Deleting Mothers' Day? May 10, 2015 11:59 AM   Subscribe

I truly don't understand why NotATailor's post was deleted, I was really looking forward to hearing the stories of others on this topic.

Unhappy Mothers Day hit a lot of sadly familiar notes for me. I'm still putting off the requisite phone call with my not-quite-estranged mother.

I didn't get any sense of inappropriate editorializing in the FPP, it felt refreshing to see this perspective, and resonated deeply with me.

Can someone please explain this?
posted by drfu to Etiquette/Policy at 11:59 AM (125 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

The "house style" on Metafilter is to present links with more-or-less neutral framing, so that the discussion centers around the links and not the poster's opinion or interpretation of the links. The one you link to is more in the style of a personal essay with supporting links - there's nothing, like, morally wrong with that, but it's not how posts are constructed here and it's a routine deletion.

(Note to everyone - this needs to not become a proxy for the deleted thread, as usual. Thanks!)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:01 PM on May 10, 2015 [17 favorites]


I dunno, I just skimmed the links just now and they seem reasonably in line with what is being described. It strikes me as more an artful presentation than an editorialized one. Not sure on that though since I didn't go in depth.

It does sound like the comments got ugly early though so maybe it wasn't a thread that was going in the hoped for direction.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:22 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


I flagged that post (and a nasty early comment) for being waaaaay over MetaFilter's editorializing line.

That said, I'm sure a neutrally-worded post on the topic could stand and I want to echo EmpressCallipygos' sentiment of "respect and compassion to anyone who needs this today."
posted by lalex at 12:31 PM on May 10, 2015 [10 favorites]


Hi lalex!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:36 PM on May 10, 2015


Hi friend!
posted by lalex at 12:38 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Totally support the deletion, not only for style but for misogynist content.
posted by spitbull at 1:15 PM on May 10, 2015


Totally support the deletion, not only for style but for misogynist content.

Talking about mothers on mother's day is misogynistic? Huh?
posted by effbot at 1:25 PM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


I think that if the post could have been condensed to one or maybe two paragraphs, with all those links, it would have been great. There was no reason for the early shitty comments.
posted by jaguar at 1:27 PM on May 10, 2015


(And the shitty comments were deleted, which was appreciated; I don't want to sound like I'm saying the comments currently standing on the deleted post were shitty.)
posted by jaguar at 1:28 PM on May 10, 2015


Ok. So, more of a GYOB sort of thing?
posted by drfu at 1:45 PM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


It seemed more like a (somewhat axe-grindy) college essay with some links sprinkled in than an actual FPP.
posted by octothorpe at 1:50 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Ok. So, more of a GYOB sort of thing?

That's my feeling on it, yeah. A personalized narrative or argument generally doesn't work well with the expectations we have for posts to the front page; to the extent that you can sort of get away with a bit of it sometimes, that's in inverse proportion to the chargedness of the topic, so while there might be a little leeway for something super neutral and dry like e.g. a post about the financial evolution of the 17th C. Italian art market or whatever, that's not so much the case for sort of raw interpersonal stuff or other similarly difficult people-have-differing-strong-feelings-about-this subjects.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


that's not so much the case for sort of raw interpersonal stuff or other similarly difficult people-have-differing-strong-feelings-about-this subjects.

I get that, and I understand the deletion (I thought the post was borderline but hoped that it would stay), but I think it's worthwhile pointing out that the people objecting seemed to be objecting to the idea that there are abusive mothers, which seems like something that isn't really a "differing strong feelings" issue as much as it is an issue of fact.
posted by jaguar at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2015 [13 favorites]


I didn't get any sense of inappropriate editorializing in the FPP

Making an FPP on Mother's Day with the line "It's a taboo in our society, but some mothers are just completely toxic." is tone deaf in addition to the rest of it. Definitely GYOB territory.

There's a sense that some people seem to have that MeFi is where you respond to the internet, speak truth to the oppressive "This is how to be a person" assertions of the larger media circus. And I get the impulse, I really do. It's how a lot of how the internet works, but that's less true here. People can link to the individual articles but starting out with "Some mothers just suck" on Mother's Day is being unnecessarily over the line antagonistic, regardless of whether it may or may not have resonated with people individually.

Remember the guy who would always post those weird "Here's a crappy thing that some Jewish people did" posts right around Hanukkah or Passover? Good times.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 2:43 PM on May 10, 2015 [37 favorites]


As a mother who has a terrible mother, I find things like the "mom rock" post way more uncomfortable-making than the deleted post. It's not terrible or anything, but it's weird to have "mom" be equated with a bunch of stuff that I'm not. Whereas "some moms are toxic" is like, yeah, that's pretty much a fact. Anyway.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 2:49 PM on May 10, 2015 [50 favorites]


Remember the guy who would always post those weird "Here's a crappy thing that some Jewish people did" posts right around Hanukkah or Passover? Good times.

That's really not at all the same thing. Jewish holidays are not promoted as days in which the entire country are supposed to be celebrating and honoring the Jewish people they know.

I mean, some mothers do just suck at mothering/parenting, which is different from saying that some women who are mothers do horrible things not related to parenting.
posted by jaguar at 2:50 PM on May 10, 2015 [14 favorites]


I feel like the "anti-Mothers Day" theme is everywhere this year, more so than usual..
posted by bleep at 2:54 PM on May 10, 2015 [10 favorites]


I mean, some mothers do just suck at mothering/parenting, which is different from saying that some women who are mothers do horrible things not related to parenting.

Sure, but the post didn't get deleted for acknowledging that, it got deleted for being weirdly personal/editorial/bloggy about it in a way that's a bad fit for the front page of Metafilter, and a different post that didn't have those problems would be a different post.

