Nobody to blame but myself... July 29, 2011 8:58 AM   Subscribe

If a link has been posted and deleted, am I right to assume that reposting the link, even as a sub-link in a post leading on another link about the same thing, is a bad idea?

Having not seen it on MetaFilter, I just wrote a post on the Powersgaming LAN party controversy, which I thought had brought up some interesting questions about intersectionality, in particular, in the discussions around it. When previewing, it turns out that there was a post about it, which contained two links and nothing else, and restless_nomad had deleted it, on the grounds that it was "Look at these assholes" material - with a dash of LOLTexas, to boot.

So, I'm guessing that what I should do at this point is crumple my post up and bounce it into the waste paper basket. Is that right? If a link is already on MetaFilter, one shouldn't post a double, either even if or possibly especially because the first one was deleted?
posted by running order squabble fest to Etiquette/Policy at 8:58 AM (67 comments total)

So, you're saying that your post is better than "look at these assholes" material? If not, then I think r_n's already given you your answer . . .
posted by Think_Long at 9:00 AM on July 29, 2011


There's no pat answer for this; if a post got nixed because the link in it was not really good post material, then, yeah, turning around and re-upping that link may be a non-starter, but if a post got nixed for bad framing or some other context-specific problem it may be totally doable to make a new, more solid post that incorporates some of the same material.

We've had situations where a deleted post was done over in a way that works fine; we've had situations where someone basically just reposted a deleted post and we deleted it again because it just went from being butt to being butt warmed over.

In this specific case, it'd depend a lot on your post. If it's a substantial look at what went down with the LAN thing, or something that puts it into more context than just "hey this shitty thing happened", it's probably fine. If you want an opinion on it, feel free to drop me a draft via email and I can take a quick look.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:03 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


butt lol
posted by Melismata at 9:04 AM on July 29, 2011 [5 favorites]


I understnad the impetus behind these posts. There are a lot of interesting topics that get brought up by these weird conflicts. That said, I think people post threads about them with the best of intentions but with a failure to consider that, through a different lens, a post can look like it's just making fun of people, taunting people, calling people assholes or the like. And, this is my personal bias but I feel that Gawker-type links as starters fo rthat sort of thing aren't so great because they seem specifically designed to fan flames and portray conflicts in the worst way possible instead of trying to untangle and understand a problem. They encourage people to see the world as a war of obviously good versus obviously evil and get a good het up cheering squad in their comments. So, I think MeFi can do better, and often does.

That said if all you want to do is continue the "these guys are a bucnh of fucking idiots amirite?" train from that Kotaku post, I'd suggest that you not bother.

This doesn't speak to the general issue of whether a link which has only appeared in a deleted thread is somehow banned form appearing again, it's certainly not. But there's a decent chance that whatever got the post deleted has to do with what's in the link and that won't usually be solved by another post about it.

Put yet another way, if you think

- this is cool, people would like to know about it

that's a much better starting point for a post than

- this is important, people should know about it

That's often starting from an agenda-driven position [even if the agenda is "women should totally be able to game however they want to and this is sort of bullshit"] and often a bad starting point for a reasonable discussion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:05 AM on July 29, 2011 [5 favorites]


Yeah, that's what I'm going to see every time now.
posted by maryr at 9:06 AM on July 29, 2011


OOO butt joke event horizon OOO
posted by Horselover Phattie at 9:06 AM on July 29, 2011


Thanks, cortex, Jessamyn - it's certainly longer - but as Think Long astutely observed, that might just mean it is "look at these assholes _at great length". I was interested in the discussions of intersectionality that broke out around it, also - that a lot of people said "what if they'd banned black people/Jewish people/gay people', and that led to a discussion about whether that's a useful way to look at minorities in gaming (and, in particular, if it invisibilizes, or further invisibilizes, gay or female gamers of color).

I'm genuinely not sure whether the response would be "look at these assholes" - the recent threads on SkepChick and Slutwalk have been eye-openers in re: viewpoints I'd assumed were unanimous on MetaFilter.

