If you can't say something nice, please wait for a while.
March 1, 2013 8:21 AM   Subscribe

A minor petition to MeFites at large: if you're the first person to comment on a thread, please don't start out negative, because that tends to bring the whole conversation down from the get-go.

Some threads will go there soon enough, but having the first comment be "this news is not positive enough," "that baby koala really isn't that funny," or "this music does nothing for me" means that people will either have to ignore that comment or respond to it and promote the positive elements in the post.

This isn't a call-out on a particular thread or person, but just something I've noticed on a few recent threads. I don't think this will make the site all sparkles and rainbows and unicorns, but I hope this could be a gentle nudge to keep some threads from being negative from the very start.
posted by filthy light thief to Etiquette/Policy at 8:21 AM (163 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite

This MeTa is not call-outy-enough.
posted by cooker girl at 8:22 AM on March 1, 2013 [46 favorites]


I'm so, so sorry. It's one of those days.
posted by cooker girl at 8:22 AM on March 1, 2013 [12 favorites]


In all seriousness, though, I heartily agree. Tone means a lot and when the tone goes sour right from the get-go, it's hard to get things back on track.
posted by cooker girl at 8:24 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I like this. This is good.

The Internet has trouble understanding the concept that nobody gives a crap about what you don't give a crap about.
posted by bondcliff at 8:25 AM on March 1, 2013 [24 favorites]


This is a general mod endorsement of that suggestion. I feel like most of this when it happens isn't out of any kind of ill intent or desire to muck up a thread out of the gate, but it's really, really easy to sort of thoughtlessly drop a bit of a turd in a thread if you're just killing time and browsin' the ol' filters.

And I think especially for anyone inclined to kill a lot of time here and hit threads early, it really bears recalibrating now and then how you go about thinking about whether what you're saying right out of the gate is actually going to help create a good thread or is just you saying whatever comes to mind at that moment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:26 AM on March 1, 2013 [19 favorites]


I flag those sorts of comments when I see them. I agree that it can really start a thread off on a wrong foot, even if it's just meant as a harmless joke.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


How about having criticism of a post be more substantial than "I don't like this." ? Both "This is bad" and "this is good" can benefit from why the poster thinks so.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:31 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


If someone has a relevant comment to make why should they wait to begin discussing a post? A comment about the material posted should not be viewed as an indictment of the poster and posters should not feel threatened or insulted by someone writing something negative about the topic of their post.

Of course negative attacks about the posting of a topic or poster are never appropriate
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:33 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I co-sign. I make an extra effort to make my comments positive if the thread is just getting started.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:38 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I have never wanted a pony more than I've wanted a "thoughtlessly dropped a bit of a turd" flag.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:40 AM on March 1, 2013 [44 favorites]


The trick, as I see it, is that some comments are semi-thoughtful, but still negative in a way that doesn't even look for a positive element in the original post. As such, it's not a turd, but just a bit stinky, and I don't feel that the comment needs to be deleted. Sure, if it weren't there, the conversation might spin in a different way, but to delete such vaguely thoughtful comments seems a bit heavy handed. Thus, my post here.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't know, as long as the comment is appropriate and about the topic rather than an ad hominem attack or about the post as opposed to the topic of the post, then it seems fine and dandy with me. Discussion is good, and it takes someone taking an opposing viewpoint to make that happen, even if that viewpoint is "negative". Forbidding someone from making a relevant comment simply because it's too early and could possibly lead others to have a similar "negative" sentiment seems stifling.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:57 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


At least in posts where it is a matter of taste or preference, I'm not sure why people bother leaving negative comments at all. Like, I can see if someone posts something genuinely objectionable -- first thing that comes to mind is yet another pop-science article on MEN ARE LIKE THIS, WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS, EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY STUDY CLAIMS -- then early "hey, this is bullshit because..." comments are pretty warranted. But if someone is posting a video of a silly dog or a band they like or something, refuting the very fact that this is something post-worthy via comment seems like a waste of everyone's time.
posted by griphus at 8:57 AM on March 1, 2013 [10 favorites]


If this and the "don't post if you don't care about this topic" rule-of-thumb were followed, occasionally we could have an on-topic sports thread. Endorsed!
posted by Rodrigo Lamaitre at 9:01 AM on March 1, 2013 [11 favorites]


Yeah I generally come from the perspective that it is pretty much always more interesting to talk about why you like something rather than why you dislike something.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:05 AM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


The dynamics of the way I use Metafilter have changed a lot over the last year; I've moved away from commenting, and focused more on trying to be a contributor to the front page, and after 300 some posts, I can't agree with filthy light thief enough.

As someone who spent the better part of a decade doing little more than being snarky (and brilliant, obviously, that should go without saying), but I never totally realized how much those early comments can guide the course of a thread, for better, or more often, for worse.

Now, when I post, even after all this time, I still get butterflies in my stomach until I see the first few comments, and I can get the pulse on how the community is going to react. I have noticed that for a while, the mods were being fairly aggressive about killing really off-topic and useless comments if they came within the first three, that that was a fantastic thing. I felt that those threads really tended to be the best of the bunch, as they had time to be read and looked at before some knee-jerk bit of snark caused a complete derailment right out the gate.

I guess, if I was going to add to this request, it would be to simply remember, that someone took the time to put together that post you're about to comment in. If you don't like the content, that's fine, provide a substantial explanation as to why it doesn't align with your tastes, or flag it and move on. But if your first thought is to say "Wow, that sucked! So stupid." or something to that effect, you might just be adding to the noise that brings down the quality of the discourse.
posted by quin at 9:06 AM on March 1, 2013 [9 favorites]


Suppose the first comment for any post was ineligible for favorites. Do you think that would moderate people's behavior?
posted by boo_radley at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah I generally come from the perspective that it is pretty much always more interesting to talk about why you like something rather than why you dislike something.

