Ruth Madoff's glasses

June 29, 2009 2:50 PM

Why was I not allowed to make a comment about Ruth Madoff's glasses?

A recent AskMeFi question, asked about the brand name of Ruth Madoff's designer glasses.

I find the question absurd and offensive. I left two responses to that effect as an answer. Both were removed.

Is there no sensitivity to her victims? Is that an appropriate discussion to having about a woman who caused so much pain and suffering? Should she be held up as a fashion symbol?
Suppose I asked a fashion question about a serial killer, would that be acceptable?

How should I have registered my disgust with question, if not leaving an answer?

posted by Flood to Etiquette/Policy at 2:50 PM (229 comments total)

I find it very surprising you can ask this given your extensive history here. Ill be the straight man here: you don't like the question? You have two options: ignore it and move on or flag it and move on.
posted by shothotbot at 2:53 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

lol wat?

are you serious?

this is a joke right?
posted by Perplexity at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009

You're comparing Bernie Madoff's wife to a serial killer?
posted by boo_radley at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009

How should I have registered my disgust with question, if not leaving an answer?

This is decent, for starters.

I'm not sure why you think "help me find these glasses" is not an okay question for AskMe. Since it is an okay question, then it means the usual rules apply. Responses must answer the question. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended, clearly you have strong feelings about this, but that doesn't mean it's okay to leave crappy comments in someone else's thread.

People ask questions about touchy subjects often and making people stick to answeing the question that was asked is pretty much one of the few serious rules of the site and one of the things that keeps it from being a messy snarkfest. I don't think asking how to find a pair of glasses is in any way offering support for what the Madoffs have done.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009 [12 favorites]

The question is about finding a pair of glasses, your answer did not help therefore was outside the guidelines. Obviously. And get over yourself.
posted by biffa at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009 [15 favorites]

Your two comments in that thread were this:

maybe they were forged by the devil when she made her pact with hell

and then, after I had removed it and a couple other non-answers, this:

My earlier response, which was removed, was NOT intended as comedy -
it was intended to highlight the insensitivity of this question.

Those people that destroyed your friends, what was their fashion brand?

After all the crap that bitch did - MeFites are talking about her brand of glasses!!!

You were reacting inappropriately to an askme question about glasses. It was not a question about Ruth Madoff, or whether or not people think she's a "bitch", and your anger about the Madoff situation in no way changes that or exempts you from the AskMe guidelines.

You should have registered your disgust with the question by closing the browser window in disgust, basically, or dropping a line to us via the contact form if that wasn't enough for you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009 [32 favorites]

Also I really like the work you did with Depeche Mode.
posted by boo_radley at 2:54 PM on June 29, 2009 [19 favorites]

What the hell is wrong with you?
posted by dead cousin ted at 2:55 PM on June 29, 2009 [41 favorites]

When you say you "left two responses to that effect as an answer," are you sure that answer means what you think it means?
posted by Pants! at 2:56 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ruth Madoff didn't design those glasses, and she's not making any money off of them, is she? The poster just used her as a way to describe the particular style that she was looking for.

If you asked a similar question about a serial killer, as long as it was not trolling, I don't see what the problem is. There are a lot of different reasons that one could have for wanting to know that. Curiosity about their appearance isn't glorifying them.
posted by amicamentis at 2:57 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

alright - i can accept your answers. i agree that living by the rule of answering the question is a wise policy.

however, is still think it is an insane question.
posted by Flood at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2009

I find the question absurd and offensive.

There's nothing absurd about liking a pair of glasses and wanting to know how to obtain a similar pair.

How should I have registered my disgust with question, if not leaving an answer?

Flagging. If this is not a sufficient medium for your disgust, send a message to the mods via the contact form. If that's not sufficient, gnash your teeth about it on your own blog.
posted by CKmtl at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

You are confusing a person's brand of glasses with her moral worth. This is actually quite hard to do. Congrats!
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2009 [100 favorites]

Yeah srsly. Kim Jong Il's glasses are way cooler.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2009 [9 favorites]

Anyone know where Josef Fritzl gets his hair done? That fierce wavy grey peak is just to diiieee for dahling.
posted by fire&wings at 3:01 PM on June 29, 2009 [9 favorites]

So, how do I grow one of those little mustaches?
posted by found missing at 3:02 PM on June 29, 2009 [17 favorites]

Ok so I can understand hating that lady and maybe she hurt people you know so there's that. But it's just a question about finding glasses, whoever is wearing them is irrelevant.
posted by dead cousin ted at 3:04 PM on June 29, 2009

i would think that asking a fashion question about a serial killer would be ok. i would certainly think that if someone asked about the clothes the wife of a serial killer wore would also be a-ok. do you have any evidence that it wouldn't be?
posted by nadawi at 3:06 PM on June 29, 2009

I am stunned that you would find it appropriate to complain about this, because it's not at all an offensive question.
posted by agregoli at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

however, is still think it is an insane question.

You're wrong. It's a perfectly reasonable question that you overreacted to.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

I'm just glad you didn't make a stunt post asking where to get an SS hat.
posted by ODiV at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2009

however, is still think it is an insane question.

True. No one should be allowed to locate the glasses they want, or else we'll be this close to whatever the moral equivalent of rectal prolapse is.
posted by middleclasstool at 3:08 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

Getting glasses forged by the devil via pact with hell seems pretty reasonable, if, in fact, the glasses were indeed stylish. It's hard to find good glasses.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:09 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

Hey look - I am sorry. Maybe I over-reacted.
Sometimes, some crimes, hit closer to the bone for some people than for others.

If you had been their victim - are you so sure you would not be offended.
You can be victimized by someone, then turn off the emotion, and coolly discuss their fashion tastes with others.

I guess I am a lesser mortal of the pain is to near to the heart to just turn off.
posted by Flood at 3:10 PM on June 29, 2009

If you had been their victim - are you so sure you would not be offended.
You can be victimized by someone, then turn off the emotion, and coolly discuss their fashion tastes with others.

I guess I am a lesser mortal of the pain is to near to the heart to just turn off.

TINY VIOLINS. It's just a pair of glasses, and not even a pair of glasses that have become a symbol of something bad--like, for example, the SS hat. The glasses did nothing. No one else wearing them will "look like Ruth Madoff." And even if it was tough for you? You made the wrong choice in response.
posted by liketitanic at 3:13 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Have you no sympathy for the poor woman? Are you aware that she is no longer welcome in her own salon?
posted by shownomercy at 3:13 PM on June 29, 2009

Flood, it seems from your wording that you've been directly or indirectly hurt from the Madoffs.. and I can sympathize with that. That said, the original question was not "How can I support the Madoffs", or "Can I send money to the Madoffs"... in fact, the Madoffs have no chance of seeing any benefit from the question.. Poster just wanted some stylish glasses.

So... I can sympathize that you've potentially been hurt, but, I have to agree it seems to be a bit of an overreaction.
posted by frwagon at 3:16 PM on June 29, 2009

Ruth Madoff's evil is no match for the ninth circle of LensCrafters.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:17 PM on June 29, 2009 [8 favorites]

Is this post shilling for Bruno or something? Conflating evil and eye wear is the sort of silly hilarity I could go for in about 10 days times. That's right - in 10 days
posted by Elmore at 3:18 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Sometimes, some crimes, hit closer to the bone for some people than for others.

Nah I'm totally with you there. I understand why people are hurt and angry and really view the Madoffs as people who really broke all sorts of rules about preying on people, in addition to the laws the broke specifically. Bad people. It irritates me to read their names and yeah I thought the question was oddly timed and a little insensitive maybe. Because in a community of this size, there's a really good chance that someone was affected by the Madoffs' horriblenesses, or that they knew someone who was. And it can then hurt extra more, perhaps, to see people making jokes about this.

I think everyone on MeFi has some little sore spot about something. The weird part is that some people deal with these sore spots by making bad jokes or trying to turn something horrible into something prosaic. And then other people deal with it in a more inward-turning way and it can seem strange and broken to see people making bad jokes about something that in some way hurts your feelings (I am sometimes that way with the child abuse jokes that pop up here, for example). That said, it happens, and I've gotten better over time at either walking away or finding a way to both express my displeasure and still answer the question. For example

"Gee she sure seems like a weird person to emulate, what with all the lawbreaking and general bad behavior, but I think you can find similar frames on this web site..."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:20 PM on June 29, 2009 [6 favorites]

Crash on the levee,
Water's gonna overflow.
posted by Elmore at 3:20 PM on June 29, 2009

The glasses did nothing.

No, you're thinking of the goggles. The glasses are clearly guilty.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:21 PM on June 29, 2009 [12 favorites]

I'm curious as to why you think she victimized people. She was the wife of the man who certainly did and he was convicted and sentenced for that crime. But to my knowledge she has not been charged with anything.
posted by Toekneesan at 3:22 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

I'm genuinely sorry you or someone close to you was hurt by the Madoffs.

If it makes you feel any better, I find Sarah Palin - her existence - deeply morally offensive, but with effort I have overcome that sufficiently that I am able to express my love for her eyewear choices.

In seriousness, props to you for admitting you may have overreacted about something that touched you personally. A lot of people have trouble with that.
posted by Ryvar at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

They're a classic style, favoured by traditionalists (do a Google search for "AA406 Glasses"). Similar glasses were worn by Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. No wonder they caught the OP's eye.

I don't think the "designer" snipe is appropriate. They are a very traditional style, and as someone noted in the thread you can find them at Lenscrafters.
posted by maledictory at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2009

I'm curious as to why you think she victimized people.

