1956
June 20, 2010 11:05 AM   Subscribe

While not disagreeing that it was esentially a stunt, I thought this post by orthogonality was rather good, with the lack of context, the reaction to the material out of context and discovery of that context being features rather than bugs.
posted by Artw to MetaFilter-Related at 11:05 AM (231 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

I'm not really asking for a reinstatement or anything, just thought it was worth some discussion. Oh, and this looks like it could do with an FPP of it's own if it's not got one.
posted by Artw at 11:05 AM on June 20, 2010


I think that there's value to the general idea of looking at this stuff in something other than an explicit historical context, but I don't think doing it this way on the front page of Metafilter on a contentious and painful topic is a good idea at all, basically. It's hard to separate the interesting-to-strip-it-of-context aspect from the essentially-fucking-with-people-by-being-misleading aspect, and that latter bit is a really poor way to go about making a front page post here on a topic like this.

A post that takes a look at some of this stuff in a less sucker-punch sort of way would, I agree, be interesting stuff, and would avoid a lot of contaminating noise from people rightfully misled by or confused about the choice of framing of the post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think a good word to describe that post would be 'provocative', in both subject matter and presentation.
posted by carsonb at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2010


I don't think it would be good if the front page filled up with context-free snippets of stuff from the past.

President says slavery is a basic right of white southerners!
US drops nuclear bomb killing tens of thousands!

It's just a way of getting people temporarily riled up, and then they'll click the link and be like "oh. yes, I knew this happened in the past. but now I'm all pissed off at being tricked and i will go talk about how this post was annoyingly deceptive in the thread".

Imagine if the Huffington Post or some other clickbait site were doing this. We would think it was stupid, no?

I mean, I take the point that it's jarring and thought-provoking to see old stuff wrapped in the present-day Time website visuals; I just think making a misleading post about it is bad.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:17 AM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


There are still assholes who believe and promote that shit, and use it as a justification to work against and dismiss gay rights. I like orthoganality a lot, and the article may be interesting from an historical perspective, (although perhaps more so to people that haven't ever been told "you're not really gay, you're just fucking delusional, and we can cure that by brainwashing you" but that pull quote without any context seems insensitively framed.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on June 20, 2010


Artw, I came over here to make almost exactly the same post. I was just a little slower than you were.

It was not delete-worthy. It was framed the way it was very deliberately, and it worked.

It was one of the better posts I've seen in the last few weeks, and I very strongly think it should be restored.
posted by Malor at 11:25 AM on June 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


I know people will be all "sorry for making you think!" but this is, yeah, a stunty post on a touchy topic by someone who regularly shows up in MeTa and who has a slightly different idea of what makes a good post yhan we do. Mystery meat posts are problematic and this is more true for posts advancing opinions (even via bad example) that I'd consider fighty.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:25 AM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Isn't this the 8 millionth deleted stunt post by Ortho? What does he do offline when he wants to waste people's time?
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not saying I believe this, but what if homosexuality is both? IE, a perfectly normal facet of human sexuality for many people; but for some other people, homosexual behavior is a symptom of some other mental health issue?
posted by gjc at 11:35 AM on June 20, 2010


There are still assholes who believe and promote that shit, and use it as a justification to work against and dismiss gay rights.

Well, yes. That's why it was a good post.
posted by Artw at 11:37 AM on June 20, 2010 [6 favorites]


Even without the "essentially-fucking-with-people-by-being-misleading aspect", the "interesting-to-strip-it-of-context aspect" really doesn't belong here. It NEEDS framing within a website specifically built for wacky but meaningful stunt-posting, and MetaFilter ain't it. I tried to build just such a site web-eons ago, and it didn't end well. (But if encouraged, I may try it again... DON'T TEMPT ME.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:38 AM on June 20, 2010


It's an interesting discovery, I wish we could have viewed the post through historical context. You could even lead with that same pull quote, but reveal at the very end it was Time magazine in 1956 saying it and still get an interesting discussion on this day of Pride.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:41 AM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's a nasty trick to play, and it does more to get hackles up than get people to objectively consider and discuss the article. However, it is a pretty incisive extant document. It wasn't from the Sword of God Weekly Newsletter exercising hate speech, it was Time Magazine. That thing you read at the dentist's office.

President says slavery is a basic right of white southerners!
US drops nuclear bomb killing tens of thousands!


No. It is really, really different than these two cases. The first would be a stretch to tie to current non-institutionalized events. The second was a wartime act, the consequences of which weren't entirely clear to anyone involved.

I'd like to see this post back up and recontextualized.
posted by griphus at 11:44 AM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Well, yes. That's why it was a good post.

Sorry, I should have realized from past experience that reading my full comment and understanding it would have been beyond you.

The lack of context is what made it a lousy post.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on June 20, 2010


Yeah, I quoted the part opf your comment which, in some ways, counters the other part of you comment, congratulations for picking up on that. Now stop taking everything so damn personally.
posted by Artw at 12:11 PM on June 20, 2010


Now stop taking everything so damn personally.

Oh, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
posted by zarq at 12:13 PM on June 20, 2010


It was framed the way it was very deliberately,

There was framing? Because all I saw was a pull-quote.
posted by rtha at 12:13 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
posted by griphus at 12:13 PM on June 20, 2010 [5 favorites]


zarq, Artw, you want to cut it out please?
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:16 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Hasn't this been done on MeFi before? With the same article? I could be thinking of MetaChat - anyway I've seen it before and yes, no context makes me wary of it as a stunt.

Further more - what in the hell do you think you're doing here? this is a closed set!
posted by The Whelk at 12:17 PM on June 20, 2010


I disliked the post immensely and orthogonality's explanation of why it was done that way. If your whole point is surprise people and that's the only point you're trying to make, then it's probably not a good point. I also found it a tad insulting to assume that people wouldn't be able to understand and appreciate what the views of homosexuality were back then.

Had it been a post with multiple links about views of homosexuality in the 1950s, that would have been really interesting and it would be much easier to understand zeitgeist of the recent past by showing a a broad overview of the subject instead of a single source. Instead the post felt like the soaring penguins of lame gimmicks to generate interest and like said penguin it flopped with a big splash and then disappeared.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:21 PM on June 20, 2010


Well, yes. That's why it was a good post.

Effective at provoking people != good, in a "what makes a good post to Metafilter" context. The two are not mutually exclusive but neither are they congruent, and long history here and elsewhere has shown that being intentionally provocative often produces really crappy results. The sometimes-heard argument that the ends justify the means—that provocation is important and upsetting people is a cost worth incurring for some specific outcome—has its place in the world but that place is not the front page of this site.

