FPP's celebrating every judge's ruling on SameSexMarriage are NewsFilter

July 17, 2014 1:03 PM

I had a comment deleted calling the recent Florida decision a weak FPP. I'm happy to have the mods quote my comment, it included the word 'circlejerk'. I contacted the mods and was told "You are welcome to skip threads you aren't interested in". That's.....not cool.

I AM interested in SSM, in fact I'm a huge supporter here in California. It was a shit FPP. A single link to an abcnews.com announcement. Nothing to discuss other than slapping each other on the back.

I compared it to a video of kittens playing with yarn....because truly...that's what it is. FellsGoodNewsFilter.

There is ZERO discussion to be had other than "yay! another state down!". (editorializing in the headline? didn't know that was encouraged). There was no meat to the story, zero links to why this decision is different than any other judge in any other state ruling the same way.

So.....what's the deal with SSM news posts? Is this really the best of the web? We are overly critical of 'newsfilter', why does some random judge in Florida get a pass?

There is ZERO discussion to be had in those threads other than celebration....they are pointless newsfilter.

posted by BlerpityBloop to Etiquette/Policy at 1:03 PM (366 comments total)

Did you flag it?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:05 PM on July 17, 2014

BlerpityBloop: I compared it to a video of kittens playing with yarn....because truly...that's what it is.

Link plz
posted by Rock Steady at 1:06 PM on July 17, 2014 [46 favorites]

Yeeeesh. Reading that back I sound aggressive.

I'm not. I'm genuinely curious about SSM news posts on this site. What is there to discuss other than congratulations? The house of cards is falling, good stuff. Do we really need a post announcing each minor victory if there is nothing unique to discuss?

Yes I flagged it.

Mods can quote my original comment.

ALSO - I am a HUGE supporter of SSM, but every little announcement just kinda bugs me as newsfilter.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 1:09 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

For what it's worth I mostly agree with you about the NewsFilter thing, but it's not cool to question the quality of a thread within the thread itself. You can Flag it or take it to MetaTalk. Threadshitting is not permitted.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [24 favorites]

I'm fine with, what?, 20, 30 more posts, one for each state.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [45 favorites]

There is ZERO discussion to be had other than "yay! another state down!".

This is a discussion I am happy to have.


It looks like I had a comment deleted in that thread as well, which makes sense since it was a direct response to your deleted comment.

It was something like...

"In a previous thread like this when someone complained that it was simply a yay another state FPP, someone else made the comment that "when the last state finally approves marriage equality, I look forward to a FPP with 49 previouslies."


It may not be interesting enough for you, but I bet it's interesting enough for the gay couples who live in that state.

More yayfilter, pls.
posted by phunniemee at 1:12 PM on July 17, 2014 [52 favorites]

I flagged it. I contacted the mods. Here is restless nomads email response to me:

"You are welcome to skip threads you aren't interested in. You are not welcome to come in to them just to proclaim your lack of interest. This goes for any topic - politics, sports, kittens, whatever. "
posted by BlerpityBloop at 1:13 PM on July 17, 2014

What part of r-n's response was disagreeable to you? That seems about as straightforward as possible, and in line with the policy throughout the site.



Oh, and here is a cat playing with yarn.
posted by phunniemee at 1:15 PM on July 17, 2014 [33 favorites]

And? That seems like a perfectly reasonable response to me.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:15 PM on July 17, 2014 [7 favorites]

This is why FIAMO is an acronym.
posted by alms at 1:17 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

You contacted the mods after you went in and complained about your lack of interest, and then had that comment deleted. The time to Flag It And Move On (FIAMO) is before you make a comment complaining about your lack of interest.
posted by muddgirl at 1:17 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

(...or about the post being too thin, or whatever meta-complaint one may have).
posted by muddgirl at 1:18 PM on July 17, 2014

Yeah... Flag and move on. It's a hard lesson to learn (and one I'm still learning).

Funny enough, I had my own "moment" from a comment made in that thread which could be summarized as "FLORI-DUH IS TEH SUCK.. LOLZ"

I was prepared to reply with another comment about the poster's home state or make some snide (and deserved) comment, but then... the invisi-mods in my head kicked in... perhaps the ghost of Jessamyn past?

Because all at once, I realized that just because I currently live in Florida, I am probably reading a personal affront to something not really intended towards me, so... yeah... a dumb comment sure enough, but people are/were favoriting it, so meh... flagged and moved on.

With regards to the NewsFilter thing, it is still interesting that this is occurring in FL, a state who has a referendum in defense of the sanctity (yawn) of marriage, so there's that. Plus if a conversation is going on, even if it's back patting, yays, and nazi comparisons, it obviously is engaging some folks...

Remember there's no "I" in Metaf... oh wait.... damn. I mean there's no "ME" in M... fuck...

Ah fergit it.
posted by Debaser626 at 1:18 PM on July 17, 2014 [13 favorites]

I'm fine with a little yay-filter now and then, especially since today we have FPP's about a really horrifying plane crash/potential war-starting incident, the death of a Broadway gem, and yet more shittiness towards trans women. Other people's mileage obviously varies, but I can't quite wrap my head around being mad that there's some yay on the blue.
posted by palomar at 1:19 PM on July 17, 2014 [20 favorites]

I'm totally confused. You broke the guidelines by derailing a comment thread into discussion over whether it was a worthy post. You admit you broke the guidelines. You apparently aren't upset that your comment was deleted – which, by the way, means it's kind of pointless for the mods to quote said comment.

So you thought it was a terrible post? Why didn't you say something in Metatalk first, before making a comment in the thread that would have to be deleted? That sounds like it's kind of what restless_nomad was getting at.

You aren't supposed to criticize posts on Metafilter. That's what Metatalk is for.
posted by koeselitz at 1:19 PM on July 17, 2014 [9 favorites]

I am also looking forward to the future FPP with 49 previouslies.

It was a shit FPP. A single link to an abcnews.com announcement.

If you have better links offering more substantial analysis on the ruling, you're free to add them in the comments.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:21 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

There is ZERO discussion to be had in those threads other than celebration...

Actually, in that thread they're discussing the judge's comparisons to justify his decision. Something about Nazi's.

Also, what do you have against celebrations? There's usually cake and ice cream and beer and smoked meat at them. Who doesn't like smoked meat?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:21 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

Part of the whole "be the MetaFilter you want to see in the universe" is that instead of seeing a "shit FPP" and dropping into it to tell everyone how much you think it sucks, to instead offer up a rewrite or additional links or better material to help flesh it out. So sure, the original post might be thin, but you can help make it better by posting additional material about the story.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:23 PM on July 17, 2014 [43 favorites]

My one comment against the post is that I think it is premature to celebrate, as this is very much a NewsFilter post. This was a ruling in one of 67 counties of Florida, which is definitely a move in the right direction, and I'm very happy for the people who live in the county, but it could be overturned. But as another happy thread in a sea of sorrow, it's nice.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

FWIW:

I posted one of those "yay! another state down!" FPPs recently.

I posted it because I was (1) excited and happy, (2) excited and happy for the same-sex couples in my state, (3) tremendously glad we weren't the last to get on board with SSM in the USA, and (4) I loved the judge's quote about "These arguments are not those of serious people."

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done that FPP because it really was thin on content--a link to the local paper, plus I later posted a comment linking to a PDF of the court's full decision. It might have been "Best of the Web" in spirit, but it probably wasn't really "Best of the Web" in terms of actual informative, insightful content.

I'm grateful the Mods were patient and didn't delete it, but methinks the topic may have deserved better than "WHOO-HOO!" followed by one link followed by My Old Kentucky Home jokes.

(Though in fairness, the comment thread on my FPP was pretty good)
posted by magstheaxe at 1:25 PM on July 17, 2014 [9 favorites]

Matt, honestly, what could be added to that FPP to make it more unique or discussion worthy?

The story is 2.5 hours old. Please point me to anything that would give it meat.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 1:26 PM on July 17, 2014

I couldn't agree with you more, BlerpityBloop, both about the specific FPP and about this vein of FPPs in general. But, and I hate to sound like a broken record here...I skip 'em. That really is the correct solution according to the rules of the site. If you want to post a MeTa decrying 'em, I'm right alongside you, but it sounds like a valid comment deletion.
posted by cribcage at 1:26 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

Hang on. I'm being combative.

Full stop that is not what I want. I just think FPP's with a link to abcnews announcing a minor thing are kinda shit.

It's newsfilter, we have higher standards for other breaking events.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 1:29 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

Matt, honestly, what could be added to that FPP to make it more unique or discussion worthy?

This. Maybe this.
posted by phunniemee at 1:30 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

Anyone want to start building a page on the wiki with prewritten content for the remaining 30 states?
posted by zamboni at 1:31 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I had a comment deleted calling the recent Florida decision a weak FPP. I'm happy to have the mods quote my comment, it included the word 'circlejerk'.

Wow, and it got deleted? WHAT A SHOCKER
posted by kagredon at 1:31 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Matt, honestly, what could be added to that FPP to make it more unique or discussion worthy?

Links about how the fight is going in other states, what the change means to Florida, whether it's the entire state or just a part of it, human interest stories about how changes in other states have affected people, links about state constitutions and changing, etc, etc...

It's newsfilter, we have higher standards for other breaking events.

Sometimes. The post announcing Neil Armstrong's death was a single URL that linked to simple announcement.

Stuff that's silly or good news or celebrating tends to have lower bars for staying.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:33 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

I like newsfilter. The best thing about Metafilter is the conversation, not the links. I mean, of course I've found lots of great links through Metafilter, but whether there are great links or not on any particular post is basically irrelevant to me, and I think the whole "Must Be Well-Framed With Great Links" attitude is overdone. In fact I wouldn't even mind getting rid of the requirement for a post to have any links at all; I agree that the linking in the post in discussion here was kind of pro-forma, but that's totally OK with me. It would even be totally OK with me if the post completely lacked links.

I can get a link to a news story anywhere. And I can get great links to cool things anywhere. Neither of those is why I come to Metafilter.
posted by Flunkie at 1:34 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

(Also, magstheaxe, I really enjoyed that thread, both because the judge in that case threw some hilarious shade in his ruling and because people linked a lot of really good music. It really brightened a weekend for me, personally.)
posted by kagredon at 1:34 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I flagged it. I contacted the mods. Here is restless nomads email response to me:

Nothing wrong with that response, you tried to shit up the thread, it got deleted and they let you know why. What's the big deal?
posted by Sternmeyer at 1:35 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

zamboni: Anyone want to start building a page on the wiki with prewritten content for the remaining 30 states?

I think each is a bit different, to be honest. The basic options are (from Wikipedia):

1. Judicial ruling(s) against ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages stayed pending appeal
2. Judicial ruling(s) against statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal
3. Judicial ruling(s) against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal
4. Statute bans same-sex marriage
5. Constitution bans same-sex marriage

Someone could take some time to put together a bit of history on each case, but there's no one-size-fits-all template.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:35 PM on July 17, 2014

I compared it to a video of kittens playing with yarn....because truly...that's what it is.

That stuff gets posted here all the damn time. As do threads about video games I don't care about, movies I will never watch, and so on and so forth. And since this is not my personal blog with an unpaid staff of thousands who I hired to post stuff I personally find noteworthy, I simply don't open those threads.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:36 PM on July 17, 2014 [20 favorites]

BlerpityBloop: The story is 2.5 hours old. Please point me to anything that would give it meat.

This isn't how you improve something - look for information yourself. For instance, I'm still looking for the final ruling from that case, specifically to see if Judge Garcia referenced Scalia's dissenting positions for both Windsor and Lawrence v. Texas.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:39 PM on July 17, 2014

Flunkie: I like newsfilter. The best thing about Metafilter is the conversation, not the links. I mean, of course I've found lots of great links through Metafilter, but whether there are great links or not on any particular post is basically irrelevant to me, and I think the whole "Must Be Well-Framed With Great Links" attitude is overdone.

I completely agree that the conversation is the best thing about MetaFilter, hands down. But, I think one of reasons the conversation is so good is precisely the strict requirements about how those conversations are framed. The greatest are is created under the greatest constraints and all that. But we digress. Back to discussion of kittens and yarn.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:42 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

I'm of two minds here. I think the mods were 100% in the right to delete your comment since it is well known that comments that are nothing more than "This post sucks" are not appropriate in-thread and should be reserved for Metatalk. This should have been your first stop, not shitting in the thread. RN's comment to you was on target.

That said, I largely agree with your main point. I too am rabidly pro-SSM, but find discussions of the topic on Mefi somewhat tiresome since virtually the entire userbase is in agreement. I find these type of posts ultimately become competitions for who can come up with the strongest adjective to show they agree with the ruling better than anyone else agrees with the ruling. But not every post has to meet with my approval, so all I can do is move on to another that I find is more interesting, not tell everyone they can't discuss it.
posted by The Gooch at 1:44 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

I see all the new SSM FPPs, say a brief mental 'yay' and move on, because at this point, they're kind of samey-samey. I might come back in a few days and look for the inevitable pictures of happy gay couples getting married, because those never get old.

So I get your feeling that these are super thin newsfiltery posts, but the thread isn't the place to make that point. This MetaTalk could be that place, but instead it seems like you're grumbling more about you getting deleted than you are about them not getting deleted, so that's not likely to be the focus here.

To address the point I think you probably wanted to make:

These are thin, newsfiltery posts, but they're posts that generally go incredibly well and are full of happy people celebrating a great thing. Sure, they could be knocked down because of the newsfilteriness of them, but would that improve the site? For the people who want to participate (and even for those of us who don't want to participate but are happy about the situation), the news is enough.

I wouldn't love to see the site become mostly thin newsfilter posts, but these are something the community in general values enough for them to be an exception, and I'm good with that.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:46 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

Yeah, to build a little on filthy light thief, there are differences in each case that I, personally, find interesting, things like particular nitty-gritty legal aspects and the effects on local politics, etc. I am pretty sure that I'm not alone in this, given that there's a wide swath of people who post and comment on these FPPs.

Maybe that's not interesting to you, Blerpity Bloop, and that's okay! There's a lot of tech-news mergers-and-acquisitions-and-did-you-hear-what-Facebook-did-now that just straight-up isn't interesting to me. That doesn't mean it isn't important, or that there isn't an interesting discussion that other people on this site want to have, it just means that I scroll past those when they show up.
posted by kagredon at 1:46 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I completely agree that the conversation is the best thing about MetaFilter, hands down. But, I think one of reasons the conversation is so good is precisely the strict requirements about how those conversations are framed.

I disagree. The post in question obviously passed whatever requirements there are, and I think everyone will admit that it's thin in terms of linking and framing. It would essentially be exactly the same post, with exactly the same discussion, if it didn't have its single pro forma link - i.e. if the requirements were looser than they are.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that a well-framed post with great links can't be conducive to great conversation; I'm just disagreeing with the seemingly widespread idea that a well-framed post with great links is somehow necessary, or at least the most important thing.
posted by Flunkie at 1:46 PM on July 17, 2014

There is ZERO discussion to be had other than "yay! another state down!". (editorializing in the headline? didn't know that was encouraged).

I am perhaps operating with a different definition of 'editorializing' but celebrating human rights seems not really an opinion worth paying attention to the disagreement of.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:47 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

Especially in newsfilter posts. Which, as I've said, I like. There's often very little need for links in them.
posted by Flunkie at 1:47 PM on July 17, 2014

Yes I too am disgusted by the happiness of others. Ban this filth.
posted by elizardbits at 1:48 PM on July 17, 2014 [13 favorites]

I'd be happy with five SSM posts a day.... But they should have quality links. MeFi posts should have good links.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 1:50 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

> I posted one of those "yay! another state down!" FPPs recently.