I think it's pretty important to not conflate the fundamental framing issues with the actual post—framing issues that, again, would be an issue for basically any topic done in this way, just especially so for more charged topics—with any notion of the balance of agreement with or objection to some premise in the post. It'd have been just as deleted if everybody commenting in the thread had agreed 100% with the content or sentiment or timing, because it's a well-established poor way to make a post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:00 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


It'd have been just as deleted if everybody commenting in the thread had agreed 100% with the content or sentiment or timing, because it's a well-established poor way to make a post.

OK. I guess that's what I was getting at -- the pushback (which I'm going to assume included any flagging) seemed to be about the content rather than the framing, and your previous comment seemed to be supporting that the issue was at least partly due to content. If the issue was only framing, I get it.

I feel like the "anti-Mothers Day" theme is everywhere this year, more so than usual..

I totally believe you, since social- and mainstream-media's so fragmented now, but my own circle seems to be way more "Mothers are perfect angels!" than usual this year (not my friends, necessarily, but the framing from advocacy groups, non-profits, etc.). There's been more acknowledgement of infertility and miscarriage, which is good, but I've seen very little acknowledgment of just plain abusive parents.
posted by jaguar at 3:06 PM on May 10, 2015 [9 favorites]


That's really not at all the same thing.

You're absolutely right. My point was more "Some people take the occasion of a holiday that is about a certain thing to make a different lateral point about the same topic but in a different direction and this doesn't always go so well, depending on the approach" and I probably should have spelled that out more.

I think there would actually be a number of great ways to make something of an anti-Mothers Day post, this just wasn't it.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 3:08 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


MetaFilter: There would actually be a number of great ways to make something of an anti-Mothers Day post
posted by 99_ at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


Totally support the deletion, not only for style but for misogynist content.

As somebody here once pointed out to me (to my considerable displeasure at the time), the pedestal is a prison, and over-idealization is a pernicious form of misogyny all on it's own.
posted by jamjam at 3:44 PM on May 10, 2015 [26 favorites]


its own.
posted by jamjam at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


I completely understand why the FPP was deleted, but I'm glad this MeTa exists, because I really needed to read all of those links today and wouldn't have found them otherwise (except for the Emily Yoffe article, which I've had bookmarked for every-so-often required reading since it first came out, and for which I will always be grateful).

I hope everyone else out there who is motherless by choice is having a wonderful day. I'm so proud of you and I'm so glad you're here.
posted by divined by radio at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2015 [24 favorites]


I'm really sad this was deleted. I'd really like to have seen where this discussion could have gone here, especially when every form of social media i'm on is just a likefest bukake of "My mom is such a strong and powerful person here's a picture of me with her as a kid omg aren't we cute" and everyone just high fiving eachother.

I agree the framing and post itself are in GYOB territory, but i was hoping it would slide by.

My relationship with this holiday has always been kind of awkward and forced, because my relationship with my mom is kind of weird. And i definitely feel like that's not something you're allowed to say in general, but especially on mothers day, without getting some fairly hostile pushback.

This isn't an automatically misogynistic discussion, but i wasn't surprised to see this MeTa go there with that accusation. And it really isn't an accusation so much as it strays in to "so when did you stop hitting your wife?" territory with these sorts of discussions.

The general thread running through this post is something that i've literally had a random person on public transit stand up to say "you can't say that, that's your mom!", and get backup from other random people when i was just casually discussing that this day was wearing on me and my relationship with my mom was tenuous and problematic on the bus with a friend a few years ago.

Even if it is just more house style, this really does feel like a discussing you're not allowed to have.
posted by emptythought at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2015 [33 favorites]


That's really not at all the same thing. Jewish holidays are not promoted as days in which the entire country are supposed to be celebrating and honoring the Jewish people they know.

But if they were, what a great day it would be for a "here are some Jews who are horrible criminals" FPP!
posted by escabeche at 5:21 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


But if they were, what a great day it would be for a "here are some Jews who are horrible criminals" FPP!

Well yes, but that would be silly, so I'm glad we're done discussing that.
posted by jaguar at 5:25 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


this really does feel like a discussing you're not allowed to have.

People who want to see some links on MeFi should post them, in a way that follows the guidelines.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:47 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


this really does feel like a discussing you're not allowed to have

I don't really have the same impression, though it's not a topic that I really go out of my way to read about on the site or elsewhere. For me, I feel like I see a lot of pretty supportive discussion of dealing with estrangement or toxic parents in Ask when it comes up (and in fact there's a good chance that why I'm seeing a given question about that is because someone's pushing sort of hard on a "but it's your mom!" line of non-answering when the question isn't really about whether to reconcile or whatnot, and people are flagging it). I don't know if there's a stark difference in how such ideas are received on Ask vs. Mefi, or if it's just that it coming up less on Mefi and Mefi having a more argumentative thread dynamic than Ask makes for more memorable loud disagreements, or what.

Certainly I can say that it's not a discussion that is from any kind of point of Metafilter policy disallowed or discouraged as such; if you're saying you feel like it's a position that so inherently gets pushback from a general audience, mefites communally included, that it's hard to have a decent thread, I can see the plausibility of that though it hasn't really been on my radar. I'd be totally interested if folks have examples of it going badly in the past that I could look at.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:52 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


I can't say that I really see the "weirdly personal/editorial/bloggy" component, other than maybe for the suggestion in the final paragraph of the post. Nearly every sentence is just a clear expression of fact without any discussion of the poster's feelings or opinions.

