Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

if you don't have something nice to say
October 4, 2011 12:04 PM   Subscribe

I am just curious regarding this post, how exactly it could be revised to be acceptable? Is the horror of the topic itself simply not appropriate for MeFi, or is linking to some vague news descriptions but not repeating them or posting the source material what's desired?
posted by crayz to Etiquette/Policy at 12:04 PM (68 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

It's classic outrage-filter and there's pretty much no way to frame such a thing acceptably. The point of it is to get people angry, and that makes for a poor post here.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2011


Animal abuse posts tend to go poorly on MetaFilter. There's not much to talk about other than "wow this sucks" and even though there's a "hey these people are doing something these other people have not" [lawsuit settling] aspect of it, really a lot of the central part of the post is about something unspeakably horrible being done to animals. This is rarely a good jumping off point for a community discussion. Additionally, linking to something that in your words "may be the worst thing I've ever seen, and it can't be unseen." really is asking a lot of the MeFi community. Everyone has different tolerances for truly horrible things and I'd say that the MeFi level for tolerance of and interest in that sort of thing is sort of on the low end of average. Add to this above-the-fold descriptions of animal torture, a nice biblical-sounding title and you've really created a post that is doomed in this community.

So, our usual guideline for post on MeFi is that if you think the thing you've linked to is something people might want to see, great. If you think it's something they SHOULD see even if they don't want to, this may not be the right place for it. MeFi is not, at its core, a news blog or a "sign my petition" blog or a "let's all get pissed off together" blog. There are sometimes posts on those topics, however the ones that remain and create good discussions vary from this post in some specific directions that I've tried to outline here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2011 [4 favorites]


A couple things I think would help a lot:

1. Skip the graphic description in the post, especially above the fold. That shit intensely bothers a lot of people.
2. Make a post about the thing that happened because the links are noteworthy and substantial reading, and let whatever the horrific elements are stand more or less on their own in the context of those substantial links rather than making "here's some horrific for you" an active part of the post content.

It's difficult because we're not of the position that something horrific can't be talked about on the site, and there have been plenty of posts that managed to sort of broach the subject of something terrible in a way that's worked okay. And I totally appreciate that a lot of your post was trying to sort of be like "here is the history and context of things thing that occurred", which seems on target there.

But it can be a real tightrope to walk, and once you're explicitly describing animal abuse and warning people not to watch a video you're linking because it's so awful, you're well off the tightrope and closing in on terminal velocity.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2011


I flagged it. Crayz, I appreciate the discussion I believe you were trying to generate - animal rights and rescue are my hot buttons and constitute a lot of what I think about and spend time with IRL - but I honestly believe that watching a video like that doesn't help and can only hurt. I also don't believe that, if you have to add a "this will be the worst thing you've ever seen" to something you're linking, that you are making a post that's right for MetaFilter.
posted by mintcake! at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2011


Or basically what the mods said. That was quick, guys.
posted by mintcake! at 12:12 PM on October 4, 2011


Yeah, outrage-filter it is. You don't have to dig deep on the internet to see videos of decapitations, animal awfulness, or pornstar errors. I'm glad that kind of footage is available, but it doesn't make for a great fpp, normally. That real fur is being sold as synthetic, though, is really interesting and would, I think, be an interesting post.
posted by Forktine at 12:12 PM on October 4, 2011


You don't have to dig deep on the internet to see videos of decapitations

Yep, I'm with you.

animal awfulness

Agreed.

or pornstar errors.

*RECORD SCRATCH
posted by nathancaswell at 12:15 PM on October 4, 2011 [21 favorites]


That real fur is being sold as synthetic, though, is really interesting and would, I think, be an interesting post.

Especially with links that look into the whys and wherefores of the need to pass off real stuff as fake that too ironically from a location better know for doing exactly the opposite. That would have been a great post/discussion.
posted by infini at 12:15 PM on October 4, 2011


Thirding the idea that the fur confusion/deception story was great material. I didn't know about this aspect of animal products in the market (we live in the deep US South so don't exactly buy much fur) and we avoid those sort of products like the plague. So your information was appreciated.

