deleted militarization thread

May 19, 2008 11:10 PM

Not sure why the "Militarization of Consumer Companies" thread by five fresh fish was killed?

It seemed to me like a legitimate discussion? Granted it was a one-link post to an LA Times Op-Ed piece (albeit an op-ed w/substanitive claims and subtantial, detailed factual data), but I've seen similar posts that were one-link to opinion pieces that were not deleted?

posted by ornate insect to MetaFilter-related at 11:10 PM (81 comments total)

I really like f^3 but that was a bad write-up.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:16 PM on May 19, 2008

compared to what? Dawson recently had a one-link FPP to an op-ed guy complaining about celebrities being colonialists. I seems a tad arbitrary to me.
posted by ornate insect at 11:18 PM on May 19, 2008

I think it's the entire more inside section devoted to writing what is essentially a personal blog post. If you notice, the first few comments point this out as well as the deletion reason.

Personal blogs are free and plentiful on the web, but MetaFilter is kind of a shared space. It's cool to have a point of view about something, but when making a post here you have to walk a line between totally impartial and totally personal so that you don't drive discussion one way or the other off from the start and this one definitely looked to be too far over in the personal blog territory. I mean, I can tell he did it in a cheeky way, but it does color the discussion from the start.
posted by mathowie at 11:19 PM on May 19, 2008

mathowie--so if FFF had left out his editorializing and just had the link (like the Dawson FPP I just referred to) to the LA Times Op-Ed, it would have been ok?
posted by ornate insect at 11:21 PM on May 19, 2008

I don't remember reading that oneby Dawson but in the fff thread that is the topic of this callout, I count five (five!) instances of editorializing in the FPP. I can't imagine that sliding by unless it was the single greatest Op-Ed in the history of the planet.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:22 PM on May 19, 2008

and as to the "first few comments" in the thread they clearly did not have time to actually read the LA Times OP-Ed that FFF linked to. There's no way they read it. So which is worse, not actually reading the link and ostensibly complaining about editorializing when the content perhaps (perhaps) does not agree with you for political or dogmatic reasons--OR editoriliazing about a link to start? I thought the thread discussion showed promise, and I think the topic is important.
posted by ornate insect at 11:25 PM on May 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think it's possible some very vocal persons early on in the thread lambasted the FPP for "editorilizing" when their real problem was with the content of the editorializing--and not with the "meta" issue of editorializing as such.
posted by ornate insect at 11:30 PM on May 19, 2008

It was an invitation to a three-minute hate. I think it would have been a sucky post even without the editorializing.

Outrage filter rarely makes for good posts.
posted by Class Goat at 11:51 PM on May 19, 2008

I thought it was a pretty weak FPP also: the link itself is borderline interesting but the rest was GYOFB material. I was surprised to see it deleted, I guess. It would have been a lot better if the editorializing had been replaced by linkery or even some more cogent discussion on what it might mean to corporations for the military to be a larger customer.

ornate insect, if you're trying to say something, could you be more specific?
posted by hattifattener at 11:55 PM on May 19, 2008

It's definitely outragefilter.

My other peeve is that it talks about "the military" and "your tax dollars" without specifying "the US military" (or "the Pentagon") and "US tax dollars", implying that we're all Americans paying taxes to the US government. Which is weird since FFF is Canadian.
posted by loiseau at 11:57 PM on May 19, 2008

It seemed to me like a legitimate discussion?

Lots of things are legitimate discussions, but that doesn't mean a good Metafiilter post was made.

I've seen similar posts that were one-link to opinion pieces that were not deleted?

Just because you've seen similar posts doesn't mean a particular post should stay. That's a weak excuse and ignores the fact that not all posts are the same.

and as to the "first few comments" in the thread they clearly did not have time to actually read the LA Times OP-Ed that FFF linked to

Doesn't matter. The cheeky tone was already there and it was wrong to put it there and that's exactly what the first few comments were responding to.

