Another flame-bait FPP.

March 30, 2009 10:57 AM

This flame-bait FPP does not belong on our site. The post contains editorializing and includes a drive-by smear of a Nobel laureate.

This post is really not great for our community, so I ask that others who agree consider flagging it.

posted by Crabby Appleton to Etiquette/Policy at 10:57 AM (157 comments total)

The topic is sexism in science. Nobel laureates don't count?
posted by DU at 11:05 AM on March 30, 2009

Are Nobel laureates sacred ground?
I must be missing something.
posted by cranberrymonger at 11:05 AM on March 30, 2009

I dunno that it's a "drive-by smear," since it was backed up by cites quite quickly. And are Nobel laureates immune from criticism?
posted by rtha at 11:07 AM on March 30, 2009

The link is a decent one, and the topic worth discussing, but the discussion on that thread is certainly a mess. Sigh.
posted by lunit at 11:08 AM on March 30, 2009

The OP accuses Watson of being "other-ist", whatever that means (jock@law takes it to mean "racist"). I don't think the vague accusation contributes much to the post.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:08 AM on March 30, 2009

Gah, that post. It's not great and not terrible, and I saw it earlier and have been letting it sit for a bit to see what the community reaction was. Post hasn't been flagged much, but the thread is kind of a mess now.

The random swipe at Watson was I think a bad idea, but jock@law's first-comment reaction to it really sort of sealed the deal and the thread is pretty much him vs. the world at this point in a way that's significantly crappier than anything in the post itself.

That aside, between your grousing in this other metatalk thread the other day and your aping of its coda for your own post here, it's hard not to see this post as more reactive obnoxious stunt on your part than anything.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2009 [5 favorites]

I'm not a fan of that post. I'm also not a fan of "such-and-such post sucks, here's why. Join me in flagging it, won't you?".

For that matter I'm also not a fan of comments like the one I am writing now, which simply reframe things in terms of my dislike for them. Blee-augh.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

That's not really the way I read that post. What did you see that you thought was over the top editorially?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2009

This post is really not great for our community, so I ask that others who agree consider flagging it.

I agree, so I flagged your post.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2009 [9 favorites]

It's engraved right there on the Nobel statuette: "This award hereby indemnifies you against any and all comments or statements, either verbal or written, addressed at women, ethnic or racial groups, social classes, natives of certain continents, or religions, which may be either genuinely construed, or implied in drive-by swipes, to be idiotic, morally reprehensible, or simply not very well thought out."

It's in the Wiki and everything.
posted by mudpuppie at 11:11 AM on March 30, 2009

The FPP is fine. There are no rules against drive-by smearing of Nobel laureates, a weirdly specific complaint on your part.

The problem with the discussion began when one of our more "special" contributors posted a comment asserting that the statement "blacks are intellectually inferior to whites" is not racist, and who then went on to say that he agreed with that statement.

Why you are trying to pretend that the problem is with the FPP instead of the racist flame-bait posted by jock@law is an exercise left to the reader.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:11 AM on March 30, 2009 [7 favorites]

I'm glad you finally wised up and joined the MetaFilter Thought Police™. Keep fighting the good fight.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Huh, I saw a meta link and assumed it was about the trolling derail. "smear of a Nobel laureate"? LOL.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I agree that the bit in brackets is unneccessary. But as far as the the smear allegation goes, being a dink seems to be part of the critieria for the Literature prize, so I'm not sure why the Science people would be any different.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2009

includes a drive-by smear of a Nobel laureate

Srlsly, nothing that anyone says about Watson can be as damning as what happens when he opens his mouth around reporters.
posted by desuetude at 11:19 AM on March 30, 2009

cortex, you seem primed to characterize anything I do in a pejorative way. Rather than a "reactive obnoxious stunt", I prefer to think of it as highlighting a teachable moment for me. I truly want to understand the distinction between this post and the one that was called out in this MeTa post.

And remember folks, it's about the post, not the discussion. (But I also note the fact that this post engendered (no pun intended) a "mess" of a discussion.)
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2009

It's not so much a smear as it is "a reminder of things he said."
posted by Damn That Television at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2009 [6 favorites]

Sometimes I wish José Saramago used punctuation more frequently.

*hides*
posted by cranberrymonger at 11:22 AM on March 30, 2009 [6 favorites]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the structure of the post. As to the editorializing, I think you can go only so far in "fair and balanced." "Racism - some people think it is bad; others disagree!" The outcome is he way it is because any post discussing racism or sexism goes that way unless it's basically something so over the top that pretty much everyone agrees, "Yeah, that sucks."

If the Klan hit a megachurch in the dead of night, and, using a crane, removed the hundred foot cross, set it on fire, then set about swinging it through a predominantly black neighborhood, the discussion in the relevant post would be short and fairly agreeable: wow, those people are terrible. There might be some brief digressions on the engineering challenges involved, folks would speculate about the nature of the insurance claims, the usual suspects would make a crack or two, but we wouldn't see much disagreement.

Of course, the outcome is about as predictable as that of the standard Israel/Palestine thread. I am not necessarily sure that this means that it is not worthy of discussion.
posted by adipocere at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2009

Jessamyn, I didn't know the bar had been raised to "over-the-top" editorializing. I think it's clear that the OP took an editorial position on this. Everything after the link was lame. (And the link itself characterized Kirshenbaum's writing as "brilliant ranting [emphasis mine]".)
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:26 AM on March 30, 2009

cortex, you seem primed to characterize anything I do in a pejorative way.