What ortho posted was effective at being provocative. So are lots of other posts that have been deleted. The rhetorical equivalent of an M. Night Shyamalan plot-twist is not an automatic This Is A Good Post guarantee; in practice, it often goes over quite badly, gets flagged, gets nixed. That he managed to make a bad post about an interesting and awful historical artifact is a shame in the sense that it means folks aren't having a discussion right now about that subject, but that's about as far as it goes and is pretty low-stakes stuff. If someone wants to try and tackle the subject matter with better presentation, fine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:24 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


wait, we have rights?
posted by found missing at 12:29 PM on June 20, 2010


Hmmm, a post on the views of Homosexuality in the 50s would have to include this article, the Matercine Society, the DSM kerfuffle, coded references, appearances on film and depictions down to bar scenes and subculture stuff like Camp Records - Gay New York would be a good index for original source material.


Like Compare and Contrast and Compare
posted by The Whelk at 12:32 PM on June 20, 2010


wait, we have rights?

Apparently not, since my response was deleted.
posted by zarq at 12:34 PM on June 20, 2010


Don't forget Gay Pulp! Especially the delightfully undercover ones.
posted by griphus at 12:35 PM on June 20, 2010


cortex, would you please explain why my response to you was deleted? What guideline did I violate, please?
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on June 20, 2010


I don't want you and Artw snapping at each other at length in this thread. I asked you both to cut it out. You didn't, I removed your follow up salvo. If you need to keep arguing with him about this, send him an email or something. I don't think I was all that unclear in the first place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:37 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm all for the deletion of that entire strand of the thread, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on June 20, 2010


group hug anyone?
posted by infini at 12:43 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't want you and Artw snapping at each other at length in this thread. I asked you both to cut it out. You didn't, I removed your follow up salvo. If you need to keep arguing with him about this, send him an email or something. I don't think I was all that unclear in the first place.

I was no longer speaking to Artw. My response was directed at you, which is why I quoted you directly. It was a further explanation of why I felt it necessary to respond to him in that manner.

If you didn't like my tone, then that's fine. But I was neither speaking to artw, nor snapping at him in any way
posted by zarq at 12:43 PM on June 20, 2010


group hug anyone?


Depends, are the fuzz around, I don't want a red light to go on and then we all have to hug appropriate opposite sex partners.
posted by The Whelk at 12:44 PM on June 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


group hug anyone?

No, thank you.
posted by zarq at 12:45 PM on June 20, 2010


My response was directed at you, which is why I quoted you directly. It was a further explanation of why I felt it necessary to respond to him in that manner.

Your response was more of that weird brewing zarq-vs-Artw thing after I asked you to cut it out. I honestly don't know what the fuck is up with this; please let it drop, or write to me if you really really need to keep having this discussion, but it seems to have nothing to do with this thread per se and I already asked you to cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:51 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


While not disagreeing with the deletion, I liked reading 1950s views in today's trappings and would be happy to see that post go back up with straightforward framing, something along the lines of:

Too often, it's hard to understand the zeitgeist of even the recent past. Want to see pathologizing of homosexuality not as a historic curiosity, but as the real conventional wisdom of its time? TIME is reprinting their old articles, in modern typeface and on the web, surrounded by current ads and links, which makes history all too real. Here, TIME asks, is homosexuality a "Curable Disease?"
posted by salvia at 1:02 PM on June 20, 2010


What *is* the deal with the a-vs-z rancor? They both seem nice enough, but together, holy moly.
posted by boo_radley at 1:08 PM on June 20, 2010


cortex, memailed. I'll drop it in thread.

boo_radley, forget about it. I can't respond to you here without having my comment deleted anyway.
posted by zarq at 1:14 PM on June 20, 2010


The rhetorical equivalent of an M. Night Shyamalan plot-twist is not an automatic This Is A Good Post guarantee;

I'm disappointed in your point of comparison cortex; I thought the post was much more subtly nuanced than an MNS plot-twist.

on the one hand I was impressed with the post as framed; otoh, I can see how it would be an enraging trigger - perhaps the mere addition of the date (1956) on the "more inside" page would have helped. For me, one of the things that made the mystery framing good was the confusion I felt as I read the TIME piece: "wow, this is awful logic." "Wow, this guy seems like an evil charlatan." and most of all, "Wow, this is one of the worst pieces of professional writing I've ever encountered, and in the pages of a highly influential national magazine."

that confusion made me start combing the page for clues - I thought at first that TIME had been hacked. At last I saw the date. Then I came back to the blue and saw it was ortho. But all of the above gave me plenty of stuff to think about.

I thought it was a good post. A heedless, stunt-y, frightening post, but then, I'm a fan of provocative.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:18 PM on June 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


Eh, so Time's server fetches up old articles and displays them in the current site template. It's not some grand recontextualizing of a sin-ridden past or anything. It's meaningless.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:28 PM on June 20, 2010


I mean, I take the point that it's jarring and thought-provoking to see old stuff wrapped in the present-day Time website visuals; I just think making a misleading post about it is bad.

Maybe I'm setting the standard too low, but I'm kind of impressed that Time is willing to take ownership of its past like that.
posted by mullacc at 1:36 PM on June 20, 2010


I'm disappointed in your point of comparison cortex; I thought the post was much more subtly nuanced than an MNS plot-twist.

I understand the idea, but I don't think the actual post we're looking at, the thing that was on the front page, was any more nuanced than that in practice. Whatever ortho's underlying intent, the effect is pretty much precisely "...but it was 1956 the whole time! Gotcha!"

Again: the article's existence as an artifact of not-too-distant social and journalistic history is not unworthy of a good post. If someone wants to give that a shot and do it up with some care, that's not really a problem. But an outdated, provocative pullquote on a hot-button topic, presented deliberately without context in order to fuck with people, is not a good post for Metafilter.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's not some grand recontextualizing of a sin-ridden past or anything.

I actually like being able to read something and think about it for myself, rather than having someone else give me a "grand recontextualizing." I agree that the date should have been clear.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:03 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I see dead posts.
posted by scody at 2:05 PM on June 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


presented deliberately without context in order to fuck with people,

appreciate your good-hearted reply to my half-assed snark about MNS, but:

is provocative always the same as "fucking with people?" Seems like the intent would make at least some of the difference.

I didn't think the plot twist was "...but it was 1956 the whole time! Gotcha!", but rather "look how stoopid this shit looks now - why didn't anybody notice how stoopid it was back then?" Is it stupid because it's outdated, or is it stupid because it's stupid?

