more or less awesome when it works, but when one or more of those qualifiers at the beginning of this sentence are missing we end up with a problem.
posted by cortex at 6:42 AM on March 17, 2008 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: Even dogs and cows are able to pursue their own satisfaction.
posted by Skot at 10:58 AM on March 17, 2008

Great, now I can't shake the mental image of Southern dogs and cows gloveslapping eachother in the face.
posted by CKmtl at 11:23 AM on March 17, 2008

Bullshit. We don't have enough information in the question to judge whether this is true or not.

He tells us that he may just be compelled to cheat. That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he's being a douchebag—nobody is compelled to cheat, ever.
posted by oaf at 3:33 PM on March 17, 2008

He tells us that he may just be compelled to cheat.

No. No, he didn't. He said there were only so many years that he could put up with his needs not being met. That's not the same thing at all.
posted by Justinian at 3:38 PM on March 17, 2008

Hehehe, this thread has really changed my mind on a lot of things.

I actually thought the question as asked was pretty harsh / insensitive but after reading the this thread I think the man has a point. Because anyone who inspires this much stupidity in opposition to himself has to be on to something worthwhile.

And dawson: Bravo. I don't know how you managed to squeeze that much condescension into that much ignorance but it has got to be a new record. You would set the denizens of XWalk to shame with that load of tripe.
posted by Riemann at 5:55 PM on March 17, 2008

I don't know how you managed to squeeze that much condescension into that much ignorance

Riemann, this is the second time I've seen you just being gratuitously nasty in MeTa to someone who isn't doing anything particularly obnoxious. Is your hat too tight?
posted by jessamyn at 7:38 PM on March 17, 2008 [1 favorite]