I thought the link was presented as well as it could be. Maybe that's just not ok material around here and approaches torture porn or just too graphic. *shrug*
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:16 PM on October 4, 2011


And if there's a link to what constitutes newsfilter, if its been discussed before, I would truly appreciate it. I think I've stepped wrong in flagging such stuff and can't always tell.
posted by infini at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2011


> It's classic outrage-filter and there's pretty much no way to frame such a thing acceptably. The point of it is to get people angry

This is rather absolutist and uncharitable. There was a way to frame the post that centered around real fur being cruelly obtained and sold as faux fur. The deleted post wasn't quite it, but the OP's intentions weren't nearly as malicious as you imply.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2011 [6 favorites]


I care a lot about animals and a good chunk of my charitable spending goes to their protection. But I've learned not to read the case studies or look at the horrific photos, which causes enormous upset but does not educate or motivate me more than before I saw them.

As this is an important topic and you have some good info in your post, how about reworking it to bring on the info, in a sufficiently neutral tone that you don't seem to be telling us what to think/feel, and skipping the video? That would be a great post.
posted by bearwife at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2011


the real racoon dog fur being sold as faux fur is at least as old as 2006. it didn't get widespread outrage because it was words on a page. now there's video and there's outrage. i think the video is pretty germane to the story, or at least a seemingly important part to get people to talk about it.

it could have absolutely been framed better, but i disagree that there's no point besides to get angry - one point could be to let people know they aren't actually wearing synthetic fur.
posted by nadawi at 12:30 PM on October 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


*RECORD SCRATCH

"Porn bloopers" is the search term you will be wanting to use. Many are funny, but some are almost as painful as any atrocity video to watch.
posted by Forktine at 12:31 PM on October 4, 2011


There are a lot of people who come to MetaFilter for FPPs about things that are cool, interesting, neat, etc.—not things that are "important." This doesn't have to be why you come to MetaFilter, but if you are going to post an FPP, your "important" FPP will fare better if you frame it with that fact in mind.

Another suggestion? Your FPP opens with, "This video has been making the rounds today." I don't know what "making the rounds" means (NYTimes and CNN have reported on it? Popular bloggers have been posting it? Random people have been circulating it around Facebook?)...but the word "today" is a red flag. Consider whether your FPP might be stronger and better if you waited a week or two until the video had finished "making the rounds" and you were able to incorporate its aftermath.
posted by cribcage at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Maybe it's just me, but I could do with less raising-awareness in general on MetaFilter, unless it's raising awareness of some cool thing you found on the web.
posted by Edogy at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2011 [5 favorites]


i think the video is pretty germane to the story, or at least a seemingly important part to get people to talk about it.

Which, again, part of the problem here is that "shocking thing gets people talking" is a totally understandable goal in activism but not really a great goal for making a post to Metafilter. It's not a matter of fundamental correctness or not of the rhetorical approach so much as what works well in one context vs. another. Metafilter is its own specific context, and doing activism on the front page isn't really okay, regardless of the merits of a given cause.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:41 PM on October 4, 2011


Oh, god. No, please, please no. No torture descriptions without some serious warning lead in. IF you really feel you need to include horrific torture stuff in your post, at all, which is certainly arguable.

There are some things I just can't read or see without suffering some serious mindfuckery... but sometimes I'm blindsided by stuff when I don't expect it, and this was one of those times. Not good at all for me. Seriously.

There is information that would make a good post, but concentrate on that without blasting people out of their shoes with horror stuff. Link with unmistakable warning info. Give people the chance to understand the issue with the option to explore further if they choose. Gah. Nightmares for me for the next who-knows-how-long.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2011 [4 favorites]


Was the video really that bad? How many kittens were circumcised?
posted by MuffinMan at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2011


It's not a matter of fundamental correctness or not of the rhetorical approach so much as what works well in one context vs. another.

Not sure I get this. Would Abu Ghraib stories have been better w/o descriptions or pictures?
posted by crayz at 1:17 PM on October 4, 2011


taz: "Oh, god. No, please, please no. No torture descriptions without some serious warning lead in. IF you really feel you need to include horrific torture stuff in your post, at all, which is certainly arguable."

