The Empress has had enough

October 8, 2009 9:35 AM

Dear everyone: I don't like Glenn Beck either, but can we give the comments relating to the fake rape charge meme a rest, please? The mods have already asked nice, people are flagging them, and it was a dumb idea to begin with. Thank you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos to Etiquette/Policy at 9:35 AM (138 comments total)

It could explain why he's always crying.
posted by xmutex at 9:36 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

If it's two comments, just flag them or MeMail us and we'll delete them. Unless anyone really wants to defend their rights to make those stupid comments our blanket policy is we delete them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:42 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Nthing just not doing that. It'll be deleted anyway.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on October 8, 2009

If it's two comments, just flag them or MeMail us and we'll delete them.

My apologies, I think I just kind of snapped.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2009

I heard Glenn Beck wrote fan fiction for My So Called Life in 1995. I don't claim to know the truth, but I think these allegations need to be investigated fully. If he really did concoct some sick, twisted shipper romance between Angela and Rickie, I hope Jesus can forgive him. But, I'm not Jesus. I'm American. And I believe that anyone who ships anything but Jordan/Angela needs to be tried and executed in a court of his peers.
posted by stavrogin at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2009 [22 favorites]

I think there's quite a good argument that it was a pretty ingenious, intelligently ironic, satirical idea to begin with, actually, that very precisely turned Beck's methods and surreal levels of vitriol against himself.

But I'm not suggesting it's wrong to delete them on Metafilter several weeks after the original thing.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:54 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

It could explain why he's always crying.

Well, that or Vick's.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Game Warden: agreed. I'm reminded of an observation I read in a Ramona Quimby book, of all things -- Ramona makes some cutesy comment which makes people laugh, so she says it a second time, and then a third time -- to diminishing returns each time. Her mother gently chides her by saying, "sometimes, 'once is funny, twice is silly, and three times is annoying.'" We've gone way past three times for this meme, is all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:57 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

I heard a Frankenstein lives in his house!
posted by hal_c_on at 10:00 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

some sick, twisted shipper romance

God damn, why does there need to be a word for every damned thing on the internet?
posted by adamdschneider at 10:02 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos: "once is funny, twice is silly, and three times is annoying"

I disagree
posted by Plutor at 10:03 AM on October 8, 2009

It's supposed to be less a funny meme and much more of a Googlebomb, like the "miserable failure" bit for Bush. The basic concept is that Beck brings up some bizarre, ludicrous-on-the-face-of-it charges, then follows up with " ... and Mr. X has failed to respond to any of these claims," and that, rather than being a funny-ha-ha, it's more of a "you do this and your legions of mindless followers repeat it, how much do you like it as a tactic now?" deal. I'm not necessarily advocating it, just pointing out that it wasn't meant as a hilarious, let's repeat it to my friends joke.
posted by adipocere at 10:05 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

I'm not necessarily advocating it, just pointing out that it wasn't meant as a hilarious, let's repeat it to my friends joke.

Oh, I know. I still think it's dumb.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:08 AM on October 8, 2009

Unless anyone really wants to defend their rights to make those stupid comments our blanket policy is we delete them.
I do. let him sue.
posted by krautland at 10:11 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

FALAFEL

oh, wait. wrong guy.
posted by liketitanic at 10:12 AM on October 8, 2009

Wait, is Glenn Beck a rapist? Cuz that would explain some things.
posted by RussHy at 10:14 AM on October 8, 2009

EmpressCallipygos, why won't you respond to the rumors that in 2009 you appointed yourself the final arbiter of comment contents on the liberal blog MetaFilter.com?
posted by Liver at 10:15 AM on October 8, 2009 [12 favorites]

I do. let him sue.

GYOB, then, or convince 4chan to take him down.

This is not what Metafilter's for.
posted by lysdexic at 10:16 AM on October 8, 2009

I could totally get behind the Frankenstein thing.
posted by Artw at 10:17 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I wish that Beck meme had used something like bank fraud or insider trading as its crime. Something a tad bit more believable and a bit less offensive.

And I don't think the concern is over Beck suing so much as it is over there being no need for it here. But then this is how I feel about the Hitler jokes as well, but those seem to stick around.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:20 AM on October 8, 2009

My comment was the one that was deleted. I just wanted to apologize here. I didn't know that meme was frowned upon on Mefi, and in retrospect, it was a dumb and inappropriate joke for the thread. I definitely don't want to defend my "right" to make those comments, and I'm more embarrassed than anything.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

It could explain why he's always crying. Well, that or Vick's.

Yep. For those who haven't already seen it (w/ video).
posted by ericb at 10:29 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

I saw Glenn Beck and Mrs. krabapple in the closet making babies, and i saw one of the babies, and the baby smiled at me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:30 AM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

once is funny, twice is silly, and three times is annoying

Four times is aggressively annoying. Five times is dull. Six times is insipid. Seven times is tiring. Eight times is maddening. Nine times is painful. Ten times is mildly amusing, again. Eleven times is exasperating. Twelve times is mildly heroic. Thirteen times, and the blackbird sat in the cedar-limbs. Fourteen times three is forty-two. Fifteen times is un-frigging-believable. Sixteen times is probably a sign of incipient mental disturbance. Seventeen times is almost legal. Eighteen times is almost illegal. Nineteen times is begging for the banhammer. Twenty times is a meme. Twenty-one times, and the meme is dead. Go home, now.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [30 favorites]

I do. let him sue.

To be clear, we kill those comments not because we're worried about being sued by the Glenn Beck Waaahmbulance Company but because they're shitty for Metafilter.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:34 AM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

I do. let him sue.

We'd rather spend our time and money running an awesome website, not arguing with lunatics about lulzy web memes. We are not afraid of Glenn Beck, but we do have limited time, attention and money for fights that we don't care that much about. In contrast, when people send us weird takedown notices because MeFi has linked to something of theirs we write them a curt "I think this problem is entirely in your head" email and figure they can try to pursue it but won't get far.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

We'd rather spend our time and money running an awesome website, not arguing with lunatics about lulzy web memes.