If the post comes across as personal and bloggy, I think that might just be because of a tacit inference that only a person with a deep personal investment in this issue would post about this topic and write about it at such length on Mother's Day. Is that what makes the post personal and editorial and bloggy?
posted by painquale at 5:54 PM on May 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


Oh yeah - that was a lot of editorializing. How about a post-Mother's Day re-do with more of a bare bones approach?
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 6:14 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


I definitely see the GYOB issue with that particular post, honestly. That doesn't make it a bad post, it makes it a bad post for Metafilter, which doesn't have to be all things for all people. I am a mother with a good relationship with her children (so far!) and a good relationship with her own mother and I would absolutely expect that a post about how Mother's Day can be difficult for people who have more fraught relationships with their own mothers or children would be welcome on Metafilter, maybe even on Mother's Day. . . but that wasn't the post that would do it.
posted by KathrynT at 6:18 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


this really does feel like a discussing you're not allowed to have

I feel like we have had this discussion already, and then I remembered it was in the context of an AskMe question. I felt like that went pretty well, actually, and would also be well received on the blue.

As much as the editorial thing does not always have a clearly drawn line (I know that I've thrown a few editorial comments in at times on a post, but in the context of video games or something), we should be holding the line on too much editorializing as we think about how discussions are potentially framed.

I really like this as a potential topic of conversation, and I'm also okay that the mods decided to draw the line where they did. New time, new framing, and I think it has a chance for a good discussion.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:37 PM on May 10, 2015


We've definitely discussed toxic mothers on the Blue before, recently even, and it did go pretty well overall. Certainly nobody in there was handwringing about how a person is morally required to accept and cherish their mother. I would expect that such an argument would garner some pretty vigorous friction.
posted by KathrynT at 6:44 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


To be clear(and wow, autocorrect murdered that line of that post), i didn't mean i felt like that discussion couldn't happen here, just that it was yet another time i had seen it shut down. I've seen those previous threads.
posted by emptythought at 7:01 PM on May 10, 2015


I can't say that I really see the "weirdly personal/editorial/bloggy" component, other than maybe for the suggestion in the final paragraph of the post. Nearly every sentence is just a clear expression of fact without any discussion of the poster's feelings or opinions.

Posts aren't meant to be collections of sentences from the poster, even factual sentences - that's the essence of "Get Your Own Blog".
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:15 PM on May 10, 2015


Posts aren't meant to be collections of sentences from the poster, even factual sentences - that's the essence of "Get Your Own Blog".

That's not true. I think the issue is the number of sentences, not whether the poster has written them. Sentences like "Here is a link to a game I think is interesting" have stood.

A highly addictive and adorable Japanese Smartphone Game Available for both IOS and Android and exclusively in Japanese, it's pretty easy to navigate, and a clearer explanation of how to play can be found here.

Inspired by a Norwegian channel that featured an uninterrupted 8-hour knitting session and a six day commentary free ferry journey through the fjords, the BBC has started a new season of 'deliberately unhurried programmes'. Enjoy a two hour, single shot drift down a canal without voiceover or interruption (which you won't have anyway, since the BBC doesn't have ads.) It's garnering rave reviews.

Every April for the past several years, Fantasy Cafe has published a series of guest posts for Women in Science Fiction & Fantasy Month. This year, the article that generated the most discussion was "'I am ... ?': Representation of Mature Women in Fantasy" by Mieneke from A Fantastical Librarian, who asked, "So where are the older women in fantasy? Mature women who are the hero of their own story?" The many other guest posts this year offered an interesting range of questions, observations, and reflections--often by well-known names in the field.
posted by jaguar at 7:45 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


> I feel like the "anti-Mothers Day" theme is everywhere this year, more so than usual..

I feel like Mother's Day started particularly early (it's apparently now an entire weekend-long holiday?) and has been particularly loud this year. I think all of our mileages vary.
posted by desuetude at 7:52 PM on May 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


There is not a bright line between "editorializing" and "not editorializing", no equation that we can plug adjective count into and determine that the GYOB Coefficient is below 0.3 and therefore it is An Officially Acceptable MetaFilter Post, Blue Variety. And yes, that blurry line shifts when it's "Some moms are crap" vs. "Here's a cute Flash game" vs. "Ermahgerd wookitdaKITTEH." This one was marginal at best and was clearly engendering some toxic discussion (which, yes, is another factor). Let's please not try to rules-lawyer it.
posted by Etrigan at 7:52 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


Let's please not try to rules-lawyer it.

Is that directed at me? My point is that people are making bright-line rules in this thread that don't actually hold up to any sort of scrutiny. I'm fine if this is a one-off deletion, but I want to make sure that stating that some parents are abusive is not automatically considered over-the-top "editorializing."
posted by jaguar at 8:04 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


A post about abusive parents would obviously never survive on the front page.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:19 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


i wish that post had been closer to within the guidelines and posted a week ago so that those of us with those problematic relationships could have been bolstered for this day and it wouldn't have gotten any timing pushback.

also - hey comrades who have problematic relationships with your mom or kids - we're doing ok. this day will be over soon. then it's just people retelling it tomorrow and then we're probably done. be kind to yourself and i won't judge you if you self soothe with whatever gets you by tonight. <3
posted by nadawi at 8:23 PM on May 10, 2015 [13 favorites]


Look, I saw the post early and I saw the first deleted comment, which claimed the post was "toxic" because it took as fact that some mothers were abusive. So that is absolutely coloring my stance here. If people were flagging the post because they were disputing the idea that some mothers are abusive, that's actually an issue.
posted by jaguar at 8:24 PM on May 10, 2015 [10 favorites]


But that's not the issue that made the mods delete it. Flagging alone doesn't indicate whether or not the person flagging disputes the existence of abusive mothers.
posted by rtha at 8:30 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


cortex's first comment bought into the idea that the content mattered, and a bunch of commenters in this thread have been hitting the idea that bringing up the fact of abusive mothers is somehow unseemly.

As I've said, I'm totally willing to believe that the mods made the deletion for reasonable reasons. But the reasons that users are bringing up in this thread are not nearly as reasonable.
posted by jaguar at 8:33 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


... which I'm pointing out because if a bunch of people are flagging reasonable threads because they dispute the underlying premise, it's worth pointing out to the mods as something that may be happening.
posted by jaguar at 8:34 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


I'm a little surprised this is a controversial deletion. The post breaks the guidelines within its very first sentence ("Mother's Day is the day of the year when Hallmark and commercialism dictates that we celebrate that most sacred of bonds, that between mother and child") with pretty blatant editorializing (is there any doubt how the poster feels about the holiday after that sentence?)
posted by The Gooch at 9:01 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


Is it editorializing, or just factual?

Although Jarvis was successful in founding Mother's Day, she soon became resentful of the commercialization and was angry that companies would profit from the holiday. By the early 1920s, Hallmark and other companies started selling Mother's Day cards. Jarvis became so embittered by what she saw as misinterpretation and exploitation that she protested and even tried to rescind Mother's Day.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:06 PM on May 10, 2015 [8 favorites]


FWIW, I feel like this FPP would still be up if it had a simple and non-controversial form, e.g. "Editorial pull quote and main link above the fold; N supporting links with 0 to N pull quotes in a list below the fold." I enjoy both reading and composing posts that are not like that at all, but it's hard to fault the framing if it's just a fair sample of the content.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 9:06 PM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


Is it editorializing, or just factual?

To me, it read like a personal essay bolstered by links here and there.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:13 PM on May 10, 2015 [10 favorites]


The post was super-editorializing. It's not something I think shouldn't be talked about-- I was just talking yesterday to a friend of mine about her feelings of weirdness on Mother's Day due to being estranged by choice from her completely irresponsible mother. But the post felt inappropriate for the blue.

And I think Metafilter is basically the most supportive place on the entire internet when it comes to abuse and abusive parents, so it seems very obvious to me that even a kind of shitty post on the topic would stand as long as it wasn't kind of rambling and overly bloggy.
posted by easter queen at 9:14 PM on May 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


> cortex's first comment bought into the idea that the content mattered,

It does, but because the content may cause contentiousness - that's always been my understanding of "deleted for editorializing/bad framing" of fpps. You can editorialize about a topic that's unlikely to cause fights (e.g., "look at this awesome video of a person doing a cool thing!") but care must be taken on fpps on difficult topics. Which is basically what cortex said in his first comment. So, yes content matters, but that's not peculiar to this deletion of this fpp.

The fpp from a couple weeks ago about estranged parents forums presented the topic/site with pretty neutral language. That content is certainly contentious; the thread itself seemed to be going quite well when I last looked closely.
posted by rtha at 9:19 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


Is it editorializing, or just factual?

To me, it read like a personal essay bolstered by links here and there.


No, I was talking about that specific point about the commercialization. But really, honestly, I'm not finding much here that isn't supported either by the links or, if not facts, commonly accepted beliefs.

And yeah, the combination of those two things are basically the ingredients for an opinion piece in a lot of cases but here I'm not really seeing a point of view being expressed at the expense of any other. It's just describing an often overlooked aspect of the holiday.

I have a good relationship with my Mother, I didn't get the sense this was an FPP arguing against how she and I share our Mother's day. It was talking about what the relationship is like for people in different situations backed up with links that supported the assertions.

I think this one just feels like an editorial, but when you dig down it really isn't. A lot of front page news reads like this when you are writing a more personal story. Just my two cents from reading it, and I don't feel the thread has persuaded me out of it, but I can appreciate where the dissenting views on that are coming from.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:32 PM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Drinky Die, what you posted (if the pullquote weren't from wikipedia, that is) seems like a better example of how to neutrally frame the same information. A post with an educational deconstruction of Mother's Day with links to some posts about grieving the voluntary lost relationship with a mother (or what have you) would be just fine as a Mother's Day post, imo.

I had a negative reaction to the content of the deleted FPP that was entirely due to the framing. I would normally be very sympathetic to the same content, but the framing was hyperbolic and cagey and made me think "why this, on Mother's Day." It was not respectful of people's feelings, and made very broad claims with no evidence (we don't talk about bad mothers? What about like all of blame-it-on-ma pop-psychology and our culture's appetite for Moms Who Snap?). That's why framing is important, not just for stylistic reasons. Unless you want a big (probably borderline-misogynistic) fight about how moms and women are, on Mother's Day, which probably no.
posted by easter queen at 9:36 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


I see where you are coming from. I'd be interested in a more complete representation of the links in the future if somebody wants to tackle that.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:38 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


> i wish that post had been closer to within the guidelines and posted a week ago so that those of us with those problematic relationships could have been bolstered for this day and it wouldn't have gotten any timing pushback.

Me too. I would really love to use this article and some others that I've seen lately to discuss why Mother's Day can be emotionally complicated -- including but not limited to the perhaps "obvious" or "justified" reasons. It's pretty lonely and taboo to feel cranky about Mother's Day.
posted by desuetude at 10:31 PM on May 10, 2015 [5 favorites]


Nothing says "class" like referring to positive social-media posts about their mothers as "likefest bukake (sic)."
posted by ambient2 at 12:03 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Good thing class is bullshit and fuck it.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:18 AM on May 11, 2015 [17 favorites]


Youse are all about two months late with these posts.

[/britain]
posted by Dysk at 2:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


MetaFilter is for linking to interesting stuff on the on the web and discussing the linked content. Posts that take the form of 'here's an essay about a topic, plus some links', as opposed to 'here's some links, plus an explanation of what the linked material is about', get deleted. Essays are fine in the comments once we get into the discussion. The line between editorializing in a post and longish explanations of what the linked content is about is fuzzy, of course, but deleted post seems to be well into essay-plus-links territory.
posted by nangar at 3:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


PANIC PANIC PANIC oh you have a different date phew. Thanks Dysk!
posted by alasdair at 4:48 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Nothing says "class" like referring to positive social-media posts about their mothers as "likefest bukake (sic)."

Worked for me. My mother died last month, and this was the first thing about Mother's Day that made me laugh.
posted by JanetLand at 7:20 AM on May 11, 2015 [21 favorites]


Sorry for your loss, JanetLand.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:49 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Referring to mothers as "moms" is misogynistic.
posted by DMelanogaster at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


> Referring to mothers as "moms" is misogynistic.

Please explain. It's often overly informal, but I don't see the misogyny.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Yes..... please let us know exactly how.
posted by easter queen at 8:32 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


(is there any doubt how the poster feels about the holiday after that sentence?)

What, so we're not allowed to imply opinions about the content of our posts? That pretty much rules everything out, doesn't it?

I'm sorry, but this was a stupid, stupid, stupid deletion, and basically shouts Fuck You to every Mefite with an abusive mother.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:59 AM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]


It's unfair to ascribe motivations to a mod's deletion beyond their already pretty well-documented reasoning.
posted by Think_Long at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


What, so we're not allowed to imply opinions about the content of our posts? That pretty much rules everything out, doesn't it?

I read it as "if a post is going to be serving up sacred cow then it becomes significantly more important to present it without additionally problematic condiments," but perhaps I am a little overly metaphorical today.

I'm sorry, but this was a stupid, stupid, stupid deletion, and basically shouts Fuck You to every Mefite with an abusive mother.

Like, say, disagreeing with a policy decision by both calling the action stupid and ascribing abusiveness to it.
posted by phearlez at 9:30 AM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


I think you would have a hard time finding an FPP in the recent (or not-so-recent) past with that level of editorializing, that was let stand. That wasn't about silly animals or something. I can't.
posted by easter queen at 9:32 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]


I'm sorry, but this was a stupid, stupid, stupid deletion, and basically shouts Fuck You to every Mefite with an abusive mother.

No, it was a bog standard deletion and no mod has said anything whatsoever that is hostile to mefites with abusive parents or mefites who think discussion of that is valuable.

I can totally appreciate wanting to see a topic discussed and being disappointed that a post about it got deleted, but hitching feelings about a topic to a specific single problematic post on that topic and treating the policy-centric disposition of that single post as a broad topic-centric dismissal of the subject as a whole is unreasonable and unkind.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:38 AM on May 11, 2015 [15 favorites]


The "house style" on Metafilter is to present links with more-or-less neutral framing, so that the discussion centers around the links and not the poster's opinion or interpretation of the links.

See [MF:NPOV].
posted by scalefree at 9:44 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


This was a good deletion. If your post gets deleted on MetaFilter, it's not the end of the world, by the way. Try again in 24 hours.
posted by Nevin at 9:47 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


Oh jesus, this is huuuugely editorializing in pretty much every paragraph. That is..not how you are supposed to phrase FPPs.
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


I can totally appreciate wanting to see a topic discussed and being disappointed that a post about it got deleted, but hitching feelings about a topic to a specific single problematic post on that topic and treating the policy-centric disposition of that single post as a broad topic-centric dismissal of the subject as a whole is unreasonable and unkind.

Please, point specifically to the "editorializing" in the post. I am having a very hard time seeing the text of the post as anything other than obvious fact, and the deletion reason as anything but bullshit.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:30 AM on May 11, 2015


point specifically to the "editorializing" in the post.

Sure! Here goes:

Mother's Day is the day of the year when Hallmark and commercialism dictates that we celebrate that most sacred of bonds, that between mother and child.
To me this reads as snarky as fuck - you're talking about how Mothers Day is dictated by 'Hallmark and commercialism' right off the bat, rather than having a neutral voice.

some mothers are just completely toxic.
This is an opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact, and it's a little highflown for an FPP.

They exist in every part of society, every class, every culture, but we don't talk about them. Not unless they do something so horrible they show up in the news. Not unless their children are taken away from them.
This is also editorializing. Do you have data on this? Is it a direct quote from the article? If not, then it shouldn't be in the body of the FPP.

And so many just don't talk about it. They grin and bear it when facebook and other social media becomes a sea of people thanking their mothers and reminiscing. Maybe they close social media all together for that week.
Again, if it's not in the article, it doesn't belong, and if it is in the article, it belongs in quotes.

So if you can spare it, take a moment today, when you're posting facebook statuses about your mother or talking about your amazing Mother's Day brunch tomorrow at work, to think about the fact that the saying may not have started out as 'blood is thicker than water.' It may have started out as 'the blood of the covenant is thicker than the waters of the womb.' And some people, on this Mother's Day, are struggling with that.

This is pretty much the crowning jewel of the editorializing. The OP is asking Mefites to take a specific action in accordance with the links they are posting. That's a textbook no-go, and probably a large part of why it was deleted.
posted by corb at 10:36 AM on May 11, 2015 [13 favorites]


Sys Rq, for example the last paragraph: "So if you can spare it, take a moment today, when you're posting facebook statuses about your mother or talking about your amazing Mother's Day brunch tomorrow at work, to think about the fact that [...]"

That's an invocation in the poster's voice, and as a bonus reads to me like "if you had a good day today (on this nominally positive holiday), you're a thoughtless jerk" which is a fight-starty approach to a post and makes this framing a non-starter.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2015 [22 favorites]


"So if you can spare it, take a moment today, when you're posting facebook statuses about your mother or talking about your amazing Mother's Day brunch tomorrow at work, to think about the fact that [...]"

That ellipsis cuts out a call to consider the feelings of others. The horror.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2015


The language in the post shouldn't have to call for anything. If there's a point to make, it should be apparent in the content of the links, not the language of the post itself.
posted by Think_Long at 10:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]


That ellipsis cuts out a call to consider the feelings of others. The horror.

A call to action, even if the action itself is totally benign, does not belong in the text of a front-page post. Telling people what to think or to do just isn't what the blue is for.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 10:53 AM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]


We are all going to experience grief and loss in life (in this case the grief that we never had the mother we feel could acknowledge on Mother's Day). On top of that, we are all going to go through this grief and loss and anger while others are happy, living and enjoying life as best they know how.

A friend of mine hates the month of May, because that is the month his father died. He listens to Brahms' German Requiem during the month.

As far as I know, he does not insist or request that people stop posting pictures of brunch on Facebook.
posted by Nevin at 10:58 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's pretty lonely and taboo to feel cranky about Mother's Day.

Well, any Hallmark holiday really. Valentine's Day and Father's Day, too.
posted by zarq at 11:03 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


(Note to everyone - this needs to not become a proxy for the deleted thread, as usual. Thanks!)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:01 PM on May 10 [+] [!]

posted by phearlez at 11:08 AM on May 11, 2015


"some mothers are just completely toxic.
This is an opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact,
"

Wait, hold on a sec. How is that an opinion? Are you saying that in the history of humanity there has never been even one mother who was "toxic"?
posted by I-baLL at 11:17 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


There have been entire books written on the subject. Like this one: Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life
posted by zarq at 11:56 AM on May 11, 2015


Yeah, just because you don't like someone saying "Some mothers are just toxic" doesn't mean it's editorializing. "Some mothers are toxic" is a straight-up, non-editorializing fact, even on Mother's Day.
posted by 23skidoo at 11:59 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]


I think there's a difference between saying, for example, "Some mothers have been found to have toxic interactions with their children" and "Some mothers are completely toxic." The first sounds like a neutral POV, the latter less so.
posted by corb at 12:01 PM on May 11, 2015


What does "toxic" mean? It's a popular, casual shorthand that shifts between pop psych and moral frameworks (just like "bad mother" - "bad" how, and why?). "Abusive" or "neglectful" describe particular behaviours in a less loaded way.

(I feel like a pedantic jerk writing that out, I'm sorry. I think this subject absolutely deserves attention and discussion. I think it's just tricky.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:03 PM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


Remember the guy who would always post those weird "Here's a crappy thing that some Jewish people did" posts right around Hanukkah or Passover? Good times.

Yes. But I think this is a little different. Many of us have had complicated relationships with our parents, and the feelings involved in Mother's and Father's Days can be similarly complex. Also, as jaguar said, these are holidays that are intended to apply to just about everyone in society. The days are coupled with a cultural pressure and obligation to honor/respect/acknowledge people in a positive way who may in fact have had negative impact on one's life or might not be with us anymore. In them, the holiday could give rise to many different emotions, such as guilt, grief, sadness, anger, frustration, etc. A different situation than someone being weirdly antisemitic or racist.

For me, Father's Day is simultaneously a happy, complex and sad holiday. My dad's been gone for 21 years. We didn't have the best relationship when he was alive. Emotionally, there's been a lot to pick apart. But I'm also a father now, so there's also a bit of joy in spending time with my kids on that day.
posted by zarq at 12:10 PM on May 11, 2015


I think there's a difference between saying, for example, "Some mothers have been found to have toxic interactions with their children" and "Some mothers are completely toxic."

They pretty much mean the same thing. By definition, "mother" refers to the parental relationship a female has with their child. (Offspring, adopted, stepchild, etc.)
posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on May 11, 2015


Just post a different version of this with less editorializing later, sheesh.
posted by agregoli at 12:18 PM on May 11, 2015 [21 favorites]


What does "toxic" mean? It's a popular, casual shorthand that shifts between pop psych and moral frameworks (just like "bad mother" - "bad" how, and why?). "Abusive" or "neglectful" describe particular behaviours in a less loaded way.

I think "toxic," in this context, outlines a certain shitty aspect to a person that can't be summarized by terms like "neglectful" or "abusive," just because there need not be any actively ongoing neglect or abuse for the person to be emotionally deleterious to be around. Especially with parents, where active neglect and abuse doesn't always extend past childhood, but the generally interpersonal shittyness and antagonism can, it's a relevant concept. Maybe there's a better term for it, but I haven't heard one.
posted by griphus at 12:18 PM on May 11, 2015 [10 favorites]


I'd be very onboard with the sentiments of an equivalent Father's Day post -- not just about bad fathers, but about the weirdness of a culture-wide celebration of fathers when you're someone who had an abusive father and, not the least, this celebration of this specific father in one's own family (which makes me want to throw things). But I agree that this post went over a combined line of too much editorializing + likely to generate a very bad thread.

It's not that we can't acknowledge and talk about these things on MetaFilter, because we can and have. We do a better job of it than most places. And it's not that we couldn't acknowledge and talk about these things on Mother's Day or Father's Day, because I think we could, with a better post and, probably, some close moderator attention. But this particular post is flawed. Nothing against the poster -- there's some editorializing, but it's not crazy egregious editorializing and I think that's partly why we're arguing about it. It was a notable amount of editorializing that would have gotten a lot of scrutiny and possibly been deleted, regardless of content; but also it was within a particular context where the framing has an even-greater-than-usual effect on the thread.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:01 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]


Many of us have had complicated relationships with our parents, and the feelings involved in Mother's and Father's Days can be similarly complex.

No one is disputing that there is validity in people's complicated feelings about their relationships with their parents especially around holidays. What people are pushing back against is the need for an anti-Mother's Day post on Mother's Day that is phrased in those terms. I've read a number of very eloquent statements that people have put on social media over the past few days about how this day can be fraught for many different kinds of people from very different backgrounds. I have some not-very-complex "fuck you mom" feelings as well and spent Sunday feeling all IWILLPUNCHYOU, but that's my issue, not MetaFilter's.

That said, it's a holiday that a lot of people celebrate (for mindful or mindless reasons) and coming on strong with a "the thing you are choosing to do is wrong/unexamined/problematic" is sort of the definition of GYOB-ness. Just include the links, let discussion evolve, be mindful of the context in which your words appear.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 1:19 PM on May 11, 2015 [16 favorites]


I have complicated Mother’s Day feelings, and although they are not so much based on abuse, I definitely welcome discussions on how our relationships with our mothers are more complicated than “thanks for making sandwiches, you are a deity of maternal instincts, I would be a literal garbage person without you, my life was meaningless before I had children, [feminine mystique-ique-ique]”.

Actual conversation I had on Friday, with a person I like:

Nice coworker: Have a Happy Mother’s Day! Are you a mom?
Me: Nope!
Nice coworker: Well, have a nice time celebrating your mom.
Me: My mom is dead!

I wasn’t being confrontational or angry and my tone was kind of “no big deal, it is what it is,” but still. Complicated. Helping my close friend come to term with her mom being BPD? Complicated. Knowing multiple friends whose mothers turned a blind eye to ongoing physical abuse by their fathers? Complicated.

That said, this particular post read to me as a little too “wake up sheeple” to be a good fit. The notion that people on metafilter are somehow blithely unaware that some mothers are horrible people seemed willfully obtuse.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:39 PM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]


Just include the links, let discussion evolve, be mindful of the context in which your words appear.

I'll add this to the other advice about life and communication that I've picked up here and there and try to stick to but often fail:

"Tighter and brighter, people! Tighter and brighter." -- what's her name from Plastic chat.

"Have a take; don't suck." -- Jim Rome of the Jim Rome Show.

"Be mindful of the context in which your words appear." -- Jessamyn, Moderator Emeritus, Metafilter.com.
posted by notyou at 1:43 PM on May 11, 2015


spent Sunday feeling all IWILLPUNCHYOU

I was having some decidedly punchy feelings as well yesterday. Thankfully, they did not result in anyone actually getting punched.
posted by Sophie1 at 1:48 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


What people are pushing back against is the need for an anti-Mother's Day post on Mother's Day that is phrased in those terms.

I agree with the deletion on the grounds that it editorialized WAY too much and lectured its audience. But I think that if both problems had been removed we could have handled a Mother's Day post that presented the same ideas.

In your opinion, if the post had consisted say, entirely of the text above the fold and nothing else (or simply had all hectoring and editorializing removed, period,) would it have survived? Should it have survived? I apologize in advance if you answered this above. I reviewed your comments but didn't see one.
posted by zarq at 2:17 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


jessamyn's not obligated to answer, so I'll take that question. The same links with a different presentation could have been fine. I think r_n and cortex have more or less said as much upthread too. This was a presentation issue, or a presentation-plus-timing issue, not a "subject matter is off limits" issue.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:20 PM on May 11, 2015


Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, Jessamyn.

Thanks, LobsterMitten!
posted by zarq at 2:21 PM on May 11, 2015


From my point of view, the text above the fold was much better than that below. I wouldn't have flagged an FPP that was just above the fold.
posted by easter queen at 2:24 PM on May 11, 2015


Isn't there some famous Metafilter aphorism along the lines that a good post is "Here's something interesting whose interestingness I want to share" while a bad post is "Here's something important that everyone should know about"? This seems like the perfect illustration of that.
posted by ostro at 2:37 PM on May 11, 2015 [14 favorites]


Gotta/Should/Must Rule:
"Oh man, you gotta read this!" -- good MeFi post.
"Hm, people should read this..." -- possibly a good start to a MeFi post.
"Everyone MUST read this." -- bad MeFi post.
posted by Etrigan at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


but I want to make sure that stating that some parents are abusive is not automatically considered over-the-top "editorializing."

I have never, ever seen evidence of this during my tenure on metafilter. Quite the opposite, really, and I would hate for anyone to feel that the site is hostile towards abuse victims.

Post was way over the line in terms of editorialising. Haven't seen a post with that much opinion stay up in years.
posted by smoke at 2:58 PM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


I...really, really, super don't get this MeTa. We currently have an open post on the blue about toxic parents. It exists. People are commenting in it. The mods have not shut it down. I don't get why someone would look at this deletion and interpret it as the mods shutting down this post on the basis of content.
posted by Bugbread at 4:02 PM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]


Bugbread, I hadn't seen that previous one, it had scrolled well off the page (almost two weeks old).

I spotted this one, and when about to comment discovered that it had been deleted. I myself didn't feel the editorializing aspect, but that may be because I am a little too close to the subject matter at hand.

So I asked about it. Fin.
posted by drfu at 4:16 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Jessamyn said: No one is disputing that there is validity in people's complicated feelings about their relationships with their parents especially around holidays. What people are pushing back against is the need for an anti-Mother's Day post on Mother's Day that is phrased in those terms.

Yeah, I agree with this. I have had fraught issues with my Mom and my kids and then we came back around and worked it all out, despite Mother's Day. There would have been times on both sides that we could have felt like this, but it wouldn't have added to our experience, but rather, taken away. Any one of us could have been labeled toxic at one time or another, I guess, but now we are all fine and loving.

I also think the original poster could have an issue that could be worked out in other arenas beside a FPP on Metafilter. It's not always black and white, and if it is black and white, it should be its own post, not a general Mother's Day post of mothers are toxic on a sort of benign holiday of taking Mom to brunch and buying flowers. Seriously, why rain on the parade? If it's so important to you, then make a post on all the other 364 days of the year. Attack lovers on Valentine's Day, Christians on Christmas, pagans on Halloween. I don't feel that Metafilter is the place for you to work out your issues with your mother on Mother's Day. As people have said, it's a Hallmark holiday, and if that triggers you, then this is not the holiday to be making an FPP. I could be triggering for the entire year if that were the case.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 4:41 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


Sorry, drfu, I expressed myself poorly. I didn't mean that I didn't get why you posted this MeTa. I meant I didn't get why there was still contention about the reason for deletion after the Man of Twists and Turns comment 20 hours ago linking to the ongoing toxic parent thread.
posted by Bugbread at 5:43 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]


So I asked about it. Fin.