You seem to be acting out lately. Aping the style of a post you were deeply critical of a day or two ago is just about the worst way to convey that you want "to understand the distinction" between the two cases, because it comes off as childish bullshit.

I don't know why you choose to present stuff the way you do, but recently you've been doing it pretty damned poorly. Like I said the other day, start from square one by actually communicating clearly and in plain fashion what it is you want people to understand you to mean and this would not be a problem. Continue choosing not to do that and you're going to continue getting grief about it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:27 AM on March 30, 2009 [9 favorites]

Wilhelm Wien was a bit of a dick.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:27 AM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Can I "smear" a Nobel peace prize winner too? The one that visited my college campus once upon a time in the 90's and made a point to invite the young ladies back to his hotel room for some beer and...??? As far as I know, no one took the freedom fighter up on his offer, but it did make me wonder how often his pickup lines worked.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 11:28 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

If the text of the FPP stopped at the end of the link, it would be fine. After that, things got trickier, and I definitely thought it was editorializing. Not in a heavy-handed way, but just enough to throw the discussion off kilter.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:28 AM on March 30, 2009

The comments are sucking worse than the post, which was a little thin gruel, but isn't... I dunno. Awful. Also, this just in: Some incredibly smart people are also incredibly stupid at the same time! When you get way off into esoteric areas of specialization, I think you get a certain savant characteristic going -- a continuum, if you will -- with a portion of that (egghead) population that doesn't know how to dress or interact with the rest of us humans too well.

Maybe neurologists of either sex, hot or not, could look into the phenomenon?
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2009

Actually the linked material has a dig on another (anonymous) Nobel laureate.

For example, when Chris and I recently gave a joint talk, a Nobel laureate commended my co-blogger on his words followed by grabbing for my left hand and uttering, “why aren’t you married my dear?”

posted by delmoi at 11:31 AM on March 30, 2009

It seems to me like the post itself is worth keeping, but the ensuing discussion has quickly degenerated into childish name-calling. I would just close it to new comments and let it drop off the FP, if only to avoid the incessant cries of "HURF DURF RUFFLED FEATHERS!"
posted by aheckler at 11:32 AM on March 30, 2009

Jessamyn, I didn't know the bar had been raised to "over-the-top" editorializing.

Casual slang aside, it's not really a bar. Editorializing in FPPs is problematic for a few different reasons, which is why we discourage it, but there's no stark threshold to be found here. Over the top editorializing is the closest thing to an automatic delete specifically because it is over the top; stuff that is less so ventures more into judgment-call territory (how much is there? how distracting is it? how does that weigh against the content of the post?).

In this case, I feel like the Watson riff was foolish but also just a parenthetical blip—compare to the paragraphs of discussion in the five fresh fish post from the other thread. My idealized version of today's post wouldn't have the parenthetical at all, but it feels more to me like a reason I think this post is not great, not something in the Jesus, What Were They Thinking scope.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:33 AM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Actually, folks, it's a little-known fact that jock@law won the 2002 Nobel Prize For Vaguely Remembering A Review Of The Bell Curve In The Weekly Standard Or Somewhere Similarly Sympathetic, and I doubt he appreciates your drive-by smearing.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:33 AM on March 30, 2009 [7 favorites]

I don't think the post (the subject of this callout) is "flame bait". Ideally, everything after the link text could have been in a [more inside], but other than that it's fine. The derail spawned by the Watson crack was unfortunate, however. The comments in a better-worded version of the FPP would have been interesting.
posted by rocket88 at 11:34 AM on March 30, 2009

It was a poorly framed post, but then so is this one.

I know the last line was lifted from another MeTa, but dude, the appeal to community groupthink is annoying. All those who believe that I am correct, join me in this sweeping crusade to clean up MetaTalk by clicking the [+] and driving out the forces of [-].
posted by oneirodynia at 11:36 AM on March 30, 2009

I don't see why this is a problem. I think the FPP was bad, based on what I've learned about MeFi guidelines and policy. I think it's at least as bad as the one that was deleted a couple of days ago. I posted my opinion to that effect. I think I'll learn something from the responses. Most people seemed to consider the MeTa post I linked to above to be a good post, so of course I would take it as a model. Do I have to write every post from scratch?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:38 AM on March 30, 2009

Can I "smear" a Nobel peace prize winner too? The one that visited my college campus once upon a time in the 90's and made a point to invite the young ladies back to his hotel room for some beer and...???

More like Letch Wałęsa, amirite?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:40 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Alfred Nobel picked his nose.
posted by DU at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

I truly want to understand the distinction between this post and the one that was called out in this MeTa post.

There is a mountain of difference between a graphic video of people being whipped to the point of bleeding and a text entry about sexism in the scientific field. Regardless of the subject matter of each and ignoring the relative importance of either, a graphic video doesn't seem like the kind of thing we typically see on MeFi and for good reason. The post didn't go down because The Thought Police thought it should, it stayed up longer than it should because it was a Friday night and we mods were all kind of off enjoying our offline lives and came to the post late after the complaints had already stacked up.

I hope you can understand the difference, it seems pretty straightforward to me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I think the FPP was bad, based on what I've learned about MeFi guidelines and policy.

I think you're calling me out, but doing it in a really passive aggressive manner. If you have an issue with me, just say so. You don't need to pull this stunt post.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:43 AM on March 30, 2009

With all the flame bait and sexism ranting going on today, perhaps some of you would like to come over to this relaxing thread. We're talking about analog computers right now.
posted by echo target at 11:45 AM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

Look, I don't appreciate the insensitive language being used here - I had a puppy once, until my stepfather smeared him with a drive-by.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Roslyn Yalow (scroll down a bit for her story) used to tape pictures of huge pectoral muscles inside test tubes that she knew I had to use.
posted by Mister_A at 11:47 AM on March 30, 2009

Do I have to write every post from scratch?