Oh. Geez. You'd best stay away from Metatalk, then.
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on October 8, 2009 [12 favorites]

Metafilter: We are not afraid of Glenn Beck
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 11:41 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

once is funny, twice is silly, and three times is annoying

"First time is funny, second time is silly, third time is a spanking." And it was her father quoting his grandmother.

(The disproportionate escalation there just stuck with me all these years. If only I could use my incredible powers for trivia that are actually useful on Jeopardy!)
posted by Zed at 11:46 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

You know, posting comments making a fake rape charge in a post about sexual and physical aggression against women - not win.
posted by Sova at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

To be clear, we kill those comments not because we're worried about being sued by the Glenn Beck Waaahmbulance Company but because they're shitty for Metafilter.

Favorited for the phrase "Glenn Beck Waaahmbulance Company."
posted by Caduceus at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2009

the Glenn Beck Waaahmbulance Company

Another t-shirt that I would buy in an instant!
posted by scody at 11:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

You know, posting comments making a fake rape charge in a post about sexual and physical aggression against women - not win.

Other examples of not win : taking a swing at people who have already apologized upthread.
posted by absalom at 12:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm going to dip my toe in here and say that I've been treating this whole Glenn Beck phenomenon like a mini-game. It's inverse Whack-a-mole, where I try to avoid all the places where he pops up. Sometimes he gets me (re: here. d'oh!), but in general, I'm winning. Pretty soon he'll tire and die, and I'll be truly victorious. Until a new head pops up.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:01 PM on October 8, 2009

Another example of not win -- the expression "not win."
posted by brain_drain at 12:01 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

"Wait, is Glenn Beck a rapist? Cuz that would explain some things."

He's never denied it!
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 PM on October 8, 2009

I heard that Glenn Beck was ejected from a Furry Convention in '07 for yffing in an inappropriate area.

I've also heard that Glenn Beck is trying to sue. The defendent's legal response, which seems to be down presently, contends that "only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant." That, of course, goes a long way toward explaining why Beck filed the suit in the first place.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:13 PM on October 8, 2009

If it weren't for Metafilter, I wouldn't even know who Glenn Beck was. So, thanks, I guess.
posted by desjardins at 12:30 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

octobersurprise: The defendent's legal response (PDF).


My favorite line so far: Similarly, nobody really thinks that “Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten...”

Well, thank God for that! This legal response is the coolest thing I've read all day.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:38 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

I've also heard that Glenn Beck is trying to sue.

That legal response is readable, fascinating and entertaining, and definitely worth a front-page post.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yeah, it probably is FPP worthy, but how do you do that without opening the floodgates of what people are objecting to? Also, the FPP to the original site was axed.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:46 PM on October 8, 2009

The defendent's legal response (PDF).

Wow, that's great. I'm about halfway through, but my favorite passage thus far is a devastatingly accurate summing-up of Beck's rhetorical style:

"Quite simply, Beck’s shtick is simply a cheap imitation of Gilbert Gottfried, sans the humor. "

Truer words, seldom spoke, &c.

Also, they must have enjoyed having a legitimate reason to use the word "fail" so frequently.
posted by dersins at 12:50 PM on October 8, 2009

how do you do that without opening the floodgates of what people are objecting to?

One would hope its readers are not the "hurried morons" implicated in the brief, and are mentally capable to understand its content.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:53 PM on October 8, 2009

Unless anyone really wants to defend their rights to make those stupid comments

I thought it was funny and apt and I participated in it for the couple of days after it became well known here, but I quickly realized that it was adding nothing and creating a layer of ignorable silliness to what I feel is a very real problem with Beck and his ilk.

So I stopped.

That said, I'm going to be filled with wonderment when, like the wartime propaganda about Hitler only having one testicle weirdly turned out to be true, Beck suddenly arrested for something even slightly similar to the accusation.

I suspect, if that happened, everyone would just sit around silently, staring at one another in bewilderment, occasionally raising their hands in a "WTF?" gesture.
posted by quin at 12:56 PM on October 8, 2009

It was freakier when it turned out Hitler was a woman.
posted by Artw at 12:57 PM on October 8, 2009

> I meant in the thread.

If the use of this meme is offensive/bothersome to some, and the original posting of the site didn't survive...linking to the legal decision will end up with a shitstorm of comments that will end up being flagged. I could be wrong. I have been before.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:03 PM on October 8, 2009

'once is funny, twice is silly, and three times is annoying.'

....and why doesn't this extend to the "You know who else x'd y?" comments?
posted by mephron at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I would just like to note that that "legal filing" is a response to a complaint filed with UDRP, which is a non-governmental arbitration board. Very few judges would tolerate a legal filing that had that much whimsy and personal attack.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:07 PM on October 8, 2009

Guys! I totally heard from Becky who heard from her sister Jennifer down at 31 flavors that Glenn Beck brought home a little dog from Mexico but it turned out not to be a dog but a sewer rat and it full of spiders and the spiders attacked him in the night and stole one of his kidneys and when he racing to the hospital he accidentally ate a whole bag of yellow M&Ms which made him gay so he picked up a rough trade hitchhiker but when they got to the highway rest stop the hitchhiker was gone and on the door was a hook!

True story.
posted by The Whelk at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

I totally heard from Becky

Is this Glen's drag stage-name? Because it's really not all that clever.
posted by quin at 1:22 PM on October 8, 2009

I heard that Glenn Beck was ejected from a Furry Convention in '07 for yffing in an inappropriate area.

The back of a Volkswagen?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:51 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Inappropriate, not uncomfortable.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:55 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

....and why doesn't this extend to the "You know who else x'd y?" comments?

And any mentions of the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let it die.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:58 PM on October 8, 2009

Pope Guilty:Very few judges would tolerate a legal filing that had that much whimsy and personal attack.
Although you're right about very few, people might enjoy this.


Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)

We thought that we would never see
A suit to compensate a tree.
A suit whose claim in tort is prest
Upon a mangled tree’s behest;
A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;
A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;
A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.
Flora lovers though we three,
We must uphold the court’s decree.

Whimsy? Check.