For the record, are you expressing a personal opinion or stating site policy?
posted by zarq at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2011


Not sure I get this. Would Abu Ghraib stories have been better w/o descriptions or pictures?

Better as get-the-word-out efforts or better as things-that-don't-create-heated-threads-on-metafilter? Like I said, it's not simple stuff: on the one hand, the Abu Ghraib stuff is really awful and really pretty damned important in a humanitarian sense and is hard to remove from the context of specifically what went on; on the other hand, Let's Talk Graphically About Some Raping is as ways to make a post something that starts with a huge handicap.

My feeling is that the best way to go there for a Metafilter post is to talk about what is up with a little bit of distance: make it plain that there is bad stuff to see without going out of your way to put the bad stuff immediately on display, and let people use their own judgement and discretion about wading into the more explicitly or viscerally awful primary exhibits.

It's not the only possible way to do it, but going more for the visceral angle puts a post on dicier ground and the ones that take that sort of tack and end up sticking around often do so while generating really heated threads and a lot of unhappiness about that sort of presentation whether in-thread or in Metatalk or over email to us privately. It's the sort of thing that a lot of people who are members of this community are very directly and potently bothered by, the sort of thing that makes it harder for them to feel comfortable coming around.

And it's a matter of balance, because the nature and the contemporary context of a situation is going to be a driving factor in any specific post, and obviously for the folks who are really really bothered by this stuff there is on the flip side some folks who feel like this stuff is too important not to have on the front page. But all else being equal, "you must be aware of this terrible thing" is not the driving mission of this place and posts that are mostly doing that in a way that really bothers a lot of people are a lot likelier to be deleted here than they would be on a site explicitly about raising awareness or highlighting activist/protest/whistleblowing/etc. content.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:30 PM on October 4, 2011


Was the video really that bad? How many kittens were circumcised?

Terrifically unfunny.
posted by mintcake! at 1:31 PM on October 4, 2011 [7 favorites]


zarq, I have always felt that the post guidelines are the Torah of MetaFilter, the FAQ are the Talmud, and MetaTalk is where we hang out and ask the rabbis to interpret both for us. I don't think I've ever seen a mod make a pronouncement in a MetaTalk thread that such-and-such thing they are about to say is Policy.
posted by silby at 1:34 PM on October 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


OK, I agree on the general principle
posted by crayz at 1:35 PM on October 4, 2011


The post was fine, outrage filter as a deletion reason is stupid and selective. Was there anything here to talk about besides how much of an asshole he is? Not really, and it's a story you can discuss anywhere else if you want too. But Metafilter will barely ever turn down a chance to outrage at a dumb Republican even though it is one of the most overdone topics of all time here.

The fur thing with raccoon dogs I have never even heard of. Thanks for the post Crayz.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


Also, while I'm complaining, we need an edit window to.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:40 PM on October 4, 2011


to what?
posted by Babblesort at 1:42 PM on October 4, 2011


edit window to nowhere.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:49 PM on October 4, 2011


silby: "zarq, I have always felt that the post guidelines are the Torah of MetaFilter, the FAQ are the Talmud, and MetaTalk is where we hang out and ask the rabbis to interpret both for us. I don't think I've ever seen a mod make a pronouncement in a MetaTalk thread that such-and-such thing they are about to say is Policy."

Sure they have. They most certainly have stated new policies in MeTa. For example, quoting from private memails is verboten, but it was first mentioned as a site policy in MeTa.

So I'd like a mod to clarify, but thanks.

Cortex said above, "A couple things I think would help a lot:

1. Skip the graphic description in the post, especially above the fold. That shit intensely bothers a lot of people."

Which is clearly a suggestion.

taz said "No torture descriptions without some serious warning lead in." Which is a lot more forceful than just a suggestion.

No one likes having posts deleted. And while I do put warnings on mine, if we're going to be required to do so in the future I think it's reasonable to request clarity here.