I think the topic is important.

There are many, many, many, MANY important things in life. That doesn't excuse a crappy post.

Honestly, if you feel this strongly about it, you should go make a decent post of the subject.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:57 PM on May 19, 2008 [2 favorites]

Tanks roll into Charleston, West Virginia. From gun turrets American soldiers fire indiscriminantly into the crowd. A mefite fpp's a youtube entry of the event, and another cries "outragefilter."
posted by waraw at 11:58 PM on May 19, 2008 [2 favorites]

I admit to being a tad confused as well. I thought editorial comments (up to a point?) were allowed in the "more inside" section?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:07 AM on May 20, 2008

And loiseau makes an exceedingly good point. How very odd.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:08 AM on May 20, 2008

In West Virginia? That's hardly even newsfilter.
posted by tkolar at 12:11 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

A mefite fpp's a youtube entry of the event, and another cries "outragefilter."

(while a third laughs, "Schadenfilter!")
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:12 AM on May 20, 2008

implying that we're all Americans paying taxes to the US government.

Oh you are, YOU ARE. Some price for us making the world safe, oh yes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:14 AM on May 20, 2008

Today, we are ALL Americans.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:21 AM on May 20, 2008

It's cool to have a point of view about something...


Oh, sure. That's what YOU think.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 12:30 AM on May 20, 2008

We went more than twenty-four hours without a MetaTalk thread. That's what I think.
posted by cgc373 at 12:34 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

Would have been nice to make the whole day pass, so, for future MeTa questions, ornate insect, if you could wait until it's past midnight on server time when we're this close, I would appreciate it.
posted by cgc373 at 12:36 AM on May 20, 2008

Which is weird since FFF is Canadian.

Not so weird. FFF is pretty loudly anti-US (not that it bothers me), so posting bad news about the States doesn't seem that out of character.
posted by BinGregory at 12:47 AM on May 20, 2008

If he was trying to differentiate, however, he would have made it even more clear: "Your military".
posted by loiseau at 12:52 AM on May 20, 2008

It might have been a better post with less editorializing and maybe some supporting links, like the other article by the same author I linked. But some people did seem pretty anxious to see it killed, and that's not helpful either.
posted by homunculus at 1:21 AM on May 20, 2008

Not sure why the "Militarization of Consumer Companies" thread by five fresh fish was killed?

It seemed to me like a legitimate discussion? Granted it was a one-link post to an LA Times Op-Ed piece (albeit an op-ed w/substanitive claims and subtantial, detailed factual data), but I've seen similar posts that were one-link to opinion pieces that were not deleted?

Not sure why you put question marks at the end of sentences that aren't questions?
posted by Bookhouse at 1:40 AM on May 20, 2008 [2 favorites]

Terrible post, good deletion, lather, rinse, repeat.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:45 AM on May 20, 2008

PROFIT!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:45 AM on May 20, 2008

meh...five fresh fish posted something ornate insect really agreed with, gets deleted because it was way editorialising, ornate insect gets upset because five fresh fish doesn't have a blog he can have this conversation on.

and this:" I think it's possible some very vocal persons early on in the thread lambasted the FPP for "editorilizing" when their real problem was with the content of the editorializing--and not with the "meta" issue of editorializing as such."

That's why you don't editorialise! So that the post doesn't become about what you think! (aka 'the content of your editorial).

/heads off to abuse italics on her own blog
posted by jacalata at 2:03 AM on May 20, 2008

I think it's possible some very vocal persons early on in the thread lambasted the FPP for "editorilizing" when their real problem was with the content of the editorializing--and not with the "meta" issue of editorializing as such.

All the more reason not to editorialize in your posts. If you don't editorialize, you deprive people of the opportunity to do this.

On preview: jacalata got there before me.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:12 AM on May 20, 2008

and as to the "first few comments" in the thread they clearly did not have time to actually read the LA Times OP-Ed that FFF linked to. There's no way they read it.