I think that's pertinent because misguided people are always on about preserving traditions because of their traditionalness, and this post neatly makes the point that just because some authoritative asshole said some stupid shit 54 years ago in one of the most influential mass publications in the U.S. doesn't make it by any means credible.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:08 PM on June 20, 2010


I hear you were supposed to put the onion on the left side of the buckle.
posted by fleacircus at 2:11 PM on June 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


Speaking of context-free posting, what the fuck is up between Artw and zarq?
posted by koeselitz at 2:22 PM on June 20, 2010


It's Father's Day; go play with your kids.

Yeah, you should probably not saying stupid shit like that.
posted by phaedon at 2:37 PM on June 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


It's definitely not a good fpp. The worthiness of the idea as, I don't know, performance art is not really relevant.

Metafilter is wonderful for many things. One thing it's not so great for is provocative mind-blowing. I suspect most people come here to read cool stuff from the web, not to be challenged or confronted by users who are too clever to have basic sensitivity. I really hope we won't allow people to use Mefi as a forum for this sort of "gotcha" bullshit, because I think that would seriously degrade the spirit and quality of the site, which benefits immensely from having a (mostly) urbane and considered tone. That contributes to Mefi being better than 99% of the rest.

It could have been a good post and a less provocative one maybe if there were links to more articles demonstrating the same phenomenon in other areas of culture or, say, science, with a bit of context. That was not the spirit in which is was made.
posted by clockzero at 2:40 PM on June 20, 2010


The FPP as it's presented is basically a swing on News of the Weird (News of the Archaic?). Ortho's habit of posting provocative shit that could be very interesting shit if he didn't go for gotcha moments and Statements of Social Import is getting tedious and drifting into GYOFB territory.

And just to head off any accusations, my critique of this FPP is indeed totally based upon my devoutly-held and much-cherished belief that homosexuality could indeed be a curable ailment, my uncomfortableness with gay people in general, and that I'm secretly a self-hating left-leaning person. Yup.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:46 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Speaking of context-free posting, what the fuck is up between Artw and zarq?

Once the best of friends at a small mid western university, they swore to work together to rid the world of pizza cheese that scorches the roof of one's mouth. They toiled in labor for many years, inching closer and closer to their sacred goal

Then, there was the lab accident.

One day, Art accidently left the zion field chamber open. Zarq wandered in, looking for a tasty late afternoon snack. The door closed and zion generators automatically powered. There was no way to power them down, it was a fail safe you see. There were no windows, so the friends could not even say goodybe or ask forgiveness

As the generator hum grew louder and then silenced, indicating the experiment was over, the door was opened and that was left of Zarq was gooey and delicious mozzarella and cheddar blend. Lacking anything better to with it, Art and the rest of the staff made a giant pizza and partied for two days, strung out on soda, tomato sauce and thin crust pizza.

Eventually it was discovered that it was Sid, the lab intern, who had wondered into the chamber. Zarq wasn't mad about the mistake, he hadn't like Sid much anyway (no one did actually), but he was angry about Art stealing the lone staff parking spot by the office. They had agreed to trade off daily and Zarq was upset that Art had parked his car there everyday for TWO DAYS. IN A ROW.

And that, children, is how Secret Wars III began.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:49 PM on June 20, 2010 [18 favorites]


Speaking of context-free posting, what the fuck is up between Artw and zarq?

They're from opposite ends of the alphabet, what do you expect?

VOWELS REPRESENT

AND SOMETIMES Y

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:51 PM on June 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


Metafilter is wonderful for many things. One thing it's not so great for is provocative mind-blowing.

This is borne out rather well with a slight EDIT to original provocation.

. . . The full-grown MeFite ... wallows in self-pity and continually provokes hostility to ensure himself more opportunities for self pity he "collects" injustices—sometimes real, often fancied; he is full of defensive malice and flippancy, covering his depression and guilt with extreme narcissism and superciliousness....

This also applies to me more or less exactly when I haven't had my afternoon nap.
posted by philip-random at 2:55 PM on June 20, 2010


zarq, I think you need Meatbomb to give you one of his talks, where he calls you "brother" and explains how the universe is in synchronicity with the energy you are feeling, can't you feel it, yeah?
posted by mlis at 3:07 PM on June 20, 2010


Maybe I've seen one too many stunt posts over the years, but it took me all of three seconds to figure out it was some old article from back in the day and that was before I even clicked on it. I think it was a good deletion and not only for the fact that it's simply not all that clever to frame a post like that, especially given that it's been done before and reveals nothing new about the subject of homosexuality or society's attitudes to it.

Some people to this day have offensive ideas about homosexuality being "curable" so the idea that a mainstream news outlet would publish this fifty-odd years ago isn't particularly interesting, surprising or revealing.
posted by dhammond at 3:16 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I think orthogonality might be a perfect candidate for getting his own blog.
posted by crunchland at 3:22 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Good things sometimes come out of bad (what I really mean is "contentious") posts. I feel like this was a wasted opportunity. Given the stated grounds for deletion - and treating that as a reflection of the climate of MetaFilter as of late - I would think that even if the date of the article was mentioned it would still have been deleted for "pointlessly bucking for bad feelings." That is, wouldn't it be fair to say that posting an uncontextualized, 50-year old article about whether homosexuality is curable, is still too "provocative" for this community, timestamp or no timestamp? I don't think it's a stretch to say yes. In my opinion the bar for what is considered "provocative" these days is far too low.

I side with ortho's decision to offer the article without an initial sense of when it was written, and would argue that it cleverly added value to the post. And that this type of post lends itself well to some simple provocation. But apparently we aren't capable of handling it? Kind of depressing. Speaking of depressing, I feel like I make this same point in every "deleted post" MeTa thread and nothing ever changes..
posted by phaedon at 3:33 PM on June 20, 2010


Yeah ... I had crafted a second post just before the FPP was taked. I repeat it here.
Mike Wallace | CBS Reports (1967): The Homosexuals (video | 08:59].
"This much is certain. Male homosexuals in America number in the millions. And their number is growing. They are attracted mostly to the anonymity that a big city gives them. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. The permissiveness and the variety of the city draw them. The average homosexual if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested in or capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his love life, consists of a series of chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits, and even on the streets of the city. The one-night stand is a characteristic of the homosexual relationship...."
posted by ericb at 3:34 PM on June 20, 2010


I feel like I make this same point in every "deleted post" MeTa thread and nothing ever changes..

Check (✓) one:

◻You may be wrong
◻Everyone is a jerk
◻Neither
◻Both
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:42 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Just posted a new FPP linking to that article as well as others from Time.
posted by Jaltcoh at 3:43 PM on June 20, 2010


The ArtW/zarq stuff needs to go elsewhere. Sorry folks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:43 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


☑ Al Greene
posted by phaedon at 3:46 PM on June 20, 2010 [12 favorites]


The one-night stand is a characteristic of the homosexual relationship...."