Plus if it's official then it should go in the faq so we have something to point people to the next time this happens.
posted by zarq at 1:54 PM on October 4, 2011


An edit window, through which I can gaze on the attractive brick wall of the Fark building next door.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:54 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


That was my personal opinion, Zarq. I don't write Metafilter rules.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:57 PM on October 4, 2011


pornstar errors.

They are only errors if you are doing it competitively. I like to think of them as 'character actor moments'.
posted by quin at 2:01 PM on October 4, 2011


For the record, are you expressing a personal opinion or stating site policy?

As much as we love taz and are thrilled to have her here, I think it's generally clear that she's not going to be making ambiguous policy statements here after four days on the job. I'm sure we'll all get better at sussing this stuff out over time, but just presume it will be clear when we're talking about what is a policy and what is a guideline and what is us saying things about how we feel.

General guideline has always been that graphic/disturbing stuff above the fold is almost always not okay [in that there has to be a pretty general exception to "how we do things here" to have something like that stay and it's really likely to make your post wind up in MeTa] and we always come out as mods and say "There are better ways to make posts that doing this, even if it seems like a good idea for various reasons" It's tough because this is often NOT how other sites work [where getting people riled up with clickrage is somehow Part of the Plan] and so people need to know to shift gears here which they may not always. So, hey, no big deal here but if the question is "How do I make a post on this topic fare better" "No above the fold animal torture" is a great answer to that question. We have been consistent that graphic upsetting descriptions in posts is not a good way to go, generally. Your post may be an exception, but it is probably not.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:06 PM on October 4, 2011


Animal abuse posts tend to go poorly on MetaFilter.

To be a bother, how is "poorly" defined? I can define some instances because of what I have seen in previous threads, but I don't think I truly understand what it means.

And you are accounting for a higher incidence of "poorly" in a thread which garners a greater number of comments, right? Can't the incidence of "non-poorly" outweigh the "poorly" enough to still make it a "non-poor" thread?

Or does it just become too high maintenance?
posted by hal_c_on at 2:06 PM on October 4, 2011


It's the wrong sort of outrage for Metafilter. Maybe try something about people being racist or mean to fat people, next time.
posted by Decani at 2:12 PM on October 4, 2011


To be a bother, how is "poorly" defined?

- lots of flagging
- lots of fighting and people being jerks to each other
- not a lot of discussing of the actual topic of the thread
- lots of contact form emails
- people quitting because they are angry and/or upset
- MeTa posts with any or all of the above

Number of comments is not a measure of "poorly" to me. Neither is number of favorites or other quantifiable measures. It's all relative, but really, threads that go well (most threads on the site) require almost no mod attention. Threads that go poorly require a lot of mod attention, sort of by definition. Often the types of threads that people feel are the most "important" are also the ones that require lots of attention. This is problematic since in most cases the topics that people feel are important are ones that are often ones that diverge from the general MeFi "Hey would you like to share something neat that you found on the web?" mission and so it's frustrating to have to spend a lot of time on them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:12 PM on October 4, 2011


taz: "That was my personal opinion, Zarq.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

I don't write Metafilter rules."

You now have the same authority to enforce them as any other mod, yes? You can delete posts and are will use your judgment to determine if a post deserves to remain on the front page. So your interpretations of site policies obviously carry more import than they did when you were a regular user, and they will necessarily impact on those of us who make posts.

Sincerely... respectfully... I am not trying to be difficult. I like you. I truly have a great deal of respect for you. And I'm thrilled to pieces that you've been made a mod! :)

But at the same time I've had at least two posts deleted in the last year that contained potentially disturbing content (and at least two others that survived) and simply would like to not run afoul of any related site policies if I make one in the future. I'd prefer my posts be judged on their merits and not get deleted for an administrative screw-up on my part.
posted by zarq at 2:14 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]



The post was fine, outrage filter as a deletion reason is stupid and selective. Was there anything here to talk about besides how much of an asshole he is?


I think there were valid issues to talk about there, although it wasn't framed in a way that encouraged them, and the opportunity was lost almost immediately. It was really disheartening to see what happened.