It sounds as if you're suggesting both that ten minutes isn't enough time to read an op-ed, and that the only person who has access to the LA Times is FFF, and no one could have seen this and read it before he posted it here. Not ascribing to your point of view doesn't prove mendacity.
posted by OmieWise at 4:08 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

ascribingsubscribing
posted by OmieWise at 4:09 AM on May 20, 2008

heads off to abuse italics on her own blog

why do you hate italics? they've contributed so much to our country - pizza, the snowy mountains scheme, bad doof-doof music from souped-up rotary cars...
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:18 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

If fff was smart he could have made this an FPP that would've stuck, but he chose instead to let everyone know, in no uncertain terms, how HE feels about it. This is not what MetaFilter is for. I personally agree with his point of view, but I appreciate it when people who make FPPs here make them in such a way as to let the links speak for themselves. I don't need to hear about fff's personal opinions on what he's presenting! Editorializing in a heavy-handed way, whether on a leftish side of the political thought-spectrum OR from a rightish side should, in my opinion, be discouraged in MetaFilter posts, and therefore I stand behind this particular deletion. We don't need five fresh fish or anyone else to tell us what we should think about the links. It's insulting and demeaning, truth be told.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:49 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'd just like to also mention that cortex's deletion reason contains what I think is a pretty great coinage: Yourownblogsville. As a single, run-on word, a Google search reveals exactly one usage.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:00 AM on May 20, 2008

Absolutely worthy deletion. Mr fff doesn't do nuance, and here's a prime example of same.
posted by Wolof at 5:41 AM on May 20, 2008

It was an invitation to a three-minute hate.

I didn't get an invitation.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:48 AM on May 20, 2008

I guess you're not in the cabal then. I can't think why you would have missed out!
posted by jacalata at 6:02 AM on May 20, 2008

So which is worse, not actually reading the link and ostensibly complaining about editorializing when the content perhaps (perhaps) does not agree with you for political or dogmatic reasons--OR editoriliazing about a link to start?

Personally, I think they're both bad. But editorializing in your post is bad, period. It doesn't matter one whit (a) if the link is decent nor (b) if people in the thread react badly: making an objectively bad post is a problem, and with that paragraph and a half after the fold that's exactly what fff did.
posted by cortex at 6:11 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think it's possible some very vocal persons early on in the thread lambasted the FPP for "editorilizing" when their real problem was with the content of the editorializing--and not with the "meta" issue of editorializing as such.

Please do not bark up this tree. I am every bit as antiwar as you or fff, but I despise overt editorializing in posts and am delighted that one was nuked. If you can't learn to make a decent MeFi post, you have to live with your posts being deleted. One of the things that separates this place from the overtly partisan blogs I don't bother reading is that we don't fill the front page with "OMG can you believe the crap they're pulling now! This is terrible, write your congressman!!!!"
posted by languagehat at 6:13 AM on May 20, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think it's the entire more inside section devoted to writing what is essentially a personal blog post. If you notice, the first few comments point this out as well as the deletion reason.

God, that was a loathsome thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:20 AM on May 20, 2008

jacalata,

You were correct the first time.
posted by the Cabal at 6:41 AM on May 20, 2008

and as to the "first few comments" in the thread they clearly did not have time to actually read the LA Times OP-Ed that FFF linked to. There's no way they read it.

Doesn't matter. The Pentafish editorialized the hell out of the FPP. He knows better. Thus, nuked.

(And yeah, before you jump on me.. I completely agree with what he was saying, too. Time and place, time and place.)
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:53 AM on May 20, 2008

ornate insect, the site's general dislike for single-link op-eds goes back so far there's even an acronym for it: SLOE. But the dislike for blatant editorializing goes even deeper. flapjax has it right: it's insulting to the community to be told how to think about a link, especially a political link. It's just not the way posting here works, and fff knows that.

Dawson recently had a one-link FPP to an op-ed guy complaining about celebrities being colonialists.

