Simmer down now y'all

August 10, 2010 2:36 PM

Just making a home for the he-said she-said Decani debate over here

It's been pointed out that sometimes groups are criticized that happen to have MeFites as members, and that this is sometimes acceptable. However, I think there's a meaningful distinction between the following (hypothetical) exchanges.

Exchange #1 (lawyers and Republicans (usually))
--------------------------------------------------
1: [insult to set A]
2: Hey, I'm a member of set A, and I don't think you're being fair because x, y, z.
1: Sorry if I was overbroad. What I really meant was that I take issue with this particular practice, which is either advocated by a majority of set A or by its leadership, or at least goes unaddressed by the same.

Exchange #2
--------------------------------------------------
1: [insult to set A]
2: Hey, I'm a member of set A, and I don't think you're being fair, because x, y, z.
1: I don't care what you think, because you're "a retrograde force; a bad lot all round; purveyors of things that are plain dreadful for the species."

posted by thesmophoron to Etiquette/Policy at 2:36 PM (95 comments total)

It's usually polite to leave a note in the thread if you're opening a MeTa thread for the benefit of other people. I left a note there, but it looks like zarq has bowed out of the stupid fight already anyhow.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:42 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm done there. Show's over.
posted by zarq at 2:44 PM on August 10, 2010

Show's over.

So then, is this the, um, after-party?
posted by .kobayashi. at 2:53 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Did I share the peach ice cream recipe yet?
Or did I only send it to iFixit?
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:55 PM on August 10, 2010

Do we have to wait 24 hours after an argument dies to start posting recipes? Or is there going to be a wake?


I vote recipes now. Appropriate for a shiva call.
posted by zarq at 2:55 PM on August 10, 2010

Sorry jessamyn. Noted.
posted by thesmophoron at 2:55 PM on August 10, 2010

Reverse callout for hermitosis — post more in that thread! You have neat things to say!

I skittered out of that one early. I have a friend with some belief systems complex enough to dwarf quantum chromodynamics, but he's also a true blue friend, so sometimes when I find myself searching for a highly obscure bit of occult work or item as a birthday present, there's this weird moment of cognitive dissonance where I imagine my professors looking at me and sighing.

My compromise position is H.P. Lovecraft.
posted by adipocere at 2:56 PM on August 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

:-( But I was promised a fight.

Sad Mefite is sad now.
posted by nomadicink at 2:59 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Zarq: It's honestly not worth it.

I'm truly not interested in becoming a punching bag for the folks in this thread who feel they should be allowed free reign to bash those who adhere to any sort of religious faith. Nor do I intend to become the subject of some ill-conceived incendiary MeTa thread wherein people do the same.

I'm done here.

Zarq: I'm done there. Show's over.

I have no idea what you're on about. You've got nothing here OR there. I haven't bashed anyone in that thread (or anywhere else on MetaFilter, which, if you read my comment history you'd know) and I'm pretty sure I questioned YOUR bashing and then YOU declined to explain yourself. So, as better people than I have said before me, goodnight!
posted by idest at 2:59 PM on August 10, 2010

I vote recipes now. Appropriate for a shiva call.

No, no recipes now.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:59 PM on August 10, 2010 [16 favorites]

Well, sorry zarq, I'm going to just reply to your last reply to me anyway. Because I feel the need.

Please go back and read what I said again. Then you might try responding to what I actually said without manipulating my words to serve your purposes.

posted by zarq at 10:30 PM on August 10

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Let me take your advice. Let's look at precisely what you said.

It says you shouldn't focus your comments at other members of the site. That can refer to a group of us, or one of us.

Okay "focus your comments at other members" could use some clarification, since you seem unhappy with the way I chose to interpret its meaning. See, I took you to mean I shouldn't say anything directly about what any specific MeFite says. I took it in that wider sense simply because I demonstrably have not directly, personally attacked you or any other individual in that thread. Do you see how, given that fact, I might reasonably have interpreted your statement that way? And without the slightest degree of disingenuousness but rather with an assumption that the words "shouldn't", "focus", "comments", "at", "other" and "members" probably meant more or less what good dictionaries say they mean?