Duh, Toekneesan... Obviously, Glasses:Ruth::Ruth:Bernie
posted by Sys Rq at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2009

Maybe I over-reacted.

Maybe?
posted by ericb at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Gee she sure seems like a weird person to emulate, what with all the lawbreaking and general bad behavior, but I think you can find similar frames on this web site..."

I don't think that comment would be appropriate in the thread. The thread wasn't, how do I become more like Ruth Madoff; it was, see this picture of a woman (who happens to be Ruth Madoff) wearing glasses that I like- where can I buy those glasses? The judgments about what each Madoff did and if it's weird to want their stuff is irrelevant. The question is about the glasses, not the Madoffs.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:24 PM on June 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

Whoa. This is even more absurd a sensitivity to me than PETA's reaction to President Obama's having swatted a fly.
posted by bz at 3:24 PM on June 29, 2009

If it helps get your ire down, think of it this way: Madoff is completely ancillary to the question.

kmennie likes certain kinds of glasses. Perhaps she has a certain face shape which works well with certain kinds of glasses. Madoff just happened to be wearing such glasses, or has a similar face shape; she is a readily available picture to which kmennie can point and say "I want these".

In some alternate universe, it could have been Billy Mays' widow wearing the glasses. Or some musician. Or some local reporter from Topeka, KS in a blooper video on youtube. Or some woman in a stock photo.
posted by CKmtl at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

They're a classic style, favoured by traditionalists ...

I've always considered them John Dean glasses.
posted by ericb at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2009

You people. Try walking a mile in Stalin's shoes.

They're wing tips. To die for.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:29 PM on June 29, 2009 [12 favorites]

What TPS said.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:29 PM on June 29, 2009

I guess I am a lesser mortal of or the pain is to(o) near to the heart to just turn off.

A good pair of glasses may help even a lesser mortal to see the writing in the post and on the wall.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:29 PM on June 29, 2009

If it makes you feel any better, I find Sarah Palin - her existence - deeply morally offensive, but with effort I have overcome that sufficiently that I am able to express my love for her eyewear choices.

God, me too, except that I came to grips with the fact that I really like her hair. I was trying to describe to my stylist exactly what I wanted without ever using her name, and then I finally gave up and said -- sotto voce -- "what I really want is whatever layering and bangs Sarah Palin has." And he laughed heartily and said, "Great hair. Terrible human being. Don't worry, I won't tell."
posted by scody at 3:30 PM on June 29, 2009 [50 favorites]

Oh man I missed this place.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:35 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

FloodPoster: "Hey look - I am sorry. Maybe I over-reacted.
Sometimes, some crimes, hit closer to the bone for some people than for others.

If you had been their victim - are you so sure you would not be offended.
You can be victimized by someone, then turn off the emotion, and coolly discuss their fashion tastes with others.

I guess I am a lesser mortal of the pain is to near to the heart to just turn off."

oh, this is one of the best fake apologies ever. so classic. so livejournal. just amazing, and props to you. on the off chance that you're not just from 4chan fucking with us:

it seems clear that (assuming this is genuine) you've been personally affected by Madoff, and I'm sorry that whatever it was happened to you or someone you know.

that said, I hope you can understand that being their victim does not mean that your outrage at everything madoff related belongs on metafilter. there's more to this than a simple guidelines violation. you're kind of misplacing your rage, here. we're not the madoffs, and we're not responsible for preventing you from having to hear their names ever again.

so good luck with your recovery process, and the next time you want to tell someone you didn't do anything wrong, try the reduced drama straightforward method. sarcastic apologies are funnier than they are effective.
posted by shmegegge at 3:37 PM on June 29, 2009 [9 favorites]

I'm curious as to why you think she victimized people.

Well, clearly there's a large amount of guilt by association going on, along with the speculation that her and their kids knew what he was doing. And of course a lot of people hate her because she benefited from his crimes and wanted to continue (and will apparently) benefiting from them even after he was caught.
posted by dead cousin ted at 3:39 PM on June 29, 2009

If it makes you feel any better, I find Sarah Palin - her existence - deeply morally offensive, but with effort I have overcome that sufficiently that I am able to express my love for her eyewear choices.

I will never understand that love.

1. Those are the glasses Peggy Hill would wear if she were a local news presenter.
2. They're really sloppily constructed. Take a close look. Notice how the ear-stem on the left is higher than the nose-piece, but the one on the right is lower? Ew!
posted by Sys Rq at 3:41 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

I guess I am a lesser mortal of the pain is to near to the heart to just turn off

Put that under a picture of like an anthropomorphic dragon or a furryesque black wolf with a single tear in its eye and you've got DeviantART solid gold right there.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:43 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

Dammit, the Madoff thread was just deleted.

Whoever resurrects it would do well to include mention of Jeffry Picower, who extracted billions from the Madoff scheme. Robert Jaffe is another scum who profited big from Madoff.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:45 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

...wanted to continue (and will apparently) benefiting from them even after he was caught.

Ruth ("poor thing") left with only $2.5 million, is relegated to slumming it on the subway's F-train. And she can't find an apartment building which will accept her as a tenant. Poor Thing."
posted by ericb at 3:46 PM on June 29, 2009

Hi! Is this where I audition for the writing gig on Leno?
posted by not_on_display at 3:46 PM on June 29, 2009

Is this where i go to audition for a gig on the Jay Lenin?

"So i was watching that BERNIE MADOFF trial on tv the other day... heh
Looks like his wife was there, heh, she was wearing some pretty sassy glasses...
and by "sassy" i mean "dipped in the blood of the proletariat!"
[cue laughter]
"im just kidding...seriously though she's first up against the wall."
[cut to Eubanks smoking a hammer and sickle bong]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:46 PM on June 29, 2009 [11 favorites]

damn you n_o_d, you're next when the revolution comes!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:48 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ruth ("poor thing") left with only $2.5 million, is relegated to slumming it on the subway's F-train. And she can't find an apartment building which will accept her as a tenant. Poor Thing."

Yeah, only $2.5 million. But if I robbed a bank and bought my wife a bunch of expensive shit with the money, they'd send my ass to prison and her to the poorhouse.
posted by dead cousin ted at 3:48 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Whoever resurrects it would do well to include mention of Jeffry Picower, who extracted billions from the Madoff scheme. Robert Jaffe is another scum who profited big from Madoff.

Not to mention all of the other "feeder funds." I'm looking at you Walter Noel !
posted by ericb at 3:49 PM on June 29, 2009

Here's a nice one on Jaffe.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:49 PM on June 29, 2009

It might be worth explicitly mentioning that you can be a total dick here on Metatalk, but AskMe has different rules, with far less silliness & nerd Thunderdome-ness.

Also: the total sweeping under the carpet of the plight of those who have gone to Lenscrafters is appalling.
posted by Pronoiac at 3:55 PM on June 29, 2009

Jesus, it's a good thing my wife vetoed me wanting to get Rumsfeld glasses.
posted by odinsdream at 3:59 PM on June 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

Speaking of which, wasn't Rihanna positively radiant on the stand last week?
posted by kosem at 3:59 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

2. They're really sloppily constructed. Take a close look. Notice how the ear-stem on the left is higher than the nose-piece, but the one on the right is lower? Ew!

Is that really shoddy work? I would figure you pay extra to have glasses built to sit straight on your face (taking uneven ears, etc., into account).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:00 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Hi! Is this where I audition for the writing gig on Leno?

Yeah ... if you're willing to wait until the fall launch of his new primetime comedy/talk show.

Don't know if auditions for the current new Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien are offered here yet.
posted by ericb at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2009

We're going to have to accept that Villains tend to be snappier dressers than the good people of the world. Just try and claim that the Nazis didn't have the slickest, most badass uniforms of the Second World War - yes, yes, yes, they were genocidal shitbags, but my god, those boots, those overcoats, those skeletor rings! - if WWII hinged on style, we'd all be speaking German.

As for Flood's flipout - indeed, as for all "deleted answer" flipouts, people, for crissakes, just leave it alone. Can you find any instance where a MeTa complaint about a deleted answer played out well? Has a deleted non-answer ever been reinstated because the commenter squawked in the gray? Have the mods ever said, "oh, my mistake, let me just repost your jokey, useless response, then get your address so I can mail you a batch of cookies?"
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:13 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

I am outraged by this thread which has insensitively served only to bring attention to that disgusting eyeglass AskMe, which I would not have otherwise found. Your post has brought even more attention to that godawful woman. Your ruse of "hating" that AskMe question, in order to put Ruth Madoff into the spotlight (a much deserved spotlight, I'm sure you believe), has been exposed. Well-played, Flood. Well-played.
posted by jabberjaw at 4:19 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Your nick is insensitive to all the victims of TMBG.
posted by Eideteker at 4:23 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

Maybe the AskMe OP really wanted to find out how much the glasses cost (hoping that they were really expensive) for a super-outrage diatribe on their blog:

$8756.00 for fucking glasses!...
posted by double block and bleed at 4:33 PM on June 29, 2009

Your nick is insensitive to all the victims of TMBG.

Dude. That's fucked up. I love They Might Be Giants.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:35 PM on June 29, 2009

Showing up late and scratching my head here... From what little I know of her, she seems, okay, heinous, but as already mentioned, nowhere is it clear that she's done anything worse than being an asshole's wife. I realised wanting to look like such a person might be a bit distasteful, but really, it's just the glasses. Maybe if I'd thrown in "And what box hair dye can I use to get Ruthie's 'Soft Baby Blonde' shade, too?" I could see the offence, but. Really. I just need new glasses...