If this is what you come up with when you try to crib instead, yeah, you really should.

Next time, take the extra five minutes to think through what you're trying to communicate, state clearly why and how you think the situations are similar, anticipate some of the responses you think you might get, and revise your post to actually address that stuff clearly. These are all things you seem to be able to do in comments after you've gotten yourself into an argument in a thread, so making the effort to do it ahead of time and skipping the whole argument-starting bit would be a hell of an improvement.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:49 AM on March 30, 2009

The article posted was was fine. This is an interesting issue, one that needs a good airing.

The ensuing thread is complete garbage, started by the first two comments, prompted by poor framing of the post. The "racial" IQ spitball fight, a putrid, festering ex-equine, has nothing whatsoever to do with the linked article. I was hoping that the discussion would turn around, but it looks completely beyond hope now.

Anytime someone brings up the Bell Curve, you can pack your bags.
posted by bonehead at 11:49 AM on March 30, 2009

I flagged it. Honestly, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's just so poorly written.

Thankfully, sexism has gone down significantly in recent years.
Really? Cite?

At the same time, it still exists in some amount - even a small handful of Nobel Laureates have acted sexist (or other -ist - Watson?).
Without a link, this is baffling to 97% of the population, even before weird-ass terms like "other-ist" start flying around. How am I supposed to know who "Watson" is? for a minute I literally thought it was some reference to Sherlock Holmes.

(For my part, I'm glad that I haven't encountered any sexism myself in neuroscience.)
Thanks for sharing.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:49 AM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

It's "our" site?

The way my comments get deleted I thought this place belonged to the US branch of the Internet Watch Foundation.
posted by wfrgms at 11:52 AM on March 30, 2009

I think it's okay to expect people to connect "Watson" and "Nobel Laureates" to the correct guy, especially with the bonus hint of discrimination. The first ten hits on Google for "watson nobel laureate" go to the right guy, so even if you didn't know, it wouldn't be hard to find out.
posted by adipocere at 11:54 AM on March 30, 2009

Rather than a "reactive obnoxious stunt", I prefer to think of it as highlighting a teachable moment for me.

no doubt you would prefer to think of it that way, but when you go about making a post by directly parroting another, better post, you are pulling an obnoxious stunt. chill out, crabby.
posted by shmegegge at 11:54 AM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I thought the post wasn't great, but not really delete-worthy. The editorializing was unnecessary but not excessive.

[NOT OTHER-IST]
posted by solipsophistocracy at 11:56 AM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

No one is talking about what EmpressCallipygos did in that thread? She evinced first-hand knowledge of the plot of Battlefield Earth. Shouldn't we ban her for this?
posted by Mister_A at 11:59 AM on March 30, 2009 [7 favorites]

The topic had potential, and I do have something to say about it but that thread is such a cesspool that I'm going to wait for a better thread on the topic.

The linked blog post was kind of lame (dear slightly angry blogger: the rule of 'less is more' applies to italics, too!), but the editorializing on the post really made it fail.

What was editorializing about it? Well, the bit about sexism going down in recent years was unsupported by any links, and isn't true in all fields. The bit about Watson was just unnecessary and led to the current mess. And while I'm glad the OP hasn't experienced any sexism in her field, I would say that that information belongs in a comment and not in the text of the FPP itself.
posted by librarylis at 12:00 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

This MeTa post was created solely so you could use it for future reference, to be able to point to it and say, "See?! There's a political bias on Metafilter! I was right! Thought police!", knowing full well that there's a world of difference between a LiveLeak vid of a caning and an article on sexism in the sciences. This is transparent, and weak, and frankly hilarious.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:01 PM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

huh huh huh huh your mom has gone down in recent years
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:03 PM on March 30, 2009 [10 favorites]

I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it. There are other posts on MetaFilter that link to disturbing images and videos. I thought (and I guess I could be mistaken) that the caning video post was deleted mainly because of the editorializing, not the content. Which was it? Or was it both, somehow? Or was it just the content of the editorializing, and would it have been allowed to stay up if the OP had taken a different editorial position?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2009

I prefer to think of it as highlighting a teachable moment for me.

I have a resource that may help you.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Aw, I wasted a good link hoping the conversation would turn around...
posted by lunit at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2009

Do I have to write every post from scratch?

Why wouldn't you? Do you not know how to use your words?
posted by rtha at 12:10 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2009

Or was it just the content of the editorializing, and would it have been allowed to stay up if the OP had taken a different editorial position?

Jesus christ, if you wanted to keep having that argument, you shouldn't have fled from the still open thread where you were having it.

Matt didn't do the heavy lifting on that one; I was there and so was jessamyn and so were you, and you bailed after the reaction got sufficiently critical, so please don't use this thread as a place to go asking Dad after Mom said no.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on March 30, 2009 [13 favorites]

Don't you think it's pretty ironical that this metatalk post about the poor framing and excessive shitty editorial language of a front page post is framed poorly and with excessive shitty editorial language? Or are you too busy stealing money from Korean orphans?

Flag this post if you agree.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2009

Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.