What confuses me is that if we take a couple of your comments in the thread (never mind many other threads: I know thread-trawling is a no-no), they do seem to be directed at specific MeFites and specific groups and I don't really understand how any of my comments have been any worse in this regard. Let me give just the examples here so that perhaps you can understand my confusion:


Directed to me, personally: "Ah, here we go. Tell me again how my superstitious Jewish beliefs are killing folks, oppressing women and fucking up my children, please. That fucking bullshit never gets old."

Directed to me, personally: ""You seem to be revealing yourself to be quite intolerant of others who are members here."

So again, if you can clarify your point a little perhaps I can do better. Or you can go away and leave me with my unfortunate misunderstandings.
posted by Decani at 3:01 PM on August 10, 2010

What's for supper?
posted by fixedgear at 3:01 PM on August 10, 2010

Or you can go away and leave me with my unfortunate misunderstandings.

I am done. Your misunderstandings will have to remain unfortunate.
posted by zarq at 3:03 PM on August 10, 2010

To be even clearer:

I have now removed both threads from my Recent Activity page. Which means I won't see them anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. There will be no more comments from me in this or that thread. Period.
posted by zarq at 3:04 PM on August 10, 2010

Or you can go away and leave me with my unfortunate misunderstandings.

I'm not sure what you and/or idest are doing here, but he's said he's done talking. The taunting is just really weird and unseemly. He's got MeMail, you can contact him if you want to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:05 PM on August 10, 2010

Sounds like Decani could use some religion and learn some forgiveness, AMIRITE?!
posted by nomadicink at 3:06 PM on August 10, 2010

I am done. Your misunderstandings will have to remain unfortunate.
posted by zarq at 11:03 PM on August 10

Ooookay, dude. I think I'm happy to let that stand as your final position on this. God speed, son.
posted by Decani at 3:07 PM on August 10, 2010

Decani: I cited the warning at the bottom of the post-box because you had specifically said: "As for being 'intolerant of other members', well, firstly, if I am, so what?"

In the hypothetical ("if...") you raised here, you have stipulated ("...I am") that your demonstrated intolerance is of other members. To the extent that you have stipulated this, rehashing whether your comments were focused on other members or not is redundant.

My point was not necessarily specifically that you have in fact focused on other members. The specific facts of the preceding case are irrelevant to my point. My point is that "so what?" as a response to being "intolerant of other members" is an attitude that is in itself violative of the guidelines.

The response to "so what?" is "so it breaks the guidelines, and is meanspirited besides." It's this "so what?" - more than anything else - that I personally took issue with.
posted by thesmophoron at 3:08 PM on August 10, 2010

I'm always a little wistful about how mean-spirited some people are when discussing something contentious. Usually it comes with the caveat of "I'm sorry, I'm just being honest", or "I'm sorry, it's what I believe", or I'm sorry, it's my experience" or "I'm sorry, but you just don't understand how I've suffered" or "I'm sorry you're taking it so personally"...but it's still just mean-spirited, small-heartedness on display. The only commonality is that it seems to affect people of all sorts and stripes alike, from skeptics and atheists to religious folk and woo-woo whatevers.

But it's so sad whenever any of us think like it's not possible to have a conversation and state our beliefs without stamping on people's toes. It is possible, though it might take a little more thought and restraint, and I believe we've seen scores of amazing examples on this site that could collectively serve as a master class.

Bring on the pie.
posted by anitanita at 3:08 PM on August 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

I'm not sure what you and/or idest are doing here, but he's said he's done talking.

Jessamyn, he's said he's done talking, yet he's still talking. Yes? You see that?
posted by Decani at 3:08 PM on August 10, 2010

Jessamyn, he's said he's done talking, yet he's still talking. Yes? You see that?

Unless your position is "not if I can help it", it's not hard to just let it alone and if he repeats himself so be it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:11 PM on August 10, 2010

I'm not sure what you and/or idest are doing here, but he's said he's done talking. The taunting is just really weird and unseemly. He's got MeMail, you can contact him if you want to.

Whoa. I am really surprised to see this. Look at my history and then explain your willingness to make assumptions. Stuff happens fast-- I didn't know the guy was gone as I made my last post.

Am I not allowed to be here? Please let me know.
posted by idest at 3:12 PM on August 10, 2010

Too little too late. I can only echo zarq. This isn't a profitable conversation for me to participate in, so I'm here only to say that and move on.