...sigh, if only.
posted by The Whelk at 3:47 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Just posted a new FPP linking to that article as well as others from Time.

I think that's much better, though possibly overlong, but we'll see what people think.

And really, from a perspective of "look at these assholes" posts, that sort of stuff with the really shitty things people say used as pullquotes is just asking for a post to go badly. It makes people feel bad. We have a lot of gay members and having to read shit like "The full-grown homosexual, as Bergler sees him, wallows in self-pity and continually provokes hostility to ensure himself more opportunities for self pity he "collects" injustices—sometimes real, often fancied; he is full of defensive malice and flippancy, covering his depression and guilt with extreme narcissism and superciliousness....." is sort of crappy. It opens up the option for lulzy jokes which is a pain, and offense at lulzy jokes [or the pullquote itself] and doesn't have any other jumping off point for discussion besides

- wow that's a really offensive quote
- the "gotcha" aspect from the really offensive quote [it was from a long time ago!]

For me, someone who is interested in marriage equality and other stuff, this sort of thing makes me angry. For people who have been subjected to this sort of prejudice their whole lives, it's sort of ... I don't know I feel that it's a cheap shot, sensationalist. Maybe people who are on the receiving end of this sort of prejudice and hatred get used to it, but [for an example from my own life] I always cringe when there's some "she was asking for it" quote or joke and then people make the predictable rape jokes. Usually the jokes are because people feel that we're beyond this sort of thing, that "she was asking for it" is so removed from people's day to day lives that you can joke about the slack-jawed people who still would say it. And then people come forward and say "you know that sort of shit still happens and it sucks to read it here too"

So, I don't know. I don't think we need to automatically say "no offensive stuff please" but I do feel that putting really offensive [or graphical] pullquotes on the front page should be done sparingly, if at all, because it's often a one way path to a bad thread full of hurt feelings and finger pointing. I feel like we can do better and threads go better when they're started some different way.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:52 PM on June 20, 2010 [20 favorites]


Just posted a new FPP linking to that article as well as others from Time.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:43 PM on June 20 [+] [!]


yeah, that's a great post, just as alarming in a different way, and without the disorienting confusion of the other.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:57 PM on June 20, 2010


phaedon has the correct answer
posted by Meatbomb at 4:47 PM on June 20, 2010


Thanks for saying that so well, jessamyn.
posted by gingerbeer at 5:51 PM on June 20, 2010


Hypothetical Post topic (Same time period, additional material for a possible remix post?) Which on preview has already been made now; Canada often gets a rep as "good for Gay"... this work documents a long and dark period in Canada's social history.

Gary Kinsman and Patrizia Gentile's The Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation discusses the under-the-radar - and sometimes officially sanctioned - targeting of gays and lesbians as security threats from the 1950s to the 1990s.

"Reading this meticulously researched and well-written book is like lifting up a big rock on a beach and staring with awe and astonishment at the creatures that slither for new cover ... A powerful chronicle of the appalling campaigns of fear and lies that shattered and destroyed the lives of countless gay and lesbian Canadians in the name of national security. It names both the villains and the heroes, and is history all Canadians should be aware of."
-- Svend Robinson was New Democrat Member of Parliament for Burnaby, BC, from 1979 to 2004, and came out in 1988 as the first openly gay MP in Canada
The 554-page book (short excerpt, table of contents, and people talking about the book [PDF]) and The Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation (UBC Press) was coauthored with Patrizia Gentile, assistant professor in the Pauline Jewett Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies at Carleton University. It documents numerous accounts of the RCMP and the Canadian military using national security as a ruse to prevent “out” gays and lesbians from getting jobs in the civil service or holding any federal position requiring national-security clearance.

Considering; “So from 1958 on in Canada, basically, lesbians and gay men were constructed as being national-security risks, and therefore could be purged from our jobs, could be demoted to lower-level positions whereby we had no access to security-related information,” Kinsman said. “There were all sorts of things that went on. This affected tens of thousands of people. Thousands of people were purged. The RCMP, by ’67 and ’68, had a list of 8,000 suspected homosexuals in the Ottawa area.”

Canadians are discussing truth and reconciliation with Canadian First Nations right now, for the first time officially recognizing and making a public space to bringing the truth of the ways that language and culture were forced out of residential school survivors and victims by terrible phsysical coercive power. Making efforts to resolve how and why the mistreatments of the past... happened. One step in that process is acknowledgement by officials that a wrong has been done.
In one of the most enlightening - and most worrying - parts of the book, Kinsman and Gentile draw comparisons between the past War on Gay and the present War on Terror. Arguing that the indiscriminate targeting of Arab and Islamic-identified peoples is very similar to a non-specific fear of gays and lesbians, they show that the Cold War world is still uncomfortably close.
Ok, I like that they (TIME) are 'putting themselves out there' flaws and all... but seriously, that looks MUCH too modern in styling for my comfort level. Needs 'some' kind of marking... "Not Modern" or "Outdated Materials". I don't really see even a date very clearly on the page.

Along the way, Bergler takes a roundhouse swing at what he considers another myth— Whoa there Sir!
posted by infinite intimation at 7:43 PM on June 20, 2010


That was a fucking great post and anyone who disagrees deserves a poke with a sharp stick, not that there is anything wrong with that. Most of the great political posters here who teased your brain dropped by the wayside long ago but orthogonality remains as perhaps the best we have. If you couldn't handle the twist then you need to grow up. It was only mildly stunty, as reading this filth without the context and letting your anger build up does reinforce the contrast in the political times over the years. It worked. For those who didn't get it, or who couldn't get over their anger at the lack of context, I feel sorry for you. Five years from now which post today are you going to remember? If it isn't this one it isn't any of them.
posted by caddis at 7:49 PM on June 20, 2010 [5 favorites]


Well, I see it has been deleted. That was short sighted, and sad. This place gets a little less interesting and a little more pablum every day. :(
posted by caddis at 7:53 PM on June 20, 2010


Oh dang, the 'You're too dumb and ignorant to appreciate this steaming pile!' admonishment.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:33 PM on June 20, 2010


...and the portions aren't as big as they used to be.
posted by Abiezer at 8:41 PM on June 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


EXTRA EXTRA ARE THE CHINEE STEALING YOUR HUMOURS
posted by klangklangston at 8:44 PM on June 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


The problem I had with it is symptomatic of how I've seen ortho work generally: while most other posters take "cool stuff I found on the web" at face value most of the time, it feels like ortho begins with "here is the point I want to make with this post" and the links exist to make the argument. Exhibit A.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:22 PM on June 20, 2010


Not sure I understand what the problem with that post is. It's a biot sprawly? Still, interesting stuff.
posted by Artw at 9:28 PM on June 20, 2010


...and it looks like the initial block of text is basically the first paragraph of the study with some background links added, so I am not sure that "sprawly" even counts. I don't get it. What's your problem?
posted by Artw at 9:33 PM on June 20, 2010


read the comments, starting from here, to the end.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:39 PM on June 20, 2010


Comments don't count.