Moderation is always a bit inconsistent though, and you have to be able to shrug and walk away at some point.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:17 PM on October 4, 2011


jessamyn: " As much as we love taz and are thrilled to have her here, I think it's generally clear that she's not going to be making ambiguous policy statements here after four days on the job.

Heh. True.

I'm sure we'll all get better at sussing this stuff out over time, but just presume it will be clear when we're talking about what is a policy and what is a guideline and what is us saying things about how we feel.

OK. Will do. That makes sense.

General guideline has always been that graphic/disturbing stuff above the fold is almost always not okay [in that there has to be a pretty general exception to "how we do things here" to have something like that stay and it's really likely to make your post wind up in MeTa]

Yeah, but I've seen y'all move stuff below the fold, or let things stand or even delete outright. Frankly, I like that you're flexible about it and take every post on a case by case basis rather than sticking to a hard and fast rule. So if that was going to change I'd want to know. And maybe complain a little. ;)

...and we always come out as mods and say "There are better ways to make posts that doing this, even if it seems like a good idea for various reasons" It's tough because this is often NOT how other sites work [where getting people riled up with clickrage is somehow Part of the Plan] and so people need to know to shift gears here which they may not always. So, hey, no big deal here but if the question is "How do I make a post on this topic fare better" "No above the fold animal torture" is a great answer to that question. We have been consistent that graphic upsetting descriptions in posts is not a good way to go, generally. Your post may be an exception, but it is probably not."

Okay. I understand. Thank you for clarifying, too.
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on October 4, 2011


"zarq, I have always felt that the post guidelines are the Torah of MetaFilter, the FAQ are the Talmud, and MetaTalk is where we hang out and ask the rabbis to interpret both for us."

And the wiki is the rest of the Tanakh! Now to get myself some manischewitz
posted by Blasdelb at 2:46 PM on October 4, 2011


Sorry, I used it all up making the charoset.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:51 PM on October 4, 2011


WHAT IS THIS STAFF BS I LIKED THE STAR
posted by nathancaswell at 3:01 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, now they kind of look like lifeguards at a pool.
posted by stroke_count at 3:14 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


WHAT IS THIS STAFF BS I LIKED THE STAR

It turns out that those all quietly went out. There was very little fuss.

Thread about it here, fwiw.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:17 PM on October 4, 2011


Now to get myself some manischewitz

Why in G-D's name would you do that? Do you not have access to actual wine?
posted by maryr at 3:18 PM on October 4, 2011


Speaking of staffs, I was teaching Young Goodman Brown and showed a filmed adaptation because none of the kids were getting it all.

So, there's this staff the devil guy carries around and offers it to people? In the film version it became THIS BIG PHALLIC SYMBOL and oh boy the giggling.

The FPP as written burned my brain, w/o looking at the video.
posted by angrycat at 3:18 PM on October 4, 2011


Why in G-D's name would you do that? Do you not have access to actual wine?

Same reason people love to eat crappy Peeps during Easter or crappy candy corn during Halloween : Tradition!
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:01 PM on October 4, 2011


One thing the fucking Internet has taught me. When I was 16 I'd watch, or read, or listen to, absolutely anything. I thought the more you knew, even bad things, it was a step away from ignorance. I rejected the idea that this or that piece of film could be just actively damaging. Older and wiser, I'm not clicking on links like that.
posted by tyllwin at 4:08 PM on October 4, 2011 [3 favorites]


maryr: " Why in G-D's name would you do that? Do you not have access to actual wine?"

"Ugh, it's dreadful!" "Perfect."
posted by zarq at 4:14 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


What about something like the live export debate in Australia, where some inflammatory cow-slaughtering footage lead to protests, parliamentary action, and farmers losing money? If I'd made a post about that could I have linked to the footage (which aired on national TV)?

I flagged it. Crayz, I appreciate the discussion I believe you were trying to generate - animal rights and rescue are my hot buttons and constitute a lot of what I think about and spend time with IRL - but I honestly believe that watching a video like that doesn't help and can only hurt.

Yeah, those stickers they give out at fests of slaughtered cows just make meat-eating look more metal.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2011


As much as we love taz and are
thrilled to have her here, I think it 's
generally clear that she's not going
to be making ambiguous policy
statements here after four days on
the job.