That said, I hope the rest of you enjoy yourselves and that you find something profitable to talk about here.
posted by kalessin at 3:13 PM on August 10, 2010

Also, Jessamyn, I am not "taunting" Zarq and I really resent your suggestion that I am. I am responding to his responses to me, some of which have been sarcastic, presumptious and insolent. I think I have been extremely restrained, especially in the light of comments like:

"Ah, here we go. Tell me again how my superstitious Jewish beliefs are killing folks, oppressing women and fucking up my children, please. That fucking bullshit never gets old."

That was in response to NO personal attack on Zarq whatsoever and yet I do not see you accusing Zarq of "taunting" me. I have to wonder why that is.
posted by Decani at 3:13 PM on August 10, 2010

God speed, son.

That comes across as incredibly condescending. It's probably not the thing you want to convey if you're actually interested in having a genuine exchange with someone, rather than scoring points.
posted by rtha at 3:14 PM on August 10, 2010

Unless your position is "not if I can help it", it's not hard to just let it alone and if he repeats himself so be it.
posted by cortex at 11:11 PM on August 10

Yes, cortex, but why is it that Jessamyn seems to think that I should be Gandhi here? Rather than the guy who sarcastically flamed a non-personal comment from me, and somply chose to take it personally?
posted by Decani at 3:16 PM on August 10, 2010

God speed, son.

That comes across as incredibly condescending.

It honestly wasn't intended to be. It was intended to be an "Okay, peace, out". If it came across as condescending, I apologise.
posted by Decani at 3:17 PM on August 10, 2010

We're not asking you to be Gandhi, we're asking you to cool it a little. There is a really crappy odor of spoiling for a fight here that is not great and we'd like it to stop. That's about it. If you want justice on the internet you are bound for disappointment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:18 PM on August 10, 2010

Bring on the pie.

3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759...

Crap, you meant something else, didn't you?
posted by quin at 3:18 PM on August 10, 2010 [6 favorites]

Decani: I cited the warning at the bottom of the post-box because you had specifically said: "As for being 'intolerant of other members', well, firstly, if I am, so what?"

And yet I have seen that it is, apparently, acceptable on MeFi to be intolerant of racists, Nazis, sexists and people who use the word "cunt". Is there, perhaps, a case for adding something to the FAQ which clearly delineates acceptable and unacceptable MeFi intolerance?

Excuse my sarcastic tone, but I am becoming more than a little irate at the stench of rank hypocrisy hereabouts.
posted by Decani at 3:20 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

We're not asking you to be Gandhi, we're asking you to cool it a little. There is a really crappy odor of spoiling for a fight here that is not great and we'd like it to stop.

I am not spoiling for a fight. I am refusing to let bullshit pass unchallenged. Or, at least, I have been. I see the futility of continuing, and I'm done.
posted by Decani at 3:22 PM on August 10, 2010

"Ah, here we go. Tell me again how my superstitious Jewish beliefs are killing folks, oppressing women and fucking up my children, please. That fucking bullshit never gets old."

That was in response to NO personal attack on Zarq whatsoever and yet I do not see you accusing Zarq of "taunting" me. I have to wonder why that is.

As I read it, it appeared to be a response to your calling everyone who believes in religion a fool, your broad value judgment against all religious and "new-age" beliefs as "a blight on society," and your characterization of everyone who holds religious beliefs of any kind as "individuals who choose to abuse their own intellectual integrity." Since Zarq apparently holds at least some religious beliefs, your screed was, indeed, a personal attack on Zarq. The fact that your brush was so broad as to include millions of others like Zarq doesn't really mitigate that, does it?

If someone says "all X are a blight on society and fools without intellectual integrity," can you genuinely be surprised when someone comes along and takes offense because they are X?
posted by The World Famous at 3:23 PM on August 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

Jessamyn seems to think that I should be Gandhi here?

I'd prefer that both of you walked away from it, but right now only one of you has.

Look, I'm not psyched with zarq's participation either. He knows better. I'd prefer he didn't get into these sorts of fights. However he's a long term member and knows when to walk away. I'm sorry that's not real great in terms of closure for him having made some over the top and jerkish statements, but it's what we've got.