Yeah, well, that wasn't great, either. But at least Dawson let the op-ed speak for itself. Seriously, if you're putting the words "I" or "me" anywhere in your post, it's probably bad for MeFi.

seems a tad arbitrary to me.

Welcome to moderation by humans. But the difference between your two examples is crystal clear.

CitrusFreak12: I thought editorial comments (up to a point?) were allowed in the "more inside" section?

I've never thought that was the case. The "more inside" is still part of the post that starts off the discussion and should stay away from obnoxious editorializing. Before that option was added, the poster could get away with a first comment that editorialized at the start of the discussion, but even that was usually a bad idea.
posted by mediareport at 7:21 AM on May 20, 2008

This didn't rate a MeTa post, IMO.

I think it was a bullshit deletion. I think there's an effort being made to see "editorial" in it: everything above the fold is non-editorial.

I thought the description of the relationship as a love triangle was an interesting way of framing their problem. I guess I should have saved that analogy for the Frist Post. The double-dipping line was snark and inappropriate, that I can agree with.

Anyhoo, it's no real biggie. Not worth a MeTa thread and a good disincentive against making FPPs. Not a problem, folks, not a problem.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:05 AM on May 20, 2008

I think there's an effort being made to see "editorial" in it: everything above the fold is non-editorial.

So I guess what you're saying is that the "effort" you're talking about is the effort it takes to click the "more inside" link?
posted by shmegegge at 8:10 AM on May 20, 2008

I thought the description of the relationship as a love triangle was an interesting way of framing their problem.

It wasn't. It came across as snark and helped to make the post look even crappier.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:19 AM on May 20, 2008

Bad deletion.

Moderators continue to tolerate and even reward vigilante moderation, which drastically lowers the tone of MetaFilter and probably does more than any other problem to discourage interesting and substantial posts there-- and if we keep punishing passion so assiduously, we will be left with apathy and tedium only, and that is a trend which has gone much too far already.
posted by jamjam at 8:47 AM on May 20, 2008

Ah, I must have been conflating the two (more inside vs first comment). Thanks, mediareport.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:51 AM on May 20, 2008

I, um, won't claim that my FPP re celebs and Africa was suberb. I could have fleshed it out more. But I tried very hard to not editorialize in the post or anywhere near the beginning of the discussion. Seems to me some subjects are pretty polarizing and to present that subject in an outright opinionated way skews the discussion and puts people on the defensive, like they are being attacked at the onset. I'd have no problem with the op-ed FFF linked if I didn't feel it was being presented as propaganda (which all op-ed pieces basically are, including the one I linked).
Of course people are always free to 'flag and move on' which is what I sorta did. Never felt any obligation for call-outs or second-guessing deletions to that extent. But all is cool, as FFF says, not a problem.
posted by dawson at 8:51 AM on May 20, 2008

I knew I was deleting it before I looked at the comments, jamjam.

I don't particularly like people trying to bomb threads from the first comment, and, as has come up in Metatalk a few times over the last while, we've been working on being a little more reactive to early recycled or "this is poop" snark in threads—but that doesn't have much of anything to do with this instance, one way or the other.

And fff, I have to agree with the thrust of shmegegge's response there: if you think the below-the-fold on your post is a editorial free-for-all section, you're mistaken; if you just plain think there was no editorializing to be seen there, you had a pretty horrible failure of tone because I can't see how else to read it.
posted by cortex at 8:54 AM on May 20, 2008

Resolved: to not make any overtly negative comment as one of the first comments in a anyones FPP. That's all.
posted by dawson at 9:21 AM on May 20, 2008

So many question marks in ornate insect's post, yet no actual questions. But maybe he's uptalking, instead of asking questions.
posted by emelenjr at 9:48 AM on May 20, 2008

Maybe he is?
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on May 20, 2008

But maybe he's uptalking, instead of asking questions.