But I don't think this is an either/or proposition. Just because a person states a negative opinion should not stop you from stating why you like something. In fact, it makes your positive opinion now relevant to a conversation!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:09 AM on March 1, 2013


I think it's possible to frame a negative comment in a way that doesn't throw a wrench into the early going of a discussion. Certainly, whatever it is, it requires more thought put into it than "this sucks," or what have you. You can disagree with the point made by a post, throw in your own input, whatever.

But I really don't think there's ever a good reason to make a comment about how you either don't know or don't care about the subject of a post. At the outside, I can see maybe incredulity at finding out something is ubiquitous but you've never heard of it, but that's more of a discussion point and less bragging about all the things you don't know or don't like.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:10 AM on March 1, 2013


And I think especially for anyone inclined to kill a lot of time here and hit threads early, it really bears recalibrating now and then how you go about thinking about whether what you're saying right out of the gate is actually going to help create a good thread or is just you saying whatever comes to mind at that moment.

For serious. If you don't like the thing, either make an actual comment about not not just "Meh" or wait a bit until the discussion has progressed. There's no reason for out of the gate nastiness, but we're not saying to not comment if you don't like a thing, just engage with the thread constructively, don't make it all about you and your bad attitude.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:11 AM on March 1, 2013 [10 favorites]


Oh, man, seriously. I'm one of those people who loves (for a prime example) Community, and every time a post comes along that discusses either the show or Dan Harmon, one of the first few comments is either "What is this? Why would I watch it? Why should I care?" or "God, I am sick of hearing about this crapfest."

We're better than that.
posted by psoas at 9:12 AM on March 1, 2013


In fact, it makes your positive opinion now relevant to a conversation!

The problem is that the sort of negative opinions flt is talking about -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- do nothing to further conversation. If someone makes a post about electronic music and someone else wanders in to say "this is bad electronic music because it isn't Kraftwerk" or "this isn't real music! Where are the guitars?" or something along those lines, where do you go from there? If the only thing a comment can encourage is "IS NOT" "IS TOO" IS NOT INFINITY" then the discussion would be better off for the lack of it.
posted by griphus at 9:12 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah dismissive comments like that tend to be a big driver toward making all conversations into arguments about definitions of terms, which is quite tiresome.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:14 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: We're better than that. [[Citation needed]]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:19 AM on March 1, 2013 [11 favorites]


This is my bi-annual thanks to the mods for deleting many obnoxious Firsties and plea that they increase their trimming efforts. Please and thank you.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:20 AM on March 1, 2013


yes I agree, and especially any post about spiders or bees or bugs that invariably end up with a pile-on of kill-it-with-fire.
posted by dhruva at 9:21 AM on March 1, 2013 [5 favorites]


yes I agree, and especially any post about spiders or bees or bugs that invariably end up with a pile-on of kill-it-with-fire.

That's not really fair. Sometimes we should nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:23 AM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


[[Citation needed]]

Recent exception as citation.
posted by psoas at 9:23 AM on March 1, 2013


It's not really related but I just need to share that I am tired of the 'dust in my eye' or 'my monitor sure is misty!' or whatever jesus people just say you are crying there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2013 [41 favorites]


I wonder if there might be value in having an extra little instruction/warning near the comment entry field that only appears if there are fewer than, say, 3 comments already posted in the thread.

(Above the comment entry field would be more visible than the current text that sits above the post button. Maybe my experience is skewed by viewing the site with the browser zoomed in, but I'd never see that text until after writing a comment and scrolling down to hit 'Post'.)
posted by nobody at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2013


dhruva : yes I agree, and especially any post about spiders or bees or bugs that invariably end up with a pile-on of kill-it-with-fire.

In fairness, this is one of those things that actually doesn't bother me; if I'm posting some nightmare fuel, I'm happy to know that it's giving you the creeps. That's a feature, not a terrifying-face-eating-skull-burrowing-eggs-in-brain-laying bug.

Other poster's mileage may vary though.
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2013


Nobody, that sounds like a great idea to me!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2013


yes I agree, and especially any post about spiders or bees or bugs that invariably end up with a pile-on of kill-it-with-fire.

Or any post that has anything even tangentially related to Canada, in which someone inevitably makes the HI-LARIOUS comment "Canada has an Army?" or whatever. So funny!
posted by chococat at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


Nobody, that sounds like a great idea to me!

Until I realized who the user name with the great idea two posts up, this was the most perfect MetaTalk comment ever.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2013 [6 favorites]


How about making sure people actually read the links before commenting? That alone would be a revelation.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:36 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


How about making sure people actually read the links before commenting? That alone would be a revelation.

While I'd be on board for enforced link-reading prior to commenting, I don't think its workable from a site perspective. Perhaps "Didn't RTFL" can be added as a flag. Or I can stick to my tried-and-true "selective quote and re-link" method.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:40 AM on March 1, 2013


How about making sure people actually read the links before commenting? That alone would be a revelation.

I've seen the discussion that a post is public but closed to comments for some period of time, to give people time to digest the material. It was then pointed out that people might have seen/ read/ heard the material elsewhere before, or people might just wait the clock out and still drop bombs.

In short, I agree that people should make sure they know what the post is really about before commenting, but it's up to people to be good, as technology can't help us here. Damn you, technology!