If you have a problem with people commenting on something you've said or done on an open forum, you may want to reevaluate your attitude towards participating on an open forum.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2009 [9 favorites]

So are you Dad, or is Jessamyn. Can I be the crazy uncle who invents wacky gizmos?
posted by Pastabagel at 12:17 PM on March 30, 2009

Telling someone not to comment in your MeTa thread? That's a thought-policin'.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:18 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

librarylis: "48What was editorializing about it? Well, the bit about sexism going down in recent years was unsupported by any links, and isn't true in all fields. The bit about Watson was just unnecessary and led to the current mess. And while I'm glad the OP hasn't experienced any sexism in her field, I would say that that information belongs in a comment and not in the text of the FPP itself."

I completely agree with this assessment, and I'm flagging it.

And though I think Crabby Appleton does have an axe to grind, I also think that all the conversations we have had on Mefi being a "boyzone" have made the mods a bit skittish about deleting any post that deals with sexism.

That's just my opinion, though, and it's matt's site and he can do whatever he damned well pleases.
posted by misha at 12:18 PM on March 30, 2009

Well yes, there was some editiorializing. I still think there's a world of difference between a single phrase declaring "sexism declining", and opining at length in the more-inside. Apples, meet oranges, etc.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2009

Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.
posted by Crabby AppletonPoster at 3:12 PM on March 30

Ha! Oh, Crabby Appleton! You're the Crabby Applest!

Rather than a "reactive obnoxious stunt", I prefer to think of it as highlighting a teachable moment for me...
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:20 PM on March 30

I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 3:06 PM on March 30

The teachable moment! It does nothing!
posted by shmegegge at 12:22 PM on March 30, 2009 [9 favorites]

Crabby Appleton: I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it. There are other posts on MetaFilter that link to disturbing images and videos. I thought (and I guess I could be mistaken) that the caning video post was deleted mainly because of the editorializing, not the content. Which was it? Or was it both, somehow? Or was it just the content of the editorializing, and would it have been allowed to stay up if the OP had taken a different editorial position?

Good lord, but you're an idiot. I explained this carefully and clearly in the other thread and you missed it. I know I am farting in the wind doing it again, but here we go:

1) It is not simply disturbing videos or simply editorializing. It is the precise combination that fff's post represented that was offensive and deletion-worthy.

fff's post was, essentially, an argument in favor of corporal punishment. In support (?!) of this, he posted a video of corporal punishment. Now, we can leave aside that this seems like an idiotic way to argue a point; what it comes down to is that the disturbing video is extraneous. It adds nothing to our knowledge of corporal punishment; everyone can and probably has imagined what exactly corporal punishment looks like. The other disturbing videos you've linked are newsworthy and postworthy because they reveal something about current events that we might not know before we see them. But videos of corporal punishment reveal nothing new to the viewer about the nature or justice of corporal punishment.

What's more, I think you and I can both agree that corporal punishment is disturbing, even if you are of the persuasion that it causes a beneficial disturbance by preventing future crime.

Given that a video of corporal punishment can reveal nothing to the viewer about corporal punishment, nor add anything to the discussion of corporal punishment beyond nauseating the participants, it is at best disingenuous and at worst manipulative and cruel to post a link to a video of corporal punishment framed in that way in order to start a discussion here.

2) I wonder if it's possible for you to understand this, however; you're being disingenuous yourself in posting this thread. Ask yourself for a moment why you didn't make a post like this:

Hello, everybody. I was wondering: if a post like this is acceptable and can stay, then why did fff's post of yesterday get deleted?

Horace Rumpole is spot-on: you are being disingenuous when you come in here with unstated intentions and call people out randomly to prove a point.

3) You are not going to get an answer. It's been stated many times before that the final rule of Metafilter is that there are no rules, only guidelines that may or may not work and that may be ignored if a situation calls for them. This is apparently the hill you've chosen to die upon, general, but I'll be damned if it's a fine one.
posted by koeselitz at 12:25 PM on March 30, 2009

I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it. There are other posts on MetaFilter that link to disturbing images and videos.

God, I knew if didn't fully qualify my mention of disturbing videos being lame on mefi, someone that wanted to be a literalist ass would compare some lurid torture video in that post with Abu Ghraib, ignoring the tremendous ramifications of an abuse of power by an invading force fighting for "freedom" while seemingly doing the opposite of what they claimed to fight for.

Stop being a literal ass. A huge wordwide news story about abuses that turned public sentiment against the war is not the same thing as some video of caning found on liveleak.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2009 [15 favorites]

I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it. There are other posts on MetaFilter that link to disturbing images and videos. I thought (and I guess I could be mistaken) that the caning video post was deleted mainly because of the editorializing, not the content. Which was it? Or was it both, somehow? Or was it just the content of the editorializing, and would it have been allowed to stay up if the OP had taken a different editorial position?

We explained it several times. My feeling is a lot like cortex's and mathowie's. If what you're trying to do is look into the compare/contrast angle between why one post was deleted and why one wasn't, let's talk about it. And that should have been the topic of this MeTa thread. Ask a direct question if that's what you're actually getting at.

The video post was deleted for a combination of reasons...

- the substance of the video
- the editorializing in the post
- the general "meh" ness of the link + text
- people seemed to hate it (and as I said in the other thread, this is also flags-before-MeTa not just after)

If you are trying not to seem like you're going about this in a passive-aggressive way, you are doing a bad job. If you'd like to have a good faith effort to actually talk about this topic, please ask direct questions and we will give direct answers. No guarantee you'll like them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:27 PM on March 30, 2009

You keep accusing me of stuff I'm not doing, cortex. I'm not trying to get your decision on the caning video post reversed; that's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. mathowie seemed to be speaking authoritatively about the rationale for the deletion; when I still didn't understand, I thought I should address the question to him. But I'm sorry if that offended you. It would be valuable to hear your views.