Also: and?
posted by Artw at 9:46 PM on June 20, 2010


The problem, such as it is, is that ortho thinks about making a point first, and the post content is secondary to the lesson he's trying to teach. It's not necessarily a bad thing, I just don't feel that it's somehow better in and of itself, as caddis might.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:08 PM on June 20, 2010


What is the "point" he is making that you have a problem with? I see a post about starvation and DNA methylation, and comments about starvation and DNA methylation. What is the big problem that I am missing here?
posted by Artw at 10:15 PM on June 20, 2010


Bad FPP, but man, sure underlines how shitty we are at reading the fucking article.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:27 PM on June 20, 2010


Orthogonality wanted to use the post to show how methylation was like Lamarckian evolution, with the hongerwinter as an example. In the deleted post, ortho says:

I didn't want to provide context or mention that this article was from 1956, because if I had, the experience of reading it wouldn't have been the same. I think this gives a truer sense of what, only fifty-some years ago, US attitudes about homosexuality were.

The content of the post is secondary to what ortho wants us to think about from reading it, which is not always a bad thing, but in cases like this gets a little TOO didactic for me. (Sorry Prof. Orthogonality!)
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:55 PM on June 20, 2010


Er... What? You've got that the post mentions those things, as does The wikipedia article for epigenetics FWIW, and he mentions epigenetics might superficially resemble lamarkian evolution, as does the wikipedia article on lamarkian evolution FWIW, and from that you get that it's a stealth revival of lamarkianism? There's nothing there even remotely weird or out of place. You're cracked in the head.
posted by Artw at 11:09 PM on June 20, 2010


It appears we're talking past each other, Artw. Best to let this drop, no harm, no foul.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 11:35 PM on June 20, 2010


Hey, don't worry. Go work on your crying routine - you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus.
posted by Artw at 11:49 PM on June 20, 2010


I think this gives a truer sense of what, only fifty-some years ago, US attitudes about homosexuality were.

If I wanted to get a truer sense of physical pain, I could slit myself with a kitchen knife. But I'm not about to do that, and especially would not foist it upon other people.

Please do not conflate a sense of immediacy with meaningful knowledge.
posted by polymodus at 11:53 PM on June 20, 2010


Though, one of the good things that came out of this is that everyone should now be wondering what sort of garbage ideas does TIME magazine print reflecting our own state of unenlightenment.
posted by polymodus at 11:55 PM on June 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Can't we just agree to all go fuck ourselves?
posted by fleacircus at 12:00 AM on June 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


Hey, don't worry. Go work on your crying routine - you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus.

Can we get a dramatic reenactment of this thread going? Something like The Parlor.
posted by shii at 12:03 AM on June 21, 2010


Hey, don't worry. Go work on your crying routine - you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus.

I'm done here. I think it's time to take a break.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 12:21 AM on June 21, 2010


Hey, don't worry. Go work on your crying routine - you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus.

I remember someone saying they were going to stop drinking because of the comments they made here, maybe you should look into that.
posted by dead cousin ted at 12:32 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


What are you talking about? He got it pitch perfect.
posted by Artw at 12:36 AM on June 21, 2010


This is a familiar scene ... an Englishman getting all fumble-y towards the end game. Shall we call is a tie?
posted by Back to you, Jim. at 1:30 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Artw, StrikeTheViol's point is that the omission of the publication date purposefully introduces an ambiguity - in a style that is not atypical for ortho - intended to instruct the way the reader absorbs the information in the post, that exists independently of the content being linked to. The original article is clearly timestamped; ortho's pull quote is not. Whether or not this type of "didactic" provocation adds to or diminishes the value of the resulting conversation is the underlying question being discussed in this thread.

I find this to be an interesting topic, and I don't understand where you come off starting a meta thread saying something is "worth some discussion" and then hurling personal attacks at people that don't agree with you. I mean, really, the only person working on their crying routine here is you.
posted by phaedon at 2:00 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus!
AskMe: you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
MetaTalk: what the fuck you are talking about?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:37 AM on June 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


WTF?
posted by infini at 3:26 AM on June 21, 2010


Jessamyn wept!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:00 AM on June 21, 2010


it was like a Russian doll of taglines!

inside are smaller dolls still, but they belong to other sites:

YouTube: fuck, you are talking.
Fark: fuck you.
90% of the internet: fuck!!
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:31 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Jessamyn wept!

More like Jessamyn Slept AMIRITE.

Artw, it would be nice if you could sort of cool it of your own accord here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:45 AM on June 21, 2010


Flagged it and would flag it again. It was a stunty and provocative post. Might as well start posting ambiguous racist tirades from the same era. The new post is a much better example of how to approach the material.
posted by Atreides at 7:01 AM on June 21, 2010


Artw is one of the more consistently toxic users on this site. Best to set him on ignore.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:25 AM on June 21, 2010


> Hey, don't worry. Go work on your crying routine - you can make the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about a plus.

Congratulations, you got a perfectly good MeFite to push the button. Cut another notch on your belt.
posted by languagehat at 8:11 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Congratulations, you got a perfectly good MeFite to push the button. Damn. StrikeTheViol is good peoples. I hope it really is just a break and not a forever.
posted by stoneweaver at 9:37 AM on June 21, 2010


He's back again! He's back again!
posted by Rory Marinich at 9:41 AM on June 21, 2010


He's back and we all better tread on those eggshells carefully from now on, writing in the most vanilla of vanilla. I'm personally going to start writing so inoffensively that I will make richie cunningham look like a black panther. At least thats how I feel about it, as my feelings are important, based on a very deep personal trauma/magazine article I may or may not have had many years ago for which you are all responsible.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:57 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I sense... sarcasm.
posted by Mister_A at 9:58 AM on June 21, 2010


...based on a very deep personal trauma/magazine article I may or may not have had...

