, and this isn't how Metafilter should handle people with viewpoints that are against the grain.
The thread is about the increased use of drone attacks; Ironmouth has posted in defence of this trend. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I think he's argued clearly, cogently, and with the use of facts. I think this is common of his contributions to the site, which is not to say that I think all
of his arguments are great - but neither are any of ours.
After some heated but basically civil discussion, lupus_yonderboy
posted the following:
Ironmouth: I'd also like to ask you a question.
Quite a while ago you mentioned that you had, at least in the past, done some sort of PR or other paid work for the Democratic Party... and it wasn't clear if you were still doing it.
Since you do always seem to argue very strenuously for what appears to be exactly the mainstream Democratic policy, I'd like to work out exactly what role you had or have with them.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:00 PM on July 23 [3 favorites +] [!]
Ironmouth responded - with more grace than I probably could have mustered - about his exact involvement with the Democratic Party, but continued to face allusions that "someone" had brought this up, searches would be done, etc. Lupus described this as "I politely asked, which is always an option."
It's true, Lupus's tone was basically polite. But what on earth was the bearing of such a question? To me it comes across as nothing more than McCarthyesque insinuation that Ironmouth is some kind of line-crossing stooge, and that that should have a bearing on his arguments in the thread.
Later, Ironmouth posted:
I assume that many of the people who perpetrated this crime feel just as strongly that the innocents who died in the attacks of 911 were merely collateral damage to the intended targets of the US economy and US security, which is equally as disgusting as when an entire wedding party is murdered because the US feels someone they want to kill, who may or may not be gulity, is in the vicinity.
really? so 3,000 killed deliberately is the same as an accidental and regretful bombing of a wedding when a missile goes off course?
Up is down.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:36 PM on July 24 [+] [!]
This prompted Lupus to post:
Up is down.
Really, are you trying to be deliberately inflammatory? A glimpse at your posting history on topics like this makes the answer abundantly clear...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:01 AM on July 25 [+] [!]
As I posted
in the thread, I think both of these attacks crossed the line. I think they're an example of how people like Ironmouth who tend to consistently hold 'non-metafilter' opinions are singled out for more intense and un-generous interpretation, more personal attacks, more scrutiny of and policing of their posting history when it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I've seen the same bile turned on St Alia of the Bunnies
and I don't think it's a good way to behave. It strikes me as ostracism.
On the first matter, I don't think saying "A glimpse at your posting history on topics like this makes the answer abundantly clear..." is in any way different from asking someone who consistently repeats this type of behaviour, in an attempt to stifle conversation, to stop. Commenting that "Up is down" is an extremely rude way of telling someone that because you disagree with them, their ideas are backwards. None of Ironmouth's previous comments were posted here, which would be a very different situation. Anyway, I will agree that this point is probably better suited to MetaTalk.
posted by gman at 3:32 PM on July 25 [+] [!]
Appending an (admittedly glib) phrase like "up is down" to your argument is absolutely no worse than the rhetoric that the rest of us employ when discussions start to get heated and that passes without comment. Is it perfect? No. Is it unforgivably rude, unacceptable, cause for questioning Ironmouth's contribution to the site? Hell no. It's just a little flourish of the sort that everyone is prone to using.
Likewise, I think it's hypocritical to try and imply that Ironmouth
is some kind of habitual troll, when the attempts to shut down his side of the conversation are far more egregious than his own supposed rudeness, there. It shouldn't be treated as grounds for this kind of shunning behaviour; I don't think it reflects well on Metafilter and I think people should be more careful before engaging people they disagree with in personal attacks.