Props to Ask as usual; I now have a number of similar frames to check out so I can look like John Dean. Hrm.
posted by kmennie at 4:36 PM on June 29, 2009

Jessamyn,

Can we please add a "Drama" flag to the MetaTalk flagging system?
posted by blueberry at 4:48 PM on June 29, 2009

Ruth Madoff's cats have the smoooothest little paws. Does anyone know who declawed them?
posted by DU at 4:48 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

blueberry,

No.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:48 PM on June 29, 2009 [7 favorites]

however, is still think it is an insane question.

I think this about a third of the questions on askme. I don't answer those.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:52 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I suppose coveting Hitler's socks would be very bad.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:53 PM on June 29, 2009

Ruth Madoff is not simply an asshole's wife. She worked in the firm from its very first day. She benefitted from it heavily. She withdrew 15million from personal accounts just days before Bernie confessed.

Just because she was not charged, that does not mean she is not a central figure.
posted by Flood at 5:03 PM on June 29, 2009

Just because she was not charged, that does not mean she isher glasses are not a central figure.

FTFY
posted by DU at 5:06 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

If Ruth did not have eyeglasses, she would not have been able to read her bank statements and withdraw money. Think about it. I know I have.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:07 PM on June 29, 2009 [10 favorites]

I hope none of my MeFi spouses are bilking retirees of millions, because I need my glasses to read.
posted by DU at 5:13 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Not to mention all of the other "feeder funds." I'm looking at you Walter Noel !

oh, I have been physically restraining myself from doing a post on the Noel feeder funds!
posted by lalex at 5:15 PM on June 29, 2009

Just because she was not charged, that does not mean she is not a central figure.

Yeah. And the question was about the glasses, not about the person wearing them.

Weirdest callout in a while, though. Congratulations.
posted by rtha at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2009

Why was I not allowed to make a comment about Ruth Madoff's glasses?

because you didn't make a comment about her glasses - you made a comment on her character.

it's also not acceptable for someone to godwin a thread about volkswagon repair just because of its history with hitler.
posted by nadawi at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

Sarah Palin's glasses are designed by Kazuo Kawasaki, a Japanese industrial designer. Being Japanese, I have no strong opinion one way or another regarding Ms. Palin, but I'm sure he has little control over which high-profile person chooses to wear his creations. Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton also wear Kawasaki glasses, though I can't find citatations right now. For what it's worth, Mr. Kawasaki happens to be one of my best friend's older brother and those glasses aren't lopsided, they're really awesomely comfortable (I own a couple of pairs, though not the same type as Sarah Palin's. In fact I'm wearing it now as I type this).
posted by misozaki at 5:19 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Aha, Flood, you are exposed:

Exhibit A

Or are you a shill for Lenscrafters?
posted by jabberjaw at 5:19 PM on June 29, 2009

Flood, for just a few bucks, there are many places that'll grind that axe down nicely for you... Save you some time... ya know, just sayin.
posted by frwagon at 5:22 PM on June 29, 2009

Ruth Madoff is not simply an asshole's wife. She worked in the firm from its very first day. She benefitted from it heavily.

And yet none of this has anything to do with the style of glasses she wears, which was what the question was about. So you're personally hurt somehow by the Madoffs. Yay for you. That had nothing to do with the AskMetafilter question.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:24 PM on June 29, 2009

Registering your disgust with the question? Did not opening the question ever occur to you? Seems like common sense to me.

I am so sick and tired of the metafilter taste police running to metatalk with their buthurt complaints, failing to realize that their opinion of taste is subjective. Good lord, dude. Don't you realize that everyone in the world doesn't have to feel the exact same way about a situation that you do?

They are GLASSES. The OP didn't ask about locating the number of ruth madoff's LIFE COACH. The are a retail item, and there's no doubt that this particular style of glasses is worn by thousands and thousands of people. Does it also offend you that they will continue to wear their glasses that are the exact same model as ruth madoff's? Should the designer close up shop and stop making/marketing their glasses, or that style of glasses, just because ruth madoff wore them? The OP is not expressing her approval of the woman, she doesn't want to model her life after her, she hasn't said that ruth madoff is her style icon, she just wants to identify the glasses ruth madoff wore. Are there NO other real issues at which you can direct your righteous indignation?
posted by necessitas at 5:25 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

This is a legendarily weak call out.
posted by The Straightener at 5:25 PM on June 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

You know what else was a fashion anathema?

Hitler's toothbrush mustache.
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:26 PM on June 29, 2009

So I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm in the camp of those who are saying that they don't really see the problem in asking about someone's glasses even if that someone happens to be morally reprehensible. If you want a particular pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes, ask away, I say.
posted by misozaki at 5:30 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

You should have spoused someone everyone, this would have gone much better.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:34 PM on June 29, 2009

You should have spoused someone everyone, this would have gone much better.

Yeah. Get me a beer, honey.
posted by JenMarie at 5:44 PM on June 29, 2009

Sarah Palin's glasses are designed by Kazuo Kawasaki, a Japanese industrial designer.

... who is based in Sabae, Fukui. Whenever we go home I alway pick up a pair of awesome glasses for about $90, but that's just because I have such bad eyesight. For everybody else, it costs maybe $50 for designer frames and ultra thin lenses.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:45 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

So....

The other day I was looking at photos from the 50/60's of the civil rights movement, and saw one of Bull Connors ( the police chief) standing by watching after he gave the order to his police officers let the dogs attack black marchers and turned the water hoses on them. (Does anyone remember those images?)

So I was about to look dubiously at Flood, but that photo flashed in my mind. And I've got to admit, if that was on Mefi, and there were 11 comments recounting the horror, and someone, 12 comments down said, "hey, by the way - are Bull Connor's pants from the Gap? Because I'd really like a pair", I'd consider that sort of missing-the-point-callous.

Now I'm not saying that Ruth Madoff is Bull Connor, and I don't know if she's guilty. And I am Black, so perhaps I could just imagine that if I was one of those Blacks in the photo, I would have greatly appreciated your attention to be focused elsewhere.

Maybe a more ubiqitous example is someone rubbernecking at a car crash, seeing a foot dangling out of the window, a woman weeping in front of the wreck, and saying 'Oh my God, that's just horri...oh, wait, are her shoes Ralph Lauren? Cause those are nice!"

If I'm understanding Flood's sentiment, it's just coarse to imagine that someone's life altering horror [and I think for some, both of the Madoffs - Bernie (I'm sorry I stole your money) and Ruth (Oh, I didn't know he stole your money, I just happen to have $70 million in my hands) - were just that] is another person's shopping opportunity.

But not entirely unexpected.
posted by anitanita at 5:55 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

And I've got to admit, if that was on Mefi, and there were 11 comments recounting the horror, and someone, 12 comments down said, "hey, by the way - are Bull Connor's pants from the Gap? Because I'd really like a pair", I'd consider that sort of missing-the-point-callous.

But that's not what the situation was. Nobody derailed a thread about Madoff to ask about Ruth's glasses. Someone posted a question specifically asking about the glasses. The glasses themselves, not Ruth Madoff.

I'm still trying to figure out if it's worth waiting for Flood to apologize sincerely. Probably not.
posted by rtha at 6:02 PM on June 29, 2009

On the very day of Fred Travalena's tragic and untimely passing, all you bastards can think of is whether it's right or wrong to ask questions about Mrs. Madoff's glasses? What about the big questions? Is life still worth living? Is Fred Travalena's death the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity, or is it the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole universe? Does Fred Travalena's death mean that there is no God, or does it mean that God is a douche?

THINK ABOUT IT SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Mister_A at 6:05 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Suppose I asked a fashion question about a serial killer, would that be acceptable?

Dear Askme, I was watching the news the other day and... well, I'm attending a wedding this Friday, and I would really like to know where I can get a belt made out of human nipples.
posted by dgaicun at 6:07 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

DO AS I SAY LEST I FLAME OUT!!!!!
posted by Mister_A at 6:09 PM on June 29, 2009

If I'm understanding Flood's sentiment, it's just coarse to imagine that someone's life altering horror [and I think for some, both of the Madoffs - Bernie (I'm sorry I stole your money) and Ruth (Oh, I didn't know he stole your money, I just happen to have $70 million in my hands) - were just that] is another person's shopping opportunity.

Finally, someone who understands. I got what Flood was saying, and I thought it made sense. This fucking asshole Bernie utterly destroyed god knows how many people's lives, and his wife was clearly complicit in it, and enjoyed the lavish fruits of his crime --- and this moronic materialistic Mefite, on the day of Madoff's sentencing, when the tears of Madoff's destitute victims are not even dry, posts a question ASKING WHERE TO GET A PAIR OF RUTH'S RAD GLASSES?!?!?!?! Yes, it is fucking insensitive.
posted by jayder at 6:09 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

Ah, you're right rtha, it was it's own stand alone question. I thought I remembered it under another thread.

So let me limit myself to the main point -the poster asking about the glasses on the same day that Madoff was sentenced to 150 years could seem callous because it seemed as if they are ignoring/oblivious to the large human tragedy (of both the Madoffs and their victims), and only thinking of their own (one might argue) smaller personal interests. I say seems, because I don't know the poster's actual thoughts. It's just one way to read the question.