I'll send it over by the comment form - and possibly register at blogspot.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:18 AM on July 29, 2011


that a lot of people said "what if they'd banned black people/Jewish people/gay people', and that led to a discussion about whether that's a useful way to look at minorities in gaming (and, in particular, if it invisibilizes, or further invisibilizes, gay or female gamers of color).

Again, I think that's a fairly sophisticated idea and something I'd like to talk about with a group of friends, but I don't know if it's one I'd try to have with several thousand people from a lot of different backgrounds. Dealing with cultural marginalization and cultural practices around certain things is tricky to explain and usually I've seen the conversations break down where people two-dimensionalize the "other" sides of these issues and just gleefully pile-on the people who were making a misguided attempt at solving a community problem.

viewpoints I'd assumed were unanimous on MetaFilter.

Do not ever assume there are unanimous viewpoints here, and do not make posts that rely on there being some sort of homogenous group agreement on who the bad and good guys are. There are a lot of female gamers here, I do know that, and it might be nice to have some sort of a thread talking about the issues they face, but again, it's pretty much an issue-oriented post and these tend to go badly if not made carefully here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:34 AM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


My new bumper-sticker:

YOUR POST IS BUTT
posted by The Deej at 9:35 AM on July 29, 2011


Do not ever assume there are unanimous viewpoints here, and do not make posts that rely on there being some sort of homogenous group agreement on who the bad and good guys are.

Indeed. As I said, the recent threads on SkepChick and Slutwalk have been eye-openers in re: viewpoints I'd assumed were unanimous on MetaFilter.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:48 AM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


Oops - curse you, tiny keyboard! But yeah, actually, this is never going to work, is it? Thanks for your advice. I feel a bit silly for sending it, now. Feel free not to read it, cortex, but thanks for the offer.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:50 AM on July 29, 2011


so do girls ruin everything, or don't they?
posted by philip-random at 10:00 AM on July 29, 2011


so do girls ruin everything, or don't they?

That's my Jessamyn you're talking about there.
posted by Meta Filter at 10:20 AM on July 29, 2011


My recollection of the last girls-are-gamers-too thread that I read/participated in was that it did not go particularly well, per say.
posted by maryr at 10:20 AM on July 29, 2011


Waitwaitwait -- when did restless_nomad become a mod? I'm not complaining. Just curious.
posted by davejay at 10:29 AM on July 29, 2011


davejay: "Waitwaitwait -- when did restless_nomad become a mod? I'm not complaining. Just curious."

April.
posted by zarq at 10:30 AM on July 29, 2011


Also, I find myself wanting to host an all-girl LAN party. It will help my daughter find good role models.

there's probably a LARPing joke in there somewhere, but I wasn't aiming for that
posted by davejay at 10:31 AM on July 29, 2011


Thanks, Zarq!
posted by davejay at 10:33 AM on July 29, 2011


No problemo.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on July 29, 2011


because it just went from being butt to being butt warmed over

If you want an opinion on it, feel free to drop me a draft via email and I can take a quick look.

Cortex is offering to take a look at your butt.
posted by kingbenny at 11:20 AM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


Butt "draft" lol
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:22 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, this butt thing... is that going to bum out by itself?
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:27 AM on July 29, 2011


"Do not ever assume there are unanimous viewpoints here, and do not make posts that rely on there being some sort of homogenous group agreement on who the bad and good guys are. There are a lot of female gamers here, I do know that, and it might be nice to have some sort of a thread talking about the issues they face, but again, it's pretty much an issue-oriented post and these tend to go badly if not made carefully here."

Yeah, it's felt like a lot of the progress that happened in the EPIX SEXIZM THREDS has been washed away by a return to a lot of the same Feminism 101 and general privilege-denying-dude behavior, mostly from new users but a handful of returning axe-grinders too. I've been on vacation recently, and it's weird how you can kind of see the weird anti-empathetic thing happening where threads go off the rails better sometimes when you're not really participating in them, but then it feels like a lot of folks who used to hold the line about calling out the moronic bullshit have just gotten sick of it and given up, so more glib inanity is getting past without the verbal headslap that cut down on it.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on July 29, 2011 [11 favorites]


It's just been disappointing me a lot lately, and I feel kind of burnt out about it. I've definitely gotten a lot of memails to that effect from other members too.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter: NOT Butt Warmed Over
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:54 AM on July 29, 2011


What's the policy in the case where posts are deleted by poster's request? There was a great post a while ago about a woman swimming with whales that I was sad to see go with poster's request as the reason that's I've been considering redoing by incorporating the links that were added in the comments.
posted by Mitheral at 12:03 PM on July 29, 2011


What's the policy in the case where posts are deleted by poster's request?