You were interviewed by Larry Flynt?
posted by griphus at 10:14 AM on June 21, 2010


hunh, the grey should be renamed the grar
posted by infini at 10:15 AM on June 21, 2010


I really feel that you're attacking me here mister_a and its making me feel kinda uncomfortable, maybe you just want to drop it and like, you know, perhaps possibly maybe not post in this thread - i feel this thread has got really heated and i'm coming to the conclusion that this thread doesnt need you here stoking the flames or disagreeing with me in any way. I think what would be the best possible outcome is for you just to agree with me and go along with my helpful advice and impromptu attempt at modding the entire thread.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:18 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I really feel like you're going out of your way to encourage douchebaggery by modeling it so well, sgt. Why do you take someone's exasperation as a sign that you should do everything you can to create more of it?
posted by rtha at 10:34 AM on June 21, 2010


This is not your hugbox, sgt.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:36 AM on June 21, 2010


Lets just end the sarcasm kabuki theater and begin the non-traditional jazz dance of solidarity.
posted by The Whelk at 10:37 AM on June 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


*money-maker, shook*
posted by The Whelk at 10:37 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think what would be the best possible outcome is for you just to agree with me and go along with my helpful advice and impromptu attempt at modding the entire thread.

I can't even tell who you're making fun of but I hope you're done soon.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:14 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


id rather fight than hug today tbh if anyone wants to rock ill be behind the gym til about 5pm smoking cigs and drinking orange soda...
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:21 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Can I bum off you? Principle Boner stole my last one, you know he just doesn't want to buy his own, fuckin' fascist.
posted by The Whelk at 11:24 AM on June 21, 2010


The Whelk: “*money-maker, shook*”

Don't know if it's a jazz dance anymore, but if you need a soundtrack, please take my advice and use this.

I love that song. It's actually sort of scary.
posted by koeselitz at 11:24 AM on June 21, 2010


I just bought a new pack but it'll cost you a hug per smoke
posted by infini at 11:29 AM on June 21, 2010


I pray to God that you are smoking Newports, the only decent accompaniment to orange soda. Newport 100s are also acceptable. Anyway, pencil me in for a 4:30 ass-kicking.
posted by Mister_A at 11:33 AM on June 21, 2010


I'll owe you a hug. An I O. H. *takes cig, puffs* I'm not even going to go to Chem today.
posted by The Whelk at 11:36 AM on June 21, 2010


I bunked Math again
posted by infini at 11:37 AM on June 21, 2010


Serioiusly? Math gets around.
posted by The Whelk at 11:38 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Newport smoke exhalation smells like someone shoved menthol oil up a diarrhetic goat's arse.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:46 AM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you've got something better than share.
posted by The Whelk at 11:48 AM on June 21, 2010


Djarum, man. Too bad they were recently outlawed.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2010


The Newports make that orange soda go down smoooove.
posted by Mister_A at 11:52 AM on June 21, 2010


Dudes I don't think these guys are gonna fight. Let's pants cortex!
posted by Mister_A at 11:54 AM on June 21, 2010


Djarum got banned? owee

I said bunked (played hooky in americanese) not bonked you silly shellfish
posted by infini at 11:55 AM on June 21, 2010


id rather fight than hug today tbh if anyone wants to rock ill be behind the gym til about 5pm smoking cigs and drinking orange soda...

*drives up in ttop camaro, kicks led zeppelin cassette into stereo and jumps out of car in one deft motion* let's do this homeslice
posted by threetoed at 11:55 AM on June 21, 2010


Do you mean take off his pants or forcibly put pants on him?
posted by Burhanistan at 11:55 AM on June 21, 2010


I just smoked my last kretek yesterday and felt sad
posted by infini at 11:56 AM on June 21, 2010


this sucks i skipped shop and nobody wants to fight me?
ive got a knife
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:56 AM on June 21, 2010


I'm not sure, whatever seems most humiliating will do.
posted by Mister_A at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2010


we have a soundtrack for smoking behind the boys toilets ? why didn't they have this 26 years ago when I used meet Dicky there?
posted by infini at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2010


*uses Potomac Avenue's knife to slice his pants*

*giggles*
posted by infini at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2010


oh shit i dunno if i can fight this dude he's only got three toes
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2010


Most humiliating? Raver pants. We give him raver pants and then we pull them off. It will perfect.
posted by The Whelk at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2010


*uses knife to slick back pompadour*
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2010


fists only then
posted by threetoed at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2010


whatever greaser-goth. What do you do listen to only the sad Elvis songs? *drag, puff*
posted by The Whelk at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2010


*sits back to watch, is a girl*

*blows smoke ring*

*sends another through the first*
posted by infini at 12:01 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


DAmn where'd you learn how to do that? Wanna go out with me? Look I can dislocate my scapula.
posted by Mister_A at 12:04 PM on June 21, 2010


i learned my fighting style from this guy. don't mess with me!!!
posted by threetoed at 12:05 PM on June 21, 2010


*softy in the distance, Kim Wilde plays*
posted by The Whelk at 12:08 PM on June 21, 2010


This reminds me of the dude who thought he was awesome at arguing because people he argued with were always "pushing the ejector seat button" or whatever, which instead should have clued him into the fact that he sorta sucked at it.

So likewise is being able to spot and categorize a "pitch perfect crying routine" (whatever that is), or other mocking, detailed characterizations of how someone acts when they've been treated like shit. So, uh, you see this a lot, do you?

(Also reminds me of a boss I had with a grating, obnoxious personality that inspired his underlings to give direct, short answers and do as much work as possible without having to interact with him—because it was just that painful. He thought he was a great manager, and if he noticed all the wincing and uncomfortable silences that existed around him, I bet he didn't think it was his fault at all.)
posted by fleacircus at 12:15 PM on June 21, 2010


DAmn where'd you learn how to do that?

behind the boy's toilets in engineering college from Dicky (among other things)

dislocated scapula hunh?

*ponders Mr_A thoughtfully*
posted by infini at 12:17 PM on June 21, 2010


first we gotta find someone to tie our wrist together photogenically

then the snapping begins
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:29 PM on June 21, 2010


I have the heart of a Shark, but the soul of a Jet.
posted by Mister_A at 12:34 PM on June 21, 2010


Since this post is at least superficially about gay stuff and since I have nowhere else to say it, can I just add:

Ilene Chaiken is the fucking Walt Disney of lesbians and she needs very much to go the fuck away.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2010


i dont know if i could fight a girl but ill give it a shot if you want
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:37 PM on June 21, 2010


You just want us to tie you to a lesbian, Potomac Avenue.
posted by Mister_A at 12:42 PM on June 21, 2010


(they got fingernails)
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:42 PM on June 21, 2010


i dont know what she looks like so i was imagining fighting Minnie Mouse tbh
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2010


I'm not saying it.
posted by The Whelk at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2010


I'm a lover not a fighter
posted by infini at 12:48 PM on June 21, 2010


I'm a rocker not a mocker.
posted by The Whelk at 12:49 PM on June 21, 2010


You're a cocker not a blocker.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:53 PM on June 21, 2010


I can drop a rhyme at

any appointed hour.
posted by Mister_A at 1:55 PM on June 21, 2010


So no one is fighting, we're just ...listening to music and stuff.