Labbee v. Peters (1997), 201 A.R. 241 at para. 72 (Q.B.), aff’d 1999 ABCA 246

One person in the Grande Prairie court room did not know how a grain truck unloads grain. Unfortunately for the defence case, that person was its expert accident reconstruction witness.

Personal Attack? Check.

South Side Woodwork (1979) Ltd. v. R. C. Contracting Ltd. (1989), 95 A.R. 161 (Master Funduk)

Very simply, Masters in Chambers of a superior trial court occupy the bottom rung of the superior courts judicial ladder.

I do not overrule decisions of a judge of this Court. The judicial pecking order does not permit little peckers to overrule big peckers. It is the other way around.

Penis references? Check.

From.
posted by Lemurrhea at 2:01 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

> That legal response is readable, fascinating and entertaining, and definitely worth a front-page post.

Done.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:06 PM on October 8, 2009

The guy behind this (or an imposter, possibly, I guess) is posting in a reddit thread.
posted by Perplexity at 2:06 PM on October 8, 2009

Twenty-one times, and the meme is dead.

Strangely, twenty-two times magically makes it a running joke.
posted by electroboy at 2:11 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I heard that "Glenn Beck" literally means that I am a Gypsy when I welsh on a bet.

* dons helmet *
posted by everichon at 2:15 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

> That legal response is readable, fascinating and entertaining, and definitely worth a front-page post.

Done.

Now if anyone makes that comment again we can flag it as a double as well.
posted by Artw at 2:37 PM on October 8, 2009

There was that Eminem defamation suit where the judge ruled in rhyme, too.
posted by box at 2:49 PM on October 8, 2009

I heard that "Glenn Beck" literally means that I am a Gypsy when I welsh on a bet.

You almost got away with that comment scot free.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:51 PM on October 8, 2009

Adapting the meme to other people is likewise dickish, Constantine Xinos fans.
posted by Artw at 3:21 PM on October 8, 2009

You almost got away with that comment scot free.

I heard the Paddy wagon a-comin'.
posted by everichon at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2009

I totally heard from Becky

Is this Glen's drag stage-name? Because it's really not all that clever.

Oh great, and my brain spontaneously, before I could stop it, decided to show me a mental image of Glenn Beck dressed as a drag queen.

I won't be sleeping tonight. Thanks a bunch.
posted by hippybear at 3:31 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I heard the Paddy wagon a-comin'.

I hope they yank you away for this.

I got nothin'
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:37 PM on October 8, 2009

I heard that in 1990 Glenn Beck was Morton Downey, Jr.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:38 PM on October 8, 2009

No, Morton Downey Jr was in Predator 2.

I think you are thinking of the parasitic face-hugger from the Aliens franchise.
posted by quin at 3:46 PM on October 8, 2009

EmpressCallipygos, why won't you respond to the rumors that in 2009 you appointed yourself the final arbiter of comment contents on the liberal blog MetaFilter.com?

Was that the same week you were elected MeTa warden?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:27 PM on October 8, 2009

Wardens are appointed.
posted by Liver at 4:33 PM on October 8, 2009

Birds are pointy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:42 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

By the way, Inmate 29872, your request for a waffle iron in your cell is denied.
posted by Liver at 4:42 PM on October 8, 2009

I heard you can make a good shank from the pointy end of a favorite, in case anyone feels the need to be stabby.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:46 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I am not a number! I am a swoopy thingamajig!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:54 PM on October 8, 2009

I can't stand Glen Beck. He's the most obnoxious television 'personality' to emerge in years, and I regularly groan at the depth of his stupidity.

But since when are "coordinated campaigns of libel" a better answer to an idiot (even a libelous idiot) than "ignoring the dolt and turning off the television?" Fighting fire with fire is a fine strategy in many cases, but sometimes it just turns you into the people you despise.
posted by koeselitz at 5:31 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Blazecock Pileon: ... Glenn Beck... blah blah... something something... is readable, fascinating and entertaining, and definitely worth a front-page post.

Really, there's some other stuff I didn't quote, and you were disagreeing with somebody else, but I don't really care what it is, and it's beside the point: you're wrong, friend. Nothing having to do with Glenn Beck is readable, fascinating, entertaining, or (heaven forfend) worth a front-page post.

Not even his death, which will merit a small smile and a fart from me before I wander off and do something else.
posted by koeselitz at 5:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

But since when are "coordinated campaigns of libel" a better answer to an idiot (even a libelous idiot) than "ignoring the dolt and turning off the television?"

Since 2003?
posted by scody at 5:41 PM on October 8, 2009

The latest slander flying around is that Glenn Beck stole an Apache server and several acorns.

glennbeckstolemyapacheserver.com
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 5:47 PM on October 8, 2009

Today I learned that Black Sabbath bassist Geezer Butler is a vegan. Nothing against vegans, but that seems terribly unmetal.
posted by jonmc at 5:50 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Really? A small subculture that gets shit on and hated on and misunderstood by almost everyone, that's the subject of hackneyed jokes and ridiculous stereotypes, but that nonetheless manages to maintain a self-sustaining culture that literally saves people's lives? Sounds metal as fuck. Or vegan as fuck, for that matter.
posted by box at 6:05 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

On the contrary Jon lad, not eating animals or their products is very metal, because you are denying animals a place in Valhalla as they are simply not metal enough. The only animal metal enough to be eaten is the hippo, you should ask Geezer if he avoids all animal products except Hippo meat, I know that's how Lemmy rolls.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:09 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Today I learned that Black Sabbath bassist Geezer Butler is a vegan. Nothing against vegans, but that seems terribly unmetal.

So's Phil Collen from Def Leppard, but I s'pose Def Leppard was never quite as metal as Black Sabbath, so perhaps it's slightly less shocking.
posted by scody at 6:11 PM on October 8, 2009

because you are denying animals a place in Valhalla as they are simply not metal enough

That phrase. Is awesome.
posted by haveanicesummer at 6:12 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Nothing having to do with Glenn Beck is readable, fascinating, entertaining, or (heaven forfend) worth a front-page post.

Really?