Unless they asked for it to be deleted because it was a trainwreck of some sort, it's usually fine to repost.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, and really it's such an infrequent occurrence that we don't really have any sort of firm policy for that specific circumstance.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:31 PM on July 29, 2011


And I found something that was really beautiful and cheering and good about video games, and posted that instead, so it's a happy ending all round.

But, wandering off the point...

Yeah, it's felt like a lot of the progress that happened in the EPIX SEXIZM THREDS has been washed away by a return to a lot of the same Feminism 101 and general privilege-denying-dude behavior, mostly from new users but a handful of returning axe-grinders too.

I thought the Skepchick discussions were interesting - and a bit disheartening, because it kind of got to the point where people who were demanding to be listened to couldn't or wouldn't listen to what others were saying, and instead picked up on a few words and just kind of whooshed back whatever thought or emotion those words inspired. And some of those were pretty dark.

I did check myself a bit, thinking about how one might frame a post about a LAN party organizer excluding women from their LAN parties to prevent misogynist abuse (where they are probably caught between fear of the negative publicity among their core - and pretty small - LAN-partying target audience if they started throwing people out, along with the drop in peer approval, and the negative publicity of not letting women into the party, and plumped for what they perceived as the lesser of two evils in the most hideously inept way imaginable). Specifically, I checked myself when I thought back to the latest Slutwalk thread, which was sort of torpedoed from the start by one or two people (who it turned out had no interest in participating in the discussion itself).

Which is difficult, because if the lesson there is "don't post anything that risks causing man-rage", it shuts down a bunch of possible discussions, and it makes it necessary to consider disproportionately the feelings of a fairly small number of members who are nonetheless able to doomsday weapon threads, or at least try to. Or, as Klangklangston says, above, resign oneself to going into the lists again and again. I guess it's like the way you shouldn't participate in a thread about Apple/Google/Microsoft/Nokia unless you are OK with at some point being called either a fanboy or a neckbeard - except with potentially much higher stakes, because AFAIK nobody has PTSD from buying a Zune.

Either way, something I hadn't thought about is that along with the difficulties of the subject matter, Friday lunchtime would be a lousy time to post anything with even a small risk of going horribly wrong.

Bit of a ramble, there, but I found klang's longer view interesting, and it made me think of a few tangentially relevant things. Thanks for all the guidance!
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:21 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


I guess it's like the way you shouldn't participate in a thread about Apple/Google/Microsoft/Nokia unless you are OK with at some point being called either a fanboy or a neckbeard

I would imagine that these threads often feel that way for a lot of men, too - if you're not OK with being called out by 60 people as an ignorant sexist for even the most innocent misstatement, stay out. How would everyone feel if all kinds of threads had this "don't make me explain X 101 to you again, you contemptible fool" bar to entry? I'd hate to wander into a thread about economics and be told to shut up because "we're NOT about to go through economics 101 with you, OK? Jesus, it's the 21st century, get educated already." I think this attitude is out of place in any MeFi thread. If you don't want to explain things that you think are self-evident, no one is forcing you to comment.

I have to say, I really find it amazing that you would think MeFi would be unanimous about any issue, much less feminism. There is disagreement even within the feminist community about lots of this stuff. Not all feminists agreed that SkepChick was in the right (the whole fight started because another feminist criticized her handling of the issue), and not all feminists agree that SlutWalks are a great strategy to combat rape culture. Since there isn't even agreement among feminists, I find the insistence on ideological purity in these threads to be pretty tiresome and axe-grindy. Not that some dudes don't say some things in those threads that disturb me! But I'd still rather have an open dialogue, and MeFi is never going to be a safe space for anyone. I think a lot of the hurt feelings happen because people don't have realistic expectations of the community. MeFi is a public forum, not a feminist reading circle.
posted by dialetheia at 2:25 PM on July 29, 2011 [16 favorites]


There was a great post a while ago about a woman swimming with whales that I was sad to see go with poster's request as the reason that's I've been considering redoing by incorporating the links that were added in the comments.