> I posted it because I was (1) excited and happy, (2) excited and happy for the same-sex couples in my state, (3) tremendously glad we weren't the last to get on board with SSM in the USA, and (4) I loved the judge's quote about "These arguments are not those of serious people."

> In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done that FPP ...
> posted by magstheaxe

But mags, the best part of that post was how giddy you were. True, we've had quite a few of these posts, so they can start to blur into much of a sameness. I remember Kentucky's precisely because of your personal enthusiasm.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:50 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

The rules are only for posts that aren't popular enough.

You're right, but you're not going to win.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:53 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

i, too, have a heterosexual opinion
posted by shakespeherian at 2:02 PM on July 17, 2014 [17 favorites]

"but instead it seems like you're grumbling more about you getting deleted than you are about them not getting deleted, so that's not likely to be the focus here."

I've been deleted before. Happily. I was way out of place and RN and Matt over emails have been superb in encouraging me how to be a better member of this site. I still have some work to do, but they have been really amazing. I'm genuinely trying to be less provocative.

Having said that. Not every member of this site is down with SSM. Or most of the, well I don't know what to cal it, groupthink I suppose.

So a paper thin abc news link to a judges decision in Florida just seems like catnip for liberals, there is no discussion, there is no nuance, there is just "here's something you can purrrr over".

It was a shit FPP. I flagged it, read far too much in to RN's response, but am genuinely annoyed that "small liberal good news" gets A pass on here.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 2:03 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Not every member of this site is down with SSM.

I sincerely hope that is not true.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:06 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

filthy light thief: "Someone could take some time to put together a bit of history on each case, but there's no one-size-fits-all template."

Glad we agree. Each state is going to be different, and if we're going to have a post for every state, it'd be nice to have some content ready to go.
posted by zamboni at 2:06 PM on July 17, 2014

Having said that. Not every member of this site is down with SSM. Or most of the, well I don't know what to cal it, groupthink I suppose.

Those people are welcome to hop on over to Heterofilter. Or Stormfront, whatever.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:07 PM on July 17, 2014 [16 favorites]

JESUS CHRIST.

Today it looks like Russia shot down a plane and killed a whole bunch of people. Israel reinvaded the open-air prison known as Gaza. Can't we enjoy some good news?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:08 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

There's some spectacularly awful shit going on in the world. I'll take my kittens and yarn where I can get them.
posted by brundlefly at 2:08 PM on July 17, 2014 [16 favorites]

there is no discussion, there is no nuance, there is just "here's something you can purrrr over".

There's no requirement for posts to produce meaty discussions. Over in the JulyByWomen meTa there's a whole bunch of discussion about how some people's favorite posts (to make, to read) are the ones that garner like five comments that all go "Nice post, thanks."

Or most of the, well I don't know what to cal it, groupthink I suppose.

I'm sorry - believing that people should have equal rights is groupthink that the more enlightened should sneer at? Because I never, ever see "groupthink" used when it's not a pejorative.
posted by rtha at 2:09 PM on July 17, 2014 [27 favorites]

Blerp, I also skimmed that post and didn't find anything much I could ass by commenting there, so I moved on. I did, however, notice that your non-deleted comment (where you said "I love that this judge is celebrated for his decision but the Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby were called assholes") was what I'd consider fighty and bad-faith.

THAT SAID, your position here ("there is no discussion, there is no nuance") seems really unfair to the discussion that was unfolding: as has been mentioned above, people were talking about the inclusion of the free speech rights for Nazi marchers in Skokie, which is a pretty intriguing and controversial counterpoint in talking about civil rights. So in conclusion: disagree.
posted by psoas at 2:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

BlerpityBloop: Having said that. Not every member of this site is down with SSM. Or most of the, well I don't know what to cal it, groupthink I suppose.

We have reached the "double down" portion of the MeTa.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:11 PM on July 17, 2014 [31 favorites]

"I sincerely hope that's not true"

"Those people are welcome to hop over to heterofilter"

Well, there you have it.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 2:14 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Dude. You just accused people in favor of same-sex marriage of engaging in groupthink. Hello?
posted by rtha at 2:16 PM on July 17, 2014 [29 favorites]

Yeah, how embarrassing for the site in general that people are pushing back against the idea of homophobia being an acceptable thing here or anywhere else.
posted by elizardbits at 2:16 PM on July 17, 2014 [46 favorites]

"Liberals, stop with the outragefilter! It's groupthink!"
"Well, here's a nice story about--"
"Liberals, stop with the awesomefilter! It's groupthink!"
posted by zombieflanders at 2:16 PM on July 17, 2014 [19 favorites]

"small liberal good news"

Achieving equality under the law for a group of people who didn't previously have it is way more than that. It is another domino toppling, and after years of strife and persecution, every domino should be celebrated. Go look up Stonewall, BlerpityBloop, or look up the laws making homosexuality illegal, and then tell me every domino shouldn't be celebrated.

On preview: again, people, I only have so many favourites.
posted by marienbad at 2:17 PM on July 17, 2014 [12 favorites]

Well, there you have it.

Your opinions are becoming ever-more unpopular not just on a website, but in the world at large. So get used to people calling you out on them. We are not required to move backward in history in order to accommodate discrimination.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:19 PM on July 17, 2014 [12 favorites]

My inner MeFi pedant 100% agrees with you about thin newsfiltery posts. But on the other hand, we're having the rare pleasure and privilege of watching a marginalized group finally having their full humanity legally recognized in real time. It's literally one of the most important things to happen in our lifetimes, so I'm prepared to make an exception.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 2:21 PM on July 17, 2014 [46 favorites]

I flagged your comment and am happy to see it was deleted.

If you think an FPP is too thin, then you are free to complain about that in MetaTalk. Don't be a dick and shit up someone's post by complaining about it in the thread. A post cannot be changed once it's posted.
posted by zarq at 2:21 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Blerp, you started this meta. Then you said this:

Yeeeesh. Reading that back I sound aggressive.

I'm not. I'm genuinely curious about SSM news posts on this site.

and then later you said this:

Hang on. I'm being combative.

Full stop that is not what I want. I just think FPP's with a link to abcnews announcing a minor thing are kinda shit.

Everyone here has acknowledged that you think these FPPs are shit, and have given numerous reasons why they disagree. You are still being combative, but, like, you don't want to be? But you are? And you acknowledge how great the mods are but when they're telling you in this thread that you should be the positive change you want to see, you still respond with negativity. I don't get it.


Maybe it would be a good idea to step away from the computer for a bit, grab a milkshake or a popsicle or something, take a walk, and let this thread not be the thing that ruins your day.
posted by phunniemee at 2:21 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

Also, when you think a post is too thin, then as a commenter you have better options than complaining in-thread:

Add links. Flesh out sections you think are thin. Ask questions about stuff you don't know. Comment on the provided material. Start an in-depth discussion about the topic at hand.

Or flag it and move on.
posted by zarq at 2:24 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Well, there you have it.

Yes, I am not at all ashamed that I do not want bigotry in my community. I would sincerely like everyone not to be a bigot. That is an unalloyed good.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:25 PM on July 17, 2014 [22 favorites]

Well, there you have it.

Is "it" in this case "lack of accommodation for outright bigotry"? Because your basis for accusation is my point of pride in this community.
posted by griphus at 2:26 PM on July 17, 2014 [15 favorites]

okay i have to say that even in the shitty context of being accused of groupthink that was pretty funny
posted by griphus at 2:27 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

*cough* Maybe I will read the thread next time before commenting.
posted by zarq at 2:28 PM on July 17, 2014

You should indeed take a walk, BlerpityBloop. This is not unfriendly advice. Close the browser and come back later to a different thread. I sincerely hope you have a nice afternoon.
posted by cribcage at 2:29 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

okay i have to say that even in the shitty context of being accused of groupthink that was pretty funny

i have finally been outed as your sockpuppet
posted by shakespeherian at 2:37 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

"Is "it" in this case "lack of accommodation for outright bigotry"? Because your basis for accusation is my point of pride in this community"

This comment sums it up. There is absolutely no margin of error in SSM news events. It's either "huzzah!" or an absolute crucifixion for an alternate view.

So......leave the SSM news posts of the front page. They are newsfilter. There is no discussion to be had.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 2:42 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Anyone want to start building a page on the wiki with prewritten content for the remaining 30 states?

Obituaries for bad laws.
posted by Pudhoho at 2:44 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

If your alternate view is "eh, this doesn't apply to me so i don't really care about it" then whatever, no one is harmed. If your alternate view is "Not every member of this site is down with SSM" as though the opinions of homophobic bigots should be given any kind of validity or weight at all whatsoever anywhere on earth at any time then there will, as you can see, obviously be a problem.
posted by elizardbits at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2014 [25 favorites]

It's either "huzzah!" or an absolute crucifixion for an alternate view. [...] There is no discussion to be had.

There is certainly an argument to be had, and you recognize that it's not going to end well for the (MeFi) minority opinion, so you don't want to have it... but that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't, or won't. I don't see anything in the 10 commandments of metafilter saying that a thread can only exist if there is a multi-sided argument contained therein.
posted by axiom at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

BlerpityBloop: There is absolutely no margin of error in SSM news events. It's either "huzzah!" or an absolute crucifixion for an alternate view.

So......leave the SSM news posts of the front page. They are newsfilter. There is no discussion to be had.

Wait, do you want to discuss the merits of same sex marriages? If so, I'm afraid you will find very few who on this site who will play the role of the Bigot Devil's Advocate. It's all Huzzahs because most everyone here agrees that there's a right and wrong side to history in this case, and history is coming down on the side of same sex couples, who many agree have the right to get married if they want to, just like opposite-sex couples.

But if as MoonOrb mentions, you want a discussion of the article at hand (the decision itself, the potential for it to be overturned, the broader implications for other states), this is indeed happening.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:51 PM on July 17, 2014 [10 favorites]

I am fine with the topic, I do get tired of thin ass, lazy posts/links that might as well have been written by Google, the "obit phenomenon" as it were. but there are a host of them on newsfiltery topics so I just skip them.
posted by smoke at 2:53 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Pudhoho: Obituaries for bad laws.

Dick Chaney Same Sex Marriage in Florida: UK's Favorite Grandmother
posted by filthy light thief at 2:56 PM on July 17, 2014

I'm not. I'm genuinely curious about SSM news posts on this site. What is there to discuss other than congratulations? The house of cards is falling, good stuff. Do we really need a post announcing each minor victory if there is nothing unique to discuss?


I feel like this framing "house of cards is falling" and "minor victory" really diminishes the incredibly hard work marriage activists have been doing on a state by state and federal level to advocate for equal rights.
posted by sweetkid at 2:57 PM on July 17, 2014 [22 favorites]

Maybe you could use some of the advice in this thread next door to make metafilter more to your liking, as in "less newsfiltery."
posted by valkane at 2:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

It's either "huzzah!" or an absolute crucifixion for an alternate view.

What is this calm, rational alternate view to "adults should marry as they please" that's not inherently a personal insult to someone?

If you come into a thread, a thread in which you are basically guaranteed to have non-heterosexual readers and participants, and say to them "I don't think you deserve to have what I have," it's going to have consequences even if that's followed up with a however artfully phrased "...and here's why."
posted by griphus at 3:02 PM on July 17, 2014 [19 favorites]

I suppose I am curious as to what the desired goal is here. You already know the mods are okay with these posts and are going to allow them. So what else?

Is it to get a sense of a community consensus? It seems like most people are either in favor of these posts or don't mind them.

With this in mind, it seems like you have two options. One, you can just ignore the posts when they pop up and try to offer an alternative of great posts, or simply participate in the threads that strike you as being worthwhile. Two, you can continue to push, and, if you do, probably ought not be surprised by the pushback.

Because this is a strange hill to die on, as we like to say, when there is such an easy alternative, which is to just ignore these posts when they happen. I mean, if you're in favor of gay marriage, as you say, then does it really get in your craw so much that it regularly gets celebrated on MetaFilter that your disapproval of the celebration takes priority? If you'll pardon me saying so, that's a strange set of priorities.
posted by maxsparber at 3:14 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Let me quote elizardbitz:

"the opinions of homophobic bigots should be given any kind of validity or weight at all whatsoever anywhere on earth at any time then there will, as you can see, obviously be a problem"

So, again, what s the point of a CNN link to a random judge declaring SSM legal? There is zero discussion to be had. They are, in absolute, nothing more than threads to say "yay" in.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 3:23 PM on July 17, 2014

Have you been in that thread recently? Because there's a lot more going on that just "yay!" (And that would be fine, too, unless you think posts that get five "Nice post, thanks" comments should also not be allowed?)

I mean, I'm sorry if it disrupts your argument, but maybe you should actually go to the post you are complaining is generating only (useless!) "yay" comments and see that it's not.
posted by rtha at 3:32 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

They are newsfilter. There is no discussion to be had.

Once again, I am roused to defend newsfilter.

Why is there no discussion to be had about news? Am I misunderstanding this? Because it seems like a patently bizarre idea. News is one of the most frequent and potentially interesting topics of conversation there is.

Also, unrelated: Even if it were, as you describe it, nothing more than a thread to say "yay" in, so what? What's wrong with a thread to say "yay" in?
posted by Flunkie at 3:34 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

So, again, what s the point of a CNN link to a random judge declaring SSM legal? There is zero discussion to be had.

Guidelines

What makes a good thread post to MetaFilter?

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

I underlined the relevant part.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:44 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

So, again, what s the point of a CNN link to a random judge declaring SSM legal? There is zero discussion to be had. They are, in absolute, nothing more than threads to say "yay" in.

I'm not wholly unsympathetic to the argument that it's a thin or premature post; the fact that people tend to feel positively about the topic and to not flag a post like that when it's pretty widely regarded as positive news is a little bit of a conflict between notional policy and actual community practice, and it's an interesting outlier in that sense. A post about it tomorrow with a little more linky substance would be preferable as far as I'm concerned, and yet all the people discussing stuff in the thread and not flagging the post disagree with my personal objective assessment of the construction and timing of the post. It's not a total non-thing.

That said, you've declared multiple times in this thread that there's no room for or no possibility of discussion in a post where there is, in fact, discussion. You're refusing to acknowledge the actual content of the actual thread because you're too busy reiterating your declaration of your opinion of the thread you're imagining, which seems like it's basically of a piece with your original deleted comment and your repeated belatedly-acknowledged aggressive framing of comments in here.

This does not feel like a discussion that (a) you are approaching very objectively or (b) saying anything new about in your followup comments. I'm sympathetic at a personal level, I've been there, but this really just seems like something to walk away from at this point (or really at some point earlier today, but here we are).
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:49 PM on July 17, 2014 [15 favorites]

Lol. You are honestly arguing that a link to an abcnews.com headline, and NOTHING else is a great FPP.?

"Might". Honestly, where is the discussion in that post. Please point me to it. Where is the debate?
posted by BlerpityBloop at 3:51 PM on July 17, 2014

Cortex, please point out the discussion point in the Florida SSM thread.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 3:52 PM on July 17, 2014

Fuck's sake, dude, I'm trying to be gentle here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:52 PM on July 17, 2014 [44 favorites]

Where is the debate?

What debate, exactly, do you want to see?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:52 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

Discussion and debate are not synonymous.

We can discuss things as a community without debating the inherent merits of human rights.
posted by RainyJay at 3:53 PM on July 17, 2014 [20 favorites]

Cortex, please point out the discussion point in the Florida SSM thread.

So, you didn't mean that it's just full of "yay" comments and therefore dull and useless. You mean that it doesn't have the content of discussion that you want - that is, the discussion about legal analogies and minority rights is not sufficient, in your view, to justify the single link. But some other kind of discussion would? Based on some of your comments above, I guess only comments that are of the "boo" variety would count?
posted by rtha at 3:56 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

Ok mate. Apologies.