Even the headline:

"Glenn Beck Arrested For Canibal Murder of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin in Satanic Orgy Ritual Gone Awry."
posted by tkchrist at 6:14 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

"Cannibal"

heh.
posted by tkchrist at 6:15 PM on October 8, 2009

A small subculture that gets shit on and hated on and misunderstood by almost everyone, that's the subject of hackneyed jokes and ridiculous stereotypes, but that nonetheless manages to maintain a self-sustaining culture that literally saves people's lives? Sounds metal as fuck.

Furries?
posted by breezeway at 6:16 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

If you think metal is about saving lives rather than taking them ur doin it wrong.
posted by dersins at 6:21 PM on October 8, 2009

because you are denying animals a place in Valhalla as they are simply not metal enough

That phrase. Is awesome.

Thank you, I am not a vegan (perhaps the opposite, in fact, although I'm strong on vegetables as well), but I find them more than sufficiently metal. Jon is my soul brother and he knows that I enjoy taking the piss when I disagree with him.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:22 PM on October 8, 2009

Assuming crabs are considered animals, they are obvs so metal they piss rust.
posted by haveanicesummer at 6:24 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Have you heard furrie metal? Brutal stuff, man. Makes Darkthrone sound like Bon Jovi.
posted by box at 6:25 PM on October 8, 2009

Ozzy is pretty metal, but as far as bats are concerned, not vegan. Discuss.
posted by haveanicesummer at 6:29 PM on October 8, 2009

me: Nothing having to do with Glenn Beck is readable, fascinating, entertaining, or (heaven forfend) worth a front-page post.

tkchrist: Really? Even the headline: "Glenn Beck Arrested For Canibal Murder of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin in Satanic Orgy Ritual Gone Awry."

Nope. Not vaguely fascinating. Pleasing, yes; poetically just, maybe; but if that happened, my first and greatest hope would be that we would manage very swiftly to move on to finer things. If those three people suddenly ended up dead, no matter what the circumstance, humankind would be best off if we all managed to spend the rest of our lives pretending they'd never existed.
posted by koeselitz at 6:44 PM on October 8, 2009

I mean, think about it this way: if a newspaper in Germany ran a human-interest piece in August 1945 (four months after the war) called In The Heart of the Third Reich: The Inside Story of how Adolph Hitler somehow convinced us all to kill millions of Jews, well, would that have been something people wanted or needed to read? It shouldn't go over well here, either. Not to compare Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin to Hitler (okay, well, I am comparing them, sorry folks) but nothing either of those three people do is worth giving airplay to, least of all a situation where we don't have to waste our time with them any more.
posted by koeselitz at 6:51 PM on October 8, 2009

Phil Collins is/was in Def Leopard? The man has an impressive range, from milquetoast light pop hipster to show-thrashing ear-rending badass spectacle. Surprised he could pull it off so late in life, though. I thought his solo career had made him soft.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on October 8, 2009

Metal : True Norwegian Black Metal :: Shmups : Bullet Hell.

What do you think?
posted by box at 7:30 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'll tell you what made him soft--watching that dude drown.
posted by box at 7:31 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

speaking of metal vegetarians
posted by idiopath at 7:33 PM on October 8, 2009

Speaking of Metal and Veganism... what do you call someone who feasts on the flesh of furries?
posted by qvantamon at 7:39 PM on October 8, 2009

I'm asking for a friend...
posted by qvantamon at 7:40 PM on October 8, 2009

box, I'll bet you've been waiting for that moment all your life.

Oh Lord.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

There's something in the air tonight.
posted by lysdexic at 7:51 PM on October 8, 2009

That's just the way it is.
posted by ericb at 8:08 PM on October 8, 2009

Karma fucking Chameleon.

Yeah
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:49 PM on October 8, 2009

Anointy.
posted by fleacircus at 12:54 AM on October 9, 2009

GYOB, then, or convince 4chan to take him down.
bullshit. let people say what they want.

because they're shitty for Metafilter.
not arguing with lunatics about lulzy web memes.
they are lame but I would like to believe that even a crappy joke is at least permissible.
posted by krautland at 2:56 AM on October 9, 2009

krautland: bullshit. let people say what they want. they are lame but I would like to believe that even a crappy joke is at least permissible.

It's libel to accuse people of things that you know they haven't done merely to make them look bad. Are you really saying that libel shouldn't be against the law? That there's nothing wrong with trying to willingly destroy people through false accusations?

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm trying to think of arguments for this line of reasoning. I would've thought that it was obvious that the sort of people who try to destroy others through false accusations are the evil people we've been trying to fight against all these years. Isn't that obvious?
posted by koeselitz at 3:03 AM on October 9, 2009

Vegan metal simply replaces satan with seitan. Hail seitan.
posted by orme at 3:33 AM on October 9, 2009 [3 favorites]

It's libel to accuse people of things that you know they haven't done merely to make them look bad.

No one has accused Glenn Beck of rape and murder. He simply hasn't denied committing said acts. It's a rhetorical distinction that satirizes Beck's own politicization of the English language.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:46 AM on October 9, 2009 [3 favorites]

koeselitz: "krautland: bullshit. let people say what they want. they are lame but I would like to believe that even a crappy joke is at least permissible.

It's libel to accuse people of things that you know they haven't done merely to make them look bad. Are you really saying that libel shouldn't be against the law? That there's nothing wrong with trying to willingly destroy people through false accusations?

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm trying to think of arguments for this line of reasoning. I would've thought that it was obvious that the sort of people who try to destroy others through false accusations are the evil people we've been trying to fight against all these years. Isn't that obvious?"

It's not libel, it's satire. And if you actually look at the site in question, they never actually accuse Glenn Beck. They just say that he never had denied the rumors, etc. It's funny because Beck is essentially being hoist by his own petard, since this type of back door accusation has been a staple of his show since it started.

On the other hand, I think if you don't at least watch clips of his show on Youtube or wherever, you are missing out. It can be hilarious, and I have a hard time deciding if he is actually making fun of what he pretends to espouse. I sometimes wonder if it is really just a much subtler version of the Colbert Report.
posted by jefeweiss at 4:31 AM on October 9, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's not libel, it's satire.

For emphasis.

"Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm trying to think of arguments for this line of reasoning" works here, too, koeselitz.
posted by mediareport at 6:05 AM on October 9, 2009

....You know, when I posted this, I had a feeling that it would kind of be a magnet for all of the "Glenn Beck eats boogers!" kind of playing around, and I figured that actually may be good because it would let everyone have an orgy of fun and then things would blow out.

I cannot say how delighted I am that somehow we went even further, and went from Glenn Beck to animals in Valhalla to Phil Collins joining Def Leppard.

I love you all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:33 AM on October 9, 2009

jefeweiss has it right. They are doing to Glenbeck exactly what he is doing to politicians he doesn't like. (And many of the other right wing news-ists.) It's a back-door, non-accusation accusation. Passive aggressive defined, really. And (unfortunately), a really effective defense mechanism. You don't have to defend your own ridiculous policies and ehavior iff you can effectively get the other party on the defensive.


Here is my favorite example. (Some Chicago/Cook County/Illinois politician back in the 80s or 90s.)

Once again, the more widely we expose the badness of powerful people, the LESS power they have. If we do it right.
posted by gjc at 8:15 AM on October 9, 2009

I sometimes wonder if it is really just a much subtler version of the Colbert Report.

Glenn Beck called up a fellow radio broadcaster, live on the air, and mocked him and his wife for having a miscarriage. Subtle is not in his grasp.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:25 AM on October 9, 2009

they are lame but I would like to believe that even a crappy joke is at least permissible.

A quick scan of metafilter on any given day should make it clear that crappy jokes are permissible. The problem is with self-perpetuating google-bombery stuff that doesn't even have the saving grace of being a site-specific crappy injoke; at that point, it's well beyond being a one-off crappy joke in isolation, and beyond even the marginal defense of local culture for local culture's sake—it's just people making the same noise again and again for reasons that have basically nothing to do with Metafilter and make the place a little bit crappier in the mean time.

We started nixing Zalgo posts for pretty similar reasons, and, again, we're not particularly concerned about mind-eating lawsuits from the Zalgo dimension either. It's just not that great to crapflood metafilter.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2009 [1 favorite]

And on a personal level, the new post makes me at least get where the specific meme comes from [The Gottfried roast of Sagat] so I'm pleased that a variant on it was at least funny once upon a time.

And also, and this may be sot of hand-wavey for a lot of people and I'll admit it's my personal predjudice: I don't want to read about rape, even pretend made up I'm making a joke rape, in every thread on MeFi. Especially raping a young girl rape. Now I know, this never happened, and I get the reasoning behind why people are doing this Google bomb and I agree Glenn Beck is despicable.

But I'm a quick reader, and so every time I read a sentence that goes bla bla bla rape bla, I have a quickie instinctive twitch. Reading about rape can be difficult for people who have experienced sexual assault or who are close to people who have, it can bring up bad memories and bad feelings and a larger sense of overall ennui not just that the world is unsafe but also unfair. I don't mean to be dramatic, but we see it in threads on MeFi that are just on the rape topic generally and they're difficult. They may be important and worth discussing but they're difficult. As soon as I get to the "oh this is another one of those stupid beck comments" I'm fine again, but it's a split second of my life I'd love to have back.

This is not at all to say "oh hey rape is one of those things that we shouldn't talk about" obviously, but in the same way that we ask people to not ironically toss racial slurs around (because reading them over and over again still means that MeFi is a place full of racial slurs even if they're ironically intended racial slurs) it would be nice if every thread didn't wind up full of ironic, satirical rapey comments like the Beck stuff.

I hope people are aware enough of where I'm coming from that this doesn't turn into the "what, we can't even TALK about rape here?" things. Just trying to sort of explain why, to me, these comments are not just annoying noise on a "please don't do that everywhere" level but also a little touchy in the way that Nazi jokes can be touchy and ironic racism can be touchy.

I curse my postmodern liberal arts education sometimes, but there it is.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:35 AM on October 9, 2009 [6 favorites]

jefeweiss: It's not libel, it's satire. And if you actually look at the site in question, they never actually accuse Glenn Beck. They just say that he never had denied the rumors, etc. It's funny because Beck is essentially being hoist by his own petard, since this type of back door accusation has been a staple of his show since it started.

gjc: jefeweiss has it right. They are doing to Glenbeck exactly what he is doing to politicians he doesn't like. (And many of the other right wing news-ists.) It's a back-door, non-accusation accusation. Passive aggressive defined, really.

Both of you admit it is an accusation, even if it's a back-door one. The point is to make people believe that there's an accusation and hopefully to make people think that this is a crime which Glenn Beck is actually guilty of. How the hell does 'they're just doing what Glenn Beck himself does!' make it satire rather than libel? When exactly did it start being okay to pull the kinds of nasty tricks he pulls?

If good is actually going to triumph over evil then people like Glenn Beck have to be confronted directly with the nasty tricks they've pulled. They have to be fairly and truly accused of misleading people so that there can be no mistake. But the people who set up this 'meme' were apparently so jaded and cynical that they'd given up on the whole 'good triumphs over evil' thing and decided that the only thing that could win out over evil is more evil. Read it any way you like, but you've both said that this is supposed to use Glenn Beck's tactics against him, and I can't really see Glenn Beck's tactics as being anything but evil.
posted by koeselitz at 10:13 AM on October 9, 2009

The point is to make people believe that there's an accusation and hopefully to make people think that this is a crime which Glenn Beck is actually guilty of.

As an analogy, do you believe that people really thought Jonathan Swift's modest proposal of eating babies as a means for dealing with economic strife was meant in earnest?

I'd agree with you that eating babies is evil. If we're extending your thought process to Swift's work, however, I do not agree with you that proposing it in a work of satire is in any way a defense of said evil behavior.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2009

Blazecock Pileon, you'd be surprised. If I remember correctly, some people did take Swift seriously.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2009

He's still not denied having a Frankenstein in his house.
posted by Artw at 10:58 AM on October 9, 2009

If anything, the mechanism of satire is to highlight evil and castigate it. It pretends to emulate evil, but only doing so when it can amplify its horror and absurdity. Through the logical and emotional tension this absurdity causes, the audience is forced to confront its feelings and reasoning about the subject at hand. Irony is only one of many tools in the satire toolbox.