Yeah, that was my post. It would be cool if you could find some links on the diver, she sounds interesting. I put the captivity below the fold 'cause I didn't want that to be focus and figured naked diver wouldn't be an issue, but SURPRISE. I don't know if it would have been better to not mention the nakedness or not. Probably wouldn't have mattered, you'd still get immature BS.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:28 PM on July 29, 2011


dialetheia: I have to say, I really find it amazing that you would think MeFi would be unanimous about any issue, much less feminism.

I said "assume", not think - quite a useful distinction. One assumes, and then one establishes whether that assumption is correct. But I didn't specify the set of things that I assumed MetaFilter would be unanimous about - you've assumed on my behalf, and assumed incorrectly.

To provide an actual example: I thought MetaFilter would be unanimous in its stated belief that women were not to blame for being raped, if only through simple peer npormalization. I was surprised when that turned out not to be the case.

So, you know, the rest of your post is kind of wasted, because it starts from an incorrect assumption, which I feel a little bad about. Honestly, though, I find it weird that you felt you had to take the time to tell me that "not all feminists agree that SlutWalks are a great strategy to combat rape culture", given that that was the specific thing said in the FPP that began the thread I was referencing. I don't imagine that was intended to be offensive on your part, but it does kind of make me wonder on what level you think this discussion is happening.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:35 PM on July 29, 2011


it does kind of make me wonder on what level you think this discussion is happening.

Maybe the level where we're talking about community norms in sexism discussions, not just discussing your personal views of same?
posted by dialetheia at 2:48 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Possibly I misunderstood. When you said:

I have to say, I really find it amazing that you would think MeFi would be unanimous about any issue, much less feminism.

That seemed to me to be about my personal views. It happens that you misunderstood what those personal views are, but that's OK. We can move on from that.

So, I think you mean by your latest comment that you understood that I would be aware of the datum not all feminists agree that SlutWalks are a great strategy to combat rape culture, as would anyone involved in the thread which began by referencing links to support exactly that datum, but that other members of the community might not be, so you wanted to highlight that for people who had not previously been aware of it - hence the use of "we" rather than "I"? You're speaking for a silent community? Fair enough.

So, your assumption of what I put in the set of community norm statements was incorrect, but it does mean that there is a wider context about which you are now making statements- that is, the community interactions exemplified by this thread. Unfortunately, I think the facts do not bear out your contention there, either.

I don't feel like anyone on Metafilter had - to use your term - hurt feelings at the idea that feminists had differing opinions about the efficacy of slutwalks. I'm pretty sure that's a false trail.

What I believe did cause what you are calling hurt feelings and what I guess I would call an adverse reaction was this statement from uncanny hengeman:
A question for the Metafilter hivemind before I post my usual awesome comment: A drunken woman walks alone thru an unfamiliar neighbourhood with a headband for a skirt. If she gets sexually assaulted, this is still completely 110% NOT her fault?
Now, with the benefit of hindsight it's reasonably safe to conclude that this is not what you describe as an innocent misstatement - uncanny hengeman doesn't have an awesome comment to add, alas, and only comes back briefly later to take offense at someone's choice of analogy.

So, discarding the mistaken belief that there was an expectation on my part of unanimity on the efficacy or otherwise of slutwalk a) among feminists or b) on MetaFilter, I was surprised by that statement of uncanny hengeman's. I guess it is less surprising if you factor in the existence of posts made for no other reason than to cause annoyance or derail conversations - that is, griefing. Nonetheless, I thought that "In certain circumstance women should bear some percentage of the blame for being sexually assaulted" as a statement would in terms of community norms go beyond being "contentious" (e.g. "Barack Obama should be put on trial for failing to end human rights abuses", "Android is better than IOS/IOS is better than Android") to being a violation of community norms sufficiently egregious to be effectively self-policed. You might believe it, but you wouldn't say it unless you specifically wanted an adverse reaction - to behave outside community norms. About which I think I was probably right, but who can confidently define motivation?