You showed back up here after a long hiatus, hey terrific welcome back, but seem to be sort of pissed off at what you've found here and I'm not sure what to tell you. There have been a lot of MeTa discussions about things people find okay and not okay, I could point you to a few if you're interested, but I don't think I can assemble a short version. If you've got a beef with zarq, you'll have to take it up with him. If you have one with the site, you'll need to be more specific about what you need to know.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:25 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Both parties are done. Maybe we can close this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:26 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Rather than the guy who sarcastically flamed a non-personal comment from me, and somply chose to take it personally?

zarq, God bless him, chose to take on all comers in a MeTa atheist circle jerk awhile back. People, including newly minted MeFi celebrities, were absolutely vicious with him--calling him out for perpetuating genital mutilation (a bris for his sons) and otherwise being pointlessly smug and assholish. I'm surprised that anyone would stick around after that, but he did and the site is better for it. I've got no blame for him if he chooses to call out someone that is getting carried away with that same kind of sentiment that he tried to counter before and then drop it and walk away. God speed indeed.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:27 PM on August 10, 2010 [23 favorites]

And yet I have seen that it is, apparently, acceptable on MeFi to be intolerant of racists, Nazis, sexists and people who use the word "cunt". Is there, perhaps, a case for adding something to the FAQ which clearly delineates acceptable and unacceptable MeFi intolerance?

I'm pretty sure the official position is "don't be a jerk." Pretty basic.

Sexists - act like jerks. Racists - act like jerks. People who use the word "cunt" outside of the UK/Australia where apparently this is an ok thing to do and still insist on using it when told "Uh, that bugs me" - kind of jerkish. I think we can all agree that the Nazis were jerks. It's not about furthering any particular ideology, it's about not being a jerk.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:27 PM on August 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

Before we shut this down can I have a ruling? What am I, chopped liver?
posted by idest at 3:28 PM on August 10, 2010

More like minced spam, but hey, you go well with crackers.
posted by nomadicink at 3:30 PM on August 10, 2010

Decani: "Religion ... damages others [f]rom the children who get circumcised [ed: historically a specifically Jewish practice] as infants ... to the women oppressed by patriarchal, religion-derived dogma, to the ... Kool-Aid drinkers [ed: a reference to the Jonestown Massacre in which a cult leader influenced others to drink poisoned Flavor Aid, a Kool-Aid imitation]."

zarq: "Ah, here we go. Tell me again how my superstitious Jewish beliefs are killing folks, oppressing women and fucking up my children, please. That fucking bullshit never gets old."

Decani: "That was in response to NO personal attack on Zarq whatsoever and yet I do not see you accusing Zarq of "taunting" me. I have to wonder why that is."

It appears to me that zarq responded, point by point, to specific things you said. It appears to me irrefutable that poisoning people with Kool-Aid in a massacre is inextricably related to "killing folks," that circumcision is inextricably linked to (its critics ideas of) "fucking up children," and that oppressing women is inextricably linked to, well, "oppressing women." And yet you seem to be claiming that zarq's response was somehow a personal attack on you instead of a response to your post. Given the frankly remarkable parallels between what you said and zarq's response, I'm having trouble imagining that such a thing could be true.

In order to bring clarity to the discussion, I'd like to ask you the following:

(1) Is it indeed your position that zarq made a personal attack toward you?

(2) If you answered question (1) in the affirmative, what is your exact basis for believing that to be the case? In answering this question, please do not rely on the assumption that the basis is obvious.
posted by thesmophoron at 3:30 PM on August 10, 2010

I am not spoiling for a fight. I am refusing to let bullshit pass unchallenged.

Respectfully; up close, it's hard to tell the difference.
posted by quin at 3:33 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Before we shut this down can I have a ruling? What am I, chopped liver?

As I said, it seemed like you were replying to someone saying he was done with the thread by calling him names. Of course you're allowed to be here, it just seemed like an odd stance to take for someone who is so rarely around here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:37 PM on August 10, 2010

And yet I have seen that it is, apparently, acceptable on MeFi to be intolerant of racists, Nazis, sexists and people who use the word "cunt".

Oh yeah, {all religious people} is totally a comparable set to racists, Nazis, and sexists, got it.

As an agnostic skeptic, let me just say: get off my side, you're not helping and you're making my side look batshit.
posted by kmz at 3:38 PM on August 10, 2010 [13 favorites]

I am not spoiling for a fight. I am refusing to let bullshit pass unchallenged.

The world is choc full of bullshit. If you refuse to let anything you think is bullshit pass unchallenged, you're spoiling for a lifetime of fights.
posted by The World Famous at 3:40 PM on August 10, 2010 [10 favorites]

nomadicink: More like minced spam, but hey, you go well with crackers.