Oh hey Ubi brought the good stuff. Sweet. Ive got half a 12-pack of Miller High Life and a clearing in the scrub woods if anyone is interested.
posted by The Whelk at 2:01 PM on June 21, 2010


They banned Djarum? What the fuck, America?

How about Sampoerna? Dji Sam Soe? Gudang Garam?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:01 PM on June 21, 2010


and a half bottle of Laphroig, lets go
posted by infini at 2:09 PM on June 21, 2010


Cool., wait lemme get my mix tapes!
posted by The Whelk at 2:11 PM on June 21, 2010


I can't even tell who you're making fun of but I hope you're done soon.
posted by jessamyn at 7:14 PM on June 21 [1 favorite +] [!]


likewise.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:51 PM on June 21, 2010


> likewise.

Does that mean you're hoping to get banhammered?
posted by Burhanistan at 2:54 PM on June 21, 2010


I agree with caddis: it's not a great deletion. Personally, it seems like this is triggered at least somewhat by animosity towards orthogonality, who is one of the site's more interesting users. Disappointing, but what can you do.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:48 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Jesus, was there a mass pissing-in-cornflakes event today?
posted by desuetude at 5:36 PM on June 21, 2010


I HATE the new Batman villains.
posted by The Whelk at 5:46 PM on June 21, 2010


Well, let it be on your conscience then, if they show up dead of ODs in hotel rooms.

Life's tough at the top too, you know.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:59 PM on June 21, 2010


Personally, I'd be disappointed in my seem-o-meter, my at least machine, and my somewhaterator for being so wishy-washy about my personal business.
posted by carsonb at 7:14 PM on June 21, 2010


this site used to be deep enough for the likes of orthogonality, but now ........
posted by caddis at 8:31 PM on June 21, 2010


wtf there was dancing and smoking and rhyming and then everybody went back on topic again?
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:42 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


"Can I bum off you? Principle Boner stole my last one, you know he just doesn't want to buy his own, fuckin' fascist."

This is more likely remembered than true, but the rumor when they banned smoking in my high school, including getting rid of the smoking lounge, was that it was because the principle, Dean Bob, was quitting smoking.

(Dean Bob was his title and first name, not his full name.)
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 PM on June 21, 2010




wtf there was dancing and smoking and rhyming and then everybody went back on topic again?




I know my god right
posted by The Whelk at 9:29 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


this site used to be deep enough for the likes of orthogonality, but now ........

On behalf of the entire community, for whom I am eminently qualified to speak for, I apologize greatly for this failure and any and all future disappointments.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 PM on June 21, 2010


#138
I daresay whatever you want is around here somewhere.
posted by flabdablet at 5:22 AM on June 22, 2010


wtf there was dancing and smoking and rhyming and then everybody went back on topic again?

they saw us and chased us away from behind the boy's loo
posted by infini at 5:40 AM on June 22, 2010


> this site used to be deep enough for the likes of orthogonality, but now ........

But now there are too many ellipses. Really, though, just trying to be subversive or edgy for its own sake is rather boorish and adolescent. Put the information out there and trust the reader to draw their own conclusions. But don't pretend that awkward framing of material passes for any kind of deep analysis or teachable moments. In can, but in most cases it's just annoying.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:24 AM on June 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Really, though, just trying to be subversive or edgy for its own sake is rather boorish and adolescent.

Too bad that isn't what happened here.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:24 AM on June 22, 2010


Too bad that isn't what happened here.

Well yeah it's a quandary. I think the good news is that someone posted the same information in a post that seemed to piss people off less meaning the community got a chance to discuss it. It's possible that orthogonality is too subtle or too sophisticated for this audience, or maybe he's just a crank. What does seem clear is that people aren't really sure what was going on in his post, or thought they knew and didn't like it, and it made a lot of people say "Huh, that isn't a good post for MetaFilter" which we agreed with for the reasons we stated above.

I often feel that part of the problem with this sort of thing is that if you know someone in person, really know what they're up to, how they spend their days, what their nuanced feelings are on a number of difficult social issues, you may give them some leeway one way or the other when they make posts that people consider edgy or borderline. I've always thought that orthogonality's heart is often in the right place but the way he expresses himself on MetaFilter sometimes makes him seem angry or bitter or confrontational in a way that people react to. He's been here long enough and spent enough time in MetaTalk that this should not be surprising to him or to anyone reading yet another MeTa post with orthogonality at the center of it.

What he decides to do with this information is up to him. It's not banworthy, but sometimes it does seem envelope-pushing to me. Some people like that sort of thing and feel that it's important and others dislike it, so we discuss and debate the edges.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:32 AM on June 22, 2010


> Too bad that isn't what happened here.

Expound on "what happened" then with out using vagueness.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2010


Please no! There's been enough pointless lobbing of slimy discontent in this thread.
posted by carsonb at 11:40 AM on June 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL PEOPLE. ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL.

(I found a delightful site which tells you the cost of a pint of larger in any country in the world and is largely filled with angry brits moaning about how expensive beer is abroad and how terrible it all is and why do they even bother, fuckin' tossers. )
posted by The Whelk at 11:44 AM on June 22, 2010


I believe you mean ROCK ROCK ROCK ROCK ROCK AND ROLL HIIIIGH SCHOOOOOOL
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:08 PM on June 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Larger pints? How does this work, then? Don't get me wrong -- I'm in -- but I'm curious.
posted by heyho at 12:16 PM on June 22, 2010


Can we smoke while drinking larger beer?
posted by infini at 12:19 PM on June 22, 2010


http://www.pintprice.com/
posted by The Whelk at 12:25 PM on June 22, 2010


Larger is like IPO and vise beer.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:29 PM on June 22, 2010


The Chicago Cabal* wants nothing to do with your larger beers.
*TINCC
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:31 PM on June 22, 2010


Expound on "what happened" then with out using vagueness.

Vagueness, I suppose, would be like calling orthogonality boorish and adolescent, without actually, you know, having the courage to do it directly. Slimy discontent, indeed.