Also, the FPP we're discussing in this thread seemed to me to afford an opportunity for me to learn something, since it provides another data point. With the new added context, I don't think it makes sense to go back to the older thread.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 12:32 PM on March 30, 2009

teachable moment? as a wet-behind-the-ears member, i have learned shit-tons about metafilter from this thread. crabby, some unsolicited advice from someone who is probably out of line offering it: please let this go. even i understand the difference, and why everybody is after you right now. even as someone still getting their sea-legs on mefi, your post here seems provocative and defensive to me.
posted by barrett caulk at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

No one is talking about what EmpressCallipygos did in that thread? She evinced first-hand knowledge of the plot of Battlefield Earth.

Say what you will, but both Battlefield Earth and 10000 B.C are the first two films in what I think will turn into a genre, and that genre is CAVEMEN CAN KICK SPACEMEN'S ASS.

And, although those films might be misfires, I find the genre itself promising. Because I am sick of Erich Anton Paul von Däniken and his horseshit about aliens building Aztec temples and Egyptian pyramids and somehow influencing the development of humanity. WE did it, not the spacemen, and we're still basically cave men. And we would KILL AND EAT SPACEMEN.

YOU HEAR ME, DAINIKEN! CAVEMEN BUILT THE PYRAMIDS, BECAUSE THEY ARE AWESOME.

So, yes, I believe a caveman could fly a Harrier jet and blow up John Travolta, and I'm not ashamed of this.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2009 [25 favorites]

your mom has gone down in recent years

cite?
posted by ODiV at 12:35 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I couldn't remember what a credenza was until I looked it up and I still can't come up with the correct analogy.

I'm not sure what race I'm supposed to be now.
posted by desjardins at 12:35 PM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

stock car.
posted by jonmc at 12:37 PM on March 30, 2009

So, yes, I believe a caveman could fly a Harrier jet and blow up John Travolta, and I'm not ashamed of this.

That is the most surreal attempt at a derail I've ever seen. Congratulations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:37 PM on March 30, 2009

YOU HEAR ME, DAINIKEN! CAVEMEN BUILT THE PYRAMIDS, BECAUSE THEY ARE AWESOME.

Put me in that category. And also, let's please flog Clarke for that "Childhood's End" monstrosity. Why do we need alien overlords to evolve? That potential is damn well already in our cells and manifests just fine.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:38 PM on March 30, 2009

Travolta has been having that coming since "Perfect".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:40 PM on March 30, 2009

blah blah blah... lord this is tedious. Guess I should go and actually do some work.
posted by edgeways at 12:40 PM on March 30, 2009

The main problem with the post is this:

even a small handful of Nobel Laureates have acted sexist

Adverbs / adjectives. Learn 'em, love 'em, use 'em.
posted by signal at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

CAVEMEN CAN KICK SPACEMEN'S ASS.


Well, Duuhhh. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Don't need no L. Ron Motherucker to tell me that...

but of course, the relationship I linked shows that there is more to be gained from co-operation than asskicking. or something.
posted by jonmc at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2009

But I'm sorry if that offended you.

It would be super neat if you could try to address any of the criticism of your behavior instead of repeatedly falling back on the subject of how offended you perceive me to be. It seems like you're trying awfully hard to avoid the subject of you, which is kind of weird when your behavior the last couple days comes off as very attention-getting. Nobody is buying the wide-eyed ingenue schtick.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2009 [6 favorites]

#198: When anyone expresses exasperation with your inability to understand something, take on a tone of innocence and point out how offended/upset the other person is getting. This shifts the focus off you, and will probably just annoy the other person further.

posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:46 PM on March 30, 2009 [6 favorites]

even a small handful of Nobel Laureates have acted sexist

Adverbs / adjectives. Learn 'em, love 'em, use 'em.

Sexistly?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 12:50 PM on March 30, 2009

Astro Zombie, thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking. I wish there was some way I could indicate the precise qualities of my favorite of AZ's comment above, viz:

[ ] I agree with the sentiment, but not the grammar, of this post or comment.
[ ] I thought this was about the paintings of the woman having sex with the presidents.
[ ] This favorite is a bookmark, a mark in my black book, in which book are entered the iniquities of the fallen and depraved denizens of MetaFilter.
[ ] Pancake.
[ ] Longboat.
[x] NGGRRRRRUUUUUNNNGHH! ME LIKE!
posted by Mister_A at 12:52 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

"have manifested traits commensurate with the definition of sexist"
posted by Burhanistan at 12:52 PM on March 30, 2009

"other-ist", whatever that means ...


The Other or constitutive other (also referred to as othering) is a key concept in continental philosophy, opposed to the Same. It refers, or attempts to refer, to that which is 'other' than the concept being considered. The term often means a person other than oneself, and is often capitalised. The Other is singled out as different....
posted by R. Mutt at 12:52 PM on March 30, 2009

Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.
posted by Crabby Appleton

That's right, take your ball and go home, shmeggege! Or Crabby's mom will call your mom when she gets back home from the store with Crabby's favorite jelly for his afterschool sandwich, of which you totally cannot have a bite.
posted by scody at 12:54 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Gotta be a troll. Such a combination of dim-bulb and reaction-bait doesn't just happen.

"Also, the FPP we're discussing in this thread seemed to me to afford an opportunity for me to learn something, since it provides another data point."