I am not commenting on Flood's language in responding, only that I understand why the question could appear a little unseemly.
posted by anitanita at 6:12 PM on June 29, 2009

the poster asking about the glasses on the same day that Madoff was sentenced to 150 years could seem callous because it seemed as if they are ignoring/oblivious to the large human tragedy (of both the Madoffs and their victims), and only thinking of their own (one might argue) smaller personal interests.

So exactly how long do you think the OP should have to wait to post a question about buying glasses? 24 hours? A week? Halfway through Madoff's prison sentence?

I mean, jesus. I think Madoff's a shitbag and his wife's a lying grasping old bag, myself, but for god's sake, people. THEY. ARE. GLASSES.
posted by scody at 6:15 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

Dear Askme, I was watching the news the other day and... well, I'm attending a wedding this Friday, and I would really like to know where I can get a belt made out of human nipples.

It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
posted by necessitas at 6:20 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh, look. A dead horse. Let's beat it.
posted by scalefree at 6:20 PM on June 29, 2009

Hey where can I get one of those dope glasses that Louie Farrakhan is always rockin'?
posted by Mister_A at 6:20 PM on June 29, 2009

The AskMe poster should have used Arale-chan as her example, and all this wouldn't have happened!
posted by misozaki at 6:21 PM on June 29, 2009

but for god's sake, people. THEY. ARE. GLASSES.

Nobody's saying they're anything but glasses, are they? If I am understanding the objection correctly, it's that it is extremely distasteful and insensitive to treat the beneficiary of one of the largest frauds in history, with its vast attendant suffering, like nothing more than an exciting style icon that one would like to emulate.
posted by jayder at 6:21 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I mean a pair of those dope-ass glasses. If I just had one, as I mistakenly mentioned above, that would be a monocle, which would mean I was either a 19th-century person or... a Nazi.

Hey, where can I get a monocle like that?
posted by Mister_A at 6:24 PM on June 29, 2009

I don't know about *extremely* distasteful and insensitive. It does seem like a question that could wait, but then again if you have a short attention span (and don't get me wrong--that's totally me), you might not remember to ask later.

But it also doesn't seem like it needs A Response From Society To Set Things Aright, either. This callout is hilariously misplaced.
posted by DU at 6:25 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ooh! Where can I get a sweet sash like this?
posted by Mister_A at 6:25 PM on June 29, 2009

Is this where I get to tell Flood that I think he (acting in concert with Billy Corgan) ruined the Smashing Pumpkins' sound and that he seems to be giving albums a progressively worse sound as the years go by? Maybe it's the mastering and not the production, but honestly it's just all too squished in all the wrong places and it just doesn't sound good. HTDAAB hits hard at first, but then it's just impossible to listen to the whole thing - it's really tiring. The thing is, there are a few moments in MCATS where the whole thing opens up and you get a glimpse of what a full sonic spectrum would sound like - so obviously you aren't incapable of hearing those other frequencies, but you're choosing to take them out of the mix for some reason. It's not making it better, you know.
posted by The World Famous at 6:28 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Didn't the Madoffs steal money from rich people? I know stealing is bad and all, but in terms of things to get outraged about surely this must be pretty low on the list.
posted by onya at 6:33 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oops. I abbreviated that one wrong - by "MCATS," I meant "MCATIS."
posted by The World Famous at 6:34 PM on June 29, 2009

Flood, is this what you were expecting? Because if you're still offended, I don't know what lengths we can go to for you. This is already dancing over the edge of diculous all over again.

I want these glasses. Pix: 1

At first I thought they were perfectly round, which is a bit too Harry Potter for me. But they're not... And usually that style comes out either a bit comic or a bit nerdy, but these seem just right.

Any idea where to find these, what brand they are? Or do you know of very similar ones?
posted by kmennie to shopping (9 comments total) [add to favorites] 2 users marked this as a favorite [!] [quote]

posted by iamkimiam at 6:34 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Didn't the Madoffs steal money from rich people?

Yes, but her glasses were what finally convinced all those nonprofits and charities (including Elie Wiesel) to invest.
posted by The World Famous at 6:35 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

like nothing more than an exciting style icon that one would like to emulate.

Is that how you read that, jayder? Because it read to me like "Here are glasses that I like; where can I get them?" Was it the explicit mention that it was Ruth Madoff who was wearing them? I read it as the poster not treating the person wearing the glasses as anything other than a prop, not a style icon.

/genuinely puzzled
posted by rtha at 6:35 PM on June 29, 2009

If I am understanding the objection correctly, it's that it is extremely distasteful and insensitive to treat the beneficiary of one of the largest frauds in history, with its vast attendant suffering, like nothing more than an exciting style icon that one would like to emulate.

This is ridiculous, and obviously colored more by Feverish Breathless Outrage than by an honest reading of the question. Nowhere in the original question does the OP sound like the callous, vapid twit you paint here. kmennie just wants to know who designed the frames -- frames that A) are presumably mass-produced and available for purchase; and B) could just as easily have been worn by a model, or a local news anchorwoman, or a random crazy lady on the street.

Seriously, at what point is the OP "allowed" to ask the question? Or are the glasses OFF-LIMITS FOREVER BECAUSE OMG THINK OF THE VICTIMS! Ruth Madoff isn't going to profit from if someone else buys the same frames. No one who lost money is going to lose more money because kmennie's got some new glasses.
posted by scody at 6:38 PM on June 29, 2009 [17 favorites]

For this to be insensitive,

1) One of Madoff's victims would have to visit AskMe
2) and see that particular question
3) then take it as some kind of "wow, I think Mrs. Madoff is so nifty; I must have her glasses as part of my continuing efforts to emulate her"
4) and find that concept offensive rather than ridiculous.

Until then, it's just "being offended on the behalf of how hypothetical oversensitive others might behave and using it as some kind of bludgeon to annoy others and/or create displays of How Much More Sensitive I Am Than Thou."
posted by adipocere at 6:43 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls–it tolls for Fred Travalena.
posted by Mister_A at 6:47 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Some people can enjoy Michael Jackson's music, some people can't because he allegedly molested children.

Some people can buy a Prius, but some people won't buy a Japanese car because of Pearl Harbor.

Some people love the Harry Potter books, and some people can't even give them a shot because they talk about witchcraft.

Me? I refuse to listen to Eminem, no matter how good his music may be, because he dissed Weird Al.

And Flood? He won't abide inquiries into Ruth Madoff's style because she was married to Bernie Madoff.

I get where everybody's coming from.
posted by jabberjaw at 6:51 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

Well that's just it Scody, it's not about the waiting at all.

You're right. They are just glasses. While there is no right or wrong time to ask about glasses, because glasses fashionability isn't really important in world's balance, I suppose this question of the glasses she is asking about are a symbol for me.

I think this thread is a reminder that people see different things when they look at the same things. I look at a photo of Ruth Madoff and I don't even see glasses. I don't see clothes. I see a woman who is either complicit or willfully/ignorantly in the dark, to some seriously bad doings in the world.

If I do see glasses, those glasses represent money that she probably took from someone else and for me leads to the sort of breathtaking realization of the scope of what was stolen (all those people destitute, all those charities closed, all that money gone) and the fact that any of us could have been caught up in that ponzi scheme. I look at Ruth M. and all i see is what could be taken away, and how careless people are with each other.

Other people look at the same photo and just see the glasses. They see something they would like to have. But the glasses aren't a representation of anything larger.

I think this might just be different ways of seeing the world. I don't think there is a way of convincing people to see it the other way, no matter how much each side tries their hand at making their point with swearwords and VERY. CLEAR. LANGUAGE. That's probably just fine, however. So goes the world.
posted by anitanita at 6:51 PM on June 29, 2009

She's not being treated as a style icon. Her glasses are not like her signature look or something. She's not Sally Jesse Raphael, Harry Potter, Buddy Holly, Elvis Costello, or John Lennon. Nobody is ever going to see someone wearing those glasses and think "my word! That woman's wearing Madoff specs!"
posted by The World Famous at 6:52 PM on June 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

Next you'll tell me that I shouldn't be bothered that my coworker Paul has a nice business card than mine. The subtle, off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. My god, it even has a watermark.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

... could seem callous because it seemed as if they are ignoring/oblivious to the large human tragedy, and only thinking of their own smaller personal interests.

The same could be said about virtually every question on this site.

"I'm having trouble finding good 26-inch waist jeans. Tips?" --> "YOU'RE SO INSENSITIVE TO THE TROUBLE CHUBBY PEOPLE HAVE FINDING JEANS!!"

"How do I approach this girl? I'd really like to have sex with her." --> "MILLIONS OF MEN ARE STRUGGLING WITH IMPOTENCE, WHY ARE YOU RUBBING YOUR E-COCK IN THEIR FACES?!"

"Two well-paying job offers, which to choose?" --> "DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK THREE JOBS TO STAY AFLOAT?"

"Should I eat this ham sandwich that's been in the sun for 20 minutes?" --> "OMG DON'T YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE STARVING RIGHT THIS SECOND?!"
posted by CKmtl at 7:05 PM on June 29, 2009 [21 favorites]

I suppose coveting Hitler's socks would be very bad.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:53 PM on June 29

I'm not sure about his socks but I know where you can find his cock.
posted by Sailormom at 7:05 PM on June 29, 2009

I'm never in training - my voice is not straining
People always biting and I'm sick of complaining
So I went into the locker room during classes
Bust into your locker and I smashed your glasse
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:06 PM on June 29, 2009

That woman from Monster was hot. Where can I get breasts like that?
posted by Mister_A at 7:06 PM on June 29, 2009

I'm not sure about his socks but I know where you can find his cock.