In other words, Glenn Beck's rhetorical manner is used as a means to criticize that rhetorical manner, not as a way to justify it. This is the mistake you are making and it is critical that you understand this distinction.

The act of satire does not justify libel, but highlights how Beck's use of such techniques is heinous and worthy of public scorn — just as much as Beck is worthy of opprobrium for using these techniques in the first place.

Glenn Beck uses the English language to destroy logic and civility in public discourse. This work of satire shines a spotlight on his actions, encouraging its audience to ask questions about Beck and his behavior in the media.

No one is actually calling Beck a rapist. Rape is a horrifying, unforgivable act of violence, and such an accusation is a very serious matter. But if Glenn Beck isn't a rapist, then he should deny it, assuming he has nothing to hide and assuming that — importantly, taking Beck's world view to its logical conclusion — anyone who is an innocent should have no problem confessing his or her innocence.

This site's satire is only successful because it requires understanding that rape and murder are utterly horrible acts and that Beck (in all likelihood) is not actually a rapist and/or murderer, but that his regular use of accusatory language on the Fox News network against his and the network's ideological enemies is ultimately no different an insinuation. His actions are violent (if rhetorical), which ruin people's lives and increase the general misery of the human species.

Satire is controversial because it forces the audience to walk that fine line between what is true and false. You have to constantly think critically and question your assumptions about right and wrong. The addition of rape to the equation only makes it more controversial, because it touches upon the worst in people.

It does not, however, make the satire invalid. If anything, it makes it more powerful, because taking Beck's approach to its logical conclusion has allowed him to make accusations that can go anywhere and, in fact, have gone places that are otherwise unacceptable in modern discourse.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2009 [2 favorites]

Since you don't have memail enabled I decided to google "Blazecock Pileon" to see if I could find an address to write. And found this:

Anonymous said...
Your blog got metafiltered and the bad boyfriends there are having their usual blazecock pileon over it. I won't comment in the metafilter thread because I refuse to pay $5 to join a blazecock pileon so I'll just say here that "You Can Be A Better Boyfriend" is funny and you have a good ear, I mean that with intense seriosity, this is near Achewood-quality diversion. And the metamorons all hate Achewood, too and don't see why it's funny. So there you go.

Anyway, I was just going to say that was a nice litte essay on satire. Now I'm off to google "Achewood" to see why I hate it. Drop me an email if you feel like it.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2009

Blazecock:

Don't get me wrong, because you are one of my favorite members of the community, but can you prove to me that, as an admitted homosexual, that you are not a pedophile? I'm not saying that you are, but surely, you should have no problem proving that you aren't, right? Because of course you're not. Right?

To the limited extent that I give him any mental bandwidth at all, I hate Glenn Beck, too. I agree that this is a valid form of satire that effectively lampoons him. But it's satire in the same way that Andrew Dice Clay was a stand up comic. It's ugly, mean and cheap and the world is a better place without it.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:15 PM on October 9, 2009

Blazecock Pileon: As an analogy, do you believe that people really thought Jonathan Swift's modest proposal of eating babies as a means for dealing with economic strife was meant in earnest?

That's not analogous at all. There's no target of Swift's Modest Proposal, at least beyond the suggestion that Swift himself is some kind of cannibal. The act of evil isn't the crime which Beck is supposed (by this 'satire') to have committed; the evil is accusing somebody of something by implication and by backdoor hinting. That evil still happens, whether this is a satire or not; you may be 'in the know' and think that this 'meme' is painfully obvious, but it took me at least a few days of seeing it on the periphery and finally spending some time staring at these pages to grok the fact that it was supposed to be some kind of parodic joke.

In other words, Glenn Beck's rhetorical manner is used as a means to criticize that rhetorical manner, not as a way to justify it.

That's ridiculous. Where is the criticism? I don't see any at all. I only see people saying that Glenn Beck committed a terrible crime. This isn't criticism.

I think you misunderstand what parody is all about. The point of parody is to make something seem so ridiculous as to be laughable by emulating it in a ridiculous way. Maybe I'm just tired, and maybe I just think the worst of people, but I don't think it's at all implausible that Glenn Beck might have done something like the crime in question, and moreover I don't think anybody aside from his followers believes he's above such a thing. Again, you might think I'm an idiot for taking some time to figure out that this was a prank, but I assure you that plenty of people stupider than I am are out there on the internet. Now, I might have thought that this was just a lapse on the part of the creators of this meme - after all, the understanding that irony is almost always lost on the internet is a common thing to miss, and plenty of people putting up websites and commenting on pages don't catch it. However, the sources of this whole thing are traditionally painfully aware of the space between irony and honesty on the internet.

The difference between parody and libel in this case is: libel is printed with the intention of convincing the reader that a proposition about the subject is true, whereas seeks instead to be so ridiculous as to reveal to the reader how ridiculous the subject is. You seem to think that they really didn't want anybody to think that Glenn Beck really did the crime; if not, why is it that it took so many weeks for them to put up an honest disclaimer, and even then it took a while for that to be replaced by a disclaimer that was actually straightforward? A parody would scream on every page that the subject being parodized is silly and worthy of ridicule; whereas only a careful observer who's very well acquainted with Glenn Beck would read those pages as being in Glenn Beck's style, and (thankfully) I am not that observer, nor do I believe are many people on the internet.

No, those pages got their 'parodic strength' from the appalling and shocking nature of the accusation, the extreme nature of which was apparently supposed to clue the reader in to the fact that the accusation was false. What is it when you accuse someone of something terrible in a convincing way, and presume that the terrible nature of the accusation will be enough to "hint" to anyone who hears you that you're just doing a parody? I have a hard time drawing a line fine enough to stand between that and libel.

People seem to find it funny, and it is, to come up with actual parodies of Glenn Beck's style; they've done so numerous times in this thread. Every one of those parodies is funnier, and every one actually stands as a parody. I could say that Glenn Beck has never openly denied being a Martian, or that he's never openly denied having four heads; this would be a parody of his style because it's obviously ridiculous. But if you think it's 'obviously ridiculous' that Glenn Beck might have committed a violent crime, then you haven't watched his show.

