Here's my contribution. posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:44 AM on September 4
So, it takes 2,640 comments to make Movable Type to have hiccups. I wonder how many it would take with WordPress.</dork> posted by Memo at 9:45 AM on September 4
So, what's Metafilter's max? Is there a hard limit? posted by Kadin2048 at 9:50 AM on September 4
So, what's Metafilter's max? Is there a hard limit?
Probably somewhere around 15 consecutive Palin threads. :D posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on September 4
That thread doesn't make firefox slow, but that thread plus a greasemonkey script? That makes it puke a barf like I've never seen before. posted by boo_radley at 10:07 AM on September 4 [2 favorites]
"B-b-but Moore!" seems to have become the right-wing film-lover's "B-b-but Clinton!".
I've commented on this before: there's a natural human instinct towards fairness and equivalence that allows false associations to be generated and upheld in this context. Back then, I was talking about the false "Olbermann is the left's O'Reilly!" meme; in this case, it's the "B-b-but Moore!" strain of comments in the Ebert blog.
The sad thing is that nobody takes these lazy equations to task; they let them pass, possibly because to address them is to dive headlong into the crazypool and let the moonbats shriek incessantly about the perceived slights that Olbermann etc. have delivered to Jesus and Joe Sixpack. But letting things like this go, and allowing statements like "Michael Moore is just as bad" to float there like a turd in the punchbowl, is a massive disservice to, well, the person being slandered, be it Moore or Olbermann or Franken.
All I know is that Ben Stein is currently starring in a commercial for some credit score company, opposite a CG squirrel. Seeing this, I'm beginning to believe that maybe this whole time I've been wrong.
There is a god.
And he doesn't much like Ben Stein. posted by quin at 12:04 PM on September 4 [1 favorite]
The thing that amuses me about all this is that, if you ever watched Win Ben Stein's Money, while he knows an awful lot about politics/history/etc., he was actually rather bad at science questions. He frequently just didn't know things that I had learned in High School Physics/Chemistry/Biology (or Junior High for that matter.) So, I'm not sure how he became a sudden expert on all this. posted by blenderfish at 12:06 PM on September 4 [2 favorites]
Apropos ID trolling (motherfuck, the "g" key works again!), would a post about the whole Bloggingheads creationism thing be acceptable? (Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll said thank you and goodbye.)
Two creationists appeared in a "science" part of the site, and some contributors are less than happy. posted by Dumsnill at 12:15 PM on September 4
Every time I learn something new about Ben Stein, I like him a little less. posted by Mister_A at 12:19 PM on September 4
The concentration camp business is really deplorable. posted by Mister_A at 12:36 PM on September 4
The concentration camp business is really deplorable.
Here is an example of how sick and stupid my brain is. In all honesty, my first reaction to the sentence above was to think: "But what if it was a concentration camp... for kids with cancer? Sure - concentration camp == evil. But camp for kids with cancer == awesome! Would these two things cancel each other out, like multiplying by zero?"
This thought occurred to me in a fraction of a second, and was immediately replaced by self-revulsion. Just a little insight into the inner workings of a mad man. You've been warned. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:47 PM on September 4 [2 favorites]
The comments on that movie review, along with the fact that 12% of Americans are on food stamps, makes me think that maybe think that the United States is a third world country. posted by Pastabagel at 12:57 PM on September 4
Oh, it's alright Flo. I used to amuse myself by thinking that it could be a place you went to stare intently at things for hours on end. We are both still better than Ben Stein. posted by Mister_A at 12:59 PM on September 4
Only Roger Ebert reads the comments down here. posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:30 PM on September 4
This comment left intentionally barf. posted by joe lisboa at 1:34 PM on September 4
poop upside down is dood
poop mirrored vertically is boob
poop mirrored horizontally is qooq posted by qvantamon at 1:44 PM on September 4
Wait, you mean to tell me a Concentration Camp isn't where you're fed undiluted frozen orange juice?
a place you went to stare intently at things for hours on end.