In the West Hollywood wing of the Museum of Tolerance?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:19 PM on June 29, 2009

I think this might just be different ways of seeing the world.

No, it's actually a judgment you're casting on the original question asker. You're saying she's a bad person for asking where Ruth Madoff got her glasses, which, as you can tell, a lot of us think is total bullshit.
posted by The Straightener at 7:20 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

Some people can enjoy Michael Jackson's music, some people can't because he allegedly molested children.

Some people can buy a Prius, but some people won't buy a Japanese car because of Pearl Harbor.

Some people love the Harry Potter books, and some people can't even give them a shot because they talk about witchcraft.

Me? I refuse to listen to Eminem, no matter how good his music may be, because he dissed Weird Al.

And Flood? He won't abide inquiries into Ruth Madoff's style because she was married to Bernie Madoff.

I get where everybody's coming from.

yeah, except mostly people just ignore those questions they can't abide. or privately email the mods. they don't USUALLY shit in the thread.
posted by liketitanic at 7:24 PM on June 29, 2009

You're saying she's a bad person for asking where Ruth Madoff got her glasses

I think she actually went out of her way to say that the question asker wasn't a bad person, to my way of reading it. It was just a question that hit some people the wrong way.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:27 PM on June 29, 2009

I am seeing Billy Mays advertising on TV even though he's dead. I can't believe that infomercials have stooped so low.
posted by ob at 7:32 PM on June 29, 2009

Anna knew she had to have some new shoes today, and Carlo had helped her try on every pair in the store. Carlo spoke wearily, "Well, that's every pair of shoes in the place."

"Oh, you must have one more pair ..."

"No, not one more pair .. .Well, we have the cruel shoes, but no one would want ..."

Anna interrupted, "Oh yes, let me see the cruel shoes!"

Carlo looked incredulous. "No, Anna, you don't understand, you see, the cruel shoes are ..."

"Get them!"
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:13 PM on June 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

I am seeing Billy Mays advertising on TV even though he's dead. I can't believe that infomercials have stooped so low.

You're using advertisers as a moral barometer.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:18 PM on June 29, 2009

dirigibleman: "You're using advertisers as a moral barometer."
You're using internets as a sincerity barometer.
posted by boo_radley at 8:26 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

I guess I am a lesser mortal of the pain is to near to the heart to just turn off.
posted by Greg Nog at 8:32 PM on June 29, 2009

it's that it is extremely distasteful and insensitive

...to morons.
posted by GeekAnimator at 8:33 PM on June 29, 2009

What we need now is a clamp stand to hold the glasses in place to focus the sunlight on a pot of beans.
posted by lysdexic at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I look at a photo of Ruth Madoff and I don't even see glasses. I don't see clothes.

Would it be insensitive to the victims if I asked for a link to the Madoff nudie pic?
posted by dgaicun at 8:36 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

If shothotbot, the first poster in this thread, had actually agreed with Flood, this thread would have gone completely differently. Each succeeding commenter, for the most part, got "permission" from the previous poster to shit on Flood's sentiments. If it had been cool to agree with Flood, all you jackasses who say "it's just a pair of glasses" would have agreed with Flood.
posted by jayder at 8:51 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

That's not exactly true. I didn't bother to read the comments before I posted mine.
posted by necessitas at 9:04 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I am seeing Billy Mays advertising on TV even though he's dead. I can't believe that infomercials have stooped so low.

I assumed it was a testament to Arm & Hammer's uncanny ability to KEEP THINGS FRESH!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:09 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

If shothotbot, the first poster in this thread, had actually agreed with Flood, this thread would have gone completely differently. Each succeeding commenter, for the most part, got "permission" from the previous poster to shit on Flood's sentiments. If it had been cool to agree with Flood, all you jackasses who say "it's just a pair of glasses" would have agreed with Flood.

Well, besides being totally baseless and whiny, I can assure you this is not the case for me.
posted by dead cousin ted at 9:11 PM on June 29, 2009 [11 favorites]

Yeah I don't need anybody's permission or help in forming my opinions, but thanks for playing. I am kind of disappointed though, that this thread's staying open so long with so little signal being added; it's becoming an unseemly pile-on long after the point's been made, conceded & generally agreed on by everybody involved.
posted by scalefree at 9:17 PM on June 29, 2009

That's not exactly true. I didn't bother to read the comments before I posted mine.

Exactly right. But we're better than that, at least we like to boast we are.
posted by scalefree at 9:19 PM on June 29, 2009

If shothotbot, the first poster in this thread, had actually agreed with Flood, this thread would have gone completely differently.

True, I would've thought shothotbot - weird, I always read that as sohotbot - also had a case of the flakies and rolled my eyes in their general direction.

For the record, it's not like I think robots are sexy or anything. Well, this one is, but anyway, that's just how I read the nick, okay?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:23 PM on June 29, 2009

I am seeing Billy Mays advertising on TV even though he's dead.

But wait, there's more! Commercials!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

There's a lot of psychic stuff going on in this thread, from mind-reading to clairvoyance. I AM OFFENDED ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS OF MISS CLEO.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:24 PM on June 29, 2009

Ooh, is this where we finally talk about Zenni Optical again? Because I finally got some glasses from Zenni Optical and they are the best, cheapest glasses I ever had. Man, do I love my Zenni Optical glasses.

ZENNI OPTICAL.™ PRETTY GOOD GLASSES FOR POOR PEOPLE.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:32 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

If shothotbot, the first poster in this thread, had actually agreed with Flood, this thread would have gone completely differently.

Are you joking? If I can recognize a MeTa post as pointless sanctimonious grandstanding, then I'm plenty practiced up to recognize the first comment as the same thing.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:49 PM on June 29, 2009

all you jackasses

Go to bed, jayder.
posted by mediareport at 10:19 PM on June 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

> If shothotbot, the first poster in this thread, had actually agreed with Flood, this thread would have gone completely differently.

I really doubt that. This thread is ridiculous.

but entertaining.
posted by cj_ at 10:29 PM on June 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

No, it's actually a judgment you're casting on the original question asker. You're saying she's a bad person for asking where Ruth Madoff got her glasses, which, as you can tell, a lot of us think is total bullshit.

The Straightener, I clearly stated that I don't know the original poster's intentions. The internet is a perfect medium to obscure people's intentions, as information is often incomplete, and people (flood, you, me, everyone) bring their own perspective and baggage to what is said, and without in-person visual cues, etc. what's actually going on gets harder to suss out. And then things escalate.

I think this conversation would not have exploded if Flood had just memailed her that OP that her question sounded callous to him, and that he didn't know her intention, but just wanted to share why this hit a nerve with him. (Seeing as it didn't really with anyone else). But it didn't go down that way.

Also, I must not be clear, because I am not saying that the OP of the glasses thread is a 'bad person'. One, I don't know them, at all. Two, I think it hard to speak in flat absolutes ('Jane is a good person',' Ann is a bad person'), and personally, I usually try not to. So to repeat, I really think these things are about intention, and I don't know the OP's thoughts on the Madoff situation at all. For all I know they lost their life savings. For all I know, the Madoff situation is personally devastating. Or not.

What I have been saying is that I can see how some people could regard the question as a jarring question and, depending on the intention, and feel it's a callous question, while for others it could carry no charge at all. Which perhaps could be said for every topic on Metafilter, which makes the 'why is so charged for them?' an interesting question for me in any thread I read.

So to summarize: not trying to cast aspersions on the OP's comments, trying to understand why some people would be so inflamed by those comments. Often, my hope is to come to a perspective more fleshed out 'because they're being assholes'.

Night, everyone.
posted by anitanita at 10:41 PM on June 29, 2009

Oh, darnit, I see that jessamyn made my point, and in two sentences to boot. I bow to the master.
posted by anitanita at 10:45 PM on June 29, 2009

I'm disappointed with this thread.

For a while I thought that the Sarah Palin derail was going to take and that would have been great. I love long Sarah Palin threads and I hate long Sarah Palin threads but I really miss long Sarah Palin threads. Instead the derail didn't last very long and it turned out to be about Sarah Palin's glasses. I guess I'll have to wait till 2012.
posted by rdr at 11:17 PM on June 29, 2009

If it had been cool to agree with Flood, all you jackasses who say "it's just a pair of glasses" would have agreed with Flood.
posted by jayder at 11:51 PM on June 29 [+] [!]

Well, as one data point, when I read this MetaTalk post just now, before seeing any comments, I started laughing out loud imagining the thread that would follow. Then I read almost all of the 150+ comments, and my suspicions were confirmed.

There are so many awesome things about this callout:

1. Poster shat in the original question's thread
2. Upon noticing it deleted, he shat in the thread again
3. Finally comes to MetaTalk and compares Ruth Madoff to a serial killer
4. Calls his thread-shitting comments "answers"

It's like the perfect storm for a MetaTalk thread, falling only a little shy of a total flameout.
posted by knave at 11:50 PM on June 29, 2009 [6 favorites]

I disagree.
posted by philip-random at 11:59 PM on June 29, 2009

Speaking of offensive questions, does anyone know what brand of ovens the Nazi's used in the concentration camps? What? Isn't it perfectly fine to emulate the look of evil if we don't directly endorse the evil they committed?