Mark me down as not buying it. It's like a Get-mods-to-post drinking game or something.

No one who claims to want to learn about not shiiting on the site spends this much time shitting on the site.
posted by Ragma at 12:54 PM on March 30, 2009 [5 favorites]

totally

Nice!
posted by Mister_A at 12:56 PM on March 30, 2009

Nobody is buying the wide-eyed ingenue schtick.

I guess this is what I'm saying also. Good faith efforts to understand the place will receive a lot of our time and attention and I don't think any of us think this is what this is about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:57 PM on March 30, 2009

My great uncle, a Nobel laureate, just called and would greatly appreciate you not smearing him as you drive by. All it does is make him go back in for a shower and a change of clothes, and distracts him from developing interesting and useful pharmaceuticals. Your heart, stomach and/or pancreas might thank you one day.
posted by scruss at 1:01 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

That's it, I'm going off my meds, too. It's the new, fun thing that all the cool kids are doing!
posted by yhbc at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.

Wow. I was rolling around enjoying the debate until this. Hostile much?
posted by davejay at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2009

I just assumed "other-ist" was a reference to "Lost". I think a lot of us have to admit we're other-ist. Sometimes I'm dharma-ist too.
posted by Evangeline at 1:11 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sexistly?

"Have acted with sexistitialism" would be correct here, I think.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:14 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'd go with Business Speak on this one: Have leveraged sexism.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:20 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's a Nobel Laureate drive-by smear. I know it's kinda cloudy, but it's a Nobel Laureate drive-by smear. It's got Karolinska Institutet on top; that's like a Nobel label, Karolinska Institutet.
posted by Bernt Pancreas at 1:20 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry, mathowie, but I still don't get it. There are other posts on MetaFilter that link to disturbing images and videos.

If you cannot tell the difference between the videos from Abu Ghraib and a video of caning, then you are beyond the reach of education, and I weep for your ignorance.

Oh, and "Butt out, shmeggege"?

Seriously?

What are you, twelve?
posted by scrump at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2009

You know, just for a minute, why don't we talk about the FPP that is the subject of this post. As for content, it's not that interesting. It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science. At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment (unless you're like koeselitz and prefer to argue about abstractions and ignore reality). Aside from the link, the rest of the post is crap, as many have commented in this thread. So I'd say the link and the text are generally "meh". I don't know whether many people hate it, but it certainly generated an acrimonious discussion.

So, given all that (and keeping in mind the four points Jessamyn adduced regarding the deletion of the caning video), are you going to delete the post? Or are you going to let it stand?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2009

Crabby Appleton: Butt out, shmegegge, nobody needs your trademark moralizing lectures here.

How is it possible for someone to be as patently childish as you are in this comment? That's not a question I ask pejoratively; I mean to say that I know that you're too smart not to notice what a jerk you're being when you say something like this. I have a feeling that this conflict is about what a lot of conflicts on Metafilter are about: some unnamed pain in your own personal life. I don't begrudge you that pain - I'm sure it's very real, and I hope you can find an end to it. I only offer this piece of advice: you'll find that trying to smear dirt in other people's faces like some schoolyard bully won't make you feel better. Believe me, I've tried it.
posted by koeselitz at 1:22 PM on March 30, 2009

The key to Metafilter is to approach each day anew. You can't let yesterday's shit cloud today. Maybe you acted like an ass yesterday, maybe somebody acted like an ass to you. You got to let it go. Today is a whole new day. You got to be like Memento to make it in this game. Brand New Day motherfucker! Live it!
posted by ND¢ at 1:23 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

You know, just for a minute, why don't we talk about the FPP that is the subject of this post.

Because you set up this post with a chip on your shoulder, and you continue to act like an immature prat nearly a hundred comments in. That's a couple reasons why.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:26 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Astro Zombie : Say what you will, but both Battlefield Earth and 10000 B.C are the first two films in what I think will turn into a genre, and that genre is CAVEMEN CAN KICK SPACEMEN'S ASS.

And let's not forget an even earlier example: Stargate, where they are not only kicking alien ass, but also Gods!

Sure, they needed someone to come in and show them that it could be done, but before long, they were fucking up those Anubis and Horace soldiers just fine on their own.

Lesson learned here? Don't antagonize preindustrial cultures by assuming that you can just fly away in your space ship when you are done. You'll eventually get killed in some probably stupid way that makes you an embarrassment to all the other would be alien pseudo-deities watching.
posted by quin at 1:30 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Crabby Appleton: At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment (unless you're like koeselitz and prefer to argue about abstractions and ignore reality).

Okay, clearly I'm not being straightforward enough.

If I made a post that stated, clearly and concisely, in a single paragraph, that I think abortion can be a very good thing, because it helps young mothers, and if I then made the sole link in that post a link to a very graphic video of a bloody aborted fetus, would that make an acceptable post?
posted by koeselitz at 1:33 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's yet another woman ranting...

Crabby Appleton, have you ever met a woman?
posted by R. Mutt at 1:33 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science. At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment (unless you're like koeselitz and prefer to argue about abstractions and ignore reality).

What the fuck is wrong with you? It was actually a pretty interesting blog post for the level of its annotation and its conversational accessibility. Your preferred isssues aren't the best ones, you yet another myopic jerk.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2009 [13 favorites]

So, given all that (and keeping in mind the four points Jessamyn adduced regarding the deletion of the caning video), are you going to delete the post? Or are you going to let it stand?