I understand that but the "staff" after her name gives her words here a different import and makes them seem more official. Even knowing she wasn't making a declaration of site policy it to me it felt off to me and I didn't like it (and I think taz has been and will continue to be a great mefite and will make a great mod). The staff tag may require more care from the mods with what they write and how.
posted by 6550 at 6:44 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


If I'd made a post about that could I have linked to the footage (which aired on national TV)?

As you probably know, we don't really play "what if" games but have gone on the record as saying that posts about doing horrible things to animals tend to do poorly, moreso if they have graphic descriptions of violence and/or links to horrific images. Add to this that agenda-drive posts [even if they're not your agenda] can be touchy and I honeslty can't tell you what would happen.

If you need to be 100% sure your post doesn't get deleted, one of the many things you should consider is not posting about animal abuse. I will be happy to give you my "I can promise you this will not get deleted unless it is a double" list of foolproof topics, but I think most people who are paying attention can sort of suss that thing out, they just disagree that that's how things work here. There are worse things than getting a post deleted, really.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:47 PM on October 4, 2011


The safe list:

1) Bunnies. Fluffy cutesy wootsie bunnies.
2) ...
posted by zarq at 6:59 PM on October 4, 2011


Nope.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:02 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think that's an amazing post. I'm not going to watch the video, but the ensuing legal direction (suing western retailers and expecting that will impact the practices in China) is fascinating.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:07 PM on October 4, 2011


jessamyn: "55Nope."

NOT ENOUGH CUTESY, TOO MUCH WOOTSIE
posted by zarq at 8:43 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


For the five seconds it was alive, it was nice that nobody crawled inside and filled it with pulsing maggots of "oh but what about ALL THE PEOPLE?", as though human beings can only be concerned about one single thing at a time.
posted by tumid dahlia at 8:59 PM on October 4, 2011


For the five seconds it was alive, it was nice that nobody crawled inside and filled it with pulsing maggots of "oh but what about ALL THE PEOPLE?", as though human beings can only be concerned about one single thing at a time.

It does say something that people are so ready to get outraged over animal abuses though, and less likely to get outraged at, say, asylum seekers.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 9:01 PM on October 4, 2011


It does say something that people are so ready to get outraged over animal abuses though, and less likely to get outraged at, say, asylum seekers.

People get outraged over all manner of things and starting a "Why are you made at that when you should be mad at THIS?" sidebar discussion rarely goes any place productive.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:02 PM on October 4, 2011


"Why are you made at that when you should be mad at THIS?"

It's inevitable here. People left of US-center eat themselves.

Oddly, no one on the right ever doubts they have enough fury to go around. The killers of the unborn? The illegal immigrants? The homosexuals destroying the meaning of marriage? There's enough rage for all.
posted by tyllwin at 9:31 PM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not the only one saying it
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 9:32 PM on October 4, 2011


It's inevitable here. People left of US-center eat themselves.

after the vegans win, it's all we'll be allowed to eat
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 9:32 PM on October 4, 2011


I'm not the only one saying it

Please do not drag us all into your ongoing squabble with Australia. I am talking about MetaFilter.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:35 PM on October 4, 2011


If I'd made a post about that could I have linked to the footage (which aired on national TV)?

Hasn't that been found to be faked? It showed up as such in ASEAN news though the Aussie news is still dissembling
posted by infini at 10:16 PM on October 4, 2011


after the vegans win, it's all we'll be allowed to eat

I know what you mean, and it's getting worse by the day. I am flat-out finding a kebab after a night on the piss.
posted by tumid dahlia at 10:19 PM on October 4, 2011


I do wish they'd ban ugg boots, though
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 10:30 PM on October 4, 2011


I rejected the idea that this or that piece of film could be just actively damaging. Older and wiser, I'm not clicking on links like that.
“Be very, very careful what you put in that head because you will never, ever get it out.”
Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
posted by Lexica at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


« Older In case you missed it, the web...  |  We just added (staff) markers ... Newer »

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