And I don't mean to say that it's using Beck's methods to justify them; I don't think anybody, least of all the folks who put up the web site and spread the meme, are hoping to justify Glenn Beck's manner.

No; I'm arguing that they're trying to use his own weapons against him. That's what I think is wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2009

Don't get me wrong, because you are one of my favorite members of the community, but can you prove to me that, as an admitted homosexual, that you are not a pedophile?

I'm not sure applying that rhetoric to me works, because unlike Glenn Beck, I do not call for people to confess their innocence on television or other forms of media. I mean, I suppose you could ask me that question just for the sake of conversation or argument, but as a satire it doesn't work, because the context just isn't there.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:45 PM on October 9, 2009

Don't get me wrong, because you are one of my favorite members of the community, but can you prove to me that...

Er, don't do that, either.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on October 9, 2009 [3 favorites]

I guess maybe we can boil down all of this stuff to one point:

Blazecock Pileon: This site's satire is only successful because it requires understanding... that Beck (in all likelihood) is not actually a rapist and/or murderer...

I don't meet that requirement, and I don't think I'm alone amongst his detractors. He's a violent, angry man. And, as such, the satire of the site is largely unsuccessful, and moreover disruptive of the very real and very important point that some of us are trying to make: that Glenn Beck is a violent, angry man that shouldn't damned well have a tv show. I appreciate that this is supposed to be a parody, but ultimately it only comes across as 'false accusations being hurled at an innocent man' to all but the elect set of people who have the intelligence or the resources to understand what memes are all about. The rest of us are left trying to say that, yes, that accusation wasn't true, but still Glenn Beck is a violent, angry man who shouldn't have a tv show.

The potential for that misunderstanding is obvious, and must have been obvious to the people that initiated this whole thing. And since the outcome of that misunderstanding is libel - that is, people will obviously read those sites and think that they're being sincere - this is an intentional case of libel. I wouldn't report anybody, and I wouldn't ask for a trial; what's more, were I a judge seeing such a case, Glenn Beck's own prior abuse of the laws against libel would probably induce me to be pretty lenient. All the same, it's libel.
posted by koeselitz at 2:49 PM on October 9, 2009

I'm not a lawyer, but given the quite absurd presentation of this particular site and its material, it seems difficult to say that its creator had libelous intent. In fact, it seems painfully obvious that this is a satire.

It's not even really an accusation, in the most literal sense of what the word "accusation" means, although it plays word games that might lead to a misunderstanding, which might be an argument for thinking this is libel.

I guess this is where the lawyers step in. Maybe Beck's lawyers will have more luck with this. If they had to do an end run around the site's owner, to try to steal the site, perhaps they didn't think they had much of a case.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:18 PM on October 9, 2009

True, the context isn't there to make my comment funny. I wasn't trying to be funny and of course I don't think that you or gay people in general are pedophiles. I was trying to demonstrate what an ugly, vicious thing this type of humor is. Maybe I missed my mark.

Glenn Beck is ugly and vicious, so maybe this meme is just his karma biting him in the ass. It just seems to me that some poking fun at a stupid thing that Bush by applying simple logic to it said is on a different planet from accusing someone, even if he is otherwise a vile asshole, of a heinous crime. I know that humor is a matter of personal taste but this humor leaves a terrible taste in my mouth.

Artw: "Don't get me wrong, because you are one of my favorite members of the community, but can you prove to me that...

Er, don't do that, either."

If by "don't do that" you mean my example of uglyness, you're probably right. If you mean don't call BP one of my favorite members, then I disagree. I like his comments a lot. I merely chose him for my example because in this particular case he and I hold opposing views. Like I said, I probably did miss my mark.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:11 PM on October 9, 2009

"poking fun at a stupid thing that Bush by applying simple logic to it said"

should be:

"poking fun at a stupid thing that Bush said by applying simple logic to it"

For someone who types a lot, I really do suck at it.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2009

I was trying to demonstrate what an ugly, vicious thing this type of humor is. Maybe I missed my mark.

But without the context that makes it absurd, it's not humor. The only context that remains is the common association that bigots make between gays and pedophiles. All that's left is the ugliness.

I think bring stringent about saying that someone should assert he is not a child-rapist-murderer is an absurd thing to say, and brings some of its own context to the table. The joke isn't even that he is not a child-rapist-murderer, but that he should deny the non-crimes.

It is this inversion of presumed-innocence — the same inversion that Beck makes his bread and butter — that is absurd. Inverting the logic and treating the inversion in a literal manner is why this is funny.

The absurdity arises from juxtaposing several notions, not least of which includes our habits of following celebrity innuendo; our justifiably strong aversion to rape and murder, made stronger where the age of the victim is a consideration; and Glenn Beck's own interview process, where he interrogates people in the very same way.

Add this all up and it becomes a satirical commentary. The undercurrent of "ugliness" in the non-accusation makes Beck's absurd behavior even funnier. It shows what ridiculous rhetoric is possible when taking his behavior to its final, logical conclusion.

The unspeakable horror of child-rape-murder is just a lever to shock the audience, much as any joke told in a comedy club invents entirely ridiculous and shocking premises, only to demolish them by adjusting the audience's perspective.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:18 PM on October 9, 2009

All that, Blazecock, plus this: Fuck Glenn Beck.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:53 PM on October 9, 2009

Get my mail yet Blazecock? I think you'll like it more.
posted by The Whelk at 9:36 PM on October 9, 2009

Blazecock Pileon: The undercurrent of "ugliness" in the non-accusation makes Beck's absurd behavior even funnier.