And if I weren't so annoyed by Jessamyn's tossing me into Decani's fray and her subsequent refusal to acknowledge my response I'd laugh at your comment.

(on preview)

Jessamyn: As I said, it seemed like you were replying to someone saying he was done with the thread by calling him names. Of course you're allowed to be here, it just seemed like an odd stance to take for somone who is so rarely around here.

Can you please show me where I called him names? I am honestly confused. And I really don't know what the frequency of my commenting history has to do with the actual content of my comments.
posted by idest at 3:44 PM on August 10, 2010

See, I took you to mean I shouldn't say anything directly about what any specific MeFite says.

I interpret the rules the same way you do. There are, I hope, no groups excluded from ridicule. Especially ridicule of their anti-factual or pro-magic BS, especially when such becomes a profit/power mechanism.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:50 PM on August 10, 2010

It's insane to me that people can turn skepticism into a dogma and not see how irrational they're being.
posted by koeselitz at 3:59 PM on August 10, 2010 [20 favorites]

Before we shut this down can I have a ruling? What am I, chopped liver?

I'm gonna go, "some kind of pâté." So yeah, chopped liver.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:00 PM on August 10, 2010

In fact, I think it's where Huffington went wrong. When she decided to allow writers to pitch ridiculous woo in their columns, the entire community lost a lot of trust value.

Scienceblog did the same thing. Completely fracked the community.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:00 PM on August 10, 2010

> In fact, I think it's where Huffington went wrong. When she decided to allow writers to pitch ridiculous woo in their columns, the entire community lost a lot of trust value.

Yes, but what they lost in community trust they gained in page views and ad ranking, which was pretty much by design.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:02 PM on August 10, 2010

Can you please show me where I called him names? I am honestly confused.

"I'm pretty sure I questioned YOUR bashing and then YOU declined to explain yourself."

Just above. I didn't mean in the original thread, sorry if that was confusing. It seemed like a refusal to acknowledge someone saying they're not going to stay to discuss something. No big deal and I guess you can mince words with whether saying someone is bashing is the same as saying someone is a basher, but that's what I was talking about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:04 PM on August 10, 2010

Guys, I said I'm done. If you want to continue snarking at me, would you be mensches and MeMail? Thanks a bundle.
posted by Decani at 4:05 PM on August 10, 2010

Wow, so zarq disabled his account?
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 4:05 PM on August 10, 2010

Fuck. Hopefully zarq is taking a break and will come back eventually. I'll really miss his voice. :(
posted by bewilderbeast at 4:07 PM on August 10, 2010

Does this mean we can't make fun of tea party bigots and furries any more?
posted by five fresh fish at 4:10 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Come back, zarq!
posted by pointystick at 4:16 PM on August 10, 2010

idest: Can you please show me where I called him names? I am honestly confused.

Jessamyn: "I'm pretty sure I questioned YOUR bashing and then YOU declined to explain yourself."

Just above. I didn't mean in the original thread, sorry if that was confusing. It seemed like a refusal to acknowledge someone saying they're not going to stay to discuss something. No big deal and I guess you can mince words with whether saying someone is bashing is the same as saying someone is a basher, but that's what I was talking about.

Sorry, but I am still confused. Where did I call him names? As I said to you, I responded before I knew he was out (and I get that it may have appeared aggressive if you didn't know my chronology), but I am not seeing any name-calling. So please help me understand. Also, please let me know why infrequent posting is relevant. One of the reasons I've broken my relative silence is that this is so patently absurd.
posted by idest at 4:17 PM on August 10, 2010

I ♥ Decani and idest! Welcome back!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:18 PM on August 10, 2010

I ♥ Decani and idest! Welcome back!

We love you too. Decani is trying tob e good, though, so he can't say so.

Drinks soon?
posted by idest at 4:20 PM on August 10, 2010

Yessssssssssss!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:22 PM on August 10, 2010

Erm, trying TO BE good. Dang.

September? I am quite sure Decani will be in NYC then. :-)
posted by idest at 4:23 PM on August 10, 2010

Hey, Decani's back!

What happened, was hell full?
posted by felix betachat at 4:26 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sorry, but I am still confused. Where did I call him names?

zarq said "I'm done here." as well as "I'm done there. Show's over." You saw that, you quoted it in your reply.