This thought has never crossed my mind. Now it will, EVERY. TIME. Thanks a lot Mister_A. posted by tellurian at 1:53 PM on September 4
No, concentration camp is when you play that one educational card game wearing high heels and a feather boa. posted by nebulawindphone at 2:32 PM on September 4 [1 favorite]
But what if it was a concentration camp... for kids with cancer?
Cognitive dissonance is awesome for fucking with yourself, provided you can recognize it when it happens. posted by davejay at 2:37 PM on September 4
I'm just chiming in because I reflexively complain about all Roger Ebert threads.
Ebert, Ebert, Ebert! That's all we ever talk about around here these days!
OK, I feel better now. Thanks. posted by serazin at 4:21 PM on September 4
It irks me, damn it.
Hah! I recommend not reading the comments on the new thread there then, because a few people get all B-b-but Religulous! posted by graventy at 4:36 PM on September 4
"The saddest thing today is that right-wing lies are shoving anything about America's REAL Concentration Camps off of Google's front page."
Uh, Wendell, America's Real Concentration Camps (trademark pending) were those set up to eradicate American Indians. The interment camps were bad, but if you're going for anti-American Nazi analogies, you might as well go with the ones that Hitler endorsed. posted by klangklangston at 4:57 PM on September 4
But letting things like this go, and allowing statements like "Michael Moore is just as bad" to float there like a turd in the punchbowl
To be fair, Moore IS pretty bad. He's entertaining, but he's very slanted, and uses innuendo to 'prove' his points, sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge encouraging his viewers to fall into fallacies that he's drawn very carefully without quite saying. And his questions-without-answers technique just drives me bats... "Could G.W. Bush have slept with the Saudi Prince?"
I don't feel like I'm getting truly solid information from him... too much spin, not enough facts.
Now, he's not even in the same LEAGUE as O'Reilly et al. Not even close. But he's very much a producer of propaganda, and the right is correct to criticize him.
They are not, however, correct to criticize Olbermann. He may be a little overbearing and annoying at times, but he is laser accurate in what he says. He clearly separates fact from opinion, and while his values are very apparent (and they're ones I respect very much), they don't lead him anywhere near falsehood. As far as I can tell, he works desperately hard at being perfectly truthful in what he says on the air, and I appreciate it very much.
Hannity and crew -- when they get anywhere near the truth, it's accidental, and swiftly corrected. posted by Malor at 5:00 PM on September 4 [3 favorites]
I once applied for a job as a camp counselor in Austria back when my German proficiency was still moderate. I just kept thinking, I hope they put me in a guard tower, I don't know anything about making wallets. posted by klangklangston at 5:00 PM on September 4
Pukey's back! posted by deborah at 5:03 PM on September 4
"To be fair, Moore IS pretty bad. He's entertaining, but he's very slanted, and uses innuendo to 'prove' his points, sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge encouraging his viewers to fall into fallacies that he's drawn very carefully without quite saying. And his questions-without-answers technique just drives me bats... "Could G.W. Bush have slept with the Saudi Prince?""
Except that's not fair. Michael Moore is a lot more self-aware and his viewers more canny than you give them credit for (or may indeed be, if that's the trouble). When he asks, "Could G.W. Bush have slept with the Saudi Prince?" the answer is obviously no—it's a joke that he asked it.
He's not Edward Murrow; he spins and dissembles. But when compared to, say, Rush Limbaugh, who is frequently held up as "Just as bad," he's positively angelic. posted by klangklangston at 5:08 PM on September 4
There was a Hotline server back in the day which was named Win Ben Stein's Warez.
I liked it more than I like Ben Stein, who is useless. posted by porn in the woods at 5:22 PM on September 4
"Wow, Ebert is surprisingly well-informed about evolution."