Perhaps he's not? Perhaps the questions are implied in the phrasing?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:15 AM on May 20, 2008

It was the best of times? It was the worst of times? It was the age of wisdom? It was the age of foolishness? It was the epoch of belief? It was the epoch of incredulity? It was the season of Light? I was the season of Darkness? It was the spring of hope? It was the winter of despair? We were all going direct to Heaven? We were all going direct the other way? In short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only?
posted by tkolar at 11:26 AM on May 20, 2008

The article itself is just silly. Sure, these companies do business with the military, but so what? What bad effects come from that? They are not like defense contractors that get most if not all of their income from the military and are thus motivated to politic etc. on its behalf. The biggest one in the article, Pepsico, did $200 some million in business with the military which is a drop in the bucket compared to their $40 billion in sales.
posted by caddis at 11:33 AM on May 20, 2008

Wow, jamjam and ornateinsect are playing the picayune Amberglows now, huh? (Where is Amberglow? Haven't seen him around in a while…)
posted by klangklangston at 11:43 AM on May 20, 2008

What the fuck?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:59 AM on May 20, 2008

Everyone needs a hug?
posted by never used baby shoes at 12:09 PM on May 20, 2008

I'm Ron Burgundy?
posted by BobFrapples at 12:24 PM on May 20, 2008

Et tu, Brute?
posted by dawson at 12:28 PM on May 20, 2008

Madness?
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2008

jamjam and ornateinsect are playing the picayune Amberglows

I honestly think they have a shot; sure, the Ambies have the home field advantage, but jamjam's been working hard to come back from that knee injury and ornateinsect has said that they'll be bringing their A game and be giving 110%, no-holds-barred. Regardless of the outcome, I'm sure it'll be one helluva match...

... wait, what were we talking about?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:32 PM on May 20, 2008

Wow, jamjam and ornateinsect are playing the picayune Amberglows now, huh? (Where is Amberglow? Haven't seen him around in a while…)

Is that the distinctive yip-yapping of the mods' very own self-appointed attack poodle I hear?

I guess I'd better look to my ankles.

Or did you bring your gun? In fairness, I have to advise you that you're going to have to open up those tiny eyes to have much of a chance of hitting anything, klang/fifi-- oh, is that why amberglow makes you so mad?

I should have known.
posted by jamjam at 1:27 PM on May 20, 2008

Whoa. It just got really weird in here.
posted by dersins at 1:31 PM on May 20, 2008

What the hell are you even on about?
posted by klangklangston at 2:03 PM on May 20, 2008

Who, me?
posted by dersins at 2:07 PM on May 20, 2008

I think he's asking jamjam, who has also confused the hell out of me.

on the other hand, so did klang's earlier comment.

I may be easily confused.
posted by shmegegge at 2:09 PM on May 20, 2008

Yeah, that was towards jamjam. Earlier, I was referencing Amberglow's frequent anti-deletion/partisan-filter stance. Also, I was noticing that Amberglow hasn't been around as much lately.
posted by klangklangston at 2:11 PM on May 20, 2008

meh-- SLBOE, always an iffy proposition. I wouldn't have deleted it, but like, whatever.
posted by empath at 3:30 PM on May 20, 2008

I miss amberglow.
posted by homunculus at 8:35 PM on May 20, 2008

Pretty much what caddis said.

It just wasn't a good article. The author was trying to hang one-hundred pounds of outrage on wire that couldn't hold it.
posted by Cyrano at 9:56 PM on May 20, 2008

jamjam: It's pretty scuzzy to make fun of someone's appearance, or, in the case of klangklangston, his tiny eyes*. If you simply must, at least have the decency and guts to link to your own mug so everyone can get in on the fun. It's weird and creepy to link to peoples' profiles in that sort of context. Relevant comments/post histories are one thing, but the direct link to the profiles gives it a strangely overly-personal vibe to the thing, IMO.

And that Lynda Barry flickr thing from out of left field, how long were you waiting to use that? Again, weird and oddly personal.