We're letting it stand. It was a blog post on a nominally interesting topic that people seem to be responding to. It falls on the "not enough wrong with it to delete" side of the fence, in my estimation. I didn't like it much but I didn't dislike it enough to delete it and there wasn't enough nudging from the flag queue to make me think I should reconsider, despite your best efforts in this thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:35 PM on March 30, 2009

Jeebus, Crabby Appleton. It's mathowie's party; we've paid admission, but the mods make the call to bounce something/someone from the club. Many long-time, prolific posters get stuff pulled and so do a good plenty of new folks (that's why lots of us have fear of posting). Sometimes, it just comes down to "because I said so" on behalf of the mods. Yeah, maybe that makes for a moving target, but all you can do is evaluate, prepare a meaty and articulate post, and give it a shot.

Of course, it sounds like you're just wanting to get into fisticuffs with the bouncers... akin to "you tossed the bloke who glassed that interesting guy, why aren't you tossing the guy having the loud argument in the hallway to the bathroom? WHY?" *poke, poke* "WHY?" It's their call. It seems like you're just having fun making a scene.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 1:36 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

By the way: I made badges. Who wants one?
posted by koeselitz at 1:36 PM on March 30, 2009 [19 favorites]

It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science.

What the fuck?

No, seriously, what the fuck.
posted by scrump at 1:36 PM on March 30, 2009 [20 favorites]

Yeah, don't talk about caning in conjunction with this dismissive attitude about women's expression of ongoing gender struggles. I get ideas.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:37 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

I've tried to trademark my moralising lectures but apparently Fidel Castro could show prior art, not to mention greater stamina, longevity and ideological consistency.
posted by Abiezer at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

"By the way: I made badges. Who wants one?"

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2009

Yeah, koeselitz, you tried it pretty recently. You asked me how the hell I could get any more bombastic? Maybe I could take lessons from you.

As for shmegegge, his gig on MetaFilter seems to be dispensing moral instruction from his perch atop his high horse. It gets old.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:39 PM on March 30, 2009

It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science. At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment (unless you're like koeselitz and prefer to argue about abstractions and ignore reality).

How is a video of caning "highly relevant," and a personal account of sexism in science not? And..."another woman ranting?" Really? I'm thinking that your objection to this post has nothing to do with the strength of the fpp.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 1:39 PM on March 30, 2009

You know what is an awesome little nugget of the MeFi experience? When you are reading a really bitchy, long MeTa thread with one user presenting a point of view that is almost universally acknowledged to be complete crap, and then, when you get to the end of the thread, you see an even more ridiculous comment by the OP, and then you realize that since you've been reading the thread for at least 15 minutes, you can refresh the thread and see a bunch of people going WHAAA?! almost instantly. I love it when that happens.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:39 PM on March 30, 2009 [16 favorites]

jessamyn, lend me some favorites would ya?
posted by Mister_A at 1:39 PM on March 30, 2009

As for content, it's not that interesting. It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science.

Your opinion. I am unaware of the multiple of posts in the blue that deal with sexism in science. I really like your condescension, here, btw. Good job!

At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment

Was it? Even FFF admitted that he couldn't find much out about judicial corporal punishment - like, whether it's effective or not. Perhaps the fpp should have been an askme instead. As it was, it was a "Hey look! Gross video of flayed skin!" without anything else, except some "Well, looks like it would work - I sure approve" editorializing.
posted by rtha at 1:40 PM on March 30, 2009

By the way: I made badges. Who wants one?

That frontier man is well-endowed.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:41 PM on March 30, 2009

Rock Steady: I love it when that happens.

Yeah. We haven't had a flameout this good in months.
posted by koeselitz at 1:41 PM on March 30, 2009

By the way: I made badges. Who wants one?

Can I have one that says "Grand Vizier" instead of Captain?
posted by Mister_A at 1:42 PM on March 30, 2009

Crabby Appleton: I'm very sorry about your recent brain trauma.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:42 PM on March 30, 2009

ND¢ : The key to Metafilter is to approach each day anew. You can't let yesterday's shit cloud today... Brand New Day motherfucker! Live it!

There's a lot of truth here. Someone should embroider this on the throw pillows we leave around the entrance to this place.
posted by quin at 1:43 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

...seems to be dispensing moral instruction from his perch atop his high horse.

And you seem to be dispensing manure from the bottom of a hole. Put down the shovel, dude.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

What I don't get is, we ban a dude for spoiling the last Harry Potter book yet jock@law doesn't appear capable of doing anything other than shitposting and on he goes. Metafilter is as much a community as a discussion site; does that community include racist serial threadshitters?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2009

You know what I think? Here's what I think.

I think that these need to be made into little iconized images, and MeFites can apply to the cabal the moderators for membership.

If the cabal jessamyn approves, for a one-time donation of $25, you get to have a Thought Police badge next to your username for a year.
posted by scrump at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2009

Do I have to write every post from scratch?

Holy fuck.
posted by juiceCake at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

You know, just for a minute, why don't we talk about the FPP that is the subject of this post.

We already did. Many of the early comments in this thread talked about it.

As for content, it's not that interesting. It's yet another woman ranting (however "brilliantly") about sexism in science. At least the caning video was something new and highly relevant to the debate about judicial corporal punishment....