Yes, I threw up a little in my mouth typing that, why do you ask?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:01 AM on June 30, 2009

pop this bubble
posted by hortense at 12:39 AM on June 30, 2009

does anyone know what brand of ovens the Nazi's used in the concentration camps?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1095/did-krups-braun-and-mercedes-benz-make-nazi-concentration-camp-ovens

"The crematoria at Auschwitz were built by I.A. Topf and Sons of Erfurt, those at Dachau and Lublin by C.H. Kori GmbH."
posted by prak at 1:06 AM on June 30, 2009

I thought my linking to this photo in the question would have suggested certain things; at a minimum, 'this person is not a style icon,' 'this person is not somebody I am trying to emulate,' 'I am not a fan.' Did the people who unloaded there and here actually click through?

(A few other wags came by to make yuk yuk Maybe you can give her $50 for them cos she's riding the subway now yuk yuk comments, too, and for a moment I despaired, expecting not new specs but just derail...)
posted by kmennie at 1:52 AM on June 30, 2009

Will shothotbot please post something else so that I can agree with it?

Also, I'm looking for a cabin in the woods, does anyone know the name of Ted Kaczynski's Realtor?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 3:51 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

If necessitas, the first poster in this thread after jayder's "if shothotbot..." comment, had actually agreed with jayder, the bottom of this thread would have gone completely differently. Each succeeding commenter, for the most part, got "permission" from the previous poster to shit on jayder's sentiments. If it had been cool to agree with jayder, all you jackasses who say "jayder's being totally baseless and whiny" would have agreed with jayder.
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:55 AM on June 30, 2009

If each poster in this thread had actually agreed with the prior commenter, this thread would have been rather boring.

On the other hand, if each poster had gone even further than the previous commenter, it would have ended with somebody knifed in the back. Said knife would have then have been pulled from the marketplace.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:16 AM on June 30, 2009

i agree with Lemurrhea
posted by jammy at 5:33 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't think jammy really stresses enough how much we should agree with Lemurrhea. He is so, so right, I'd like to steal millions of dollars in his name.
posted by Greg Nog at 6:12 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I honestly wanted to know where Sarah Palin got her glasses, but I was afraid to ask.
posted by applemeat at 6:25 AM on June 30, 2009

Also, I'm looking for a cabin in the woods, does anyone know the name of Ted Kaczynski's Realtor?

Sorry, I think you need to trawl the archives of Make magazine to find the plans for a Unabomber shack.
posted by lukemeister at 6:46 AM on June 30, 2009

Hey at least nobody's asking how Ruth Madoff makes her grilled cheese sandwiches?
posted by WalterMitty at 6:51 AM on June 30, 2009

A couple of points:

Bernie Madoff most emphatically did not only rip off rich people. There were many middle-class working people whose financial advisors recommended certain investments as 'securities', and who handed over life savings and now have nothing as they face retirement.

And as far as the absurdity of Ruth Madoff becoming an eyeglass icon like Elvis Costello or John Lennon or even better, this guy ... not so fast. I was with friends this weekend, women of a certain age, and when one donned her reading glasses another pointed and said, "Oooh, Ruth Madoff glasses! I love those!"
posted by thinkpiece at 6:53 AM on June 30, 2009

Yes, I threw up a little in my mouth typing that, why do you ask?

It's because you said "Nazi's," right?


Also, rdr and anyone else missing Sarah Palin, look here. (It's new this morning so you could post it and start a brand new LSPT)
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:05 AM on June 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

I honestly wanted to know where Sarah Palin got her glasses, but I was afraid to ask.

You don't have to ask in this neck of the woods. We've got an ophthalmologist promoting the fact that he stocks them. Billboard out front: "Want the Glasses Sara Palin wears?" Plus commercials on TV about it - "like the ones worn by Sarah Palin". Just $500.
posted by lysdexic at 7:14 AM on June 30, 2009

So is the implication that whatever the Madoffs wear we have to strive not to wear?
posted by shakespeherian at 7:15 AM on June 30, 2009

This is the sort of callout that strikes me as performance art.

Also, do you know who else wore glasses?
posted by DWRoelands at 7:30 AM on June 30, 2009

Madoff looks like George Washington so lets fucking riot!
posted by cowbellemoo at 7:41 AM on June 30, 2009

If it had been cool to agree with Flood, all you jackasses who say "it's just a pair of glasses" would have agreed with Flood.
posted by jayder at 11:51 PM on June 29 [+] [!]

In other words, since the majority disagrees with you, it must absolutely be that they're brainless sheep going with the flow, no one could possibly have any kind of independent opinion on this.

Classy. Thanks for assuming the best of everyone, it reflects really well on you.
posted by splice at 8:28 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

So is the implication that whatever the Madoffs wear we have to strive not to wear?

I know I'm going to strive to never wear a prision jumpsuit.

Or pants.
posted by quin at 8:42 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

What Quin said, on preview.
posted by nomisxid at 8:55 AM on June 30, 2009

Thanks. I could've done without that Michael Vick's dog Google result.
posted by gman at 9:29 AM on June 30, 2009

So is the implication that whatever the Madoffs wear we have to strive not to wear?

Yup. I hope I never have to wear an orange jumpsuit or striped prison attire.
posted by ericb at 9:36 AM on June 30, 2009

Suppose I asked a fashion question about a serial killer, would that be acceptable?

It'd be fine by me.
posted by Clay201 at 9:46 AM on June 30, 2009

i agree with ericb i would rather not go to prison fwiw.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:47 AM on June 30, 2009

If it had been cool to agree with Flood, all you jackasses who say "it's just a pair of glasses" would have agreed with Flood.
posted by jayder at 11:51 PM on June 29 [+] [!]

It wasn't evident from my comment, but my "jackasses" comment was tongue in cheek, I didn't mean to offend anyone.
posted by jayder at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2009

It wasn't evident from my comment, but my "jackasses" comment was tongue in cheek, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

The fact is, jayder, that I am very offended. You see, while it may not be entirely apparent here on MetaFilter, I am a jackass. Don't assume that, just because you are not aware of any jackasses in a particular group of people, you can just go calling people jackasses and not risk offending an actual jackass. I look forward to a day when people will refrain from throwing the word "jackass" around as an insult, without regard to the feelings and rights of jackasses all over the world. Did you know that 79% of all Americans are jackasses? It's true. So tread lightly.
posted by The World Famous at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2009

anitanita: Maybe a more ubiqitous example is someone rubbernecking at a car crash, seeing a foot dangling out of the window, a woman weeping in front of the wreck, and saying 'Oh my God, that's just horri...oh, wait, are her shoes Ralph Lauren? Cause those are nice!"

Not really pertinent, but you remind me of this bitterly hilarious scene from Jean-Luc Godard's masterpiece, one of the greatest French movies ever made, Weekend.
posted by koeselitz at 10:51 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

This isn't what I'd consider the crime of the century...certainly not worthy of being compared to serial killings. I wish I had enough money that I could even consider investing some of it in a risky venture. And as for the charities and non-profits everyone is crying about: what were they doing investing a significant portion of their assets in a single fund? Diversification decreases risk. Hell, I learned that in high school. They got greedy for the big returns.
posted by rocket88 at 10:58 AM on June 30, 2009

Thanks. I could've done without that Michael Vick's dog Google result.

d'oh. that's what I get for not linking to a specific image, or previewing the search results. my bad.
posted by nomisxid at 11:01 AM on June 30, 2009

koeselitz, that scene is awesome and it reminded me to check if netflix had added any more godard to their instant queue (which they had!) so double thanks.
posted by shmegegge at 11:14 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'd be okay with prison, if I got to bunk with Martha Stewart.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:42 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'd be okay with prison, if I got to bunk with Martha Stewart.

Think of the delicious pruno!
posted by scody at 11:48 AM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

This thread is about two personality types clashing. Though I am in the opposite camp from Flood, I've met enough people like him (her?) to understand where he's coming from. And I suspect if this wasn't Metafilter, his type would be the majority.

Some people lead from the gut. They experience "pure" emotions and they don't compartmentalize. If they're angry, they're 100% angry. There's not some pocket in their mind that also sees the funny side of the situation.

I'm not saying such people are stupid. Nor am I saying that the opposite type is emotionally retarded. I have some brilliant friends who are similar to Floor. They are the type of people who will be puzzled and upset by the fact that -- as a New Yorker who was traumatized by 9/11 -- I was almost immediately making jokes about the Twin Towers. To my "gut-leading" friends, you simply don't joke about something like that!

Other people compartmentalize. I'm one of them. To me, it's 100% clear that Mrs. Madoff is not her glasses. Flood is not stupid. He knows that, too. But EMOTIONALLY, to him, her glasses -- and everything about her -- represents the evil she did. (I know people who can't listen to Wagner, because they associate his music with Nazis. I'm Jewish, yet I have some Wagner on my iPod. I hate antisemities. I don't hate works that they produce. To some, that's an odd distinction. To me, it's totally natural and easy.)

Mefite -- with all its "intellectual" geeky members -- is filled with people who don't lead with their guts. (Though there are other Flood-like people here.)

I am trying and failing to put myself in Flood's shoes. (This, I believe, is a limitation in me -- not Flood.) For instance, someone close to me was assaulted. It was one of the most upsetting things I've ever been through. It still upsets me. I would like to kill that person. However, if someone pointed out his glasses or shoes and asked me where to get them, I wouldn't be offended. Flood and I are very different this way. However, I suspect we both are equally feeling, caring people.