And on further reflection, I realized that I'm annoyed by early thread shitters, but I'm really peeved by the "meh" comments dropped at any time. Negative comments can be countered with positive, but what do you say to a dismissive comment? "No, this isn't the most pointless kitten video to have on MetaFilter! Everyone can use a bit more cute kitty in their life!" sounds a bit like you're verging on crazy cat person territory [OK, I liked, everyone does have more time for cute cat videos, because videos can be enjoyed even by those allergic to physical cats.]
posted by filthy light thief at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2013


I have been guilty of this, and the suggested rule of thumb is a worthy one.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:07 AM on March 1, 2013


I'd also love to see Genesis and/or Huey Lewis mentioned without somebody quoting that hack Ellis.
posted by jonmc at 10:13 AM on March 1, 2013 [4 favorites]


Also, so long as we're airing grievances: can people please stop using "funny animal SLYT" as the go-to example for the sort of Ruining MetaFilter posts that the mods let stand while Poorly Framed Contentious Post Full Of Yelling was deleted?
posted by griphus at 10:14 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


No, I think we need to be clear about this. The spiders -- especially the ones inside the house -- must be destroyed.
posted by .kobayashi. at 10:35 AM on March 1, 2013


jonmc: "I'd also love to see Genesis and/or Huey Lewis mentioned without somebody quoting that hack Ellis."

I always think of those nightmare British puppets.
posted by boo_radley at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2013


And on further reflection, I realized that I'm annoyed by early thread shitters, but I'm really peeved by the "meh" comments dropped at any time.

Oh hell yes. Like, say someone posts an FPP about an anime series starring Noam Chomsky as a transfer student to a Japanese high school. I'm OK with comments saying something like, "Chomsky's egalitarian and anti-hierarchical positions are diametrically opposed to the rigid, top-down structure of a Japanese high school and I fail to see how this is even the least bit believable" or "I wonder if he'll end up arguing with the teacher over early childhood language development" or even "This would be so much better if Chomsky were also a magical girl". But someone dropping in to say "Eh, not really interested" ... why? Why do you have to let everyone in the thread know that this is not a subject that interests you? Do you also stop by the VFW, poke your head in the door and say, "Yo, I didn't serve and have no interest in joining the armed forces"? What does this add, at any point in the thread, and especially in the beginning when the discussion has barely even started? Just keep scrolling the front page; something's bound to turn up that you'll like.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:50 AM on March 1, 2013 [50 favorites]


I always think of those nightmare British puppets.

Oh come on, The Young Ones is a pretty good show.
posted by griphus at 10:53 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


Marisa Stole the Precious Thing, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your anime.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:54 AM on March 1, 2013 [13 favorites]


jonmc: "I'd also love to see Genesis and/or Huey Lewis mentioned without somebody quoting that hack Ellis."

I just think of the time on I Love the 80's when Greg Kihn told the joke about Huey Lewis peeing off of the Golden Gate Bridge.

"...man, that water's cold. And deep."
posted by Chrysostom at 10:56 AM on March 1, 2013


Instead of negative comments, constructive and thoughtful criticism would be better. It's fine not to like something, but give some reasons why and don't phrase as though the thing you don't like is somehow attacking you or your beliefs.

Bad first comment that's negative:
"Cilantro sucks!"

Good first comment that's negative:
"I've never liked cilantro, the flavor is soapy and reminds me of that I was washing the dog and she started splashing around and now I associate cilantro with wet dog. This always cracks me up when people who love cilantro go on and on about it, 'cause I imagine them licking wet dog and asking for seconds."

Even better first comment:
"I don't know how I feel about this post, but Brandon Blatcher sure is awesome."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on March 1, 2013 [14 favorites]


I admit I made a mistake commenting in an Obama thread at all.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Like, say someone posts an FPP about an anime series starring Noam Chomsky as a transfer student to a Japanese high school.

"Join us next week for the exciting hot springs episode 'Manufacturing Onsen!! Noam's Great Transformation, Deconstruction of the Mass Media 100x!'"
posted by zombieflanders at 11:07 AM on March 1, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Ah, Noam-kun ... it can't be helped."
"Actually, it can be helped. During the latter years of the New Deal, one of the more interesting developments to arise was - hang on, let me set up this slide projector ..."
(Giant sweat drop appears behind classmate's head.)
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:13 AM on March 1, 2013 [12 favorites]


Sorry, but I'm not going to politely wait for positive comments to come in before I have my say about something I strongly disagree with. That seems like a crappy approach to life in general.

Agree that "I hate TV" or "Dubstep sucks" are threadshitting, but they're threadshitting wherever they happen in the thread.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:15 AM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm at a point now where I probably back out of posting about 90% of the comments I start to write. I've started to ask myself "Am I adding to the discourse?". If the answer's pretty much "no", I close the tab.

Being a critic, despite the popular misconception, is hard. It places specific responsibilities upon you. It's more than saying "this is why I don't like this", because who cares? A good critic will say things that cause you to rethink your relationship to the topic at hand. On the Internet, being a half-assed critic is easy. But your comments are going to stick around, even as you grow as a person and have more nuanced things to say. It's much harder work to write a comment if decide beforehand that your audience is you, ten years from now.
posted by pipeski at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2013 [6 favorites]


whatever jesus people just say you are crying there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what has been going on with me this week, but I'm all whackadoo hormonal or something and have been having ALL THE EMOTIONS and this morning as I was riding the elevator up to work there was a short headline on the elevator tv about some police guarding a piece of the remaining Berlin wall that was being moved to make room for condos or something, and I just started crying. Like, right there in the elevator. No idea why.

It was at that point that the three dudes on the elevator with me looked back and forth at each other with blind terror, with that oh shit are we supposed to be doing something here look that people get when other people cry for no reason, and I blurted out, "don't mind me, just getting over a cold!" to put them at ease.

Seemed to work.

Fucking elevator tv.
posted by phunniemee at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2013 [6 favorites]


Despite the snark, Television Without Pity has high community standards and is well moderated; one thing I took away from them is the rule against using "um/umm." It's really tempting sometimes, but it's unnecessary to make a point and doesn't add anything helpful to the discussion.

Personally, I find that if I'm inclined to start a negative or contrarian comment with "um..." then what ever follows can probably be rephrased in a more respectful, helpful, or mature way.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:23 AM on March 1, 2013 [9 favorites]


Fucking elevator tv.

This is obviously a job for Noam-kun.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2013 [7 favorites]


Is this thread appropriately long enough for my negativity yet?
posted by mazola at 11:33 AM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


No.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:33 AM on March 1, 2013


Alternately: Meh.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2013


I'm happy to sign the petition. One of the reasons I left the site for a while was the automatic negativity that kept spoiling threads right off the bat.

> I'm at a point now where I probably back out of posting about 90% of the comments I start to write. I've started to ask myself "Am I adding to the discourse?". If the answer's pretty much "no", I close the tab.

Being a critic, despite the popular misconception, is hard. It places specific responsibilities upon you. It's more than saying "this is why I don't like this", because who cares? A good critic will say things that cause you to rethink your relationship to the topic at hand.


Exactly.
posted by languagehat at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'd like to personally thank the mods for deleting my utter crap comments from this site.
posted by roboton666 at 12:12 PM on March 1, 2013


When someone posted a thread about Parker Brothers' new-Monopoly-piece-contest recently, I was worried that the thread was going to turn into a PARKER BROTHERS BLUE FUCK YOU I'M GONNA READ ADORNO thing.

But then! I posted a pretty open-ended query about the Iron piece in Monopoly, and I'm really glad I did so! It elicited a ton of really fun comments about the iron and why people like it; I think it helped steer the thread into more interesting Proust-lite territory than it could have gone into, and I'm kinda proud of that.
posted by Greg Nog at 12:41 PM on March 1, 2013 [7 favorites]


A new school year. A new beginning.
❤ I hope that this year Kissinger-senpai will notice me! ❤
posted by strangely stunted trees at 12:43 PM on March 1, 2013 [11 favorites]


If someone has a relevant comment to make why should they wait to begin discussing a post? A comment about the material posted should not be viewed as an indictment of the poster and posters should not feel threatened or insulted by someone writing something negative about the topic of their post.

Relevant comments are not really what we're talking about here, as I understand it. Here's an example. I made a post recently (my second metafilter post ever) about owls. The very first comment was "FUCK OWLS". Maybe I should have anticipated that, since the title of the post was a quote from the article about how everyone loves owls. But it did mean that much of the thread was discussion about whether or not to fuck owls and how people feel about owls. It was a bit of a bummer.
posted by medusa at 12:47 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


A minor petition to MeFites at large: if you're the first person to comment on a thread, please don't start out negative, because that tends to bring the whole conversation down from the get-go.

I will attempt to live to this rule and please kick me if I don't. I certainly know that after making a post I'm always relieved when the first comment isn't snarky bullshit that boils down to "fuck you for thinking I might be interested in this thing" - which, to be fair, is at least half the time.
posted by Artw at 1:03 PM on March 1, 2013


I prefer to just comment with "First!"
posted by klangklangston at 1:04 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


I am totally down with random happy first comments.

Also "First" should only be used three or four comments in, or as the last comment in extra long threads.
posted by Artw at 1:08 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


❤ I hope that this year Kissinger-senpai will notice me! ❤

Is this an actual Thing, or an entirely new proto-meme spawned in MetaFilter?
posted by KokuRyu at 1:09 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


SNUGGLE OWLS
posted by Artw at 1:12 PM on March 1, 2013


It's more of a proto-culture.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:13 PM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


Sidhedevil, I support critical comments, and I think most here do, too. My concern is for the Dubstep Sucks, or, Meh, There's No Drop comments. Criticism starts a discussion. Derision or dismissal can start fights.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:16 PM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is this an actual Thing, or an entirely new proto-meme spawned in MetaFilter?

Aw, it's just a used meme off the rack, I'm afraid. (Warning: Know Your Meme link)
posted by strangely stunted trees at 1:20 PM on March 1, 2013


Agree that "I hate TV" or "Dubstep sucks" are threadshitting, but they're threadshitting wherever they happen in the thread.

Agreed. But when they happen early they're visually prominent and definitely more likely to spur a full derail. If they're comment #100 and buried in a discussion, that's more ignorable.
posted by zarq at 1:21 PM on March 1, 2013


Aw, it's just a used meme off the rack, I'm afraid.

Okay, thanks for the clarification... Oh, this made me laugh out load.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:31 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


Oh god, there are more...
posted by KokuRyu at 1:33 PM on March 1, 2013


Greg Nog, stop being so Adorno-negative; it's killing my Frankfurt groupie buzz.
posted by ifjuly at 1:34 PM on March 1, 2013


Oh god, there are more...

I warned you. You all saw me warn him, right?

Jesus. What have I done?
posted by strangely stunted trees at 2:41 PM on March 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


If my comment didn't precipitate this post, it should have. I have seen the error of my ways. I won't ask the mods to delete it because I need the permanent stain of shame to remind me to clean up my act.

p.s.- thank you, filthy light thief, for all your great music-related posts.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:43 PM on March 1, 2013


Should we flag "kill it with fire" style comments in threads about bugs, or are they considered acceptable? It seems like lazy threadshitting to me, but I'm a grumpy old man.
posted by L. Ron McKenzie at 2:49 PM on March 1, 2013


I internalized this advice a few years back, and while you might find an example where I violated this rule I really try hard not to. My hatred for a few subject is visceral and and I do think there are a few subjects where there's nothing good or positive to be said about the person or subject. I try to avoid these threads entirely. Helps my stress and I don't really have anything worthwhile to add anyway.

Just assume I'd have written "Asshole" in every thread about Rupert Murdoch if I were participating in them.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:06 PM on March 1, 2013


I'm still reeling from that "...ice in the urinals..." comment somebody made somewhere.

What kind of universe is that people put ice in urinals? Did they think nobody would even notice? And...to add insult to injury...it gets only the most casual and off-handed treatment in here. Fie! Shame!
posted by mule98J at 3:19 PM on March 1, 2013


Should we flag "kill it with fire" style comments in threads about bugs, or are they considered acceptable?

You're welcome to flag, but usually that reads more as a lazy joke than something really likely to change the tone of the conversation. And I mostly see those comments in threads that are more "look at these gross bugs!" than "let us have a serious conversation about entomology." Framing always matters.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:14 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


Despite the snark, Television Without Pity has high community standards and is well moderated; one thing I took away from them is the rule against using "um/umm." It's really tempting sometimes, but it's unnecessary to make a point and doesn't add anything helpful to the discussion.

Personally, I find that if I'm inclined to start a negative or contrarian comment with "um..." then what ever follows can probably be rephrased in a more respectful, helpful, or mature way.


This is my personal pet peeve. SO RUDE to "umm" at someone you disagree with when you're typing. THIS RANKLES ME.
posted by blue t-shirt at 4:24 PM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I learned the same thing there, and have mostly cured myself of it. I never mean it rudely, but it always reads that way.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:25 PM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bof.
posted by two lights above the sea at 4:41 PM on March 1, 2013


Here's an example. I made a post recently (my second metafilter post ever) about owls.

Medusa, thank you for that excellent post. I forwarded it to someone not on MF who really enjoyed it. I didn't comment or favorite because my birding knowledge barely extends to crows and chickadees. But you did good.
posted by vers at 5:36 PM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Positivity! Yes! We need more of that! But Prince didn't play it on the Lovesexy tour! OMG!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:40 PM on March 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Eighty seventh!
posted by Wordshore at 5:41 PM on March 1, 2013


I internalised the advice to be more positive in threads a while ago and it's definitely made me pause before making "your favourite X sucks" kind of comments.
posted by arcticseal at 6:04 PM on March 1, 2013


Mehing has been pissing me off for a long while and hey my meta spawned the exact same meta-meta joke as this one.

chococat: "Or any post that has anything even tangentially related to Canada, in which someone inevitably makes the HI-LARIOUS comment "Canada has an Army?" or whatever. So funny!"

At least now we don't have to put up with disparging comments about the exchange rate. The first time C$1=US$1 in my living memory was a glorious day.

Hark! a solution appears: We just need to get down there and burn down the Whitehouse again.
posted by Mitheral at 6:29 PM on March 1, 2013 [2 favorites]


metafilter: This would be so much better if Chomsky were also a magical girl

C'mon, you know it would
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:31 PM on March 1, 2013


Are there more concrete examples of recent threads that have started too negative? I'm having trouble understanding the ask here.
posted by humanfont at 8:01 PM on March 1, 2013


Does flag it and move on not work anymore? If the shite comments get enough flags, they vanish, no?
posted by Renoroc at 8:12 PM on March 1, 2013


metafilter: This would be so much better if Chomsky were also a magical girl

This would also avoid the problematic Beach Episode, where Chomsky-kun would ask why kids who live on an island would react with wild-eyed wonder at the sight of the ocean.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:45 PM on March 1, 2013


Does flag it and move on not work anymore? If the shite comments get enough flags, they vanish, no?

They don't vanish immediately, and if people decide to skip the thread before the mods delete the negative comments, a good discussion never gets started.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 3:40 AM on March 2, 2013


Remembering that MeFi is "hey this is a thing I want to share" and not "hey you should all think about this thing in this way" then trying to classify the acceptability of responses by whether they approve of "thing" or not seems to be rather heavy-handed with the editorial pencil.

I am however on board with flagging and removing "why should I/you/anyone care about this" comments, they're not advancing discussion at all.

Is that what we're talking about here? Because while I do agree that "meh" and "i don't care" comments are bad, I don't agree that comments taking an opposing point of view are bad, even if they're early in the thread.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


Does flag it and move on not work anymore? If the shite comments get enough flags, they vanish, no?

And often people comment on the negative comments, then the original is removed and the subsequent comments are either deleted or left with holes in them.

Also, sometimes a shitty or negative comment isn't invalid. This doesn't mean it belongs in the first comments. People post about things they like generally. Sometimes others don't care as much, but you don't have to be the first in to register your disdain. Let the people who enjoy such things enjoy them.

Is this something I would have to have a TV to understand? type comments are the ones that piss me off. I always want to reply, "No, you need an interest in overcoming ignorance to understand." I stay out of sports threads because they generally bore the shit out of me. I don't come in with the "Your favorite team sucks" comment or "Boston hasn't been worth watching since '87!" They may be how you feel, but they are just pissing on someone else's fun for no good reason.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:12 AM on March 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that we should mute negative reactions until some quota of positive comments has been met.
posted by humanfont at 7:27 AM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm sorry about the owls. I am really afraid of owls though. But they are still interesting. I just don't want them near me!
posted by interplanetjanet at 7:33 AM on March 2, 2013


> I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that we should mute negative reactions until some quota of positive comments has been met.

Nobody's saying that. People are saying if you have a negative reaction, you should express it in an interesting manner that advances discussion, not make some braindead comment like "Meh" or "Who cares?"
posted by languagehat at 7:56 AM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't agree that comments taking an opposing point of view are bad, even if they're early in the thread.

We agree with you. We're really looking at early content-free non-discussion-starting "This sucks" level of theadshitting. Anything that has a nuanced "Huh, I really didn't like the way the writer of that essay did THIS because of REASONS" is usually fine. And this isn't a change from what we-as-mods have already been doing for years, just pointing out to people that it's helpful if you flag early threadshitting because then we see it and can axe it.

And, fleshing this out a little, comments that contribute to a discussion with other members and don't just focus on YOUYOUYOU are also more useful. We see a lot of mysterious "Well I don't have any sympathy for that guy" sorts of comments which, while usually not things we'll delete, are often stop-threads-dead comments because people will argue with the commenter about why they're being so heartless (or whatever) and stop discussing the thread topic.

I like talking about myself as much as the next person but I tend to ask myself whether my comment is more about me or more about the topic and, unless we're all in some "Let's tell our stories!" mode in a thread, try to only make the comments that are mostly about the thread and topic, not just about MEMEME.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:07 AM on March 2, 2013


try to only make the comments that are mostly about the thread and topic, not just about MEMEME.

Cause remember, MEMEME is just another meme with an extra me.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:31 AM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


Having been around a while, I have learned the hard way that when something that's already soaked in gasoline gets posted on the blue, best to leave it alone, because there are like 100K people who can make this worse better than I can.

The only thing that still goads me a little are some of the AskMe's. Those that are either so vague as to be unanswerable, or so lengthily detailed as to have answered their own question five times in the process.

I want to toss a solid "Oh FerChrissakes!" at those folks, but I have found a way to restrain myself from doing so.

So far.
posted by timsteil at 10:00 AM on March 2, 2013


Or, stop trying to be so relentlessly "positive" and let people comment in the way they feel moved to comment. Sometimes negativity is not only appropriate but also good.

The Internet has trouble understanding the concept that nobody gives a crap about what you don't give a crap about.
posted by bondcliff at 4:25 PM on March 1


And Metafilter has trouble understanding that some people don't give a crap about what you do give a crap about. And are moved to damned well say so - if the mods allow it, naturally.
posted by Decani at 10:10 AM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


And are moved to damned well say so

Why?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:13 AM on March 2, 2013


Why?

Why? Why? Because... Decani.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:15 AM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


His lack of interest should, nay, must be heard!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:16 AM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


And Metafilter has trouble understanding that some people don't give a crap about what you do give a crap about. And are moved to damned well say so - if the mods allow it, naturally.

But... If you really don't give a crap, why take the time to say so? I'm not a huge fan of the subjects of dozens of posts a week, and kind of ambivalent on many more. Why would anyone want to know that I personally have no interest in, say, crypto-Mennonite barley farming in the Urals, and why would I want anyone to know that badly enough to type it out? It seems like a lot of effort to rain on someone's parade.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:20 AM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


I personally have no interest in, say, crypto-Mennonite barley farming in the Urals

Whoah whoah, back the fuck up. There's no need to escalate things here.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:21 AM on March 2, 2013 [7 favorites]


On the other hand, if I wanted to point out that barley farming is an ethically-dubious practice that negatively impacts upland wetlands, I suspect that would be a positive negative coiner, if that makes sense.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:24 AM on March 2, 2013


And Metafilter has trouble understanding that some people don't give a crap about what you do give a crap about.

Why would anyone come here if they didn't give a crap about what people give a crap about? I mean, it's basically Metafilter: People posting about stuff they give a crap about.
posted by bondcliff at 10:29 AM on March 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


And by "coiner," I mean "comment." geeze.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:32 AM on March 2, 2013


In the style of Run-DMC:

Crypto-Mennonite barley farming!
Me and my homeys gonna be swarming!
Over your field and reaping your crop!
Crypto-Mennonites just won't stop!
HUH!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


But... If you really don't give a crap, why take the time to say so?

How would you know someone doesn't give a crap if they don't tell you?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:42 AM on March 2, 2013


At this point I recommend LET'S TALK ABOUT LOVE - A Journey To the End of Taste from the 33 1/3 series. It's the best book in the world on why the crap you are into may not be the crap everyone else is into and why you should get over yourself before shitting everyone else's crap, though I beleive Goethe and Aristotle cover some of the same ground without involving Celine Dione.
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


Both "This is bad" and "this is good" can benefit from why the poster thinks so.

the man of twists and turns, long ago and far away we had a convention of dropping [this is good] into posts we liked - particularly in posts that didn't generate a lot of discussion. Of course, that predated favorites, which may serve that function.

While I agree that it is better to make a substantive comment, it's my opinion that short positive comments never hurt, we rarely have an overabundance. I tend to make posts that don't always generate a lot of discussion so when people post a simple "thanks" or "I really enjoyed this" I appreciate it. Similarly, sometimes when I see a really fine post that is eliciting very little attention, I like to drop a note to let the poster know I appreciate the post and their efforts. I think dropping brief positive statements has a totally different effect than dropping brief negative turds statements.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:47 AM on March 2, 2013 [4 favorites]


Otherwise content-free positive statements definitely do have a different effect on the conversation than similar negative statements.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:50 AM on March 2, 2013


I love short positive comments.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:51 AM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


Short positive comments love you, too, LM.
posted by Phire at 12:21 PM on March 2, 2013


I am a fan of crustaceans in winter gear, and agitated hobos and Phire.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:25 PM on March 2, 2013 [5 favorites]


Together we make a nifty diorama.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:46 PM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


Crustaceans in Winter Gear And The Agitated Hobos is my new band name.
posted by Phire at 1:08 PM on March 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


[Oh, here it comes. This is going to be the thread where the mods break out into a musical number. I've been waiting for this for a long time. Whedon be Praised!]
posted by benito.strauss at 1:19 PM on March 2, 2013 [6 favorites]


I am the very model if a modern thread-shit general. I'm never analytical, just critical and very often think I'm whimsical. Meh.
posted by humanfont at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'd just like to take a bit of time and mention that Phire is awesome.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:53 PM on March 2, 2013 [9 favorites]


If you're praising Whedon, add some thanks for The Cabin in the Woods for me. I finally saw it, and it was great. Well done comedic horror, and not at all campy, as some comedic horror movies tend to be.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:54 PM on March 2, 2013 [4 favorites]


Why would anyone want to know that I personally have no interest in, say, crypto-Mennonite barley farming in the Urals, and why would I want anyone to know that badly enough to type it out? It seems like a lot of effort to rain on someone's parade.

Sadly, with modern computers and the internet, it's actually quite easy to virtually rain on parades, as it were. Since word processors were networked, and shrunken from 200 lb monsters that need to be lugged around via crane down to devices that can fit in one's pocket, it is actually to figuratively "drop turds" in a discussion while literally dropping turds into a toilet (pardon my crass language).

The future is a double-edged sword.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:58 PM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


Am I on speaker phone? I'm still on speaker phone, aren't I?
posted by filthy light thief at 8:00 PM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


I just had a revelation about SHIELD. This... this could be good.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:10 PM on March 2, 2013


I think there's two different strands of thought being expressed in the thread here. Everyone seems to agree that a comment like "Dubstep sucks" is a turd in the punchbowl, and it is even worse to shit in the punchbowl before anyone has enjoyed delicious punch than later on in the party.

But some people seem to be taking the position---which doesn't seem to be the thread-starter's (filthy light thief's) position---that a comment like "I found this article way too out there in terms of evo-psych speculation. The author cites some gorilla social structures, but overlooks social structures in primates more closely related to us, like bonobos. Here's a link to a study Frans de Waal did that shows inter-adolescent bonding, rather than competition..." or similar, should also be refrained from as a comment if it's the first comment. I am not on board with that.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:18 PM on March 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Dubstep sucks" is just the anti-Boner Report, isn't it? (The Boner Report is when people respond to, say, pictures of munitions workers in World War II with "I'd hit that chick on the left" as though anyone cares which now-dead ladies gave them a boner.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:21 PM on March 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


restless_nomad: "You're welcome to flag, but usually that reads more as a lazy joke than something really likely to change the tone of the conversation. And I mostly see those comments in threads that are more "look at these gross bugs!" than "let us have a serious conversation about entomology." Framing always matters."

Well, I know at least one real live entomologist with world class credentials here on MeFi who's simply given up trying to add comments to bug threads, because invariably it's just wading into a cesspool of people telling you "THE THING YOU RESEARCH IS DISGUSTING LET'S KILL IT HAW HAW" and so they just said "Fuck it, not worth my time."

So, yes, the framing matters, and dhruva is absolutely right.
posted by barnacles at 6:00 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]


"I'd also love to see Genesis and/or Huey Lewis mentioned without somebody quoting that hack Ellis."

As long as Huey Lewis is not fawned over like some sort of 80s rock and roll Bach, yes, we have a deal!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:56 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]


My guess is that 1% of the people who quote American Psycho on Genesis or Huey Lewis have read the book.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:44 AM on March 3, 2013


I'd be happy if we could at least have a conversation about ANY OTHER of his books. Except Less Than Zero.

What I'm saying is that does anyone want to have a conversation about how The Rules of Attraction is severely underrated?
posted by griphus at 7:58 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]


I prefer to assume we're talking about Ellis from Left 4 Dead 2 and that there's just some bit of DLC that I haven't played yet where he delivers an exegesis on the merits of Genesis and Lewis vis-a-vis the works of the Midnight Riders while blowing off zombie heads with a shotgun.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on March 3, 2013


Glamorama is easily my favorite but it's the one that seems to get mentioned the least other than The Informers.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:22 AM on March 3, 2013


The Rules of Attraction is severely underrated

I like the movie.
posted by Artw at 8:23 AM on March 3, 2013


Substep ducks.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:06 AM on March 3, 2013


I've been trying to ask the "What value does this add?" question before I post. It's useful, even if I can't always live up to it.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:21 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]


I never actually managed to finsih The Informers. Glamorama I genuinely enjoyed, but at times it felt like it was trying to split the difference between American Psycho and Rules and update it for the late-90s, and I think it was a little more obvious than it should have been. Also, whatever he was trying to do with the name-dropping I could not figure out and ended up skimming through those sections.
posted by griphus at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2013


Also, Glamorama was one of the few books I've re-read immediately after finishing it.
posted by griphus at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2013


I like how inexplicable the film crew is, mostly.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:34 AM on March 3, 2013


I have never wanted a pony more than I've wanted a "thoughtlessly dropped a bit of a turd" flag.

That's the main use of the noise flag.

You can also flag Merzbow posts and/or comments.
posted by ersatz at 11:33 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, if people interested in this issue can flag the early threadcrapping stuff as 'noise', that will be helpful.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:44 AM on March 3, 2013


And, I hasten to add, move on. This means do not quote, respond, or allude to the crappy comment. That makes it much simpler to extract.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:46 AM on March 3, 2013 [3 favorites]


This Story Stinks
posted by Artw at 10:30 PM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure this was directed at me, and I'm sorry. I've had it happen to a few threads of mine, too. But we're a large community, and pretty much everything somebody posts will have both its defenders and detractors. And it's much better than it being completely ignored. Negative criticisms can provide a starting point for examining something or articulating why you like it.

In this case it was something I'd already been discussing during the day and something I had an opinion on
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 11:48 PM on March 3, 2013


At least in posts where it is a matter of taste or preference, I'm not sure why people bother leaving negative comments at all. Like, I can see if someone posts something genuinely objectionable -- first thing that comes to mind is yet another pop-science article on MEN ARE LIKE THIS, WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS, EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY STUDY CLAIMS -- then early "hey, this is bullshit because..." comments are pretty warranted. But if someone is posting a video of a silly dog or a band they like or something, refuting the very fact that this is something post-worthy via comment seems like a waste of everyone's time.

But its never just about that. A video of a dog is fine, but 100 videos of dogs say 'posting photos of dogs is part of what this site is about'. 'This is a cool band' is a bit different than 'this is a cool band who's just skyrocketed up the charts and started selling out huge venues, making them part of the wider cultural conversation'.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 11:53 PM on March 3, 2013


Do you think you only did that in one thread? The vast majority of your contributions to this site are either you telling other people that their stuff sucks, or arguing with anybody who doesn't love all the same things that you do.
posted by empath at 5:11 AM on March 4, 2013


Negative criticisms can provide a starting point for examining something or articulating why you like it.

With respect, this is something you could stand to get a little better at. A negative opinion as a conversation starter is really different than a negative opinion as just a "I feel this bad way about this thing in addition to all the other things I feel this bad way about" thing which tends to suck all the air out of a thread and make it just about you.

You're welcome to your own opinions about anything, but trying to wrestle a thread into only discussing your own opinion about anything (the Thrift Shop thread is the one I am thinking about but there are many others) or repeatedly just talking about how something everyone else likes is actually awful is not a great way to be part of a conversation. It would be helpful if you were more mindful about the role you personally play in this type of dynamic and could try to minimize the percentage of your interactions that happen in this exact way.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:03 AM on March 4, 2013 [7 favorites]


But its never just about that. A video of a dog is fine, but 100 videos of dogs say 'posting photos of dogs is part of what this site is about'.

But if it isn't about that particular dog video, that comment doesn't belong in that thread. If the comment is about the glut of dog videos coming to define what the site is about, that's explicitly what MetaTalk is for.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:25 AM on March 4, 2013


A video of a dog is fine, but 100 videos of dogs say 'posting photos of dogs is part of what this site is about'.

Posting photos and videos of cute animals is part of what this site is about, like it or not. It has been since Day 1, Post 1. Silly animal posts are widely appreciated and not some sort of barely-tolerated anomalies.

'This is a cool band' is a bit different than 'this is a cool band who's just skyrocketed up the charts and started selling out huge venues, making them part of the wider cultural conversation'.

Different to whom? Me and you and other music nerds? Sure, yes, there's distinct differences between someone making a retrospective post about a band, and someone chronicling a new band's rise to fame. For everyone else -- and this "everyone else" comprises most of the userbase, mind you -- there is not that much of a difference between a post about one band they don't know or haven't heard of in years and a post about another band they don't know or may have heard mentioned in passing.
posted by griphus at 8:25 AM on March 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


This Story Stinks

This is a very interesting story. Creating a fairly neutral science news story, the designers of an experiment showed said story to a group of readers:
Half of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other half to rude ones — though the actual content, length and intensity of the comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology to being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as in: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” and “You’re stupid if you’re not thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water tainted with silver.”

The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.
I wouldn't call the results "surprising", having seen the phenomenon in practice, many times. But it is interesting that someone sought to test this in a controlled environment and voila.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:50 AM on March 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Coke thread from 15 minutes ago has this first comment:
tl;dr. Every Coke contains the blood of countless, nameless workers. Every Coke you buy supports one of the most ruthless and disgusting corporations the world has ever known. Coke is pure evil.
This seems like a textbook example of what people are being asked not to do here. The commenter didn't even read the article, just saw "Coke" and wanted to post an anti-Coke rant.
posted by grouse at 10:20 AM on March 4, 2013 [2 favorites]


I flagged that.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on March 4, 2013


And the system works!
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:25 AM on March 4, 2013


Thank you!
posted by zarq at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2013


cortex's quick modjitsu leaves my comments looking sort of out of context. I edited one to make it make sense without thinking about it, but that's kind of not allowed I guess?

Re-reading it Cortex actually really effectively reset the tone in that thread so if he or another mod wants to just delete my response comment I could rewrite it to better fit the new and improved context of the thread.
posted by Wretch729 at 10:36 AM on March 4, 2013


Sure, nixed, have at it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:05 AM on March 4, 2013


Fall Out Boy's Patrick Stump actually has a great blog post about why it's pointless to hate things on the Internet.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 7:45 PM on March 4, 2013


My latest FPP has fallen victim to this in a big way. Oh cruel irony!
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:43 PM on March 5, 2013


I killed the first-comment blargsnark, but as much as I feel for you I think the difficulty level for People Not Making Obvious Jokes is just about the maximum when the post is "member for popularly reviled band writes article about how people shouldn't hate on e.g. populary reviled bands". Doesn't make the jokes not lazy or obvious but let's pick our battles a little.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:47 PM on March 5, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah I'm not sure it's ironic if it's just ... obvious.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:28 PM on March 5, 2013


« Older The level of naked bigotry in ...  |  Is this a Deleted Posts script... Newer »

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