Oh, now I see my mistake. When you said we should talk about "the FPP that is the subject of this post" I thought you meant the sexism-in-science post. I see now that despite the link to that post, "the FPP that is the subject of this post" is actually the caning video post. Kudos for keeping up the charade for two whole sentences before turning back to your real topic, though.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

As for shmegegge, his gig on MetaFilter seems to be dispensing moral instruction from his perch atop his high horse. It gets old.
posted by Crabby Appleton

Shmegegge and koeselitz are grade-A posters and you are clearly losing it, dude. Walk away from this thread.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2009

My WTF-o-meter is pinned...
posted by Mister_A at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2009

Crabby, nice troll "another woman ranting" and it looks like yet another disingenuous stab at riling up the community. We'll be closing this up soon.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:49 PM on March 30, 2009

You know, I wonder if some people are Metafiltering while listening to speedcore or something.

I wonder because I've got Erykah Badu on, so I may be a little extra bit groovy and snapsy.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:50 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

So which is it? Should I shut the fuck up, or stay around and explain myself (and explain, and explain, and ...)? I've heard calls for both.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:50 PM on March 30, 2009

I'm listening to Mr. Bungle.
posted by Mister_A at 1:51 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'm listening to The Congos.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:51 PM on March 30, 2009

we ban a dude for spoiling the last Harry Potter book

Straw that broke the perpetual griefer's back.

does that community include racist serial threadshitters?

I hadn't noticed the guy's username before in other threads. Examples?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:51 PM on March 30, 2009

quin: Here's your cross stitch pattern.
posted by ocherdraco at 1:52 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Shit, guys, I just realized that this whole thing is a misunderstanding. Crabby Appleton was really calling out a drive-by chrismear.
posted by scrump at 1:52 PM on March 30, 2009

It's not a troll. It's actually a fairly neutral characterization. But here, it's a provocation, I suppose. That's sort of the point. One post takes the MetaFilter-approved editorial position and stays. The other takes the MetaFilter-reviled editorial position and is deleted. That was educational.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:53 PM on March 30, 2009

We'll be closing this up soon.

So do I have to start another thread about my caveman vs spacemen theory?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:54 PM on March 30, 2009

So do I have to start another thread about my caveman vs spacemen theory?

Just keep living the truth, Astro Zombie.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:55 PM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

Don't need no L. Ron Motherucker to tell me that...

Oh, foir crying out loud, I forgot the 'f.' and the 'fucker,' part of motherfucker is the damned 'f-word.' I'm so embarassed.

Also, these 100+ comment free-for-alls are really unproductive and boring as hell.
posted by jonmc at 1:55 PM on March 30, 2009

What about spacemen who live in caves, huh? How's that fit into your neat little theory?
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 1:55 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

What about spacemen who live in caves, huh? How's that fit into your neat little theory?

Well, where else would they live while building the pyramids?
posted by scody at 1:56 PM on March 30, 2009

Pope Guilty, isn't it obvious? Your community doesn't include anyone who doesn't toe the party line.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2009

One post takes the MetaFilter-approved editorial position and stays. The other takes the MetaFilter-reviled editorial position and is deleted. That was educational.

Bullshit. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that today's post about sexism wasn't great, but not so bad it should be deleted outright. The previous post had very little merit, had a disturbing video attached and a ton of editorializing. Today's post also had weird editorializing. You think today's post should be deleted on those grounds, but as we said, the post isn't great but isn't as bad as the older caning post. It is not due to the topics being discussed. It's not due to us trying to enforce some imagined echo chamber.

Is that 100% clear? These things aren't black and white. Every post is taken on a case by case basis and we've explained why one was deleted and another stayed and you have a different take on it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

Your community doesn't include anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

yes, the Party of Non-Trolls.
posted by scody at 1:58 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Don't need no L. Ron Motherucker to tell me that

Too many motheruckers uckin with my shi
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:59 PM on March 30, 2009 [17 favorites]

It's actually a fairly neutral characterization.

Wow, no - it's not. It's not in any way neutral, and I somehow doubt that you didn't know that.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 2:01 PM on March 30, 2009

One post takes the MetaFilter-approved editorial position and stays. The other takes the MetaFilter-reviled editorial position and is deleted.

If that was your point, we could have discussed that all much earlier. It's really hard to compare any two posts and I think we've outlined the ways in which these posts were not only different but also were responded to differently both by the community and the mods. I know you think the deletion or non-deletion were topic-based but that's really not how we're feeling about it. Blind spot? Maybe, but no one else seems to be seeing it either. So what now?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:02 PM on March 30, 2009

So do I have to start another thread about my caveman vs spacemen theory?

No, that would just get you banned, since we all know yours is a MeFi-reviled editorial position. Why do you think Matt's closing this thread? Since he can't refute your caveman vs. spaceman theory, he's shutting down discussion.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:02 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

Your community doesn't include anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

Which party? (I'm serious. Yes, this place leans to the left in a general sort of way, but that covers everybody from Clintonite Democrats to Anarcho-Syndicalists to fucking Maoists. To toe that many party lines at once would requires more leg joints than usual.)
posted by jonmc at 2:05 PM on March 30, 2009

mathowie, it's clear. I'll stop there.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:06 PM on March 30, 2009

It's because Matt is descended from aliens, isn't it?
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:06 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Y'know, I poked through this thread hoping that weird racism discussion moved over here. I could not have anticipated the debacle I'd find within.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 2:07 PM on March 30, 2009

So which is it? Should I shut the fuck up, or stay around and explain myself (and explain, and explain, and ...)? I've heard calls for both

I vote for "shut the fuck up."
posted by desuetude at 2:08 PM on March 30, 2009 [9 favorites]

Well, this has been a teachable moment for all of us.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:08 PM on March 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

mathowie, it's clear. I'll stop there.

No, you won't! I'll bet money you'll be back.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2009

Great, I'll close this up then.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2009