And I'm pretty sure that's not a recent picture of Amberglow.

*Me, I make Milhouse look like Marty Feldman, so I'm not in a position to gauge the apparent offensiveness of klang's puny peepers - not so much 'judge not, lest ye be judged', as 'I can't see sweet FA with these damn things'.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:18 PM on May 20, 2008

Wait, what?

I came in here for a flameout. This isn't a flameout. This isn't even a weenie roast. This is a...I don't know what this is. Someone get me the god damned map already, we're not even on the right page.

Jesus Christ, this is the LAST time I take a nap in the car. SHUT UP AND STOP HITTING YOUR BROTHER. No I will not pull over and ask for directions
posted by scrump at 11:22 AM on May 21, 2008

I didn't give enough consideration to the possibility of collateral hurt feelings, Alvy; I'm sorry. If it's any consolation to you, I am old and ugly; years and years ago I was much younger and ugly. I'm sure I look worse than any combination of yours and klang's worst features.

But klangklangston showers insults over Metafilter like a conscientious greengrocer sprays down his lettuce display. That the occasional moistened cabbage slides off the stack and lands on his big toe cannot be too surprising or more than momentarily painful to him, I'm sure.

I'd agree that talking about peoples physical traits is ordinarily over the line, but I took the the phrase "picayune Amberglows" as a forehand slap against ornate insect and me, and as such unexceptionable, but also as a vicious backhand to amberglow and a reference to his physical stature-- and therefore a legitimate opening for my remarks. Perhaps I give him credit for a subtlety he does not possess.
posted by jamjam at 1:47 PM on May 21, 2008

meh-- SLBOE, always an iffy proposition

Ahem. The acronym SLBOE stands for "single-link blog op-ed" and is thus not applicable in this case. SLOE is more correct.

*hmphs at empath*

jamjam: I'd agree that talking about peoples physical traits is ordinarily over the line, but

Aw. That's a cute little but.
posted by mediareport at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2008

Nick Turse, the author of fff's link, has a new article about Iron Man. I linked it here.
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on May 21, 2008

*Me, I make Milhouse look like Marty Feldman, so I'm not in a position to gauge the apparent offensiveness of klang's puny peepers - not so much 'judge not, lest ye be judged', as 'I can't see sweet FA with these damn things'.

That's actually a bit of selective framing—my eyes are normal sized, but my head's so large that a hat sits on it like a guru on a mountain. We call it "Erv Head" after my grandfather, who also has many photographs that look normal until you realize that he's not a Turbografx mascot.

But klangklangston showers insults over Metafilter like a conscientious greengrocer sprays down his lettuce display. That the occasional moistened cabbage slides off the stack and lands on his big toe cannot be too surprising or more than momentarily painful to him, I'm sure.

If this is my come-uppance for what I've done with insults, I shudder to think what yours will be for what you've done with metaphors.

but also as a vicious backhand to amberglow and a reference to his physical stature

Perhaps this was my fault for being flowery; when I said "picayune," I should have said "pissant." You and Ornate Insect were wearing the same holes in the carpet that Amberglow used to, with zero self-awareness.

Amberglow is short? I didn't realize his profile picture was current.
posted by klangklangston at 10:01 PM on May 21, 2008 [1 favorite]

That greengrocer metaphor started off so well, but failed so spectacularly when jamjam pushed it too far, like that brazilian priest who tried to raise money for charity by flying through the air strung to helium party balloons, only to be blown out to sea, never to be seen again, apart from a few shreds of balloon found by the coast guard some days later.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:49 PM on May 21, 2008

Years later, as he stood before the firing squad, klangklangston was to remember the metaphorical cabbage that slid from the metaphorical stack and struck his metaphorical toe.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:11 AM on May 22, 2008

Lord, I was dreading looking into this thread today.

Thanks for wiping the dirt off this particular cabbage head and restoring it to the stack, klang.
posted by jamjam at 8:49 AM on May 22, 2008