It's terribly depressing that being well-informed about evolution should ever be surprising. posted by edd at 5:28 PM on September 4
To be fair, Moore IS pretty bad. He's entertaining, but he's very slanted, and uses innuendo to 'prove' his points, sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge encouraging his viewers to fall into fallacies that he's drawn very carefully without quite saying. And his questions-without-answers technique just drives me bats... "Could G.W. Bush have slept with the Saudi Prince?"
I don't feel like I'm getting truly solid information from him... too much spin, not enough facts.
Which is fair, and actual criticism, and I think totally valid. What gets my goat is the idea that we have to forgive Stein flat-out lying because Moore indulges in wink-nudge goofily framed questions. It's the idea that there has to be some sort of balance between the "left" and the "right", and that Stein being thorougly disingenuous and manipulative and flat out propagating falsehoods is totally okay because, y'know, Moore edits his interviews.
Like there's a magic "equals" sign out there, and if somebody on the right side of the spectrum says we should slaughter every Moslem in the world and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot, that's okay because a left-leaning person once said that Republicans tended to be less aware of the world beyond America.
There is no magic equation. There's no "the right has X but that's all right because the left has Y." There's only lies and truth, and this "balance" bullcrap obfuscates the fact that the right wing is delving more into lies, button-pushing and flat-out hatemongering than the left. I'm all for taking Moore to task for his excesses. But taking Moore to task for his excesses as a way to excuse Coulter and Beck and O'Reilly is so totally intellectually dishonest it makes my head spin. posted by Shepherd at 7:01 PM on September 4 [3 favorites]
Man, Hotline was great. BitTorrent really out-classes it, technology-wise, but when the alternative was f'kin' Napster? Hotline was the best thing out there. posted by paisley henosis at 7:28 PM on September 4
Yeah, Moore is WAY better than the guys on the right, no doubt. But I do think he is somewhat deceptive in what he puts on screen, and I don't really trust him. Olbermann, I really really trust. Moore.... let's just say that swallowing a Moore movie whole is not good for your connection to reality.
The right wing, though, points to his foot in the water, and uses that as an excuse for a full-body cannonball. "He's wet too!" posted by Malor at 4:46 AM on September 5
All I know is that Ben Stein is currently starring in a commercial for some credit score company, ...
B.Stein continues to plumb progressively lower depths. And it's true, he's amazingly ignorant about science. posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:22 AM on September 5 [2 favorites]
916. Moderate a debate between Ben Stein and the lobster. The winner of the debate gets eaten first. Today's audience is our special guest: The Singing Lederhosen Convenience Club and Outdoorsy Group. posted by xorry at 1:06 PM on September 5
Roger Ebert and I frequently disagree on the quality level of pulpy movies, but I respect the hell out of him - especially after reading his thorough, much-deserved takedown of Ben Stein's sorry ass.
I remember being shocked when I first saw the trailer for Expelled - up until then, all I knew of Ben Stein was that he was the dude from Farris Bueller who went on host a dumbass gameshow that my roommate had an inexplicable affinity for. That show made a big deal of Stein's college degrees, and sure enough, he performed pretty well when answering questions. So, I was quite stunned to learn he was an anti-science rube. I never held him in high esteem, but it was still a disappointment.
I missed this the first time around - thanks for the update! Go, Roger, Go! posted by EatTheWeak at 1:27 PM on September 5
That was a surprisingly good read.
This bit stood out as not quite right though:
Then, if they found a plausible reason to doubt them, they would go right to work hoping to win fame by disproving them.
Research that serves to only disprove a theory tends to be bad because it - and papers it disproves - tend to never get cited again once they've been written and descend into citation oblivion. Too bad they weren't saved.
I know this is an irrelevant tangent, but whatever posted by scrutiny at 4:08 PM on September 5
« Older Newfoundlanders, let's have th... | A collaborative serenade for o... Newer »
Subscribe
posted by not_on_display at 8:54 AM on September 4