I don't think either of us mind that we disagree with each other. I only wanted to say that I guess the biggest trouble for me is that it's very hard to hear quotation marks over the internet, if you know what I mean; ironic ugliness just comes out ugliness in the end.
posted by koeselitz at 3:46 AM on October 10, 2009

It's libel to accuse people of things that you know they haven't done merely to make them look bad.
others have already made the satire point. I do think that freedom of speech is a pretty clear principle that does not exclude jackassery. also: jesus christ, too.

nothing to do with Metafilter and make the place a little bit crappier in the mean time.
so you're saying some lame jokes are permissible but only as long as they originated here or give us some other kind of claim to fame? a little idiotic is fine but not too much and please be relevant? huh? I don't understand what the rule exactly is because you are making one up specifically for this instance. a clear outline of what always is acceptable and what never is is something I don't have any issue with but this is way too mushy.

a little touchy in the way that Nazi jokes can be touchy and ironic racism can be touchy.I curse my postmodern liberal arts education sometimes, but there it is.

well, I too have a postmodern liberal arts education and I, too have found myself at the receiving end of uncomfortable jokes (lest we forget the guy is actually german) but that doesn't mean I would feel any less uncomfortable when someone is being kept from making a lame comment just because someone else doesn't like it. that is not good enough of a reason. these people have a right to be a jackass, just as much as I have a right not to go to their bbq or call them out as such but me preventing them from opening their mouth and spouting poppycock is not something I would ever do. that means sinking to their level.

what you are saying is that your life would be more convenient were you not reminded of issues like rape. you do have the power to keep it off the site and you use it in this case because you can and not because you must. again: this makes me uncomfortable and I object to it just as I object to the FCC and their banning of certain words just because they can.
posted by krautland at 5:40 AM on October 10, 2009

what you are saying is that your life would be more convenient were you not reminded of issues like rape. you do have the power to keep it off the site and you use it in this case because you can and not because you must. again: this makes me uncomfortable and I object to it just as I object to the FCC and their banning of certain words just because they can.

I've been pretty clear that this is not something I'm talking about as a policy thing, just a personal "this is why this feels this way to me" However, we have guidelines generally about what "don't be an asshole" means in case people don't quite have the same tone-meter as the general community.

People have the right to be jackasses in the world at large, no question. People do not, always, according to site policy and the general feeling of both the mod team and the larger community, always have the right to be jackasses on the site. There are certain proscribed types of jackassery and certain people who will defend to the death their rights to be jackasses under any circumstances. Sometimes we come to MetaTalk to hash out where the line should be in the very many grey areas this sort of setup creates.

And what we do, usually, is talk back and forth

- well this is why the constant Glenn Beck rape jokes [or whatever the particular issue is] aren't good for the community and/or make people feel bad and/or are noise and/or ________________
- well this is why people should be able to make Glenn Beck rape jokes [or whatever] are an important part of open discouse enough so that certain people's discomfort with their is overweighed by the value they have as part of the community discourse

And so we go. In the case of memes-that-won't-die, I'll give as a neutral-ish example the ZALGO stuff. People enjoy tossing them in threads, it was funny at first, less funny now and zalgo comments just seem like noise now. They were okay at one point, they're not okay now because of not just the fact that they appear like a bunch of empty boxes to people, but also because they're tiresome. If people started this way with some sort of memetic racial joke, we'd probably be the same way, in fact we've seen that with a lot of "asians talk like this" comments which used to be sort of rare, then they were everywhere and after a while we were like "can we please not do this here?"

So, everyone's got to decide where there personal line is and why they put it there. For the Glenn Beck stuff, everyone from Team Mod has said that we consider tossing those lines into unrelated threads to be noise. Doesn't add to the discussion. I just tried to add my explanation as to why, for me personally, there's an added "and yeah I don't like reading about rape in every thread, even ironic, 'I am making a political point about Glenn Beck' rape" We make certain concessions to absolute free speech in the community here by having moderators in the first place.

This is not just me blithely saying "oh yeah the world would be so much simpler for me if I didn't know that rape existed" I think for most women, the idea that such a mindset is even possible is an amusing ficiton.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:52 AM on October 10, 2009 [3 favorites]

a little idiotic is fine but not too much and please be relevant?

That's not exactly how I'd word it if we were adding it to the FAQ, but that's actually kind of on the button, yeah. I like the mild wandering idiotic humor that runs as a thread through the discursive tapestry that is metafilter, but I also like that this place isn't a great festering swamp of amplified stupidity. I like that people think past the tips of their own noses for the most part when deciding when and how much to blast the same note again and again and again in and across threads. In general this community does a pretty good job of organically moderating its own memeiness.

But every once in a while something kind of tiresome and unhealthy will prosper anyway—the endless Glenn Beck Rape stuff, the Zalgo stuff, griefy google-bomb stuff in general, there are less contemporary examples knocking around in the back of my head as well—and if it comes down to letting that stuff run wild in the name of Exceedingly Free Speech or clamping down on it and annoying some folks who don't like that, we're pretty much going to annoy those latter folks and you have my apologies. It's a compromise, but it's one we think is worth pursuing sometimes.

I don't understand what the rule exactly is because you are making one up specifically for this instance. a clear outline of what always is acceptable and what never is is something I don't have any issue with but this is way too mushy.

The rule is more of a guideline and a necessarily fuzzy one at that, because there isn't some concise and encompassing bright-line proscription available for this stuff. We generally don't want to declare stuff to be never acceptable, we never have wanted to do that, and so it remains largely a "we know it when we see it" thing that has to take place reactively (and generally speaking as the second stage of a response where the first stage is folks in the community itself saying "oh for christ's sake ENOUGH OF THAT ALREADY").
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:46 AM on October 10, 2009

Get my mail yet Blazecock? I think you'll like it more.
posted by The Whelk at 9:36 PM on October 9 [+] [!]

Holy shit, what a nice surpreeze! The Whelk mailed me a copy of his new graphic novel Scarlett Takes Manhattan! Many thanks, John — the colorful burlesque is a much needed remedy to my cloudy Seattle Saturday morn.

lolbutts!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:12 AM on October 10, 2009

See what happens when you don;t have MeMail! I actually have to use *stamps*.
posted by The Whelk at 8:33 AM on October 11, 2009

>folks in the community itself saying "oh for christ's sake ENOUGH OF THAT ALREADY"
I understand your sentiments but, as I've stated before, I don't think it's an acceptable reason to delete those comments. to me, this puts the threashold too low because at the end of the day it really is just another joke that gets less funny the more people repeat it. the big guns should be reserved for more significant cases.
posted by krautland at 2:07 PM on October 11, 2009