Instead of saying something like "okay, see you later," or just walking away, you went on the offensive and said he was bashing people in the MeFi thread and refusing to explain himself. One could argue that these are objective assessments. I wouldn't. If you're saying that it's not letter-of-the-law name calling then yeah it maybe isn't. However, it seemed out of kilter and aggressive and somewhat passionate for someone who isn't here much. Since Decani is your "friend met co-resident crush sweetheart" it seemed a bit tag team in that respect. Maybe I'm missing something?

I'm afraid that's all I've got and I'm sorry if it's still somehow inexplicable. I'm not sure what you're looking for from me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:27 PM on August 10, 2010

YAY DRINKS
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:37 PM on August 10, 2010

Jessamyn, I am looking for you to defend your assertion-- that I have engaged in (letter of the law) name-calling-- which you have not been able to do.

Further. I would like to understand how yo have arrived at your assumption that I don't have my own agenda outside of my "friend met co-resident crush sweetheart"'s agenda. Out of the many hundreds of posts Decani has made in the past I have NEVER weighed in on his side and I resent your implication that this one time must be as a direct result of his influence. I assure you I am more independent than that and I would appreciate it if you would act accordingly when addressing me.
posted by idest at 4:38 PM on August 10, 2010

More zarq
Less of the above

Please.
posted by ServSci at 4:39 PM on August 10, 2010 [34 favorites]

YAY DRINKS

:-) I'll memail you, baybee.
posted by idest at 4:40 PM on August 10, 2010

I just saw a TV special about a festival in Italy that celebrates The Ugly and I think this thread should line up and march in its parade!
posted by mudpuppie at 4:42 PM on August 10, 2010

More zarq
Less of the above

Please.

Quoted for truth. Because favoriting isn't enough.

Zarq has been an incredible contributor to this site. His posts are things of beauty, and he is genuinely kind and courteous. I'm really tired of -- read, royally p'o'd at -- seeing some of the comments that have been aimed at him.
posted by bearwife at 4:44 PM on August 10, 2010 [32 favorites]

I'm actually a bit glad zarq is taking a break. He needs one. That said, this and similar Metatalk threads of late might do with a bit of judicious closing. I'd agree with Alvy Ampersand's previous sentiment as to what little these types of threads seem to accomplish, other than to invoke mob rule.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:45 PM on August 10, 2010

idest, this is kind of the weird fight-feeling thing still from my end. Jess has tried to explain where she was coming from re: the "name-calling" thing; it may not have been the clearest way to express it, but I agree with her that the sort of telling-him-what-he's-doing after he's already tried to disengage thing wasn't great and felt more like chasing him down or calling him out than trying to have anything like a useful discussion.

Respectfully, I'm sorry if you're feeling burnt but it doesn't require an assertion that you are under Decani's thrall or any such thing to think that the two of you going after the same guy at the same time is kind of uncomfortable. If you want satisfaction beyond an acknowledgment that this whole thing has been bumpy on the tail-end of really not-great thread on the blue, I'm not sure there's anything to do for it.

Hopefully zarq is taking a break and will come back eventually.

He left a small note suggesting that he may be back.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:46 PM on August 10, 2010

I'm actually a bit glad zarq is taking a break. He needs one. That said, this and similar Metatalk threads of late might do with a bit of judicious closing

Agreed on both counts. I know the tendency these days is to let people grar it out until recipes ensue, but that's been backfiring with at least two pushings of the red button (that I know of) in the past couple of weeks, and more general ill will than we need to wallow in.
posted by Gator at 4:50 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Just apologize to idest already. You done wronged him.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

We're pretty much agreed on the closing thing. I think with the folks at the ostensible center of this already having bowed out this is probably pretty much done, but I didn't want to slam the door shut too suddenly.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:51 PM on August 10, 2010

I'd like to know where the community stands on woo.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:52 PM on August 10, 2010

You mean a post about the spirited debate between skeptics and the religious spawns a spirited debate between skeptics and the religious? And folks show over-sensitivity when their religious beliefs are questioned? You mean to tell me, on metafilter, a guy vigorously defends his point of view, and maybe goes a little overboard?

The fact that someone believes something really, really hard doesn't mean that someone is immune from criticism. Decani broke no guidelines. His detractors, including the mods, need to back off. Engage in the debate, or move along, even if he's hurting your feelings.
posted by MrMoonPie at 4:52 PM on August 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

I'd like to know where the community stands on woo.