Sorry pal, I'm feeling a little ganged up on.taking a walk.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 3:57 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Someone mentioned a shake earlier upthread? Mmmmm, sounds good to me.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 3:58 PM on July 17, 2014

So, again, what s the point of a CNN link to a random judge declaring SSM legal? There is zero discussion to be had. They are, in absolute, nothing more than threads to say "yay" in.

Well... Often there's a discussion of the judicial process that led to the ruling. There's discussion of the unique qualities of a particular state. There are often peculiarities of implementation to be discussed. Generally the question of how this might affect future Supreme Court judgments is raised, and updated.

State law is actually pretty interesting and varied, and an implementation of state law that is of interest to the whole national (and to an extent global) community of MetaFilter often provides for interesting discussion.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

> Let me quote elizardbitz

Not only are you wrong on matters of fact and endlessly repeating the same tiresome wrongness, you can't even be bothered to spell your fellow MeFite's username correctly. Something tells me you're not engaging this discussion seriously.
posted by languagehat at 3:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

Drop the "h" and make it a sake. And then hand it off to the mods.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:59 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

What on earth is wrong with threads to say "yay!" in?
posted by brundlefly at 4:05 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

When you come back from your walk, maybe try starting a conversation in the thread, as you think it doesn't have one. I mean, despite your continual protests that there is by definition no conversation to be had there, you obviously think there is one to be had ("we need to discuss judicial activism", yadda yadda).

Two things, though:

(1) Perhaps try doing it in a non-threadshitting way? Even your non-deleted comment in there was essentially GRAR RAR RAR YOU'RE ALL HYPOCRITES. Why not start your discussion by explaining why this is "judicial activism", and ask how it's different than Hobby Lobby, rather than sarcastically proclaiming that it is the same as Hobby Lobby and therefore hypocrisy and, ironically, end of discussion?

(2) Perhaps try to be aware that "discussion" doesn't imply that other people are not allowed to think that your opinions are asinine.
posted by Flunkie at 4:06 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Shakes. Why did it have to be shakes?
posted by shakespeherian at 4:08 PM on July 17, 2014 [7 favorites]

Because you're delicious.
posted by phunniemee at 4:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

I am a man married to another man! I have opinions!

Anybody who thinks my marriage is not binding and fo realsie can take it up with the Circuit Court of Baltimore; the lovely Angel M., the clerk who officiated; and the full faith and credit clause!

Anybody who thinks it shouldn't be binding and fo realsie can fuck off!

But maybe the post was a little thin given that it wasn't actually a state-level decision!

But posting comments in a thread to the effect that it shouldn't exist is a known community anti-norm!

Bell's Oberon is pretty good but not worth smuggling across state lines!
posted by PMdixon at 4:12 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

Swap the k for an l and you have a fine-grained, clastic sedimentary rock composed of mud!

...

I'm doing it wrong, aren't I.
posted by winna at 4:15 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

Bell's Oberon is pretty good but not worth smuggling across state lines!

onyd
posted by elizardbits at 4:15 PM on July 17, 2014

There is zero discussion to be had. They are, in absolute, nothing more than threads to say "yay" in.

BlerpityBloop, why are you so stuck on the idea that discussion = debate? Debate is just one form a discussion can take. Discussions can also consist of analysis, speculation, storytelling, question and answer, etc. Also, even when there is 100% agreement on a central premise (e.g., SSM should be legal), there's still room to debate a variety of subtopics (e.g., political and rhetorical strategies, theories of historical change, likelihood of various predictions, etc.).

There are plenty of other discussions that can be (and have been) had on these posts beyond just saying "yay." There's a few different discussions running concurrently in the Florida thread -- arguing over the appropriateness of an analogy the judge used in his opinion, speculating over what other county clerks in Florida are going to do now, noting that every state ruling since DOMA was struck down by the Supreme Court has been pro-SSM, etc.

Previous threads have included discussion of legal and cultural implications of both the individual rulings as well as the accumulated rulings to date, analysis of historical trends and political strategies, personal anecdotes about members' years of activism on this issue and how meaningful these rulings are to them in this context, and -- best of all -- happy announcements of upcoming nuptials from MeFites who can finally marry their partners after years of waiting. Then over the following few days after the initial post, members in the affected states usually come back to add some stories about how their local communities are responding to the ruling.

There is plenty of new stuff to discuss on each post for each state not only because the history of the individual court cases and wording of the individual opinions is different each time, but also because each one of these rulings personally affects a different subset of MeFites who then come out of woodwork to talk about what legal SSM in their state means for them now.

This isn't ordinary newsfilter. This is the greatest civil rights movement of our generation, and IMO that justifies the mods' relaxed standards for what constitutes a sufficiently meaty FPP. I hope we continue to have a new post for every ruling because every MeFite deserves the opportunity to share with us their own experience of being part of history when it's finally their state's turn.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:17 PM on July 17, 2014 [31 favorites]

onyd

you shall crucify mankind on a case of revbrew cross of gold
posted by PMdixon at 4:20 PM on July 17, 2014

i don't even like beer i'm just a big faker
posted by elizardbits at 4:22 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

I came here looking for a fight and I won't leave until I ...

wait, milkshakes? Ooh!
posted by aubilenon at 4:31 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

Elizardbitz likes beer.
posted by maxsparber at 4:35 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

is there no end to her perfidy
posted by elizardbits at 4:43 PM on July 17, 2014 [12 favorites]

rancid breadwater, beer is
posted by NoraReed at 4:50 PM on July 17, 2014

So, wait. BlerpityBloop, you're being very handwavey and obfuscatory here, but I think I've got the gist of your statement. You're not upset because the links are thin, because there are a dozen other posts at LEAST that are as thin or thinner. You're not upset because there's no discussion happening, because there IS discussion happening. No, you're upset because you feel that your views on marriage equality won't be given the weight and respect that you want them to be given; you're angry because you don't want to bear the consequences for openly stating an unpopular opinion. You want to be able to boldly tell people that they, their friends, their compatriots and colleagues, are less than you are, but without having anyone get mad.

That is. . . not a realistic desire, let's just say that.
posted by KathrynT at 4:54 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

As an American (and therefore someone with a greater-than-global-average level of interest in the subject) who doesn't live in the US (and therefore never sees any of this discussion on the nightly news, etc.), my impression from seeing so many "SSM legalized in XYZ!" posts on MeFi is that SSM is legal in pretty much every state. So I'm a little surprised to keep seeing those posts popping up - I would have thought we'd run out of states by now.

I don't actually read the posts or comment in the threads, because I'm not so interested in the nitty-gritty (which judge said specifically what in which court, etc.), but every one of the posts makes me feel a little bit of happiness as I scroll by it in my RSS reader.
posted by Bugbread at 4:55 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Mod note: For what it's worth, with BlerpityBloop having said he's taking a walk, it'd probably be more productive for folks to talk about whatever is worth talking about on the general subject here than to continue to respond specifically to him in absentia.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:59 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

the US has rather a lot of states, and a deliberately disenfranchised capitol "district" that doesn't get equal representation because Reasons, in which Reasons is mostly racism, and some deliberately disenfranchised territories that I'm pretty sure are similarly treated badly
posted by NoraReed at 4:59 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

while i think he approached this terribly and muddied the waters with concern trolling, i do think we should keep in mind that he very strongly said he supports same sex marriage.
posted by nadawi at 5:00 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

yeah he said it so many goddamn times it came off as "I'm not homophobic but"
posted by NoraReed at 5:01 PM on July 17, 2014

Cross of Gold is not even Revolution's best pale ale.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:01 PM on July 17, 2014

Well shit I misread all KINDS of things.

carry on.
posted by KathrynT at 5:03 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

yeah, that's the problem with concern trolling, people might actually take the words at face value and think that's a personal concern instead of a made up concern to further the argument.
posted by nadawi at 5:11 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I've really been digging Rosa but I lacked pith to wit.
posted by PMdixon at 5:11 PM on July 17, 2014

It was then that sgt.serenity resolved to close his laptop, leave his summer house, have the butler help him roll up his sleeves and get involved with some grassroots activism - but the weather became slightly inclement.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:18 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

There's some spectacularly awful shit going on...
posted by brundlefly

Eponysterical.
posted by John Cohen at 5:23 PM on July 17, 2014

What could be better than drinking a beer while waiting for fried chicken at our mefiversary meetup? Nothing!
posted by rtha at 5:32 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Well i took my dog for a long walk. Thought about this thread the whole time.

Nadawi - "while i think he approached this terribly and muddied the waters with concern trolling, i do think we should keep in mind that he very strongly said he supports same sex marriage."

I'm a little unclear on what concern trolling really means, but I do want to be clear that I am more or less in total support of SameSexMarriage.

I'm not 100% behind it. I have my reasons, I have my arguments.

When I see a thread with a single ABCNews.com link with absolutely zero substance to it, and 98% of the comments saying "huzzah!", it seems to go against what this site is about: good links, great discussion. What makes this decision unique? how will this impact the cause? what does this mean for Floridians?

So I started this MeTa, not to be a prick, but to genuinely ask if SSM news threads can be held to the same standard as other breaking news. Otherwise is just seems like...well...yeah, here's a link to kittens playing with yarn...feels good. zero discussion.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 5:34 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

Since when were single links to kitten videos banned?
posted by muddgirl at 5:37 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

I'm a little unclear on what concern trolling really means, but I do want to be clear that I am more or less in total support of SameSexMarriage.

I'm not 100% behind it

So what's that, then? What's more or less 100%, but not quite 100%? 99%? 93%? 87%? 79%?

Give me a number so I can feel bad about how my marrying my same sex partner would affect your life in any negative way and then properly atone for it.
posted by mudpuppie at 5:38 PM on July 17, 2014 [11 favorites]

mudpuppie: "So what's that, then? What's more or less 100%, but not quite 100%? 99%? 93%? 87%? 79%?

Give me a number so I can feel bad about how my marrying my same sex partner would affect your life in any negative way and then properly atone for it."

Hey, now, don't jump to conclusions. He didn't say "less in total support", he said "more or less in total support". So it could be like 103% support.
posted by Bugbread at 5:40 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

Over/under of 87.5%.
posted by PMdixon at 5:40 PM on July 17, 2014

I think this needs not to become a thread about BlerpityBloop's position on marriage equality.

So I started this MeTa, not to be a prick, but to genuinely ask if SSM news threads can be held to the same standard as other breaking news.

So, to get back on topic... having started it, have you read it? Has it provided answers?
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:40 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

This meta is not about my personal opinions on SSM.

MeMail me if you like.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 5:42 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I'd also like to add that the subtext of my comment is that it's one thing to have a less-than-100%-supportive feeling about a political issue. But this isn't a political issue. This is about actual people -- people who are here! we are here! in this thread! I am one of them! hello! -- being denied legal rights that are available to heterosexual couples. You can have your reasons and arguments, and you can express them or not. But whatever they are, what they come down to is that you hold the less-than-0% belief that I do not deserve those rights. And yeah, I take offense to that.
posted by mudpuppie at 5:42 PM on July 17, 2014 [12 favorites]

I'm not 100% behind it. I have my reasons, I have my arguments.

So, again, there's a discussion to be had, regardless of your continuous assertions that there is no discussion to be had. So, again, why don't you go back to the thread and discuss it?

If your answer is that your comments would just get deleted, maybe try considering the possibility that "my threadshitty comment about this all being one big circlejerk was deleted" does not imply that "any comment I make about my views on gay marriage will be deleted".
posted by Flunkie at 5:42 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

This meta is not about my personal opinions on SSM.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe stop including those opinions in your comments? It's really obfuscating your point, and every time you "clarify" your position, it gets harder to believe that it's not a part of the conversation you want to have.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:44 PM on July 17, 2014 [15 favorites]

"So, to get back on topic... having started it, have you read it? Has it provided answers"

Yes. It has. I'm blown away by the quality of responses here. This is a really, really smart crowd. Incredibly humbling experience.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 5:45 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

This meta is not about my personal opinions on SSM.

In a roundabout way, it kind of is, though, and you're the one who made it that way by saying that dissenting, non-group-think opinions weren't welcome in threads about same sex marriage. I mean, if you want to have the conversation, let's have the conversation.

I'll drop it now unless you want to carry on, but I think you're being a little disingenuous. You can't say you aren't 100% in support of same sex marriage and then claim that we aren't talking about your level of support of same sex marriage. Dialogue doesn't work that way -- and I think part of the point of your whole point was that you don't like the way dialogue goes in same sex marriage threads, no?
posted by mudpuppie at 5:45 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

When I see a thread with a single ABCNews.com link with absolutely zero substance to it, and 98% of the comments saying "huzzah!", it seems to go against what this site is about: good links, great discussion.

Dude, I posted an SLYT to a video of ducklings hopping up stairs. Where was your concern then?
posted by KathrynT at 5:47 PM on July 17, 2014 [17 favorites]

I am very concerned about the possibility of ducklings falling down stairs and injuring their legs. MORE MUST BE DONE.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:49 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

I'm not sure why you continue to malign kittens playing with yarn. Of all the possible rhetorical strategies you have to choose from here, why keep coming back to the kitten thing?
posted by phunniemee at 5:51 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

What makes this decision unique? how will this impact the cause? what does this mean for Floridians?
posted by psoas at 5:51 PM on July 17, 2014

Doesn't anyone ever get mad that their kittens are fucking with their yarn? I mean, yeah, kittens are cute, but presumably you bought that yarn because you intended to make something with it. Doesn't the kitten fucking with the yarn mean you need to get on a bike/car/train and go to the fabric store and buy replacement yarn? Is kitten cuteness so overpowering that absolutely nobody feels annoyed at that inconvenience?
posted by Bugbread at 5:56 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

I'll admit, as a non-knitting dog owner, my appreciation of yarnmonger cats is purely academic, and I may be guilty of some armchair cutologizing.
posted by phunniemee at 5:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

Actually, after seeing a couple of links to wildly expensive yarns in knitting posts I can only agree, these kittens have indeed gone too far.
posted by elizardbits at 5:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [9 favorites]

presumably you bought that yarn because you intended to make something with it

The only thing I've ever bought yarn in order to make was a kitten-yarn combo.
posted by Flunkie at 5:59 PM on July 17, 2014 [7 favorites]

Dude, I posted an SLYT to a video of ducklings hopping up stairs. Where was your concern then?

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

Sorry.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:01 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Doesn't anyone ever get mad that their kittens are fucking with their yarn?

you're not supposed to let them eat it btw, it's bad for their wee tums. My kitten made a huge art project/mess out of some yarn once and it was super cute but i took it away after a while so he wouldn't eat it.
posted by sweetkid at 6:02 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

I may be guilty of some armchair cutologizing

Well, there's your problem. Only properly accredited Cutologists (preferably those with many years of cuddling experience) really have the expertise to discuss the cat-yarn nexus with any sort of awwthority.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:03 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

Dude, I posted an SLYT to a video of ducklings hopping up stairs. Where was your concern then?

That was a unique lesson in perserverance, though.
posted by sweetkid at 6:04 PM on July 17, 2014

Since we've gone there, forget yarn. Best cat toys ever are these splash ball toys. You can get them 4 to a pack at Dollar Tree. They are the Red Rider BB gun of cat toys, minus the eye-shooting.

(You'll lose them and have to replace them, but hey, they're 4 for a dollar and you'll get them all back next time you move the couch.)
posted by mudpuppie at 6:24 PM on July 17, 2014

Anyone want to start building a page on the wiki with prewritten content for the remaining 30 states?

Good idea. I've set up the infrastructure here:

Collaborative FPPs-in-Progress: State-by-State Same Sex Marriage Legalization

Everyone go grab your favorite state and get to work! :)
posted by Jacqueline at 6:25 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

BlerpityBloop, for what it's worth, I agree that threads like that are a weak FPP and no different than any other "breaking newsfilter."