Flood is not built to understand how I can separate Madoff's glasses from her. He's naturally going to think I'm a callous bastard who doesn't care about the lives she ruined. I am not built to understand how he can "mistake" her glasses from her. I'm naturally going to think he's an idiot. It's only by seeing this conflict come up over and over that I've gotten some sense of what's going on in the other type's mind.

Flood, if you can, please try to understand that -- strange as it seems to you -- some of us can make some separations that you can't. Everyone else, please understand that Flood sees certain things more symbolically than you do.

And please forgive me if I miscategorized anyone. Armchair psychology should be shipped with plenty of disclaimers. But I didn't want to weight down this post with ten paragraphs of "maybes" and "some peoples." Please consider them implicitly there.
posted by grumblebee at 11:50 AM on June 30, 2009 [11 favorites]

I am trying and failing to put myself in Flood's shoes.

What brand are they?

sorry, couldn't resist. grumblebee, you're a mensch.
posted by scody at 11:54 AM on June 30, 2009 [5 favorites]

Think of the delicious pruno!

I also know that "Cast Iron Marge" wouldn't let me get traded, even for a 1500-count duvet cover. It would be a pretty sweet arrangement.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:54 AM on June 30, 2009

Bernie Madoff most emphatically did not only rip off rich people. There were many middle-class working people whose financial advisors recommended certain investments as 'securities', and who handed over life savings and now have nothing as they face retirement.

A number of charities and foundations were also affected, including a few my wife used to work with, before they were forced to close.

The scandal rippled far beyond the multimillion-dollar private foundation run by Madoff that channeled money into hospitals and theaters, and swept up charities large and small, directly and indirectly, along with wealthy Jewish investors Madoff personally advised.

In some cases, Madoff's foundation supplied the organizations with money. In others, he helped wealthy benefactors put their wealth to good use, such as helping the homeless or endowing arts projects, such as museums. His fraud screwed everyone, not just the rich.
posted by zarq at 12:04 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

shmegegge: koeselitz, that scene is awesome and it reminded me to check if netflix had added any more godard to their instant queue (which they had!) so double thanks.

You've seen the movie, right? Because the thing is—every scene is that awesome. Amazing stuff.
posted by koeselitz at 12:10 PM on June 30, 2009

Yeah, Weekend is amazing.

And if I may quote another Godard movie apropo of Ruthie's glasses:

If you don't like the sea... and don't care for the mountains... and don't like the big city either... go fuck yourself!

Also, Grumblebee is smart and thoughtful.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:22 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

That said...

I did think the question's timing was unfortunate.

But Flood, this post and your comments in AskMe were truly inappropriate. As other, more eloquent folks have said above, AskMe serves a specific purpose. Your self-righteous, outraged scolding doesn't belong there, or here.

For what it's worth, my wife and I do have friends, acquaintances and business colleagues who were directly affected by Madoff's schemes. The Jewish world is, for better or worse, a rather small place. We know and have worked with people who lost their jobs, nest eggs and college funds thanks to him. I certainly wouldn't waste my time defending their honor over a pair of glasses.

Underneath the "post comment" and "preview" buttons for every MeTa comment is the phrase "Note: Everyone needs a hug." Please think about it.
posted by zarq at 12:27 PM on June 30, 2009

Grumblebee, I don't think this is a matter of two personality types clashing. If this call out was about a metafilter thread, where the content was related to the horrible soulless crimes madoff committed, I could see the logic behind someone getting offended by a comment about where ruth got her glasses. I wouldn't be offended, but I could see how a thread about the case could be therapeutic for someone who was financially impacted. I could see how they could take a comment about glasses as trivializing their emotional comments of disgust for the madoffs.

However, AskMe is totally different. In a situation like this, it's a politics free zone. She wasn't asking whether or not it was appropriate to get a pair of those glasses, she was just pointing out glasses she liked, and asked for suggestions about where she could find a pair. If they were on anyone else's face, I'm sure she would have linked to pictures of just about anyone else. As it happens, her dream glasses were spotted on ruth madoff's face. This doesn't infuse the glasses with evil, nor does it make the OP an evil person for wanting those glasses. What happened to madoff's victims was beyond tragic. Just horrible. Tragic, horrible things happen everyday. You know what else happens every day? The expiration of people's lens prescriptions, or the realization that glasses are now needed for reading or whatever. Just because people continue to attend to matters of health while other people are suffering does not make them frivolous. If the OP needed new glasses, which she'll probably have for several years, why shouldn't she get the ones she wants, if possible. Should she not just because the only place she's seen them is on ruth madoff's face?

I know that I'm preaching to the choir about the appropriateness of the question, so don't think I'm lobbying you to see things my way. What I'm trying to point out is that utilitarian AskMe questions are politically neutral zone. They aren't the place to debate whether or not madoff should consider opening a lens crafters in hell, and they aren't the place to debate the asker's motivations in desiring whatever accessory it is that they are trying to track down. For this reason, this isn't a kumbaya issue, where of both sides need to understand the other's position, and can't we all just get along. Flood's position is not at all valid. There was nothing objectionable about the question, and there's nothing objectionable about the desire to own a pair of those glasses (it's not like she was trying to put together a madoff costume). Flood is entitled to his own opinions about the question, and as such, ignoring the question is completely appropriate. However, you don't get to crap in the thread, and then come to metatalk and trash the OP and her motivations just because he doesn't agree with it.

There is nothing to understand about flood's thought process in relation to the question, he was completely out of line. Again if it were on the blue, in the middle of a discussion about the topic of what the madoffs did, he would deserve understanding. In this case, no matter what his experience was with the madoff's, he was wrong in projecting that on to an question that had nothing to do with the madoff's crime, or them at all, Ruth might as well have been a display dummy and it wouldn't have changed the goal or context of the question.
posted by necessitas at 12:33 PM on June 30, 2009

You've seen the movie, right?

not yet, but it's on my queue, now. I'm still working my way through Godard.
posted by shmegegge at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2009

Grumblebee, I don't think this is a matter of two personality types clashing. If this call out was about a metafilter thread... I could see the logic behind someone getting offended by a comment about where ruth got her glasses. ... However, AskMe is totally different. In a situation like this, it's a politics free zone. ... Flood is entitled to his own opinions about the question, and as such, ignoring the question is completely appropriate. However, you don't get to crap in the thread, and then come to metatalk and trash the OP and her motivations just because he doesn't agree with it.

I didn't make myself clear.

I was not defending Flood's actions. I was trying to understand him. There have been (at least) two sorts for responses here: one has been to chastise Flood's actions; the other has been to mock him as a person (e.g. he's too stupid to understand the distinction between Madoff and her glasses). I was responding entirely to the latter, not at all to the former.

My stance is that given his personality type, Flood's actions are UNDERSTANDABLE, which is not the same as defensible.

I agree that he was out of line on AskMe. I agree that he doesn't seem to understand the rules on AskMe. I agree with the rules on AskMe.

I do not think his outrage makes him stupid or insane. I think it makes him different from me -- but it's a difference I've grown used to seeing in many people.

There is nothing to understand about flood's thought process in relation to the question, he was completely out of line.

Huh?

Do you mean that you aren't personally interested in his thought process? I don't get what "there's nothing to understand about someone's thought process" means. There's always something to understand about someone's thought process: why he thinks what he thinks.
posted by grumblebee at 1:20 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

shmegegge: I'm still working my way through Godard.

Awesome! He's a hell of a lot of fun.

In my book, the only other Godard movie that even comes close to Weekend is Pierrot Le Fou, one of the great love-story films, which includes the classic romantic line:

‘It's a good thing I don't like Brussels' sprouts; because, if I did, I would eat them all the time, and I can't stand the things, so I'd be miserable. I feel the same way about you, only the other way around.’

Nothing will prepare you for Weekend, however. I was being serious; every single scene changed the way I see movies. I could spend hours talking about any one of them: the long-circular-panning Mozart-playing-guy scene; the suburbanites-battling-in-a-parking-lot-with-household-objects scene; and, to me, one of the film's best moments, the superb carjam scene, which manipulates the viewer in an interesting and compelling way to get its point across. The only bit that lags slightly is the Maoist insurgency that happens at the end, but even there the film's visually perfect.
posted by koeselitz at 1:59 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

hey guys what's happening in this thread

oh.
posted by Mikey-San at 2:01 PM on June 30, 2009

I didn't make myself clear.

I was not defending Flood's actions. I was trying to understand him.

Well, I know you read through the end of my post because you quoted the first sentence of my last paragraph, so perhaps you missed this one:

I know that I'm preaching to the choir about the appropriateness of the question, so don't think I'm lobbying you to see things my way.

You made yourself clear. My point is that this isn't a situation where understanding needs to be fostered.

Do you mean that you aren't personally interested in his thought process? I don't get what "there's nothing to understand about someone's thought process" means. There's always something to understand about someone's thought process: why he thinks what he thinks.

I would be personally interested in his thought process if it was complex or wasn't obvious. His thought process was crystal clear. He can not separate the villain from the villain's accessories, and he somehow has confused wanting an accessory first spotted on the villain with condoning the villain's actions. There's no reason to make it deeper than it is, he already spelled it out, first in his deleted comment:

My earlier response, which was removed, was NOT intended as comedy -
it was intended to highlight the insensitivity of this question.

Those people that destroyed your friends, what was their fashion brand?

After all the crap that bitch did - MeFites are talking about her brand of glasses!!!

and then in his post:

I find the question absurd and offensive. I left two responses to that effect as an answer. Both were removed.