If you're at a party and two sheets to the wind, go for it.

Or if your eye is turned by that special someone.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:56 PM on August 10, 2010

Decani broke no guidelines. His detractors, including the mods, need to back off. Engage in the debate, or move along, even if he's hurting your feelings.

Decani made some hilariously hyberbolic statements that I choose to interpret as high parody; I suggest everybody attempt the same.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:57 PM on August 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Or, rather, where the mods stand on it. In the blue, if someone wanders into a thread to drop a woo-based argument or explanation, how much protection does the woo-spewer get?

Given the thread, I think Decani was more right than Zarq. The fruitbats have been causing real harm — effing anti-vaxers.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:57 PM on August 10, 2010

Engage in the debate, or move along, even if he's hurting your feelings.

Yeah? You and decani and five fresh fish are intellectual midgets with the social skills of pants-shitting monkeys who are a danger to yourselves and others. I know this because I'm a rational skeptic who understands science. The previous statement wasn't scientific though.

NOW DEBATE ME IF YOU CAN SIR!
posted by Snyder at 4:58 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

> YAY DRINKS

:-) I'll memail you, baybee.

What, now that you've driven a respected contributor away you're celebrating? Have the decency to keep it to yourselves.
posted by languagehat at 5:00 PM on August 10, 2010 [11 favorites]

Given the thread, I think Decani was more right than Zarq. The fruitbats have been causing real harm — effing anti-vaxers.

I know, I saw this rabbi on the street and I was all, "Fucking Westboro Baptist."
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:00 PM on August 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

I'll 'fess to it. My only defense is that I'm a small school of goldfish.

Goldfish Crackers, that is.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:00 PM on August 10, 2010

In the blue, if someone wanders into a thread to drop a woo-based argument or explanation, how much protection does the woo-spewer get?

It is my understanding that no one gets argument or logic protection, but that everyone gets asshole protection.
posted by The World Famous at 5:01 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

cortex, I want Jessamyn to show that she means words as she uses them. So if I called zarq a name I want to see a quote explaining where I actually called zarq a name. I am not interested in side-stepping, goal-post-moving or smoke-screening. And if she can't quote my supposed wrong she should admit it and call it a day. I have not done anything wrong here.

Respectfully, I'm sorry if you're feeling burnt but it doesn't require an assertion that you are under Decani's thrall or any such thing to think that the two of you going after the same guy at the same time is kind of uncomfortable.

I really like you, cortex, but please explain to me how more than one person going after another can be "uncomfortable"/unusual on MetaFilter. .SERIOUSLY? But, seriously, can you please help me understand this?


Just apologize to idest already. You done wronged him.

Her.
posted by idest at 5:01 PM on August 10, 2010

Zarq seems to get into these MetaFilter fights all the damn time.
posted by chunking express at 5:02 PM on August 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Woo!
Woohoo!
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:02 PM on August 10, 2010

What, now that you've driven a respected contributor away you're celebrating? Have the decency to keep it to yourselves.

Are you mad?
posted by idest at 5:02 PM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

It was a genderless him. Honest. I so much do not care what sex you are.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:03 PM on August 10, 2010

It was a genderless him.

Aaaaaaaaaaand Round Two begins!
posted by felix betachat at 5:03 PM on August 10, 2010 [7 favorites]

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

I too suggest this thread closes and anyone feeling aggrieved can consult the mods via memail.
posted by Rumple at 5:04 PM on August 10, 2010

idest, I think jessamyn probably objects to you behaving like a jerk-ass. Maybe, anyway. I mean, at this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
posted by chunking express at 5:05 PM on August 10, 2010

I"d just like to say that recently I saw languagehat say "none are" rather than the correct "none is". It made me laugh like a drain. That is all.

No really! I'm not here!
posted by Decani at 5:05 PM on August 10, 2010

It was a genderless him. Honest. I so much do not care what sex you are.

Okay, then.
posted by idest at 5:06 PM on August 10, 2010

> I"d just like to say that recently I saw languagehat say "none are" rather than the correct "none is".

"Correct" does not mean what you think it does. But I'm glad to have given you a laugh.
posted by languagehat at 5:07 PM on August 10, 2010 [23 favorites]

Yeah, so the closing. I'm not sure I know what's even going on at this point but it's sure not getting any better.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:08 PM on August 10, 2010