Obviously, as in any community, a number of avenues exist for behavior outside community normalization. One of those is griefing - self-conscious defying of norms for the purposes of personal or sub-community amusement. One is principled opposition - standing in self-defined opposition to community norms in pursuit of a redefinition of what the community ought to be. And then there's loss of emotional control - when a topic is so emotive that one is unable to cleave to community norms either regarding force of viewpoint or force of delivery. Which I think happens on both sides in discussions like SkepChick or SlutWalk - or indeed discussions about Israel/Palestine, or Apple/Microsoft/Google, or somebody's favorite band/least favorite band.

This is all pretty much communities 101, which I hope I get points for not refusing to discuss. So, to bring it back to the original topic of this thread: I would probably have assumed that there would have been a general consensus that a LAN party that finds ways to include women is better than a LAN party that finds reasons to exclude women. However, as I already said, my newbie perspective re: my estimation of community norms had already been altered by experiencing discussions in which it was shown to be inaccurate.

As such, I was a little surprised when Jessamyn responded to the statement:

the recent threads on SkepChick and Slutwalk have been eye-openers in re: viewpoints I'd assumed were unanimous on MetaFilter.

By telling me not to do precisely the thing that I had just stated I had had my eyes opened in re: doing, but there are probably some automated responses in the moderator parser, and that's the one that the word "unanimity" prompts. I was surprised when you then said:

I have to say, I really find it amazing that you would think MeFi would be unanimous about any issue, much less feminism.

When I had precisely stated that my eyes had been opened etc. However, my expectations about close reading of posts have also been readjusted since I joined, and I'm not taking it personally.

So... at the end of that, I think we are pretty much where we were, except hopefully you have a better understanding of what I was saying. You think people should take more time to respond to basic or apparently stupid questions in threads involving feminist questions. I guess the question of what happens if one has a suspicion that the question itself is being asked in bad faith - that is, for a purpose other than seeking elucidation - or previous experience suggests that it is a sign either of principled opposition or of a loss of emotional control - that is, that it is outside the set of profitable things to respond to as if it where a straight-down-the-line inquiry of the community.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:34 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


(Not that the advice not to assume everyone will share an opinion isn't good, and not that I don't appreciate Jessamyn taking the time to give it. But I think I've got it.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:18 PM on July 29, 2011


running order squabble fest: " I guess the question of what happens if one has a suspicion that the question itself is being asked in bad faith - that is, for a purpose other than seeking elucidation - or previous experience suggests that it is a sign either of principled opposition or of a loss of emotional control - that is, that it is outside the set of profitable things to respond to as if it where a straight-down-the-line inquiry of the community."

Sometimes, especially in highly polarized threads, it becomes harder to intuit intent, when someone says something out of privilege, assumption or just plain ignorance. These are difficult, emotional topics. Highly charged. It's easy to read into something someone says, take offense, give in to anger and start yelling at one other.

I think it's always best to try to assume good faith in such situations. Keeps our blood pressure down, if nothing else.
posted by zarq at 6:38 PM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


when someone says something out of privilege, assumption or just plain ignorance.

Or when someone else takes whatever anyone says that doesn't accord 100% with their particular form of political correctness and imputes the worst possible intentionality, perhaps?

Because I can say things I believe that might not suit your worldview without asserting privilege, making any assumptions, or being ignorant. Because, my goodness, I might actually have an opinion or an experience of my own.
posted by spitbull at 6:53 PM on July 29, 2011


I think that assuming good faith in this context would mean assuming that the possibility that someone might just hold a different view is implicit in zarq's worldview.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:58 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Because I can say things I believe that might not suit your worldview without asserting privilege, making any assumptions, or being ignorant. Because, my goodness, I might actually have an opinion or an experience of my own.

Sure! I totally agree.