As I read it r_n's problem is simply that you came in to post your distaste in the thread. Just flag it, use the contact form to throw in a little explanation as to why you flagged (if you really feel you need to), and leave it at that.

The mods don't always do things the way I would like, but it's fine, the site is still pretty great. Usually they make awesome decisions and if they don't do something the way I would... it's just a website. I'll flag it and move on.

And yes, there are double standards, and yes, that thread is most certainly breaking newsfilter. Double standards will happen, and they will favor things that the majority opinion around here likes to hear. Yes, there is a demographic here at Metafilter, no matter how much some people will try to convince you otherwise.

But you won't get much mileage if you point out your feelings in a thread and call the thread a "circlejerk."

Is the thread indicative of Metafilter's overall demographic? Is it a weak FPP? Yeah, I would say yes to both, just given that I don't come here to read about news... I want pure best of the web.

But the fact that you posted in the thread to call it a "circlejerk" basically tells the entire story.
posted by Old Man McKay at 6:28 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

it's all fun and games until someone gets yarn wrapped around their intestines.
posted by desjardins at 6:30 PM on July 17, 2014 [9 favorites]

"But the fact that you posted in the thread to call it a "circlejerk" basically tells the entire story."

That was unfortunate. But that wasn't the reason my post was deleted. Naughty words aren't verbotten here. My post was deleted because I questioned the validity of the post in thread.......and thats fine. I genuinely didn't know that was a 'thing'.

I am very well aware that double-standards exist on this site, a vast majority i happily shrug off, i raised this MeTa not to protest my deleted comment (mostly), but to genuinely ask if these constant news updates about gay marriage court decisions were worthy of FPP's.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 6:42 PM on July 17, 2014

But that wasn't the reason my post was deleted. Naughty words aren't verbotten here.

There isn't a list of verboten words. But context matters. Do you think maybe this particular issue might not have been the best context in which to use that particular naughty word?
posted by John Cohen at 6:47 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

a concern troll is someone who puts forth an argument they don't really believe, or doesn't actually affect them, with an air of "i'm just worried about..." as a way to extend the debate. the classic of this is probably, "think of the children!"

i had thought that since you labeled yourself a huge supporter of ssm and then started talking about people who don't support it that you were concern trolling. with your, uh, clarification i can see that maybe i extended you the benefit of the doubt incorrectly. i don't actually care about your feelings about gay people getting married, but your repeated restatement of your position (that is seemingly contradictory) has made this thread harder than it needed to be.
posted by nadawi at 6:49 PM on July 17, 2014 [5 favorites]

I just think FPP's with a link to abcnews announcing a minor thing are kinda shit.

And in this case the mods have disagreed with you. Accept that and move on with your day.

I could also say "it's not always about you," but if memory serves you don't like it when I say that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:51 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

nadawi: "a concern troll is someone who puts forth an argument they don't really believe, or doesn't actually affect them, with an air of "i'm just worried about..." as a way to extend the debate."

Note: I do not own a kitten, nor have I ever (to my knowledge) bought yarn. I was just worried about the implications of kittens for other yarn owners.
posted by Bugbread at 7:00 PM on July 17, 2014 [6 favorites]

"I just think FPP's with a link to abcnews announcing a minor thing are kinda shit.

And in this case the mods have disagreed with you. Accept that and move on with your day"

I'm sorry, isn't that the point of MetaTalk, to discuss site policy and Mod decisions and community behavior that we may or may not agree with?
posted by BlerpityBloop at 7:24 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I could also say "it's not always about you," but if memory serves you don't like it when I say that.

So you decided to say it passive aggressively?
posted by zarq at 7:30 PM on July 17, 2014 [11 favorites]

Can we get back to talking about beer? That's more my wheelhouse.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:33 PM on July 17, 2014 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry, isn't that the point of MetaTalk, to discuss site policy and Mod decisions and community behavior that we may or may not agree with?

Is this the part where we dig through various users' histories and use their past posts or comments against them?

No. No, this is not that part. Because that is not something that is okay here.

(This Metatalk thread complaining about a shit Metafilter post has become a really shit Metatalk thread, and that is very meta.)
posted by mudpuppie at 7:49 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

Moose Drool is my current favorite.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 7:57 PM on July 17, 2014 [4 favorites]

a concern troll is someone who puts forth an argument they don't really believe, or doesn't actually affect them, with an air of "i'm just worried about..." as a way to extend the debate. the classic of this is probably, "think of the children!"

If that's what a "concern troll" is, then I'm not sure what's wrong with being a "concern troll." People should be concerned about issues that don't "actually affect them." And we should always think of the children.
posted by John Cohen at 8:02 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

but who will think of the concern trolls? I'm just saying.

(Although, my impression was that concern trolling was narrower than that, in that it's when someone makes a big show of "being on your side" to justify nitpicking and tone-policing. They just care too much, you see.)
posted by kagredon at 8:06 PM on July 17, 2014

Can we get back to talking about beer? That's more my wheelhouse.

Stay out of the wheelhouse when yer drinking, please.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:07 PM on July 17, 2014

A Møøse once bit my sister...

Also, Concern Troll:
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, "I don't think it's wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government." Or, "This controversy is making your side look disorganized."

via Urban Dictionary
posted by valkane at 8:14 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

I asked a genuine question, the MeFi crowd answered it in good form.

I truly didn't pose this to be concern trolling. I'm happy things are going the way they are vis a vis gay marriage, more or less (I'd prefer if it were a constitutional or ballot measure rather than a judicial one, but that's besides the point), I really just don't see the value in a Single link FPP to a news site announcing some random decision that really isn't discussion worthy.

I raised that point in thread, I got deleted. I thought I was being censored for being a killjoy but it turns out I broke site guidelines.

Thank you all for being nice about this, sincerely.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 8:57 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

I seem to recall that some of these threads involved people from the state in question volunteering to officiate weddings for any mefites who wanted to get married right away. Has anyone taken up such an offer?

I don't think I'd want to go for a definition of "worthy discussion" that would exclude something like that because they weren't disagreeing with one another.
posted by RobotHero at 9:32 PM on July 17, 2014 [2 favorites]

"Has anyone taken up such an offer?"

While that's charming, that's not MeFi FPP's are really about, right? Despite appearances I genuinely do give a shit about this site. I come here to get my mind changed, to hear the other view, to be given an angle i didn't think about.

I value the rigid Noise/Signal ratio on the front page, it's honestly what makes this site the cream of the crop. So when I see yet another 'judge does something MeFi will celebrate' post, it kinda gets under my skin. I compared it to cats playing with yarn, perhaps unfairly, but that's what reddit is for. There is no discussion there, there is no content.

Anyway, don't want to come off as a GrumpyGuss, if MeFi enjoys those posts, fair dinkum.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 9:39 PM on July 17, 2014

There is no discussion there, there is no content.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
posted by kagredon at 9:58 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

There is no discussion there, there is no content.

When I read the thread in question I see people debating the merits of language used in the judges's ruling. This is discussion, yes?

I also see in this thread people sharing links to more information about the ruling. This is content, right?

Anyway, don't want to come off as a GrumpyGuss

Is a GrumpyGuss someone who is bothered by marriage equality but can only express this sentiment diffusely through incoherent complaints about how other people discuss marriage equality?

In that case I'm sorry -- you are coming across like a GrumpyGuss.
posted by serif at 10:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [10 favorites]

Despite appearances I genuinely do give a shit about this site. I come here to get my mind changed, to hear the other view, to be given an angle i didn't think about.

That's so awesome. I honestly and genuinely applaud that.

I learn a lot from Metafilter too. Every day, even! The specific example I can cite is trans issues. I have learned so much about trans issues from people here that I'm a little embarrassed to acknowledge how little I knew before. There's also a huge collection of smaller, less important things I learn about the world here. Transgender stuff is the big one that stands out for me.

But back to the issue at hand. You clarified your less-than-100%-supportive-of-gay-marriage comment by saying that you think the issue of same sex marriage should be resolved by "a constitutional or ballot measure rather than a judicial one." I thank you, sincerely, for clarifying, because your earlier comments were really confusing and contradictory.

Thing is, when you grow up gay and understand that there is this sort of preexisting disapproval and inherent threat of violence simply because you're gay, confusing and contradictory opinions aren't just baffling -- they're potentially dangerous. And if you're smart, you react to that. That's where I come from. So the idea of a legislative or political up or down vote about whether I do or don't have this specific right -- it might be a well-thought political argument on your end, but on my end it just feels like a major societal Fuck You.

Rubber meets the road: Are you now willing to have a conversation with people who disagree with you on the idea of same sex marriage being up for popular vote? Because I disagree with you on that point. And I would like to have a conversation with you about it. Not by memail -- because I think there are a lot of other voices here that might be more articulate than mine, and who should be able to weigh in. There might also be voices here who agree with you, and that's totally cool. Let's hear them.

I honestly, 100% (no variance), would like to see that discussion here, and would be really happy if you participated in it.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:17 PM on July 17, 2014 [10 favorites]

I feel divided on this issue, as it pertains to the site. Same-sex marriage is a no-fucking-brainer, and its expansion makes me very happy. But yes, these SSM posts do tend to be (though are not exclusively) unusually thin. Same-sex marriage is an issue that has strong, personal ramifications for many (technically all) MeFi community members, and I'm okay with a post being technically low-quality if it brings joy to lots of folks-- but on the other hand, this doesn't really seem like the general standard used to judge FPPs? I definitely think I've seen good posts on whatever topic get deleted as doubles, that were no more doubly than the average SSM post. I also feel like the way this issue gets covered on MeFi contributes to the US-centric vibe people sometimes complain about-- I can't really imagine a MetaFilter where any change to, say, Brazil's economic policy would be considered appropriate for a brand-new FPP that links to a single news article.

land of contrasts
posted by threeants at 10:32 PM on July 17, 2014 [8 favorites]

(To clarify, I'm actually totally cool with the idea of doubles, personally, and my attitude is more sort of "let a hundred flowers bloom". It's that the way we deal with this specific topic doesn't really appear to fit in with commonly expressed community/moderation attitudes towards doubles, which generally strike me as somewhat hawkish.)
posted by threeants at 10:38 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

but I do want to be clear that I am more or less in total support of SameSexMarriage.

I'm not 100% behind it. I have my reasons, I have my arguments.

None of which are valid, or worthy of consideration. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but there is not a single rational argument that exists against SSM. Sure, some of the userbase here isn't in favour. And they, and you, are just as wrong as all the people out there who aren't in favour.

Equality before the law is non-optional, and is in fact stated explicitly in your Constitution. If you aren't 100% behind SSM, you are saying you are X% in favour of inequality before the law.

Or just read my comment in the actual thread being discussed. The one you claim there is no discussion happening in, which I can see includes: discussion about the judge's use of the word Nazi, questions about whether there will be a stay, updates on other SSM issues elsewhere in Florida, etc.

Meanwhile I'll be celebrating this bit of good news on an otherwise horrific day. A passenger plane was shot out of the sky, killing 295 innocent civilians. Israel has invaded Gaza by land. No doubt there have been a million other tragedies today that haven't made international headlines.

And this is the hill you want to die on. You might want to re-examine your priorities.

But, if we're going to opine on whether or not SSM posts are FPP-worthy, the answer is simple: yes, until there are fifty such posts. Or fewer than fifty if you count the inevitable post about the inevitable SCOTUS ruling on the matter, almost certainly next spring. Maybe I'm biased. I don't care. I love, love, love seeing my compatriots on the other side of the border toppling domino after domino, and given how much hard work it takes to even budge one, they are worthy of discussion, no matter how thin.

SSM posts might be NewsFilter, but they are fantastically important NewsFilter for a hell of a lot of people in the USA, and on this site. Posts about equality gains for women, for trans folks, for people of colour, for oppressed groups everywhere; many of these may also be NewsFilter. But again, they are important news for an enormous number of people. That they're not important issues for you is completely irrelevant. K?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:10 PM on July 17, 2014 [3 favorites]

I'm pretty much at a place in my life where I'm not okay with discussions of how "real" a citizen (of the the US, at least) I may or may it be because of who I want to have recognized as my Official Partner. It's not academic. It's not intellectual. I don't give a shit about your religious beliefs.

Am I equal to you or not? It's not a simple question, apparently, but I'm going to give you only two answers to choose from: yes, or no.
posted by rtha at 11:52 PM on July 17, 2014 [16 favorites]

no sleep till kansas
posted by fleacircus at 1:10 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

The seriously obvious problem with the post is just that it's utterly wrong--gay marriage isn't legal in Florida. It's so misleading that we have posters here making that mistake.

Even if we want a post for every state, do we need a post for every minor victory?
posted by TypographicalError at 1:27 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I'm sorry, isn't that the point of MetaTalk, to discuss site policy and Mod decisions and community behavior that we may or may not agree with?

It is. However, you have already asked site policy of the mods and gotten that answered. So this whole MeTa isn't coming across as "I have something I want to discuss", it's coming across as "I didn't like the answer I got and I"m trying to get enough people behind me to make the mods change their minds."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:28 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I also feel like the way this issue gets covered on MeFi contributes to the US-centric vibe people sometimes complain about

I was just scrolling to the bottom of this page to mention this point. I'm really happy that more same sex marriages are happening, but it feels like a lot of these posts are only standing because it's a U.S thing (I may be wrong, I don't find them at all interesting, and I put that down to living in a different country, which makes a county in Florida seem fairly minor).

The comeback to that is that if I'm not interested, I should scroll past those posts when I see them, which I'm happy to do. And obviously if the general consensus is that the same sex marriage posts should stay then I'm completely fine with that. However, the discussion about whether a certain type of post is good for the site is a valid one, and as there's a meta open, I'd be interested to hear other peoples opinions on this. Personally, I'd prefer it if the posts had more content, and if single posts could cover multiple rulings.

but they are fantastically important NewsFilter for a hell of a lot of people in the USA, and on this site

I honestly don't know whether that should be a consideration when judging a post.
posted by Ned G at 2:14 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

Am I equal to you or not? It's not a simple question, apparently, but I'm going to give you only two answers to choose from: yes, or no.

Expect waffles and chicken.
posted by Pudhoho at 2:23 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I bet this sort of trolling will be polished to brilliant perfection by the time the 50th state rolls around. Better luck next time, BlerpityBloop.
posted by ryanrs at 2:53 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

catnip for liberals ... genuinely annoyed that "small liberal good news" gets A pass on here

Anybody else noticed that people who use "liberal" as a term of disparagement are also the ones who tend to react to all disagreement as if it were some kind of personal affront? Or is that just confirmation bias on my part?
posted by flabdablet at 3:15 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

Also, has anybody ever encountered a person who does exhibit both these traits whose opinions are actually worth paying attention to?
posted by flabdablet at 3:17 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Plus the activist judge horseshit.

Time to send these ignoramuses off to count trees.
posted by Pudhoho at 3:21 AM on July 18, 2014

I flag every comment I see that criticises how a FPP has been formed because that kind of comment doesn't belong on the blue, even if I agree with the criticism! Bring it to the grey if the framing really gives you the shits (which is what this post should have been about, not your deleted comment) or FIAMO. Seems pretty obvious.
posted by h00py at 5:51 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

(I don't agree with this criticism, by the way. I'm happy for people to be happy about at least something moving forward in this sad, sick world we're living in and the more posts about good things the better, I say).
posted by h00py at 5:53 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

To me this feels like by now everyone realizes that thin SSM victory threads are an exception to the general rule about FPPs having sufficient content.

I think that - and the rest of your comment - is spot on, MoonOrb. See also, much less positively: obituaries, US politics during Presidential elections, anything involving a fucking cat. I'm very much in the anti-NewsFilter camp, and very much in the 'links uber alles, discussion is a boon' camp, so I can get in a right old tizzy about half of the front page at any given moment, but same sex marriage celebration posts are defo best viewed as a new MetaFilter tradition, and a good one, even if they don't always pass muster quality-wise.

(Cats, on the other hand, are terrible and unpleasant. Please stop posting about them, you vermin-loving numpties.)

Not every member of this site is down with SSM.

I sincerely hope that is not true.

I'm pretty sure we're down to one straight-up homophobe at this point and she was told, years ago, never to express her repulsive views again on pain of banning.

There isn't a list of verboten words.

Verboten might be a bit strong, but there are two words we're effectively not allowed to use because they're seriously offensive to Americans, and quite a few more that we're not allowed to use because they're seriously offensive to everyone who isn't a racist homophobic pisswizard. (To be absolutely clear, I'm not complaining about this at all, and argued in favour of not using the offensive-to-Americans words when it came up in MetaTalk.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:32 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

Okay - seeing the phrase "down with SSM" come up in this thread so much has now put the song Down With OPP in my head and I need help.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:38 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

pisswizard

i am so stealing this kthx

WHO DOWN WITH SSM?
DYKES AND GAY MEN

etc
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:50 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

(not to leave out everyone else under the umbrella but it's early and I'm terrible at rhymes anyway. sorry.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:11 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

feckless fecal fear mongering: " SSM posts might be NewsFilter, but they are fantastically important NewsFilter for a hell of a lot of people in the USA, and on this site. Posts about equality gains for women, for trans folks, for people of colour, for oppressed groups everywhere; many of these may also be NewsFilter. But again, they are important news for an enormous number of people. That they're not important issues for you is completely irrelevant. K?"

Damn right.
posted by zarq at 7:28 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

jack_mo: " I'm pretty sure we're down to one straight-up homophobe at this point and she was told, years ago, never to express her repulsive views again on pain of banning."

For whatever it's worth, there a small number of Americans on MeFi that I know of who are against SSM for either what I assume are religious or values-based reasons or perhaps because they feel the issue shouldn't be imposed by the Judicial branch instead of a popular vote. I am pretty sure all of them are okay with same-sex civil unions but not marriage. I don't think any of them ever participate in these threads.

It would not surprise me in the least to find out more feel the same way but don't comment. It has taken decades of activism, struggle, familiarity, compassion and heartbreak for a threshold number of Americans to get to a point where same-sex marriage is still considered controversial but acceptable.
posted by zarq at 7:51 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

Sorry for the weakish post. There was a rash of shitty things happening and I thought we could all use a hug.

Next time, more substance. I promise.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:42 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

IMO you have nothing to apologize for. BlerpityBoop is clearly grinding an axe here, and I suspect that axe has nothing to do with thin/newsfilter posts at all.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:47 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

Guys, I can't come until one of you says "echo chamber". Help a brother out.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:54 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

liberal leftist godless echo chamber circlejerk

HTH, HAND.

/hamburgers everywhere
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

echo chambers for everyone
posted by flabdablet at 8:58 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Lentrohamsanin: "I can't come until one of you says "echo chamber". "

echo... cha-mpagne!
echo... cha-rleston chew!
echo... c-amembert!
echo... chorizo and eggs!
echo... cha cha cha!

But shoot it in the right di-rec-tion....
posted by zarq at 9:00 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

we just get by however we can
posted by flabdablet at 9:01 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Hold on to your butts, SSM FPP haters: it's OK to be gay in OK.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:02 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

YES!!!!!!!!!
posted by zarq at 9:05 AM on July 18, 2014

Note: everyone needs a special hug now.
posted by flabdablet at 9:06 AM on July 18, 2014

\o/
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:07 AM on July 18, 2014

.o.
posted by flabdablet at 9:08 AM on July 18, 2014

Oooooooooooooklahoma, where the winds are swiftly 'bout to change...
posted by maryr at 9:17 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

!!!Wow!!!
posted by rtha at 9:18 AM on July 18, 2014

\o/ (but I'm not writing this one up)
posted by Sophie1 at 9:25 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

cute. But the decision has already been stayed.

Is there anything noteworthy about this other than it being noteworthy?

No. It's a judge. In a state. Declaring a law unconstitutional. I'm genuinely curious why you would think that link would make a quality FPP.

"Good news" is not always interesting news.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 9:51 AM on July 18, 2014

To me this feels like by now everyone realizes that thin SSM victory threads are an exception to the general rule about FPPs having sufficient content.

I think that - and the rest of your comment - is spot on, MoonOrb. See also, much less positively: obituaries, US politics during Presidential elections, anything involving a fucking cat.

I dunno about that. Obituaries in particular especially. It seems to me that when someone well-known passes away, I often see (via the Deleted Posts Greasemonkey script) a billion deleted posts, with reasons like "Thin, let's wait for better framing" before one magically passes the threshold and gets left up.

This always strikes me as strange, because at that point, people finally get to talk about the fact that the person died, which is all they really wanted to do in the first place. Who cares whether or not, above the discussion that is what people are actually there for, there is some beautifully framed work of art post with tons of informative links and such? I don't mean it's bad that there are informative links, nor even that informative links aren't good. But they're all going to come out in the discussion anyway. So why does the discussion, which is what people want, have to be delayed?

Again, this seems to me to be an example where the framing and linking are basically irrelevant; it seems to me that an obituary thread post would be more or less just as good if it were simply a zero-link short and to the point "Fred Phlogiston has died" than if it were filled with links forming a retrospective and analysis of his life. The links, the retrospective, and the analysis will all come out in the discussion anyway. Yet obituary threads in particular seem to me to be frequently deleted due to thinness.
posted by Flunkie at 9:51 AM on July 18, 2014

I really can't shake the impression that your beef isn't with low quality or single link FFPs.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:56 AM on July 18, 2014 [21 favorites]

And if this is just another example of you applying the broader project of having a high bar for all types of FPPs I would be thrilled.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:57 AM on July 18, 2014

"Good news" is not always interesting news.

Dude. We get it. You don't think it's a good FPP.

Continuing to flog the point is just going to make people think that you doth protest too much.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:57 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

BlerpityBloop, rtha asked you a question.

Please demonstrate that you are acting in good faith by answering it. I'm with MisantropicPainforest here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:59 AM on July 18, 2014

BlerpityBloop, you continue to assert as fact that there's nothing interesting about state-level judicial rulings on marriage equality, after many, many people have explained what they find interesting about it.
posted by kagredon at 10:01 AM on July 18, 2014

This always strikes me as strange, because at that point, people finally get to talk about the fact that the person died, which is all they really wanted to do in the first place. Who cares whether or not, above the discussion that is what people are actually there for, there is some beautifully framed work of art post with tons of informative links and such?

I don't think this is entirely accurate. When Nelson Mandela died, there was at least one deleted post that was a single link to a news blurb about his death and the post was something like "Mandela has died, what a man. RIP"

And like, ok, but it's Nelson Fucking Mandela. He is worth more than a handful of farted out words just to have the first Nelson Mandela post. The Mandela obit post that ended up staying was hardly more than newsfilter, but at least it had a bit of substance. It wasn't an artful megapost, but it was better than the previous.

Sophie1 appears to have actually read the article she posted yesterday, added a pull quote which lots of people commenting went on to discuss. It had substance. If she had posted the link with "sup Florida, yay gays!" it probably would have been taken down with a request to wait for one with better framing.
posted by phunniemee at 10:02 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

I'd rather Blerpity answer this question of mine, honestly.
posted by rtha at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

FFS man, that was just a link. With every contribution to this thread, you seem determined to undermine your repeated assurances that this is about something else. And if you're still unaware of the usefulness of federal circuit courts as to eliminating violations of basic civil rights, maybe you should go back and read one of the previous"thin" threads you have such a hate-on for. The process is described in great detail.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Is there anything noteworthy about this other than it being noteworthy?

What?
posted by brundlefly at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

Apparently a state legalizing SSM isn't MetaFilter worthy but... a discussion about how Lorde's 'Royals' is a good song is totes worthy.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:04 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

Oh holy shit you're kidding me.

Yeah, this isn't about 'newsfilter' or 'thin posts.' This is about BlerpityBloop grinding an axe against SSM.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:06 AM on July 18, 2014

BlerpityBloop: "Is there anything noteworthy about this other than it being noteworthy? "

Oklahoma is one of the most backwards goddamned states in the entire Union, legislatively-speaking. Okie legislators tried to pass Federal Constitution-violating amendments & laws regarding fetal personhood, a ban on medication abortions and a requirement for invasive ultrasounds and shaming tactics before women could obtain an abortion over the last couple of years -- all of which were struck down by the state judiciary. They still arguably have the worst ballot access laws in the nation. Some of the worst gun control laws (i.e., barely any regulation at all).

A judge just tried to drag their cro-mag asses (presumably kicking and screaming) into the 21st century by explaining that they aren't allowed to legally deny their neighbors equal rights and treat them like second class citizens.

It's not just "noteworthy." It's fucking epic.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on July 18, 2014 [19 favorites]

You are welcome to MeMail me if you want a question answered. The usual MeFi bullies (FFFM, ZF, rtha, zarq, MisPain) are doing there gang-up thing here and you need to knock it the fuck off.

You guys are the reason there is no room for debate and why people who may not be thrilled with court decisions are terrified to contribute to this site.

This thread is about what makes a quality FPP, and is a single link to ABCNews announcing a judges decision in Florida (or OK, or MI, or NH) a quality FPP.

That's it. No axe grinding. No arguments for or against SSM. The only ones bringing up 'bigots' and 'haters' are you.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:11 AM on July 18, 2014

This thread is about what makes a quality FPP, and is a single link to ABCNews announcing a judges decision in Florida (or OK, or MI, or NH) a quality FPP.

The answer seems to be 'yes.'
posted by shakespeherian at 10:13 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

You guys are the reason there is no room for debate and why people who may not be thrilled with court decisions are terrified to contribute to this site.

I didn't see you post any topics for debate in the thread. Instead of beating around the bush and calling FPPs weak and pretending this is all about post quality, why don't you just say what you actually believe?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:13 AM on July 18, 2014 [8 favorites]

The usual MeFi bullies (FFFM, ZF, rtha, zarq, MisPain)...

What?
posted by brundlefly at 10:14 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

You've been here for years and this is the first time you've showcased your exceedingly high standards for a FPP. Why now? Why not when there was a fucking discussion about a stupid pop song? Or any of the other single-link shallow FPPs that you participated in?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:15 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

BlerpityBloop: "The usual MeFi bullies (FFFM, ZF, rtha, zarq, MisPain) are doing there gang-up thing here and you need to knock it the fuck off."

No.

You ask a question. You get reasonable answers. You keep asking the same question. You keep getting reasonable answers. The problem here is not that the "bullies" are "terrifying" you or anyone similar. It's that you don't like the answers you're getting.

People disagree with you.

How terrifying.
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on July 18, 2014 [13 favorites]

keep up that tone brundlefly i'll steal your lunch money
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:15 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

AND THAT'S MISTERPAIN TO YOU.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2014 [8 favorites]

And like, ok, but it's Nelson Fucking Mandela. He is worth more than a handful of farted out words just to have the first Nelson Mandela post.

To the limited extent that we as a community could possibly give Nelson Mandela what he is worth, I feel that we do so through the conversation about him. Which I feel would be the same regardless of whether the FPP is a zero-link "Nelson Mandela has died, what a man, RIP" or something more conventionally able to pass the deletion test.
posted by Flunkie at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2014

This thread is about what makes a quality FPP, and is a single link to ABCNews announcing a judges decision in Florida (or OK, or MI, or NH) a quality FPP.

Well, I think it is. And so do many others.

So now what? The mods have pointed out that you could always skip the FPP's that you think are not good enough - something which countless other users do - and that seems to be an acceptable solution which would best satisfy both everyone's wish to express themselves with the creation of an FPP, while simulatneously satisfying people's wish to read quality FPP's.

So....what more can be done? What was this meant to achieve, above and beyond the (infinitely sensible) suggestion to just skip the posts you don't think are good enough and go read about something else like mountain dulcimers or something?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:17 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

You are welcome to MeMail me if you want a question answered.

It continues to strike me that you keep indicating that a discussion is possible about the topic of a thread in which you keep insisting that no discussion is possible.
posted by Flunkie at 10:18 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

Now, now, Empress. You know as well as I do that flogging your point only counts as circle jerking if you're a dirty liberal.
posted by flabdablet at 10:20 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

I believe that a single link to Abcnews.com announcing a judges decision in Florida is a paper thin FPP with zero room for discussion.

It serves no purpose other than to make people feel good.

What else are you looking for that I haven't already said? My position on same sex marriage? That's completely irrelevant.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:21 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

It continues to strike me that you keep indicating that a discussion is possible about the topic of a thread in which you keep insisting that no discussion is possible.

More to the point, insisting that such discussion should take place privately, rather than out in the sunshine.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:21 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I am more than a little offended that I was not included in the listing of "usual Mefi bullies." I'm a dues-paying member, and have been for years.
posted by koeselitz at 10:21 AM on July 18, 2014 [13 favorites]

BlerpityBloop, you clearly have a lot of opinions about marriage equality approaches (judicial vs legislative), which would've been perfectly fine to bring up in-thread, so your repeated insistence that the FPP was too thin to be useful ring rather false.

That, combined with your use of phrases like "catnip for liberals" makes it seem like your real objection is that people were too happy in that thread, which...yeah, isn't going to sit well with people, for good reason.
posted by kagredon at 10:21 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

wait, we don't have to read every FPP?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:21 AM on July 18, 2014

The Florida SSM thread has a pretty enlightening discussion in the comments on the Nazi reference used in the quote in the FPP.

So the discussion in that thread is far > 0
posted by Twain Device at 10:22 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

you're wrong. many people disagree with you. its ok. that doesn't make anyone a bully. deal with it like an adult. move on. this isn't your blog.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:23 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

What else are you looking for that I haven't already said? My position on same sex marriage? That's completely irrelevant.

Oh no. No it is not. You're down for a single link post about a song you like, but one celebrating equality is 'just making people feel good.'

Come on. Either be honest with us or walk away before you embarrass yourself any further.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:23 AM on July 18, 2014

You need 100% completion if you want the double plus good end, MisantropicPainforest, but you can just watch it on YouTube anyway.
posted by maryr at 10:24 AM on July 18, 2014

What else are you looking for that I haven't already said? My position on same sex marriage? That's completely irrelevant.

It is not completely irrelevant, because as you said above, you have reasons and arguments about your views.

Your primary complaint seems to be a lack of dissenting discussion in the thread in question.

You could go into that thread and speak about your views and make your discussion happen.

But you won't. It is really unclear as to why you won't, because it seems to be what you want.
posted by phunniemee at 10:24 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

It is really unclear as to why you won't

Doesn't seem unclear to me at all.

And with that, I'm walking away for a bit because in the past three days I've been called a racist (so wrong) and a bully (ditto) and I'm starting to see red.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:26 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Take a lap for me.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:26 AM on July 18, 2014

I need to step up my bullying game.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:27 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

Still lolling over here at the thought that anyone thinks zarq is a bully. zarq!
posted by phunniemee at 10:29 AM on July 18, 2014 [15 favorites]

I believe that a single link to Abcnews.com announcing a judges decision in Florida is a paper thin FPP with zero room for discussion.

I believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows.
posted by flabdablet at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

*cracks knuckles*

I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDAH!
posted by zarq at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I believe that every time you make a Powerpoint Edward Tufte kills a kitten.
posted by flabdablet at 10:31 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

I believe that sausages should be made in public.
posted by flabdablet at 10:31 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Zarq stop intimidating me
posted by shakespeherian at 10:31 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

(fuck me I shoulda closed the tab sooner)

I believe that children are the future


sorry
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:32 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

*licks shakespeherian*

Wait, he tastes like beer.
posted by zarq at 10:33 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I believe in life after love.
posted by flabdablet at 10:34 AM on July 18, 2014

what is happening
posted by kagredon at 10:34 AM on July 18, 2014

What else are you looking for that I haven't already said? My position on same sex marriage? That's completely irrelevant.

What I am looking for is an answer to the question "why was the suggestion to just skip the threads you do not like an unacceptable solution to you".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:35 AM on July 18, 2014

what this thread really needs is endless cheese sticks
posted by elizardbits at 10:37 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

beer cheese sticks
posted by zarq at 10:38 AM on July 18, 2014

You know what? Fuck the moralizing bullshit hypocrisy about "bullying" from someone who is quite clearly being extremely subjective on what constitutes a "thin" FPP to them, for whom civil rights is just another topic no different from any other. Cutesy framing aside, I posted that link in the hopes that someone would make a post about the decision, one that detailed the completely fucking awful ways that Oklahoma has led the way in hating people for their skin color, their identity, and their love throughout the years. But since you have shown that you're not only unwilling to avoid conversations that you don't like, but that you are interested in shitting all over those conversations for no good reason, I kind of hope that link is the entirety of the next SSM FPP.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:38 AM on July 18, 2014

Do you like fish sticks?
posted by flabdablet at 10:38 AM on July 18, 2014

I don't know.... I feel like BlerpityBloop's feelings about marriage equality shouldn't be an issue, at least in the MeTa as it was originally constituted. But then there was that weird pivot where BlerpityBloop stopped saying that the problem was purely that these were thin posts, but rather that not all members of MetaFilter were down with marriage equality. And then with the talking about liberal groupthink.

At which point what he's actually asking to be changed is still that FPPs on marriage equality be deleted, I guess, but for another reason, and not one that is wholly clear. That they might be upsetting for some people on MetaFilter (although not BB!) who are opposed to marriage equality but feel unable to express their views?

That's kind of odd, and possibly odder because you can take issue with even fairly uncontentious liberal orthodoxies on MetaFilter, at least without being having your post deleted. You can't do it and be guaranteed that nobody will take issue, or forceful issue, with your beliefs, but as long as you keep an eye on your levels of explicit aggression you're fine, in moderation terms. So, yeah. I don't get it.

Oh no. No it is not. You're down for a single link post about a song you like, but one celebrating equality is 'just making people feel good.'

In BB's defence, these aren't the same things. A SLFPP about Lorde isn't a news story. At least one of BB's contentions here was that posts about marriage equality that would be deleted as "newsfilter" if they were about another news story are allowed to stand. That's been pushed back on, but non-Newsfilter posts aren't, I think, a relevant comparison.

(Although, thinking about it, that's complicated by the kitten with yarn thing. And by the expectation that a kitten with yarn SLFPP would be deleted, when it very probably wouldn't be. So, BB is saying that SSM threads should be held to a higher standard because newsfilter but also that they are equivalent to a non-newsfilter item, and one that would not be automatically deleted. And the argument that there's nothing to say about marriage equality judgments is manifestly and provably wrong. In fact, BlerpityBloop demonstrated personally that this claim was untrue, by saying something about it in the thread.

Yeah, OK, this whole thing is just a mess.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:39 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

I kind of hope that link is the entirety of the next SSM FPP

No, the single link should be a link to the comment in this thread that posted the link because of hilarity reasons.
posted by elizardbits at 10:39 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I believe I can fly.


(deep fried beer-battered cheese sticks)
posted by Sophie1 at 10:40 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Careful, Empress, unless you want to be in the bully club.

Blerpity demands an answer here in the thread to the question he asks; he gets multiple answers but doesn't like them. He declines to answer any of the questions asked of him, and characterizes the askers as bullies. This is an amazing display of bad faith.

Also, upthread I asked this question: What could be better than drinking a beer while waiting for fried chicken at our mefiversary meetup? Nothing!

and I'm still waiting for an answer!
posted by rtha at 10:40 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

What's the sound a troll makes as it disappears down the gurgler?
posted by flabdablet at 10:42 AM on July 18, 2014

What's the point of ANY discussion on MeTa about the quality of FPP's (of which we have had a brazillion) if the answer is 'just skip it, yo'.

On preview, ROSF said it better.

RTHA. what was the question? My feelings about you? How is that relevant to what makes a quality FPP
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:42 AM on July 18, 2014

My question (completely unrelated to SSM and completely related to single-link feel-good fluff posts) was not answered, either. :(
posted by muddgirl at 10:43 AM on July 18, 2014

What's the point of ANY discussion on MeTa about the quality of FPP's (of which we have had a brazillion) if the answer is 'just skip it, yo'.

It strikes me that in all of the past discussions about the quality of FPP's, the answer has always been "just skip it, yo". Which then leads to the second question - exactly what made you think that this one would go any differently? Especially in light of the fact that "just skip it, yo" was an answer you already got from the mods when you went to them directly?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:45 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

deep fried beer-battered cheese sticks with sweet chili sauce
posted by flabdablet at 10:45 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Aren't we supposed to engage in good faith here? Asking someone to repeat their question a third time does not seem to be engaging in good faith. In fact, it very much is not engaging in good faith. That's crummy and argumentative.

The question was (and I'm paraphrasing, here): What kind of discussion would be sufficient to qualify as a discussion, since the actual discussion going on in the actual thread didn't suffice?
posted by sockermom at 10:47 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

rtha: "and characterizes the askers as bullies"

In my defense, I didn't ask him anything. I did say, "don't be a dick" upthread, though.
posted by zarq at 10:47 AM on July 18, 2014

stalking horse (noun) - a gambit that is used to hide a true purpose behind an idea or concept that can be disavowed if the attack fails.
posted by winna at 10:47 AM on July 18, 2014 [18 favorites]

but i still haven't found what I'm looking for
posted by flabdablet at 10:49 AM on July 18, 2014

On preview, ROSF said it better.

But...rosf wasn't agreeing with you
posted by kagredon at 10:50 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

Careful, Empress, unless you want to be in the bully club.

We aren't accepting applications at this time.

Our committees are just a mess and its hard enough as it is without new members.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:50 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Although his comment was very well put.
posted by kagredon at 10:51 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

Take a lap for me.

Yesterday I suggested that you take a walk. It was polite, it came from a friendly place, and it was intended to be constructive. You ignored that suggestion, but hey, cool, that's your prerogative. Problem is, not only are you still here, your participation in the thread has gotten markedly worse. You're acting like a child. Speaking as someone who agrees with several of the points you've made—the FPP was thin, certain people ought to knock off the pile-on shit, etc—could you please do me a personal favor and shut the fuck up? I'd like to see certain standards elevated on this website, and I'm tired of those arguments being colored by the fact that other people keep making them in the shittiest ways possible.

Use the contact form to tell the mods you're done with this thread, then go for a walk. Come back to the blue later and chat about television or TGI Friday's or MH17 or whatever else, but don't open this thread again. Be a pal. Thanks.
posted by cribcage at 10:51 AM on July 18, 2014 [5 favorites]

Winna, that's a great term to know. Thanks. :)
posted by zarq at 10:51 AM on July 18, 2014

but I still haven't found what I'm looking for

I bought a ukulele book the other day that had that song in it and let me tell you it's not a good choice for the instrument.
posted by winna at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

What's the point of ANY discussion on MeTa about the quality of FPP's (of which we have had a brazillion) if the answer is 'just skip it, yo'.

That's the answer after some discussion. Many of us think your argument isn't convincing. We heard your concerns. We disagree.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

zarq, you also called the people of Oklahoma "Cro-Mags", presumably referring to opponents of SSM as being less than fully developed humans. (cro magnons had larger brain cavities than we do, to play science nerd for a second)

Now....that's not a hill I'm going to die on, but do you see how calling people who disagree with you 'cro-mags' isn't exactly welcoming alternate opinions? It's kinda hostile.

.....and i get it, MeFi is VERY hostile to opponents of SSM. So a paper thin single link to a news story we've seen 13 times this year (however great news it is) is kinda a shitty FPP...more-so if anyone who disagrees with the decision is absolutely terrified of saying so.
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I speak for no one but myself when I say that I am glad if people who are opposed to same sex marriage don't want to post about it here. Their tears of terror are delicious.
posted by winna at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2014 [9 favorites]

its not people who disagree with us. Everyone disagrees with me. My partner disagrees with me. She's not a cro-mag. Its people who think SSM shoulnd't be legal.

It's kinda hostile.

.....and i get it, MeFi is VERY hostile to opponents of SSM.

Yes. Feature, not a bug. This isn't a bad thing. This is a good thing. SSM is good.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2014 [8 favorites]

more-so if anyone who disagrees with the decision is absolutely terrified of saying so.

I don't know, you don't seem terrified. Coy and baity, sure, but not terrfied.
posted by kagredon at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2014 [14 favorites]

.....and i get it, MeFi is VERY hostile to opponents of SSM. So a paper thin single link to a news story we've seen 13 times this year (however great news it is) is kinda a shitty FPP...more-so if anyone who disagrees with the decision is absolutely terrified of saying so.

If you're terrified of people who disagree with you on the internet, how do you cope with people who disagree with you in real life?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2014

Amazing. It's like watching someone read /r/shittyaskscience and believing that it's true.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:56 AM on July 18, 2014

So what is this MeTa really about? Is it about the quality of FPPs or about your fear of stating your opinion that the expansion of civil rights is not necessarily a good thing?
posted by Rock Steady at 10:57 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

RTHA. what was the question? My feelings about you? How is that relevant to what makes a quality FPP

No, there were a couple others, actually! This one: Have you been in that thread recently? Because there's a lot more going on that just "yay!" (And that would be fine, too, unless you think posts that get five "Nice post, thanks" comments should also not be allowed?)

And/or this one: So, you didn't mean that it's just full of "yay" comments and therefore dull and useless. You mean that it doesn't have the content of discussion that you want - that is, the discussion about legal analogies and minority rights is not sufficient, in your view, to justify the single link. But some other kind of discussion would? Based on some of your comments above, I guess only comments that are of the "boo" variety would count?

Shorter and more direct: What would useful discussion look like to you, since you obviously find the existing discussion in that thread insufficient?
posted by rtha at 10:58 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

likely because i don't disagree with the judge?

maybe you missed the many times I said about I am pro-SSM
posted by BlerpityBloop at 10:58 AM on July 18, 2014

Blerpity .. if you are, as you allude to in your comment, terrified to acknowledge that you disagree with the Florida decision to accord gays the same rights as straights .. good.

You should be terrified to say that. Just like you should be terrified to say that you disagree with the decision to allow interracial marriage.

Not terrified because people will verbally draw and quarter you, but because the idea that you feel there are grounds - any grounds at all - under which people should be denied basic human rights is terrifying.
posted by dotgirl at 11:00 AM on July 18, 2014

What's the point of ANY discussion on MeTa about the quality of FPP's (of which we have had a brazillion) if the answer is 'just skip it, yo'.

That's not what happened, though. The reply you got from the mods was not about the quality of the thread, but about your level of interest in it:

You are welcome to skip threads you aren't interested in. You are not welcome to come in to them just to proclaim your lack of interest. This goes for any topic - politics, sports, kittens, whatever.

The mods think this post is of acceptable quality, and should not be deleted, and that, since it has not been deleted, it functions as any other thread would - turning up to say how uninterested you are in it is not acceptable behavior. The user base is happy with that position having been taken by the mods. You yourself have contributed to the thread with a comment that was not "yay", suggesting that it is possible to say things about it other than "yay".

However, at this point you have pivoted from "SSM threads are thin and pointless" to "SSM threads are thin and pointless and opponents of marriage equality might be afraid to contribute to them!. Not me - I am a huge supporter of marriage equality! Well, not 100%, but supportive! But someone else! Someone else might be scared!"

On the first point, your contention has no meaningful support, from the mods or the user base. I mean, you can keep saying it, but it's not going to do anything. In the second, maybe we should consider it when someone prepared to identify as an actual opponent of marriage equality raises it as an issue?
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:00 AM on July 18, 2014 [8 favorites]

And me, I'm not even asking about same sex marriage, I'm asking "what made you think this thread would go differently than any of the other discussions about thin posts"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:02 AM on July 18, 2014

So what is this MeTa really about?

Is this (a) efficient and (b) productive?
posted by flabdablet at 11:02 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

You guys are the reason there is no room for debate and why people who may not be thrilled with court decisions are terrified to contribute to this site.

I would humbly suggest that if you're not thrilled with the court decision, you talk about it in the actual post about said court decision instead of complaining that the post exists. Your real objection appears to be that you feel the comments section (being a "liberal circlejerk") would hypothetically not allow for the discussion of your viewpoint rather than the quality of the original post, making this entire metatalk rather disingenuous. I mean, if you wanted to complain about MeFi's political/groupthink tendencies drowning out dissenting voices or something you should have actually made a metatalk post about that instead of hiding behing coded complaints about redundant and low-information news posts.
posted by Wandering Idiot at 11:02 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

Now....that's not a hill I'm going to die on, but do you see how calling people who disagree with you 'cro-mags' isn't exactly welcoming alternate opinions?

Not speaking for zarq, and I tend to prefer derogatory terms that are more action centered, but...

It turns out that I can place different levels of importance on different "alternate opinions"! Like, I do not actually have to believe that no belief-action complex can be distinguished from any other! I get to judge! I am not forced to either take uncritically one belief-action complex that outside authority offers, nor am I helpless to discriminate between Nazis and Quakers/Friends!

I don't have to welcome everyone. And "alternate opinions" are a perfectly sound basis for that choice.
posted by PMdixon at 11:03 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

MeFi is VERY hostile to opponents of SSM. So a paper thin single link to a news story we've seen 13 times this year (however great news it is) is kinda a shitty FPP...more-so if anyone who disagrees with the decision is absolutely terrified of saying so.

I would venture to say that MeFi is VERY hostile to people who think Jim Crow was a good idea. Or any number of abominable things. As MisantropicPainforest said, that's a feature, not a bug.

If someone wants to make anti-SSM arguments in that or any thread, that's their choice. But what do you expect the rest of us to do? Hold their hands? Tell them that this is a safe space for their anti-gay idiocy? If they have a position they want to share they should do so, but nobody else should feel obligated to respond positively to it.
posted by brundlefly at 11:07 AM on July 18, 2014 [12 favorites]

I have no interest in welcoming the dissenting opinions of bigots. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:07 AM on July 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

The post is pretty thin gruel, but this month in particular (no doubt due to julybywomen) it is swimming in a sea of great content. I don't know, I think scrolling a few lines is no great burden. It's not as if the front page is cluttered with CNN.com copy-paste crapola.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 11:09 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

likely because i don't disagree with the judge?

maybe you missed the many times I said about I am pro-SSM

right, right, I forgot that you were talking about some other hypothetical terrified person.
posted by kagredon at 11:14 AM on July 18, 2014 [15 favorites]

BlerpityBloop: "zarq, you also called the people of Oklahoma "Cro-Mags", presumably referring to opponents of SSM as being less than fully developed humans."

No, I called the Oklahoma state legislators "cro-mags". You know, the ones who passed the laws I listed? I deliberately said nothing about the people or population of Oklahoma, and with good reason: I lived for 8 years with George W. Bush as my President. Didn't vote for him in either election. If someone had said back then that as an American I was directly or indirectly responsible for either Bush's wars or policies, I would have strenuously objected.

Look, I watched one of my closest friends lose nearly everything that mattered to him when his gay, religious partner (a friend of mine as well) committed suicide, because they hadn't planned ahead and the survivor had no legal right to anything that belonged to the man he loved. I've witnessed a nurse attempt to block a close friend of mine from saying goodbye to her partner who was dying of stage iv breast cancer. I've seen a friend in mourning for his partner have to worry that other family members might try to take custody of his children because the family's religion compelled them to hate gay people.

I really don't give a fuck why people oppose SSM. I know all-too-well what can happen when people don't have that legal protection in American society, and I think it's a damned sin that in this day and age, someone might think those protections aren't good enough for a segment of our population.

(cro magnons had larger brain cavities than we do, to play science nerd for a second)

If this was the only factor that mattered, then we'd be praising our dinosaur overlords right about now.
posted by zarq at 11:14 AM on July 18, 2014 [23 favorites]

right, right, I forgot that you were talking about some other hypothetical terrified person.

Someone has to speak up for the bigots!
posted by winna at 11:16 AM on July 18, 2014

First they came for the bigots, and I said nothing, because seriously, fuck those guys.
posted by kagredon at 11:17 AM on July 18, 2014 [43 favorites]

I don't know why you're trying to throw NH in with Florida or Oklahoma, but gay marriage has been legal there since 2010 (though weirdly, the age of consent for marriage is 14 and 13 for hetero marriage, and 18 for gay marriage). Live free or die! And marry whoever you want, after the age of 18!
posted by ChuraChura at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2014

Dammit kagredon, I was going to make that joke!
posted by muddgirl at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

When did we start using SSM as an acronym? I felt like I never heard it before this thread and now I'm fully acclimated.

I prefer to just call it "marriage" though
posted by sweetkid at 11:19 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

BlerpityBloop, you claim to be pro-SSM but also claim that people who may not agree are terrified to say so. How do you know this? Have you talked to other people about it? Is this a "the lurkers support me on email" sort of thing?
posted by brundlefly at 11:20 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

When did we start using SSM as an acronym?

First time I heard it was this thread. Come to think of it, has BlerpityBloop actually said he's a same sex marriage supporter? Or just SSM? Because SSM could be all kinds of things.

I am a strident supporter of super sexy meerkats, too.

hubba hubba
posted by phunniemee at 11:26 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

what you perverts all fail to understand is that this is a slippery slope toward ever more unnatural unions
posted by flabdablet at 11:28 AM on July 18, 2014

I am a strident supporter of super sexy meerkats, too.

No, no, it's super sleepy meerkats.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

Someone has to speak up for the bigots!

Republican Lorax
posted by Flunkie at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

dogs and cats, living together
posted by flabdablet at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2014

Apparently a state legalizing SSM isn't MetaFilter worthy but... a discussion about how Lorde's 'Royals' is a good song is totes worthy.

This is...a weird complaint to lobby. You're using "this is an important thing the world must know about!" as a yardstick, which is one that tends to be frequently and overwhelmingly rejected by the community in MeTa. Obviously the consensus appears to be that same-sex marriage is an exception to this rule, but then going and applying that principle to other random threads plays precisely into slippery slope-ish concerns that some folks have stated they feel to be uncredible. I am a proponent of same-sex marriage and dislike the music of Lorde, but I don't think it's a bizarre leap to conclude that a podcast analyzing Lorde's music might be higher-quality posting material than a brief mainstream media news article reporting about same-sex marriage.
posted by threeants at 11:39 AM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

Obviously the consensus appears to be that same-sex marriage is an exception to this rule

Clearly marriage equality isn't the exception to "this rule." Heck, it's not even a rule at all.

but I don't think it's a bizarre leap to conclude that a podcast analyzing Lorde's music might be higher-quality posting material than a brief mainstream media news article reporting about same-sex marriage.

I don't think many people are arguing that a single-link news article is high-quality posting material. What we're arguing is that moderator guidelines are just that - guidelines. Sometimes weak links aren't deleted for cultural reasons. Sometimes the discussion IS more important than the link itself. That's OK. It's not a slippery slope into crap-itude because we have human moderators who do their best to walk the line between over- and under-moderation. Thanks, mods.
posted by muddgirl at 11:46 AM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I agree, don't think we need to pick apart BlerpityBloop's comments on any topic to look for hypocrisy. I've had people do that to me and it's a pain.
posted by sweetkid at 11:46 AM on July 18, 2014

Yeah, just popping back in to say I was being a dick by making a stunty post; it was a totally appropriate deletion as I was thinking with HULK SMASH and not my brain.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:49 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

The shit thing is that now videos of kittens playing with yarn will probably be deleted as stunt posts :(
posted by muddgirl at 11:52 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Clearly marriage equality isn't the exception to "this rule." Heck, it's not even a rule at all.

I don't think that particular deletion has much to do with general policy on the topic; the mods wisely deleted an FPP that both they and the poster have identified as stunty.
posted by threeants at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2014

The claim was that newsfilter posts about marriage equality aren't deleted like any other posts. That's clearly not true. Whether it was deleted for being a stunty post (which it was) or a thin post (which it was, as well) doesn't matter, because it seems to me like if thin posts are protected for being about marriage equality, then why not stunt posts?
posted by muddgirl at 11:55 AM on July 18, 2014

Because stunt posts are made to make a point, and not for the general edification of the MeFi readership.

It wasn't deleted because it was newsfilter. It wasn't deleted because it was about SSM. It was deleted because I was being a dick.

Stunt posts (unless they're clever like the Worf thing or whatever) are always deleted.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:58 AM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

And--

I don't think many people are arguing that a single-link news article is high-quality posting material. What we're arguing is that moderator guidelines are just that - guidelines. Sometimes weak links aren't deleted for cultural reasons. Sometimes the discussion IS more important than the link itself. That's OK. It's not a slippery slope into crap-itude because we have human moderators who do their best to walk the line between over- and under-moderation. Thanks, mods.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my recent comment was not so much a general statement on the quality-posts vs. community-joy question, but a reaction specifically to the framework MisantropicPainforest was using to evaluate a totally unrelated thread. I realize it was probably supposed to just be a cheap shot at Blerpity, but if so it was indeed a cheap one because it wasn't really valid, IMO. There's no need to create dubious fish when there's already so many big juicy ones in the bucket to shoot...
posted by threeants at 11:58 AM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

all's well that ends well
posted by flabdablet at 12:00 PM on July 18, 2014

The claim was that newsfilter posts about marriage equality aren't deleted like any other posts. That's clearly not true. Whether it was deleted for being a stunty post (which it was) or a thin post (which it was, as well) doesn't matter, because it seems to me like if thin posts are protected for being about marriage equality, then why not stunt posts?

My understanding is that the mods deleted the thread because the timing and provenance made it look like obvious boundary-prodding. I think it's very likely that a different user could have posted the same thread in a couple of days without event.
posted by threeants at 12:01 PM on July 18, 2014

This MeTa is end-to-end full of folks noting that same-sex marriage is treated differently from other topics on the site, and that they're fine with that. You're welcome to agree to disagree with them that it's a thing, but I do think you're in the extreme minority there.
posted by threeants at 12:06 PM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

It's been fun, y'all... goodnight.
posted by flabdablet at 12:08 PM on July 18, 2014

Stunt posts (unless they're clever like the Worf thing or whatever) are always deleted.

Stunt posts are always deleted unless they aren't? :)

I don't think the original post on the Florida ruling was objectionably thin. It wasn't "breaking news" or posted in the middle of an evolving situation, which is the usual objection to newsfilter.

I think it's very likely that a different user could have posted the same link in a couple of days without event.

I doubt any user could make that specific post after this MeTa without event.

This MeTa is end-to-end full of folks noting that same-sex marriage is treated differently from other topics on the site

"Other topics" is a really broad category. It includes everything from fluffy kitten videos to pop music to human rights violations. Of course marriage equality is treated differently from some other topics, because the moderators have never claimed that they look at posts content-neutrally. I wouldn't want them to. I think more specificity is better. Marriage equality is a human rights issue that affects a significant portion of Mefites. Is marriage equality treated differently than other human rights issues that affect a significant portion of Mefites?
posted by muddgirl at 12:10 PM on July 18, 2014

LOST ENERGY RIDER TRIGGER GUMM MOTORCYCLE JUMP & CRASH

Wow, that was difficult for me to parse. I read "LOST", then "ENERGY", then expected a verb, as in like "LOST ENERGY REDISCOVERED IN BATTERY RECYCLING BIN". But I didn't get a verb; I got "RIDER". Took me a while to decide that "LOST ENERGY RIDER" must be some noun phrase of unknown meaning. Was there a rider somehow described by the phrase "lost energy"? Or was there someone or something called an "energy rider" that was lost? But anyway, then I expected a verb again, and this time I seemingly got one -- "TRIGGER". But it didn't match up in singular/plural with the noun phrase. So then it took me quite some time to decide that "LOST ENERGY RIDER TRIGGER" was a noun phrase of even more incomprehensible meaning than just plain "LOST ENERGY RIDER". Now I expected a verb yet again, and got "GUMM". WTF. I pretty quickly gave up on that, and then got "LOST ENERGY RIDER TRIGGER GUMM MOTORCYCLE", at which point I was convinced that the author was just listing random things. But then "MOTORCYCLE JUMP & CRASH" went together well enough that I had misgivings about my "list of random things" theory.

It wasn't until the video reached the point where a motorcycle rider jumped that I thought that perhaps there was a person named Trigger Gumm who was a rider of a motorcycle that jumped and crashed, and... presumably was sponsored by a company or product named Lost Energy, maybe?
posted by Flunkie at 12:18 PM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

Marriage equality is a human rights issue that affects a significant portion of Mefites. Is marriage equality treated differently than other human rights issues that affect a significant portion of Mefites?

In my opinion, yes. Posts about street harassment of women or police brutality are not uncommon, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one stand that was just a short news article from a mainstream media outlet. My impression of this thread's emerging consensus was that same-sex marriage newsfilter is both a real phenomenon and beneficial/acceptable to the community.
posted by threeants at 12:22 PM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

feckless fecal fear mongering: “And with that, I'm walking away for a bit because in the past three days I've been called a racist (so wrong) and a bully (ditto) and I'm starting to see red.”

Caring what other people think is totally human – because we naturally like other people and would like them to like us – but take it from me: it can be dangerous.

People think all kinds of ridiculous, awful, terrible things about me. A few of them are true. A lot of them are not. I had to learn a while ago that the internet is full of people who are just going to think ridiculous things about me, and my life is much, much better if I train myself to not to worry too much about it.

Because if I worry about it, my brain will eventually explode.
posted by koeselitz at 12:29 PM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

I've rarely seen people who claim to be "called a racist" ever actually called that.
posted by sweetkid at 12:32 PM on July 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

feckless fecal fear mongering: Yeah, just popping back in to say I was being a dick by making a stunty post; it was a totally appropriate deletion as I was thinking with HULK SMASH and not my brain.

Well, rage is a function of the brain, but a lower-level response ... ah fook it, good on you for being decent about the deletion.


feckless fecal fear mongering: Stunt posts (unless they're clever like the Worf thing or whatever) are always deleted.

Or a shaggy dog post ...
posted by filthy light thief at 12:39 PM on July 18, 2014

I just want to steal the mic for a second and say that when threads like this happen -- and by "threads like this," I mean threads in which hetero* users so vociferously and passionately show support for same-sex marriage, and also throw a WTF at users who either implicitly or explicitly state that they're against it -- well, it's really hard to explain how threads like this make me feel. Warm and fuzzy, yes, to a certain extent. Grateful, to an enormous extent. But mostly, it just makes me feel, I dunno, supported by this big group of people I've never met, and it makes me feel like everything's going to be okay.

That sounds kind of facile, I guess, and I know Metafilter isn't The World. But when you grow up feeling the exact opposite -- that all these people you've never met lack fundamental respect for you, sometimes to the point of acting violently towards you, and you always carry that around with you, like a part of your body -- that vocal support is really kind of overwhelming. It sometimes startles me, because I'm still in the process of unlearning the constant awareness and self-protection that I learned to wear like armor earlier in my life. And it almost always surprises me, although maybe by now it shouldn't.

I think it might not be possible to convey how much it means if you haven't experienced it. So just take my word for it. Your support and acceptance (not of me personally, but of the issue as a whole), and how you passionately verbalize it -- it matters. A lot.

Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

* I debated between using 'hetero' and 'straight' and I felt like both might be wrong in some way. What do the straights prefer to be called these days??
posted by mudpuppie at 2:53 PM on July 18, 2014 [29 favorites]

Flunkie: It wasn't until the video reached the point where a motorcycle rider jumped

For a moment, I thought you were in the wrong thread. Then I searched for LOST ENERGY RIDER TRIGGER GUMM MOTORCYCLE JUMP & CRASH and found a video with that title, and saw that flabdablet posted the link: all's well that ends well

It all makes sense now.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:54 PM on July 18, 2014

> I debated between using 'hetero' and 'straight' and I felt like both might be wrong in some way. What do the straights prefer to be called these days??

Either's fine. Just don't call us late for dinner! (Also, your comment made this straight hetero feel warm and fuzzy.)
posted by languagehat at 3:15 PM on July 18, 2014

By the way, no one noticed my subtle nod to the queen of Florida oranges in the tags. See, there was something to talk about.
posted by Sophie1 at 3:17 PM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

* I debated between using 'hetero' and 'straight' and I felt like both might be wrong in some way. What do the straights prefer to be called these days??

Breeders. We like to be called breeders. *

(*After all, breeding is the only god-sanctioned reason to get married, or so I've been told).
posted by el io at 4:34 PM on July 18, 2014

> Breeders. We like to be called breeders. *

(*After all, breeding is the only god-sanctioned reason to get married, or so I've been told).

I realize snark is the default mode here, but I think mudpuppie was asking an actual question rather than tossing out a, er, straight line for someone to riff off.
posted by languagehat at 5:14 PM on July 18, 2014

Slightly worse than posting a stunt post that gets deleted is getting a stunt post that doesn't get deleted. Long ago there was a contentious MeTa about thin Apple product related posts. People on one side defended Apple product posts, people on the other side said "If the same kind of post was made about a non-Apple product, it would be deleted in a heartbeat". I was in the second camp, which is how I came to make my first ever post. I think I literally just googled "headphone" and "released", found the first product release announcement in the search results, and posted "to show them that there is a double-standard for Apple posts".

And I was wrong. The post still stands, even to this day, though the linked site is now, thankfully, gone, so people can imagine that it was a link to something far, far cooler than the bog standard generic product it actually was.
posted by Bugbread at 5:20 PM on July 18, 2014 [2 favorites]

I realize snark is the default mode here, but I think mudpuppie was asking an actual question rather than tossing out a, er, straight line for someone to riff off.

I'll give an actual answer, then.

As a straight white cis man, on a personal level, I genuinely do not care one whit what words you use to describe those facts about me. I recognize that that's privilege talking, but it's the honest answer: It doesn't matter to me.
posted by Flunkie at 5:31 PM on July 18, 2014

I realize snark is the default mode here, but I think mudpuppie was asking an actual question rather than tossing out a, er, straight line for someone to riff off.

I half meant it as a tongue-in-cheek othering of straight people, but it was also an actual question that I hoped would receive answers. When I typed "hetero" initially, I had sudden self-doubt and worried that it might be offensive. ("Homo" certainly can be, depending on who says it.) But then I had qualms about "straight" too. Maybe ironically, I think my over-thinking it comes from learning so much about trans issues on Metafilter, and thus finding myself being generally more conscious of language you attach to people.
posted by mudpuppie at 6:19 PM on July 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I debated between using 'hetero' and 'straight' and I felt like both might be wrong in some way. What do the straights prefer to be called these days??

Straight, I guess? Frankly I've never given it much thought, which I suspect says something about the privilege that comes with being heterosexual.
posted by brundlefly at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2014

As another straight guy, "hetero", "heterosexual", and "straight" are all as fine as words like "frying pan" or "table" or "cat". "Breeder" doesn't bother me (I actually kinda like it), but I understand that mileage on that varies significantly from person to person.
posted by Bugbread at 7:34 PM on July 18, 2014

"Tabs and Slots"

(Seriously, "straight" is fine by me.)
posted by benito.strauss at 7:35 PM on July 18, 2014

'Straight', 'hetero' – both fine. Saying 'straights' instead of 'straight people' is a bit weird. Converting an adjective to a noun this way is odd in English and often but not always perjorative. So if you actually said it, I'd be worried it was some (probably derogatory) slang term I hadn't heard yet, and I'd be a bit wary of you.
posted by nangar at 7:55 PM on July 18, 2014

Straight guy.

I would probably be fine with any accurately descriptive word (like 'cis') as long as it's not derogatory.
posted by zarq at 7:57 PM on July 18, 2014

I vociferously support gay marriage. There isn't an argument I've heard I can't shoot down, and that includes the annoying ones from gay/poly people I've heard coming at it from the other side. (That's usually of the form of 'gay people shouldn't want to get married in the first place' and so on. The obvious flaw I doubt I need to explicate.)

There's also been a clear support of the argument that each and every state will get an FPP for their legalisation of gay marriage, so I don't feel out of line saying that my ideal MetaFilter wouldn't have an FPP for every one of the fifty states (plus districts, plus a few individual counties, it looks like). Especially thin ones.

Thin posts can spawn awesome conversations, that's true, but they're less likely to. Waiting a couple of weeks at this rate would allow each new Yay Gay Marriage! FPP to incorporate a couple of states at a time, which is a good thing because of how quickly it's happening, but also would cut the number of posts by at least half.

Much of my reaction is pure USFilter, though, because these passionate arguments about how this is so important because it's huge for Americans is a little reminder that this is a fiercely Amerocentric website (and yes, I know fffm and a few others are posting such things from Canada). This is hardly a new revelation, just part and parcel of usual business, but that doesn't stop it from being tiring.

I skip all those threads. I'll continue to do so, there's only so many times I can read comments about people crying looking at pictures of newly-married same-sex couples, and it's something I even do. But I just thought I'd say that I agree that they're thin posts, and not everyone wants to see fifty+ on the same topic, no matter how righteous, especially if they're thin newsfilter posts.

And sure, BlerpityBloop hasn't covered themselves in glory in this thread, but there has been a fair bit of putting words in their mouth. And playing gotcha with his other comments on unrelated topics is some rank behaviour.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:56 PM on July 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

As someone who was initially sympathetic to what ostensibly appeared to be the main thrust of the OP's complaint, I definitely feel like I got snowed here. The OP's follow-up comments and overall behavior in this thread make the complaint look less like, "Thin FPP's that generate little discussion beyond a chorus of Yay's aren't the best example of the level of conversation possible on Metafilter" and more like "I don't like it that people on Metafilter are so darn gleefully happy at each new victory in the marriage equality fight".
posted by The Gooch at 1:14 AM on July 19, 2014 [8 favorites]

To be fair there were numerous single link FPPs that blerpitybloop participated in with no apparent qualms. I could have listed them all but I'm lazy and the lorde one was the funniest. Using a methodology of parsimony, with the evidence that BB has never expressed the principle that single link thin FPPs are a big problem, leads to only one conclusion.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:00 AM on July 19, 2014

Much of my reaction is pure USFilter, though, because these passionate arguments about how this is so important because it's huge for Americans is a little reminder that this is a fiercely Amerocentric website

I don't think I am alone here as an American mefite when I say that I would be just as happy (in some cases maybe even more happy) to see FPPs as marriage equality spreads globally. Some countries were way ahead of the curve on this, but there's more population internationally that doesn't have same sex union rights than those that do.

This is hardly an American issue. It's a human rights issue. I understand that what's happening in Oklahoma might not interest you terribly, but I have a feeling that when the FPP on Australia getting same sex marriage rights finally comes, there will be more than just Australian mefites \o/ing it up in that thread.

Like, I'm sorry that America has 50 different states with 50 different state constitutions to slog through; it would certainly be easier if the DOMA ruling had just thrown one main switch throughout the country, but that's not how our government works.

There are far more than 50 places remaining worldwide where there are no gay marriage rights, and they are all important. How wonderful to one day see celebratory FPPs for all of them.
posted by phunniemee at 6:02 AM on July 19, 2014 [14 favorites]

If there were 54 individual posts celebrating each African nation's passage of laws protecting gay marriage and gay rights I would be thrilled to see each one of them. If for some reason I got tired of seeing them I would just not click on them because I have that choice, just like everyone else on this site. The presence of non-harmful things on earth, on the internets, on metafilter, that do not interest me does not hurt me in any way and it would be weird and creepy for me to pretend otherwise.
posted by elizardbits at 7:20 AM on July 19, 2014 [14 favorites]

I just want to point out that "breeder" and any of the genital-related terms for heteros are cissexist and inaccurate as a result of that; there are people who are in same sex relationships and can get pregnant and/or have PIV intercourse and people in mixed sex relationships who can't. "Breeder" in particular has fallen out of favor for this and other reasons relating to it alienating queer folks, a lot of us really don't give a shit about offending or insulting the straights.
posted by NoraReed at 7:36 AM on July 19, 2014 [6 favorites]

All these people freaking about about kittens and yarn. Ever think that MAYBE THE YARN STARTED THE FIGHT?
posted by rmd1023 at 10:46 AM on July 19, 2014 [2 favorites]

My first FPP was an announcement that Canada had legalized SSM. It was probably the first legalization post on the blue and while not a single link post it wasn't exactly deep either. And if it wasn't already legal I'd be posting the legal news the second I heard it had been. Like someone said up thread we're watching/participating in a human rights revolution and it's pretty heady stuff.

I've also railed against the sort of meta commentary that was deleted on numerous occasions. It used to be distressingly common but site standards have changed and I think we are better for it. There are multiple ways to address an opinion that a post isn't worthy that don't involve trashing up and derailing a thread.
posted by Mitheral at 12:24 PM on July 19, 2014 [7 favorites]

Truth be told, most of us are probably well aware that these court decisions represent an important turning point in the history of democratic Western society. We are lucky enough to be eyewitnesses to that history as it unfolds. Watching yet another minority group lose their status as "Other" to become equals. This isn't just a matter of recognition under the law. It is a measure of acceptance and dignity.

Each step along the path towards that end goal is unique and worth examining. Each judgment a binding legal precedent for subsequent decisions. Every victory a note of compassion and fairness for a group who have been shunned and vilified and mistreated and abused for no damn good reason.

The posts may be thin. The topic is not. They are each a single chapter of a larger story. Individual battles that form the narrative of an entire war for societal and cultural equality.

With all sorts of posts, Mefi is chronicling that history as it happens. In my humble opinion, that's a wonderful thing.
posted by zarq at 3:15 PM on July 19, 2014 [11 favorites]

And playing gotcha with his other comments on unrelated topics is some rank behaviour.

The OP's argument is that the SSM post is thin newsfilter where there is no discussion to be had, and is therefore a bad fit for Metafilter. Pointing out that the OP is able to have a discussion in similarly thin posts is not unrelated, nor is it just a gotcha tu quoque. It's evidence that the OP's claim is wrong.

The OP's actions -- repeatedly asserting counterfactuals; ignoring evidence that falsifies their claims; arguing that expressing approval for advancing human rights is 'pointless', 'slapping each other on the back', a 'circlejerk', as if the real bigotry is refusing to tolerate bigotry amirite; claiming to support SSM while rules-lawyering against supporting SSM; and cloaking it all in appeals to local norms that evolved to encourage treating people with respect -- are classic rhetorical moves of bigots. I mean, you could print this shit out on a bingo card and win (well, lose, really) every time.

Calling this behavior out is a good thing. Celebrating when people finally get long denied human rights is a great thing. When a bigoted law falls, all of us get closer to being treated like we should be treated. That'll be worthy of discussion and celebration every single time.
posted by amery at 6:14 PM on July 19, 2014 [9 favorites]

It's evidence that the OP's claim is wrong.

It's can be taken that way. It also comes across as not only plumbing another user's comments elsewhere for ammo, which is verboten, but also randomly picking some other thread to call thin, not only throwing some dismissal towards someone else's completely unrelated post but also ignoring the very obvious point that not all single-link posts are alike in complexity.

It is possible to agree that same sex marriage becoming legal is a great thing to be celebrated and also think that having a thread every single time a new area, even in America - a county, in this instance, not even an entire state - is a repetitive exercise that can feel unnecessary. And while you might think each thread will bring an interesting and vibrant discussion of why it's so terrific that this state or that county or this municipality has done the right thing, I don't share that faith.

If the same was done for African countries, it would be great (especially for Uganda)... to begin with. But while I would welcome each and every country's removal of their odious anti-SSM and/or anti-gay laws, that doesn't mean there could be even a little curation to put a couple of the countries together, or wait until the laws were fully repealed rather than just progressing through another stage of the legal system, or even just had a bit more thought involved rather than a single-link news post for each and every one of those 54 (current) countries.

Again, I just said it was tiring. I don't feel harmed, personally. I just skip them. But I do believe that there are unintended consequences to just newsfiltering a topic like SSM for each state, and even non-states, and not just towards bigots.
posted by gadge emeritus at 10:00 PM on July 19, 2014

19 states in the US have legal same-sex marriage. 31 have laws against it. Of that 31, 28 have the prohibition written into the state constitution.

We are nowhere near the alternate reality where the problem here is people posting too much about newly-legal same-sex marriage on Metafilter.

There are lots of people who are harmed, personally, by this stuff. Nobody has to care, but when people actively chime in to let everyone know how little they care, it perpetuates that harm.

Not in a huge way, like being actively denied the thousand-plus federal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, but in a small, everyday way that helps make those big ways culturally acceptable. This sucks, and I wish people wouldn't do it.
posted by amery at 11:33 PM on July 19, 2014 [7 favorites]

It also comes across as not only plumbing another user's comments elsewhere for ammo, which is verboten, but also randomly picking some other thread to call thin, not only throwing some dismissal towards someone else's completely unrelated post but also ignoring the very obvious point that not all single-link posts are alike in complexity.


as i said, its not playing gotcha if there is a mountain of evidence that someone is not acting on the principle they say they are espousing, but rather acting on some other, more unacceptable and nefarious principle. its not like BB did this 'one thing! on timE!' that discounted their argument; their entire participation with MetaFilter reveals ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION that he/she has a problem with thin or frivolous or weak FPPs
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:51 PM on July 19, 2014

I think two issues are being conflated here.

That the OP appears to be acting in bad faith in this thread is something I think the vast majority of us can agree on.

That is a separate issue, though, from the fact Metafilter users have long been told it is out of bounds to trawl though the comment histories of users they disagree with in order to pick out "gotchas" and hypocritical comments to use as ammunition against them in arguments/debates. I don't recall special dispensation being given just because a majority of users agree someone is being a jerk.
posted by The Gooch at 12:15 AM on July 20, 2014 [6 favorites]

Also, to be fair, it's perfectly clear that the only possible reason the vast majority of us could possibly agree about the OP's attitude is GROUPTHINK, and that is DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD.
posted by flabdablet at 12:28 AM on July 20, 2014 [2 favorites]

My "husband" died of AIDS in 1991. I don't give a fuck if anyone considers him my "husband" or not. He was my husband. Whether or not our families decided to inject themselves into our decisions was a crapshoot. Fortunately, his family and my family were all on the same page.

Really, it's no different from dying of cancer, or a car wreck, in terms of rights of the partner. It's tragic. It's painful. It's just not fucking right.

In 1991, in Oregon, hell, I don't know if someone could've contested something if someone in our family decided to be an asshole. It didn't happen. My gratitude for that is beyond words.

We were married, indeed, at the 24-Hour Church of Elvis in Portland. The original, on SW Ankeny. I've got hilarious photos which I won't post because I don't have the time or inclination. It, for us, was as valid as any marriage could ever be, but wouldn't have stood before a court if push came to shove.

If anyone ever doubted my love for or commitment to that man, what could I do? Not a fucking thing. That's what I could do. Not a fucking thing.

So, when a post appears, however thin it may be, that a fucking jurisdiction says hey, this is OK, and folks pop in to say hey, that's great! I consider it a kindness. I never comment in those threads because I don't need to, others have made the comments I would make, but I read them all the way down. Yes, they're biased to the good goddamn news, and hallelujah for that.

If you don't agree with it, hey, that's OK too. You have your reasons, and you can choose to speak up or not. But please oblige me by staying the fuck out of a thin post that you don't need to stick your nose in, because you think it's thin.
posted by wallabear at 5:45 AM on July 20, 2014 [41 favorites]

Personally, I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm a woman (mostly) who typically loves men; that makes me (mostly) cis, and straight or hetero (either is fine by me). I don't care for marriage, in general, myself. Also I don't live in the US.
And I still don't see any reason to go into SSM threads and tell people how much I don't care.

Because honestly I'm happy for y'all, I really am, but I don't care enough about each individual state of the US to read about the details. That's what not caring is all about: I can't be bothered.

So what do I do? I do a little mental 'w00t!' and move on. And honestly I'm not all that. So if I can do it, it can't be that hard.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:18 PM on July 20, 2014 [7 favorites]

The whole tell was the "circlejerk" thing which would've justified deletion to me even if metacommentary was allowed, but what again is the subject of this post? Surprise at metacommentary being disallowed but "thin posts" are allowed to stay? It happens, you can't really plead a case beyond this.

Circlejerk as heard by me = "look at all you self-congratulatory group-thinkers getting all excited that another state, another significantly massive government entity with significant capability of at least symbolically thumbing its nose at the federal government has come around on a fundamental human rights issue..." The circlejerk comment was the smarmy attack on the actual people of MeFi and their collective happiness with a lack of good faith extended to at least honestly question why we'd be excited about such things.

As if the issue being settled at this scale is something like Mac vs. PC, where choosing a side to vehemently defend can come across as questionable and masturbatory because why is it that you care what computer or operating system others use? Just do your thing, Except this is about a fundamental human rights issue, where people weren't allowed to do their thing, though if you're not 100% fully on board with that, you probably think it's more like "something they maybe should have but just settle down and don't get all circle-jerky about it, jeez."

The concern about "NewsFilter" with regard to this is just tone-deaf as all shit. Nothing is really analogous to a state-by-state unraveling of historical oppression in the "Information Age" where we can all see it spread like wildfire and most of us to varying degrees thought it was some abstract "WTF why can't they have this" thing until suddenly it's here.

Yes this is watershed history-being-made shit so it does come across as suspect to accuse people of getting off on caring about something that involves actual people and actual relationships between fathers and sons and children and

The implication is that people are disingenuously getting off on their faux fascination with LGBT folks getting married. Or if it's not disingenuous, they just have some weird fetish for being happy to see another state make this move. The other comment I have is that after all of the "whoa I'm being aggressive" comments MetaFilter was literally told to stop posting these (gave up trying to find the "stop doing it" comment)
posted by aydeejones at 1:46 AM on July 21, 2014 [4 favorites]

between fathers and sons and children and

Didn't mean to leave everyone else out, just got zapped while proofreading and clicked "post" too fast, but don't want to post-edit that either. It's about family above all else, and it's happening one state at a time in the most militarily powerful + behind-the-times-by-a-few-steps-always nation on Earth. Insert Canadian "sorry" here except sarcastic-like
posted by aydeejones at 1:48 AM on July 21, 2014 [1 favorite]

Not sure if this is good news (if you're an optimist, because it's likely to ensure SCOTUS review) or bad news (because people are being denied their rights; or if you're a pessimist, because it's likely to ensure SCOTUS review), but it might make for an FPP jumping-off point.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:47 PM on August 11, 2014