Is there no sensitivity to her victims? Is that an appropriate discussion to having about a woman who caused so much pain and suffering? Should she be held up as a fashion symbol?
Suppose I asked a fashion question about a serial killer, would that be acceptable?

What more do we need to understand? I get that this issue is close to him. I get that, to him, it is repulsive to want to own an accessory initially spotted on one of their bodies. I get that those glasses were probably purchased with funds stolen from their victims, which is lousy and just makes the question more offensive to him. I also think he has a right to those feelings, and I don't think anyone here has disputed his right to those feelings, if they have, I missed it. So what more is there to understand?

My point was that it doesn't matter why he acted the way he did, and his closeness to the issue is irrelevant in this situation. Just because his friends were madoff victims does not make his reaction more excusable. It is for this reason that I don't believe that there is anything to gain from trying to probe for deeper understanding. I don't need to put myself in his shoes to know that if I were in his shoes and I reacted that way, I would be wrong. Not that my feelings would be wrong, we all feel what we feel, but wrong by community standards. So if his comments/post weren't clear enough for someone, gaining further insight into thoughts is still useless. His thoughts were not wrong, his actions were.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for trying to make the OP feel like a horrible person just because she has been looking for a pair of glasses and when she finally found them, they happened to be on ruth madoff's face. No matter what caused him to do that, it's no more excusable than a vegetarian crapping all over a question about best place to steak at low cost or the best place to buy a quality, leather living room set. The vegetarian isn't wrong to be upset by the idea of someone wanting to use what was once a living thing for snacks or decor. The asker wouldn't be wrong for wanting to use what was once a living thing for snacks or decor (and I say this as a lifelong vegetarian). But if it's not an answer to the question, it doesn't belong. If someone can't refrain from that sort of insulting derail, then it's an impulse control problem, and that's all we need to understand. He COULD NOT get himself to behave appropriately. Backstory and understanding not necessary.
posted by necessitas at 2:39 PM on June 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

Vyv, have we got a video?
posted by The World Famous at 3:25 PM on June 30, 2009

If anyone else asks that question, I'm going to stick their head through the window!
posted by quin at 3:36 PM on June 30, 2009

What do you know about the beans?
posted by The World Famous at 3:49 PM on June 30, 2009

While the news channels and threads here mourned the death of Michael Jackson, thousands of people were dying of preventable disease in the 'third world' and didn;t get a mention. Presumably this outraged you too? Or do you just think someone is 'moronic and materialistic' for wanting to buy a pair of glasses - a medical device - that aren't constructed from organic potato peelings.
posted by mippy at 4:14 PM on June 30, 2009

I half-suspect that the question that offended Flood, regarding Ruth Madoff's glasses, was a gag question calculated to get a rise out of someone. If that's so ... as some Mefites like to say, "well played, madam, well played."

The reaction to Flood's question seems to have brought out Metafilter at its Aspergers-y best ... insensitivity to context, the inability to see that context even matters, that inquiring after the brand of the villain's accessories on the day of judgment is, at least a little morally tone-deaf. It's quite funny to see people so divided by this. But like everyone says, it abides completely by the rules, and who can fault someone just for coveting a cool pair of glasses?
posted by jayder at 4:16 PM on June 30, 2009

The reaction to Flood's question seems to have brought out Metafilter at its Aspergers-y best

Oh, so we're not jackasses, but we've all got Asperger's now?

Is it really so hard to comprehend a difference of opinion without demonizing or pathologizing it?
posted by scody at 4:34 PM on June 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

scody, you're clearly a nonhuman with no soul.
posted by knave at 4:37 PM on June 30, 2009

Scody wears Prada.
posted by The World Famous at 4:43 PM on June 30, 2009

Scody wears Prada.

Lord, I only wish I was so evil.

I am wearing some amazing Michael Kors flats that I scored on ebay last week, though.
posted by scody at 4:46 PM on June 30, 2009

The reaction to Flood's question seems to have brought out Metafilter at its Aspergers-y best ...

Oh, please. It's when the questions anger us the most that the guidelines for appropriate responses in AskMe are most important. Floyd blatantly screwed that up, and it's absurd to deny that the fault lies primarily there.
posted by mediareport at 5:26 PM on June 30, 2009

Flood. Floyd was a Flood here a few years ago, you know.
posted by mediareport at 5:27 PM on June 30, 2009

Flood. Floyd was a Flood here a few years ago, you know.

Hey! Get some beer and some cleaning products!
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:42 PM on June 30, 2009

I've been away too long, missed this kind of bullshit.
posted by fixedgear at 6:23 PM on June 30, 2009

Backstory and understanding not necessary.

Arguably wrong, inasmuch as (a) lots of people in the thread here are having trouble understanding, and (b) lots of people in the thread have not seen the deleted comment that helped form your understanding.

Incidentally, within a few days of 9/11, I was speaking with a co-worker of mine. He used to work at Cantor Fitzgerald and was close to many of those Cantor Fitzgerald employees who were killed, while I have family near there and we had spent the better part of the few days prior trying to reach my mother-in-law, who was supposed to have been flying out that morning. We were very stressed out, him moreso than me, and another co-worker (who had never been to the East Coast and had no friends or family there, we later found out) came by, heard us talking about it, and made a joke about it being "old news" and having happened "so far away, who cares?"

Insensitive? Absolutely. Did one of us punch him in the face? Would have been satisfying, but no. We just rolled our eyes, went on as if we hadn't heard him, and for the rest of our time at that company we judged him and handled him as the insensitive, clueless guy he was.

In other words, we flagged him and moved on.
posted by davejay at 6:32 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

(b) lots of people in the thread have not seen the deleted comment that helped form your understanding.

That comment was posted in this very thread, that's where I saw it. I added in for additional clarity, but his issues were evident from this post here, before cortex posted his comments. In fact, I posted my original post before I even read any comments here, including cortex's comment.

As for your anecdote, what are you getting at? That Flood should have flagged and moved on, or that those of us responding to flood here in this thread should have just flagged the thread and moved on?
posted by necessitas at 6:45 PM on June 30, 2009

The reaction to Flood's question seems to have brought out Metafilter at its Aspergers-y best ... insensitivity to context, the inability to see that context even matters, that inquiring after the brand of the villain's accessories on the day of judgment is, at least a little morally tone-deaf.

Yes, context matters. In the context of AskMe, Flood's non-answer, and second non-answer after the first was deleted, were totally not appropriate. Trying to paint people who have pointed that out as insensitive is entirely missing the point about why the responses were deleted in the first place.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:25 PM on June 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's not really the frames you like. You think you like them because those frames are perfect for her face. What works for her may not work for you.
posted by Zambrano at 10:55 AM on July 1, 2009

Take it to AskMe, Zambrano.
posted by Pronoiac at 11:40 AM on July 1, 2009

I'll just have to delete yet another comment from him if he does, man. Don't do me like that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on July 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I half-assed it - I should've been far more over-the-top to signal I was joking about that "derail." Sorry.
posted by Pronoiac at 12:56 PM on July 1, 2009

As for your anecdote, what are you getting at? That Flood should have flagged and moved on...

Yes, this.
posted by davejay at 1:26 PM on July 1, 2009

I didn't make myself clear.

I was not defending Flood's actions. I was trying to understand him.

Grumblebee, could you be my therapist please?
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 3:28 PM on July 1, 2009

anitanita: Maybe a more ubiqitous example is someone rubbernecking at a car crash, seeing a foot dangling out of the window, a woman weeping in front of the wreck, and saying 'Oh my God, that's just horri...oh, wait, are her shoes Ralph Lauren? Cause those are nice!"

Not really pertinent, but you remind me of this bitterly hilarious scene from Jean-Luc Godard's masterpiece, one of the greatest French movies ever made, Weekend.

The remark reminds me of Lolita, viz.:

But even at our very best moments, when we sat reading on a rainy day (Lo's glance skipping from the window to her wrist watch and back again), or had a quiet hearty meal in a crowded diner, or played a childish game of cards, or went shopping, or silently stared, with other motorists and their children, at some smashed, blood-bespattered car with a young woman's shoe in the ditch (Lo, as we drove on: "That was the exact type of moccasin I was trying to describe to that jerk in the store"); on all those random occasions, I seemed to myself as implausible a father as she seemed to be a daughter.
posted by cgc373 at 4:13 PM on July 1, 2009

Does anyone know where the Taliban buys its fabric? They have some really wonderful prints. Is it fair trade, ya think?
posted by Mister_A at 7:28 AM on July 2, 2009

What kind of mustache wax did Hitler use? I love the way it glistens...


(But seriously folks, the Madoffs stole a lot of money, but aren't we taking the adjectives a little too far? Vile? Soulless?? Don't we diversify any more? What kind of moron puts a consequential amount of money in one basket like that? When it comes to life savings (or your pension fund), it's belt-and-suspenders time...)
posted by gjc at 4:55 PM on July 2, 2009

In this video of a body plummeting from the World Trade Center on 9/11, I spotted the exact pair of wingtip shoes I have been coveting for a long time. Any idea what brand they are?
posted by jayder at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2009

Jayder, that's the epitome of comparing apples and oranges. Your example is idiotic and makes no point relevant to this issues. Give it a rest already.
posted by necessitas at 2:03 PM on July 3, 2009

In this video of a body plummeting from the World Trade Center on 9/11, I spotted the exact pair of wingtip shoes I have been coveting for a long time. Any idea what brand they are?

I shouldn't have clicked that link. I had no idea you could be so callous, jayder.
posted by knave at 3:12 PM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]