I was thinking more about the comment from uncanny hengeman quoted by running order squabble fest above than anything else when I said that. He asked a question, citing a fairly common stereotype / misconception about women and rape. (You can't ask to be raped. Rape is by definition non-consensual. If you ask to be raped then it isn't rape. And casting blame upon victims of rape is wrong on a whole bunch of levels.) People in that thread predictably jumped all over the comment.

My point is simply that someone can ask a question and hold a different viewpoint without having negative intentions. And we shouldn't assume they're being evil or deliberately trolling just because they asked a question.
posted by zarq at 9:03 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Although I guess one can look at a question and think "Although potentially well-meant, there's no way this isn't going to get a lot of angry responses - best if I flag it", I guess. Flagging isn't necessarily a judgement - it's a note that there is something about a comment that may cause problems, deliberately or no.

Thanks, zarq. I find your even-handedness admirable, if hard to replicate.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:08 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Although I guess one can look at a question and think "Although potentially well-meant, there's no way this isn't going to get a lot of angry responses - best if I flag it", I guess. Flagging isn't necessarily a judgement - it's a note that there is something about a comment that may cause problems, deliberately or no.

I used to think of flagging as censorship. Someone voiced similar sentiments in a Meta thread a while back and one of the mods (cortex?) said something along the lines of "think of a flag as saying 'hey, I think you should take a look at this' to the mods." So they know what to keep an eye on. Not to say, "I think you should delete this!" Changed my perspective on 'em.

Thanks, zarq. I find your even-handedness admirable, if hard to replicate.

TBH, I'm convinced I'm not particularly good at being calm or even-handed about certain things. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I try very hard not to let my temper get the better of me but obviously still fail. Especially in threads about sexual assault. Am too close to the topic.

All of this is a work in progress. And my comment is meant as an ideal I want to try to live up to as much as anyone else. (Being the change I want to see, etc.)

But, thanks. :)
posted by zarq at 9:20 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


"I would imagine that these threads often feel that way for a lot of men, too - if you're not OK with being called out by 60 people as an ignorant sexist for even the most innocent misstatement, stay out. How would everyone feel if all kinds of threads had this "don't make me explain X 101 to you again, you contemptible fool" bar to entry? I'd hate to wander into a thread about economics and be told to shut up because "we're NOT about to go through economics 101 with you, OK? Jesus, it's the 21st century, get educated already." I think this attitude is out of place in any MeFi thread. If you don't want to explain things that you think are self-evident, no one is forcing you to comment."

You know, if someone barges into an econ thread and says that the problem with economics is that poor people keep blaming rich people for their problems, then yeah, I'm going to be pretty contemptuous of their opinions. When the fiftieth person trots out the same inane pseudo-quip or wanky contrarian baiting on any topic, I'm going to suggest that they probably don't know what they're talking about and should maybe do a modicum of reading on it.

Or just fucking google it.

Further, I think it's pretty fucking farcical to pretend that a lot of the 101 knowledge seekers have a legitimate thirst for knowledge — it's more that they want to stan for their self-serving point of view. You can usually pick this up by tone, and frankly, that some poor hypothetical innocent men (and women) get hit by collateral contempt should be blamed on the regular passel of sneering douches who exhaust all normal patience on any gender topics.

"I have to say, I really find it amazing that you would think MeFi would be unanimous about any issue, much less feminism. There is disagreement even within the feminist community about lots of this stuff. Not all feminists agreed that SkepChick was in the right (the whole fight started because another feminist criticized her handling of the issue), and not all feminists agree that SlutWalks are a great strategy to combat rape culture. Since there isn't even agreement among feminists, I find the insistence on ideological purity in these threads to be pretty tiresome and axe-grindy. Not that some dudes don't say some things in those threads that disturb me! But I'd still rather have an open dialogue, and MeFi is never going to be a safe space for anyone. I think a lot of the hurt feelings happen because people don't have realistic expectations of the community. MeFi is a public forum, not a feminist reading circle.""

And whether this is disingenuous ("feminist reading circle"?) or just a false equivalency fallacy is up to the reader. That there are disagreements within feminists about any given project is not the same as disagreements over, say, whether rapists are totally to blame for rape. Pretending that they are ignores all of the things that feminists do already agree about in order to throw up hands about ideological purity is inane.

This is especially frustrating when combined with the earlier part of your comment where you underplay the inflaming comments, overplay the sympathy for "innocent misstatements" and then both imply that a public forum can't be feminist (by contrasting it with the absolutist straw man of a safe space), leaving the impression that it's fractious yet dogmatic feminist ideologues who are somehow to blame for my disappointment with the conversation here (I may even be one; I'm not clear on who your "hurt feelings" was supposed to cover).

Fundamentally, I'm disappointed by stupid comments because they're both stupid on their face and because in the context of sexism, they make the community far less awesome for a lot of women, and I prefer having women in general to clichéd moronitude from the usual gang of anti-feminist idiots. I am disappointed because for a while, there was a lot less of it, and now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way towards normalizing a lower bar of discourse and regressing to the mean of internet fora.
posted by klangklangston at 10:32 PM on July 29, 2011 [10 favorites]


It’s also possible that several folks that have core disagreements with 101 feminism fail to participate in EPIX SEXIZM THREDS simply because they can infer after the umpteenth call of derailment that their views are unwelcome. Some might even be women.

Others I imagine head on over to Jezebel where they can avail themselves to a monoculture that comports nicely with their world view.

Some may be sympathetic to feminism, but find their flag-bearers here completely off-putting.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 6:33 AM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


When the fiftieth person trots out the same inane pseudo-quip or wanky contrarian baiting on any topic, I'm going to suggest that they probably don't know what they're talking about and should maybe do a modicum of reading on it.

No objections here.

Or just fucking google it.

Imagine what would happen around here if every comment or post that someone disagreed with, or was just plain erroneous, was greeted with that obnoxious, condescending attitude. Do you think that any of the people who stay because this place is actually different from say, reddit, fark, 4chan or dozens of other internet forums populated by assholes would stick around? For what? To be berated by people who assume they're idiots?

It still happens here. Been there, done that. Have the proverbial scars to prove it.

Further, I think it's pretty fucking farcical to pretend that a lot of the 101 knowledge seekers have a legitimate thirst for knowledge — it's more that they want to stan for their self-serving point of view.

I invite you to walk into a thread discussing one of MeFi's sacred cows and see what it's like trying to have a reasonable, calm, meaningful conversation when you simply disagree with the majority. To ask an innocent question on a topic you've never before broached on this site. A few experiences like that, watching your words and meanings get twisted and being told what your motivations, intentions and feelings are because someone arrogantly assumes they know you and/or your beliefs and life better than you know yourself -- might change your mind pretty damned quickly about assuming the worst of people and your right to attack them.

You don't change minds by beating people over the head. You don't change minds by shouting people down and you only rarely do it by publicly shaming them. Sometimes any and all of that's what's required, yes. But unless we've considered trying other tactics with each individual person we're engaging, in many cases we probably have no idea if it's necessary. So why assume the worst?

It's hard to judge intent over the 'net. A little assumption of good faith can smooth out misunderstandings and help a discussion along.

You can usually pick this up by tone, and frankly, that some poor hypothetical innocent men (and women) get hit by collateral contempt should be blamed on the regular passel of sneering douches who exhaust all normal patience on any gender topics.

The sneering, obnoxious guys piss me off too.

So, I've been pretty open around here about where I stand on women's issues. On feminist issues. But I submit to you that a number of people in the Rebecca Watson thread were not deliberately being sneering anything. Having re-read the thread, I believe that some of them were legitimately trying to engage the topic genuinely, based on their own assumptions about acceptable interactions between men and women in a given situation.

We shouldn't assume the worst of everyone, just because some people are entrenched misogynists.
posted by zarq at 8:15 AM on July 30, 2011 [10 favorites]


We'd all love it if everyone shared our opinions on everything, and anyone who disagreed would just be referred to The Truth 101 for reprogramming.
posted by John Cohen at 9:29 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Isn't "The Truth 101" a character on Jersey Shore?
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:35 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


We'd all love it if everyone shared our opinions on everything, and anyone who disagreed would just be referred to The Truth 101 for reprogramming.

Use your "I" language, please.
posted by gingerest at 6:44 PM on July 31, 2011


What the devil is going on? 58 hours without a metatalk post?

TO THE RAPTURE BUNKER!
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:04 PM on July 31, 2011


Salvor Hardin: "What the devil is going on? 58 hours without a metatalk post?

TO THE RAPTURE BUNKER!
"

NEED MOAR DRAMAZ!!
posted by deborah at 7:17 PM on July 31, 2011


Don't jinx it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:25 PM on July 31, 2011


Yay, everyone got laid this weekend!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on July 31, 2011


Will you please be quiet please!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:43 PM on July 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


Heh. Can take the librarian out of the library, but you can't take the - er - um - ah...
Well.
posted by likeso at 7:52 PM on July 31, 2011


I think she was merely telling BB to stop boasting.
posted by zamboni at 8:18 PM on July 31, 2011


Brandon Blatcher: "Yay, everyone got laid this weekend!"

Braggart.
posted by deborah at 8:33 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Obviously this weekend has been a test of the disable Metatalk when no one is around system.
I can't be the only one to test to see if the posting page was disabled.
posted by Mitheral at 9:09 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think you were the only one, Mitheral.
I heard some of the others whispering amongst themselves, "Whaddya wanna bet Mitheral is testing to see if the posting page is disabled?"
posted by amyms at 9:18 PM on July 31, 2011


Y'all sound tense. You should have a grilled cheese sammich, but add tomato and apple to it. Spice things up!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:43 AM on August 1, 2011


It's quiet, too quiet...
posted by arcticseal at 1:37 AM on August 1, 2011


apple on the same sandwich with the tomato? how thinly sliced?
posted by garlic at 6:56 AM on August 1, 2011


The only items one may add to a grilled cheese sandwich are bacon, onions and garlic. Anything other than that is crazy talk.
posted by deborah at 10:56 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know, if everyone just posted all their MetaTalk grievances in this thread, there would never have to be another MetaTalk thread. It's got an all-purpose title, and as an added bonus, after about 20,000 comments nobody would read it unless specifically directed to it, so people could call each other out and argue with no real impact on the rest of the board, while any substantive issues would be brought to the attention of the mods by comment form rather than in MetaTalk.

It's a good idea. Its time has come. Just like the grilled cheese with tomato and apple.

(And maybe just a few wafer-thin cuts of prosciutto ham? Maybe wrapped around the apple slices?)
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:44 PM on August 1, 2011


Powersgaming: "We are sorry to say that we have banned women from attending our Farting, Ballsweat & High-Strung Breaking Voices Convention. We are sure the ladies will be disappointed but feel this is for the best."

Women: "Oh hee hee hee you boys! We're going to stay at home and do our hair up like Chun Li while wearing nothing but really short Invader Zim t-shirts!"

Powersgaming: "ALL RIGHT YOU MEN NOBODY START LACTATING!"

nfi what I'm saying
posted by tumid dahlia at 3:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


running order squabble fest writes "there would never have to be another MetaTalk thread."

Nice plan but Metatalk threads close after 30 days.
posted by Mitheral at 10:06 PM on August 1, 2011


Crikey! I'm famous!

running order squabble fest, I'll just have you know that 80% of my posts in that thread got deleted, including a perfectly non-shouty, non-cussing reply to a very strange post by a KOALA where a Mod justified the deletion by saying he thought I drew the wrong conclusion. That's a reason for deletion now?!!!

I don't think anyone can judge my performance on that thread because they are not allowed to see what I wrote, and I'm not part of the Kool Kids' Klub that can call people names and not have their posts deleted.

I actually came here to laugh at the gamer girls jessamyn talked about [not to laugh at jessamyn].

I'm a gamer! I've got a vagina! I have issues!

Jesus Christ. Ain't that the truth.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:44 PM on August 2, 2011


As the Bible says, "Thou shalt not horn in on thy husband's racket."
-Homer Simpson.

Thread over.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:52 PM on August 2, 2011


I have issues!

Jesus Christ. Ain't that the truth.


From out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:58 AM on August 3, 2011


« Older Mail Your Mix Or ELSE!   |   Self-deletion Newer »

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