As for "what happened", he already explained his motivations quite lucidly, which very neatly disprove any childish accusations of boorishness and adolescence.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:34 PM on June 22, 2010


Look, people I've told you I drinks a whisky drink, I drinks a vodka drink, I drinks a lager drink
and I drinks a cider drink
posted by The Whelk at 12:34 PM on June 22, 2010


> Vagueness, I suppose, would be like calling orthogonality boorish and adolescent, without actually, you know, having the courage to do it

Good on you for escalating like that, BP. But, you know, I was actually calling caddis' slant boorish and adolescent.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:43 PM on June 22, 2010


Does you sing the songs what reminds you of a better time?
posted by subbes at 2:02 PM on June 22, 2010


Larger beer.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:03 PM on June 22, 2010


I GET KNOCKED DOWN
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:04 PM on June 22, 2010


oh god cortex why
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:07 PM on June 22, 2010


BALLS TO THE WALL

Am I doin' this right?
posted by Mister_A at 2:08 PM on June 22, 2010


I clicked through to cortex's link, heard the sound, hit back when the browser? or website? asked me "are you sure you want to go back, music is playing?"

yes, i'm sure, that's the reason why

but when did we start getting these paperclip dialog boxes?
posted by infini at 2:10 PM on June 22, 2010


Pilsner Trail
posted by Burhanistan at 2:12 PM on June 22, 2010


oh god cortex why

It's the Beetlejuice principle: repeatedly referencing something that I have recorded a song about will make a link to that recording appear.

but when did we start getting these paperclip dialog boxes?

It's a Music-specific feature we implemented after folks asked for it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:13 PM on June 22, 2010


ah, thanks, the time traveling pony
posted by infini at 2:15 PM on June 22, 2010


I hated that dialog box just now...
posted by Mister_A at 2:21 PM on June 22, 2010



It's the Beetlejuice principle: repeatedly referencing something that I have recorded a song about will make a link to that recording appear.


JOURNEY JOURNEY JOURNEY!

Oh god sandworms.
posted by The Whelk at 5:03 PM on June 22, 2010


I still think this is ...one of the best things you've done and I need an excuse to link to it.


I have USED THIS during shows and I always get at least two people all cock-eyed at me saying "Who the FUCK was that?"
posted by The Whelk at 5:05 PM on June 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'd put in a vote for it not being deleted but perhaps this place has become a little to Star Wars, the redone edition.
posted by juiceCake at 6:05 PM on June 22, 2010


Larger pints? How does this work, then? Don't get me wrong -- I'm in -- but I'm curious.

Contrary to a mnemonic I'm led to believe is taught in US schools, a pint isn't a pound the world around. In fact this is only true in the US, and then only approximately. In the rest of the world, a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter.

Who's for a larger lager?
posted by flabdablet at 6:37 PM on June 22, 2010


a mark a yen or a buck or a pound
posted by The Whelk at 6:40 PM on June 22, 2010


Pints and pounds? Eh? I had no idea it was measured by weight. In fact, I have no idea what I thought before reading that, flabdablet. I think I just thought a "pint" is what fits into a pint glass at the pub. There. I've outed myself. Just in time for Pride.
posted by heyho at 7:16 PM on June 22, 2010


STFU flabdablet, or we'll have to start serving the Americans proper-sized drinks, like Melbourne pints.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:19 PM on June 22, 2010


"but when did we start getting these paperclip dialog boxes?"

It looks like you're making a rondeau! Would you like help?
posted by klangklangston at 10:07 PM on June 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


I stabbed that little helper assistant, but there was heavy collateral damage to the monitor.
posted by Mister_A at 6:02 AM on June 23, 2010


whoa, whole sections of the site are going blank for me, this happening to anyone else?
posted by The Whelk at 6:23 AM on June 23, 2010


Like quoted text in Klang's comment is just gone, but the quotation marks are still there.
posted by The Whelk at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2010


In the rest of the world, a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter.

A pint is an eighth of a gallon (whether the gallon is imperial or US.)
posted by desuetude at 6:44 AM on June 23, 2010


A pint of water weighs a pound, and is equal to 0.001984 hhd (US hogsheads). Assuming the volume of Uranus is 2.796x10^23 hhd, how many Scotsmen could get loaded by drinking Uranus if it was made out of beer (which it probably is)?
posted by Mister_A at 7:46 AM on June 23, 2010


BP emulates BP.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:06 AM on June 23, 2010


Hey, keep Uranus out of this conversation for once, Mister_A.
posted by heyho at 8:58 AM on June 23, 2010


whoa, whole sections of the site are going blank for me, this happening to anyone else?

No more breakfast absinthe for you, boyo.
posted by rtha at 9:03 AM on June 23, 2010


It's like a bidet made from the tongues of a thousand kittens.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:00 AM on June 23, 2010


whoa, whole sections of the site are going blank for me, this happening to anyone else?

No more breakfast absinthe for you, boyo.
"'Look,' whispered Chuck, and George lifted his eyes to heaven. (There is always a last time for everything.)

Overhead, without any fuss, the sites were going out."
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on June 23, 2010


> It's like a bidet made from the tongues of a thousand kittens.

Wait, you mean the basin and fittings are made from kitten tongues? Are they lacquered in place around a frame or something? Or are thousands of kittens lining up to do the washing?
posted by Burhanistan at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2010


They're quite adorable in their little kilts if that's what you're asking.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2010


Hey, glad you're here ahfU. Is Uranus made out of beer, or some more elemental substance, like maybe mead?
posted by Mister_A at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2010


Mead back in the day, but converted to gaseous dandelion wine sometime in the 50s. And, goes without saying, cream corn from the socket.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 11:23 AM on June 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have been watching the posts here at mefi over the last week or so. meh. No dis to the posters, the internets have been a big meh this week. There was one cool post though, but the proles shot it down. Very sad.
posted by caddis at 8:05 PM on June 25, 2010


We heard you twice the first time.
posted by rtha at 10:26 PM on June 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


"proles?"
posted by crunchland at 11:27 PM on June 25, 2010


GET THOSE PROLES OFF MY LAWN
posted by carsonb at 11:44 PM on June 25, 2010


I escaped the pink prole effect!

But seriously, caddis. You're a boor. Take that pseudo-edginess and have a nice day.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:27 AM on June 26, 2010


Proletariwhat?
posted by Abiezer at 2:07 AM on June 26, 2010


GET THOSE PROLES OFF MY LAWN

And give them nail files, soon.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:31 AM on June 26, 2010


I have been watching the posts here at mefi over the last week or so. meh. No dis to the posters, the internets have been a big meh this week.

Not everyone can shit solid gold like you, caddis. If the proles are letting you down so badly, why don't you piss off? You're a joke.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:25 AM on June 26, 2010


Hey, caddis! How you doin'? Can I take you out to dinner?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:24 AM on June 30, 2010


« Older Under the flickering torchligh...  |  Sweet jesus, this is some depr... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments