The racist post needs to go.

July 3, 2002 10:59 AM

I'm not one to post on MetaTalk, well, ever, but this needs to go. There's no excuse for it's overt racism. It's personally insulting a multitude of people, as well as most everyone's intelligence. Nothing constructive is coming out of it.
posted by SweetJesus to etiquette/policy at 10:59 AM (69 comments total)

Instead of censoring, let's teach people to be critical readers. Seems to me the thread is debunking the content (or at least demonizing the racism) to a wholly appropriate degree. Deletion seems almost counter-productive: the bigotry won't go away just because we close our eyes.
posted by Marquis at 11:01 AM on July 3, 2002

For those of you who have been lucky enough not to read the whole article, in all it's racist, xenophobic glory, here's an exerpt.

Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and you fellow Muslims hate us because we have befriended Israel, the ONLY civilized nation in the entire middle-east? And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion. We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world.

Is there really any reason for this?
posted by SweetJesus at 11:01 AM on July 3, 2002

I agree with you Marquis, but this isn't really censorship. I think the man has a right to speak his mind, but I also think he's an idiot. I also think there's really nothing constructive that's going to come out of an article like this. It just turns into a racist flame war, and no one wants that.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:03 AM on July 3, 2002

Is there really any reason for this?

Yes. There's some good discussion in that thread. And the more you try and cover up the things you don't like, the more likely they are to find an audience of people who are ignorant of the opposing views. It's only by bringing such things into the light that they can be debated. And I have to say that I think you're over-reacting just a tad; just because something appears on MetaFilter doesn't mean it's officially endorsed by MetaFilter and its community, in fact, most of that thread pretty clearly indicates that it's not. If it offends you, make a comment in the thread about why, but asking for it to be deleted is not a constructive solution, and goes against the whole point of this place, IMHO.

posted by biscotti at 11:10 AM on July 3, 2002

SweetJesus: The thread already has 67 comments and hasn't been much of a flame war, though you appear to be trying to get one started. The post was horrible, but some of the detective work in the thread is great (especially dogmatic's post). Sometimes it's worth peering under a rock to look at people like that.
posted by rcade at 11:12 AM on July 3, 2002

...this isn't really censorship...
...but this needs to go...

With standard owner-of-Metafilter exception applying, being offended by a post in no way warrants its deletion. Nearly everyone in the thread -- except the original poster -- has decried it as bigoted intolerance shite, and some have gone so far as to debunk its supposed origins.

Don't like it? Don't read it. MetaFilter is not here to be your personal source of sunshine, flowers, rainbows, lollipops, or cute kitties.

Well, maybe the cute kitties...
posted by Danelope at 11:13 AM on July 3, 2002

"I woulda gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you durned MetaFiltarians!"
posted by ColdChef at 11:21 AM on July 3, 2002

Even ugly things should be examined and discussed.

What should NOT be permissible is such ugliness between one member and another as in the following remark posted by Zool in this thread.

I don't appreciate it and if i ever meet you face to face i'm going to shove your head up your ass so far you'll be able to lick your own g-spot.

If that sort of thing is appropriate for Metafilter, then I'm clearly in the wrong place.
posted by rushmc at 11:22 AM on July 3, 2002

With standard owner-of-Metafilter exception applying, being offended by a post in no way warrants its deletion.

I'm offended by plenty of posts, and pretty much all the time I keep that offense to myself. This one is different. This one goes way above the normal boundary of offensiveness.

I don't consider myself to be too overly-sensitive, but maybe I am in this case. People seem to not be as utterly disgusted with this post as I am. I think it should be deleted because it's nothing but an excuse to use a tragedy to further someone ( or some group's ) personal agenda. In this case it was a disturbing, racist, intolerant, xenophobic agenda.

I just think it has no place, but I guess I'm in the minority.

And Rcade: I wasn't trying to "start" a flamewar, but lets be honest. Plenty of people were calling Postroad out on his views. I did the same. There's nothing in any of my posts that amounts to flaming.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:39 AM on July 3, 2002

Totally hateful and hate-filled link, yes, but the debunking has been very informative.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:40 AM on July 3, 2002

From Zool, linked above: I don't appreciate it and if i ever meet you face to face i'm going to shove your head up your ass so far you'll be able to lick your own g-spot.

You know, it should be mentioned here that anyone who believes that they'll find a g-spot by going through someone's anus has far more serious problems than a lack of civility.


posted by ColdChef at 11:45 AM on July 3, 2002

anyone who believes that they'll find a g-spot by going through someone's anus has far more serious problems than a lack of civility.

Unless you took a certain amount of tearing as implied.
posted by yerfatma at 12:02 PM on July 3, 2002

SweetJesus: There's nothing in any of my posts that amounts to flaming.

flame 1. vi. To post an [email] message intended to insult and provoke.

SweetJesus: "You should really just go back to posting I/P threads and starting arguments on MetaTalk."

SweetJesus: "I should say the author (and apparently Postroad) are arrogant, self-serving, hateful, and scared of difference or change."

It's funny how both of the above statements seem like rather obvious attempts to insult and/or provoke.
posted by Danelope at 12:06 PM on July 3, 2002

Dammit ColdChef! I was just about to say that! And yerfatma, that makes sense (and made me LOL).

SweetJesus: I'm still not clear on your rationale for wanting this deleted, it doesn't seem any more offensive than many other posts I've seen on the front page (although it's clearly more offensive to you), and what would be the point of deleting it? It's led to some serious discussion, I don't see what deleting it is meant to accomplish. And I think it's possible that you're misinterpreting the lack of support for your delete request as support for the concepts in the post. I don't agree with the linked article, I find some of it offensive (even though it's spurious, as we now know), but I don't agree that it should be deleted.
posted by biscotti at 12:06 PM on July 3, 2002

It was a troll, definitely (inflammatory language, racism), and the poster has a history of trolling as anybody who happened to check out a few I/P threads knows very well

But as others pointed out already the discussion has been pretty civil. Ugly opinions are not enough to mandate deletion

There's a huge amount of trolling on MeFi, unfortunately
If we delete all trolls and insensitive posts, we're cutting MeFi in half I think.
Matt has to be the administrator in that sense, he has to make that call

posted by matteo at 12:12 PM on July 3, 2002

There's nothing in any of my posts that amounts to flaming.

How about the part where you said Postroad was apparently "arrogant, self-serving, hateful, and scared of difference or change"? Fanning the flames in the thread and then running over here to call for its deletion seems like cheating. Pick a team and stick with it.
posted by rcade at 12:13 PM on July 3, 2002

I agree that Postroad was trolling with this one, but I don't wish to see it deleted.
posted by dejah420 at 12:14 PM on July 3, 2002

First, I don't think the post should be deleted, even though the link is gross.

Really, though, it's not just that the link is gross. It's what surrounds the link that's offensive. The link isn't introduced with, "Yeesh, look how bad this is. What do you all think?" No, instead, it's introduced with:

This American Airlines pilot hits the nail on the head for me! Thus far the Muslim voices I hear in America--and they are precious few--always seem to get half way through condemniong this or that and then insert a "BUT" or "HOWEVER." This guy asks for a simple, straight-forward response.

I mean, come on, Postroad.
posted by Tin Man at 12:15 PM on July 3, 2002

Danelope, I'll give you the first one (I think I went a little bit overboard on it ) but I stand by the second one. Postroad obviously supported the views that the article held, and that's all I said.

Biscotti: I dont really know why I want it deleted now, looking back on it. Maybe I was pissed off a bit becuase I wasted 20 minutes or so of my normally productive moring reading racist filth that was passed off as a reasonable argument.

I'm also not reading anything into the fact that people want to keep the post around. I understand the difference between suporting someone's right to say something, and acutally supporting their statement.

I think the main reason I wanted it deleted, is because aside from finding a few things out about the author, I didn't think the discussion was all that deep and meaningful. It was mainly people agreeing with the fact that the article was trash, with a few detractors on the side. I just didn't think it was all that constructive.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:19 PM on July 3, 2002

From Louis Brandeis' famous concurrence in Whitney v. California 1927:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. [note 2] They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence [376] coerced by law--the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Always good to remember when someone advocates censorship.
posted by anathema at 12:23 PM on July 3, 2002

How about the part where you said Postroad was apparently "arrogant, self-serving, hateful, and scared of difference or change"? Fanning the flames in the thread and then running over here to call for its deletion seems like cheating. Pick a team and stick with it.

I'm not on a team. I don't want to be on a team. I post what I feel. I guess I flamed Postroad a little bit, but he was asking for it. That post was a troll, plain and simple. Lot's of people are pretty sensitive about issues like this, and a post like this is a big "fuck you" to all of them. What did he expect?

I stand by my second quote, because I believe all those things to be true of the author, and the article it's self. If Postroad agrees with the article, then I'm going to lump him into the same catagory.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:28 PM on July 3, 2002

Always good to remember when someone advocates censorship.

I'm not trying to censor anyone. I'm not trying to keep Postroad from speaking his mind, I simply think that this isn't really the place for him to spew that sort of racist rhetoric. People disagree with me, and that's fine, but I'm not trying to censor anyone.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:31 PM on July 3, 2002

I followed the link, and what was on the other end of it was a pretty awful piece of work. It was interesting to me as an accessible exhibit of a way of thinking that is completely and utterly foreign to my understanding. I got to look into a mind that functions entirely orthogonally to mine. Reading it was a weird, disconcerting, and spooky experience akin to stepping off the train and finding myself on the moon. Not pleasant -- in fact, deserving of a pretty big heaping teaspoon of scorn -- but arguably not something to be swept under the rug.

In keeping with the other occasional "holy shit, look at this raving nutcase" posts that turn up on MetaFilter from time to time, I don't see what's special about this one in particular that should provoke deletion. Sure, the content of the linked site is pretty distasteful, but so're lots of other things that crop up on MetaFilter for various reasons. Agreeability isn't and should not be the gold standard for using MeFi to point something out to the community.


posted by majick at 12:34 PM on July 3, 2002

i'm just waiting for someone to write a country song using that article as lyrics.

i don't think that the thread was a waste. i found some interesting things brought up in it, especially this link by sheagua. i'm often impressed on metafilter how good links & comments can rise, phoenix like, from the ashes of a bad thread.

go metafilter!
posted by witchstone at 12:48 PM on July 3, 2002

Great quote, anathema!

I disagree with SweetJesus' call to delete the post but fully support his right to question its value and appropriateness here.
posted by rushmc at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2002

I prefer NutraJesus®, the low-calorie saviour.
posted by rocketman at 1:18 PM on July 3, 2002

But seriously, the majority has spoken, and I agree with it.

Let's keep the thread out there.
posted by rocketman at 1:19 PM on July 3, 2002

is the notable absence of public ass-kissing on the part of our Muslim populace, which however hypocritical such ass-kissing might be, is really called for as a public ritual in this situation. Arab-Muslim Americans should be roaming the streets on their bloody knees, begging forgiveness, screaming "death to Muslim extremists", festooning every inch of their bodies with cheap, patriotic trinkets, and swearing eternal fealty to the United States of America. Their people have committed an unspeakable monstrosity, and monstrous public expiation is required -- however unfair it may be to the individual Muslim Arab American. - Faze

So wait, this was written by Faze in that thread. rushmc noted that this comment was sarcasm, but I saw no follow-up by Faze and can only assume this as a sincere comment.

I'm offended. I don't care anymore if this was a joke. Faze has also written such comments as this:

This is the intellectual level of most of the "evidence" for global warming. "Man, it was so hot today, there must be something funny going on in the climate." Dishonest greens do nothing to discourage this, even though they know is ridiculous to extrapolate long-term climatic change from the weather of one week, one year, or even one decade. Like their moral forebears, the communists and fascists, they are happy to stampede an ignorant populace for their nihilistic ends. - Faze

I don't feel like starting a new MeTa post about the same MeFi thread. You want a troll? Here is your troll.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:50 PM on July 3, 2002

When I first started posting here, I put a link to a man killing and cooking a kitten on the front page. I got beat up for it, and now that I have a better feel for the community, I know why. It deserved to be deleted. That's why we have Fark.

This post, however, was simply a different way of thinking. I don't agree with it at all, but it goes against the ideals of this place to just delete it because not many agree with what the author is saying.

And even if Postroad was just being a punk or trolling or whatever, that's fine. At a site with several thousand members, you have to expect that from time to time. Most of the time I enjoy the challenge of figuring out what is and what is not a troll.

Postroad probably should have just posted a synopsis of the link and then wrote what he did in the first comment, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that finding links here that might challenge us to think about our viewpoints is one of the big reasons that I read MeFi everyday.
posted by Samsonov14 at 3:28 PM on July 3, 2002

Hear! Hear!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:38 PM on July 3, 2002

Doing nothing about the post(road) only encourages more like it.
posted by euphorb at 4:57 PM on July 3, 2002

You take the high road, and I'll take the Postroad...

Never mind. You can't hear me singing, and I think that's what made it funny.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:16 PM on July 3, 2002

What do you mean by "doing nothing about" it? The MeFi community is doing something about it, we're discussing it. That's what we do here euphorb. It's not always pretty but that's what this place is for.
posted by anathema at 5:16 PM on July 3, 2002

The piece, sort of, raises some valid points, but then goes overboard. Nonetheless, why are there so many gutless wonders who want to erase what they find offensive?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:39 PM on July 3, 2002

I'll note in passing that I've actually seen someone with the nick Postroad (I assume it's one and the same) participate in political discussion threads at Fark, hair no doubt blown straight back in the gale of simpleminded bellowing that passes for discourse there, a few times. Perhaps the grade-school tenor over there is rubbing off on him.

(I've had a look occasionally to reassure myself by comparison that things aren't really that bad here yet. Trust me, they arent')
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:23 PM on July 3, 2002

Always good to remember when someone advocates censorship.

Are people also advocating censorship when they say a post sucks because its something from fark.com? This one is something from the freepers. Its bad, postroad is a known troll in my opinion, but there have been messier discussions. No need to do anything but further marginalize postroads insane agendas.
posted by skallas at 9:26 PM on July 3, 2002

You know, it should be mentioned here that anyone who believes that they'll find a g-spot by going through someone's anus has far more serious problems than a lack of civility.

You know if you are a woman you will get to your g-spot through the vagina, Here is an article describing this, click on the picture for a closer view.

But if you are a man you get to your g-spot through your ass.

Please stop posting comments on topics you obviously know nothing about, makes you sound very unintelligent.
posted by Zool at 9:41 PM on July 3, 2002

Zool is so well versed in manners of the ass, that at times he seems to transform into one. amazing!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:18 PM on July 3, 2002

Men don't have g-spots. Perhaps you meant the prostate gland? and no they are not the same thing.
posted by skallas at 10:32 PM on July 3, 2002

At first I thought Zool was just being sexist and calling riviera a woman as if it were some kind of insult. But apparently he actually thinks men have g-spots -- that's frickin' hilarious! His entertainment value has just gone up tenfold.
posted by kindall at 10:45 PM on July 3, 2002

I clicked on the picture in the article Zool linked to to get a closer look, but shortly afterwards I heard the sound of rustling and heaving breathing.

at first I though it was a very tacky thing for New Scientist to have produced, but then I closed the window and saw the Land Rover pop under...
posted by mcsweetie at 11:13 PM on July 3, 2002

But if you are a man you get to your g-spot through your ass.

Please stop posting comments on topics you obviously know nothing about, makes you sound very unintelligent.

Ummmm...now, call me crazy here, but...the article that you linked to, Zool, states very clearly: "Nevertheless, there is still debate about whether the G spot even exists. "Not everyone has accepted this yet," says Beverly Whipple, a neurophysiologist who co-wrote a book about the G spot in the 1980s."
At the risk of sounding unintelligent once again, do you think you could find a citation that supports your argument of an anal g-spot? (there's a sentence I never thought I'd write)

Until then, I'll just sit here and try to find my own. Thanks, Zool! You've given me something to do on my day off!
posted by ColdChef at 4:47 AM on July 4, 2002

I disagree that writing something provocative makes you a troll.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being provocative. I think it all depends on the subject.

I think a troll is someone who provokes you with an opinion you firmly don't believe in. And so that makes it all "eye of the beholder" stuff.

And if you can't refute that opinion, and have to resort to labelling the messenger a troll, then you've already lost the debate.
posted by crunchland at 6:10 AM on July 4, 2002

" I guess I flamed Postroad a little bit, but he was asking for it. "

yeah. look at the way he's dressed! he was totally asking for it!
posted by jcterminal at 6:20 AM on July 4, 2002

ColdChef: Try here. Not sure about the Crystal Wand tho'...Or here...I can heartily recommend the Jen-Mo point too.

Oh yeah, keep the post. I'd rather have the idiots out in the open where we can see / educate / ridicule them thankyouverymuch.
posted by i_cola at 6:58 AM on July 4, 2002

I honestly don't get why anyone reads a damn thing that Postroad posts to MF anymore; it invariably follows the predictible course of an initial onslaught of insults and baiting in the thread itself, followed by a MetaTalk thread decrying the entire thing, followed by a Postroad promise to stop being such a singleminded troll, followed by an apparent forgetting of that promise.

It's like the old medical cliche: when a patient tells his doctor that it hurts when he does something, the doctor replies, "Well, then, stop doing that!" People, stop reading his tripe, and let's hope that it goes away.
posted by delfuego at 7:01 AM on July 4, 2002

i_cola: Thanks! It appears that I owe Zool an apology. Man, I can't believe all the things I've learned about my butthole today. Including: It is the feeling center for sexual pleasure, disappointments, stresses, feelings of inadequacy, immorality, hates, and dislikes. Unreleased emotions of this nature, stored in the prostate, are an important source of prostate problems.

posted by ColdChef at 7:15 AM on July 4, 2002

SJ: I'm not trying to censor anyone. ... but this needs to go.

I would be very interested to hear your definition of censorship, SJ.


posted by mischief at 8:57 AM on July 4, 2002

"It is far pleasanter to sit comfortably in the shade rubbing pepper in a poor devil's eyes than to go about in the sun hunting up evidence"

-Sir James Stevens, 1883,
posted by clavdivs at 10:19 AM on July 4, 2002

SJ: I'm not trying to censor anyone. ... but this needs to go.

I would be very interested to hear your definition of censorship, SJ.

Well, censorship would be me saying that I don't think Postroad has any right to speak. I'm not saying that. I was questioning the appropriateness of his racism in a forum such as this. There's a difference.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:47 AM on July 4, 2002

I guess its impossible to criticize Muslims without being branded a racist. Whatever. Its not our fault that Islam seems partial to Arabs, especially since the Qu'ran is only true if it is in the Arabic language.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:26 AM on July 4, 2002

"Well, censorship would be me saying that I don't think Postroad has any right to speak. I'm not saying that. I was questioning the appropriateness of his racism in a forum such as this. There's a difference. "

oh! i get it! surgical censorship!

good idea. but i find that idea offensive. so we should erase your post.

you don't mind tho, right, since it IS your idea...
posted by jcterminal at 11:59 AM on July 4, 2002

Thread deletion just plays into the hands of those who hate opinions that don't jibe with theirs.

This is not a good thing from a discussion standpoint.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like me to shut up. It hasn't happened yet. If the Fist O' Matt [TM] falls on me, I won't come back here. If you don't like a post, than please just ignore it and it will lose momentum rapidly.

Unfortunately, most people just can't live with that.
posted by mark13 at 1:22 PM on July 4, 2002

If the Fist O' Matt [TM] falls on me, I won't come back here.
You're not really a true MeFite until you've been smited (smoted? smotered?) by Matt. Don't take it personally. I've been smacked once or twice and in retrospect I deserved it. The Fist is just.
posted by ColdChef at 1:26 PM on July 4, 2002

Once or twice! The gall of this guy.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:40 PM on July 4, 2002

Okay, so I have Matt's class ring insignia emblazoned on my forhead from repeat strikings, but at least I didn't cry like Miguel.
posted by ColdChef at 1:43 PM on July 4, 2002

CC:
I think you needed to finish that last sentence:
just "a euphemism for benign dictatorship"?

"just about to knock your teeth out"?

"just about the right shape and size for a boy to play his fave game"?

Oh, dear, I think I could be smitten next...
posted by dash_slot- at 1:49 PM on July 4, 2002

SJ: Saying "this needs to go" is not "questioning the appropriateness"; it is saying "this needs to be deleted" and that is censorship.
posted by mischief at 3:09 PM on July 4, 2002

But posts are censored all the time. Matt has deleted posts in response to MetaTalk outrage at least twice in the past week (here and here). How many racist posts do you think he'll tolerate before he cracks down?
posted by timeistight at 3:23 PM on July 4, 2002

I'm still unclear on the whole "racist" thing as it pertains to this article.

Is it the Muslims that are a race, or the Arabs? Or Arab-Muslims? Or Arab-American-Muslims? See, the article mentions them all, but I kind of got confused. I'm not sure which ones to hate if I want to be a racist, and which ones to hate if I just want to be a bigot.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:02 PM on July 4, 2002

Okay, crash, obviously I was imprecise. I should have said: "How many ignorant, xenophobic, immigrant-bashing posts do you think he'll tolerate before he cracks down." Better?
posted by timeistight at 8:22 PM on July 4, 2002

It ain't neccessarily the Fist o' Matt that'll hit you, rather the bayonets of the Emily Post with Guns/self-appointed-guardians-of-all-that-is-good-and-holy-in-online-forums brigade(you know who you are) who wail like a deranged peanut gallery at every fart in the wind that just might bruise someones tender sensibity. The ironic thing is that the "offender" is usally piled on in such a way that he feels publicly shamed.

Every other thread lately seems to provide fodder for this kinda shit and if you wanna know the truth, it's one reason why I've mellowed my posting level here of late.
posted by jonmc at 8:37 PM on July 4, 2002

That, and the new 24-hour adult satellite channel, jonmc. Let's be honest.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:54 PM on July 4, 2002

'tis funny like that. In a way I feel pseudo-sexually exhausted from the Southwest Airlines thread and I don't think I have eaten nearly enough steak and eggs to replace that lost protein.

..I'll get me coat on the way out...
posted by Frasermoo at 2:05 AM on July 5, 2002

Infantile drivel based on half truths and hear say. But this man is entitled to his opinion perhaps the most counter-productive measure would be to censure people like this. I may not agree with what you are saying however I will defend your right to free speech. And what's with the little american statement at the end 'greatest constitution in the world' excuse me but bollocks.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:48 AM on July 5, 2002

You're not really a true MeFite until you've been smited (smoted? smotered?)

I believe that you would say that "Matt smote," and that you "were smitten." I have almost finished the LOTR series, and have been smattering the smote all over the place in my speech.
posted by adampsyche at 5:50 AM on July 5, 2002

Man, I can't believe all the things I've learned about my butthole today.

Metafilter: Where you can even learn about your butthole.
posted by jaden at 10:18 AM on July 5, 2002

Perhaps this review of THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE:
Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds.
By Tammy Bruce is relevant to this discussion. Bruce points out the futility and the dangers of trying to advance civil rights by restricting civil liberties.
posted by semmi at 12:04 AM on July 7, 2002

A friend once told me a story of a party at an anarchist punk house in his hometown, during which one of the residents took a big, drunken dump in the middle of the living room floor. We laughed for weeks at the idea of an anarchist proudly shitting in the middle of communal space.

For some reason, Postroad reminds me of that story.
posted by mediareport at 1:05 AM on July 7, 2002