Yeah, and that is awesome. I can't stand the current MeTa queue partially because I learned so much about MetaFilter from all the MetaTalk questions hashing out what is/isn't appropriate for the front page.
posted by lalex at 5:53 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


This MeTa came through the queue, and so does nearly every MeTa submitted.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:01 PM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


Referring to mothers as "moms" is misogynistic.

is this snark

r u srs
posted by emptythought at 7:13 PM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]


Oh my god, can we please have the rotating taglines back already?
just a likefest bukake [sic]
posted by ctmf at 8:40 PM on May 11, 2015


Marie Mon Dieu: it's a Hallmark holiday, and if that triggers you
... then another possible way to deal with that is to offer some nice alternatives. It's only a Hallmark holiday if we let it be.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:36 PM on May 11, 2015


some of us can't have a nice alternative if the topic is celebrating mothers.
posted by nadawi at 6:29 AM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


That's true, and I'm sorry that this is the case.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:33 AM on May 12, 2015


I'd honestly like to say that, as the person who posted it, the apparent editorializing was an attempt to set a tone that would, hopefully, avoid people just going in and saying 'everyone who says their mother is a bad one is a liar' or 'kids always hate their mothers but they grow out of it.'

I screwed up with that, came off much more heavy handed than I should have and I apologize. I honestly thought that I was presenting facts, but clearly my own biases are too strong when it comes to the facts presented in the various links I found. I don't know if presenting more links would have helped, a link to present each and every fact or sentence that I stated (which I could have, but frankly that felt like overkill) or if simply putting out the links with zero commentary would have been best. Perhaps it was a mistake to post anything at all. Honestly, given the tone that this meta page has taken, I am leaning towards the idea that posting at all, even at the urging of other people who are on mefi who said I SHOULD make such a post, was a mistake.

In future I will remember all the criticisms given here and think twice before sharing something. And I don't mean that sarcastically or in a stomp off and take all my toys way, I mean it very literally, though I know internet sucks for tone.
posted by NotATailor at 8:31 PM on May 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


Given that this was NotATailor's second ever FPP, it must have been pretty horrifying to trip over a 100-comment thread dissecting their motivations and mental state based on a single deleted post. Is this how we as a community want to introduce ourselves to new posters?

And as the person who posted the other linked FPP, I'm very uncomfortable about being bruited about as an example of 'doing it right.' As I understand it, posting to the blue at first is something that requires a lot of confidence--after getting my own second ever post deleted, I took a big hit to my confidence levels and if WomensMarch hadn't been starting right that moment I don't know I would ever have posted again. Christ knows what I would have done if I then tripped over a 100-comment discussion picking over my motivations and saying I was trying to "bully other posters."

It's not like that deleted post was pure as the driven snow, either; in fact, as I recall it specifically got deleted for being an editorializing and also fairly thin post. I think it was a piece on another idiotic attempt to legislate women's bodies, and I'd brought the idea to the front page mostly because I was frustrated by all of the background misogyny on the site--remember, this was right as WomensMarch was brewing. And having it deleted for being potentially fighty/not 'best of the web' was, all on its own, upsetting enough that I was gearing up to give up on posting to the front page entirely and thinking about withdrawing from the community pretty substantially. It's in many ways a huge accident that I stayed. Adding to that a thread on my motivations for posting and criticizing me for my post would have been terrifying enough to drive me away from the site at least temporarily, maybe permanently. For new people, shit like this can be horrifying, and it certainly sends a very strong message of FPP posting as Serious Business rather than "stuff happens, try again next time!"

So, y'know. Maybe let's cut new posters a bit of slack when thinking about how they frame things for the front page and allow some room to mess up without shining a spotlight on it and picking over every possible interpretation of motives? I feel like this is a discussion that should definitely not have gone to speculation on NotATailor's "hidden motives" or desire to ruin Mother's Day for other people.
posted by sciatrix at 9:08 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


In future I will remember all the criticisms given here and think twice before sharing something.

I thought your topic was legit and relevant to many here, your links were reasonable, and your execution was more overthought than underthought--pretty normal for MeFi. There is some good advice in this thread but probably waaaaaaaay more than any one poster needed. I'd try not to sweat it because it doubtless helped someone else figure out how they'll frame some FPP they're contemplating. ;)
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:08 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


sciatrix: "Given that this was NotATailor's second ever FPP, it must have been pretty horrifying to trip over a 100-comment thread dissecting their motivations and mental state based on a single deleted post. Is this how we as a community want to introduce ourselves to new posters?"

I don't think that's how we want to introduce ourselves, but that's the way MeTas work. Otherwise you get a weird situation where everyone who opposes a deletion speaks up, and everybody who supports a decision holds their tongue, and you get a thread that doesn't reflect the actual opinions of MeTa participants. And if you're extra unlucky, the next time a similar issue comes up people point to the previous MeTa as evidence of a general consensus which wasn't actually a general consensus.
posted by Bugbread at 10:35 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


I screwed up with that, came off much more heavy handed than I should have and I apologize.

Dude, don't sweat it. It was a good effort, even it was was considered a bit problematic. I look forward to your next post.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:02 AM on May 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


It's important for people to get over deletions. They happen, it's not personal, move on. New and old posters alike.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 1:03 AM on May 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


In future I will remember all the criticisms given here and think twice before sharing something.

NotATailor, I would hate to think that you wouldn't want to share (even though I totally get why you would feel that way). All the links themselves were excellent, and it takes a while to figure out the metafilter ideals for framing. You overbalanced trying to prevent a very common and derail-heavy reaction to the subject, which is totally admirable.

I definitely don't think you need to apologize, because you did nothing wrong. Deletion is more "try again" than condemnation. And I think some of the angst in this thread is because several people who loved your post felt denied the conversation about your links. (And I agree with that-- I still think it would make an excellent post. There are obviously a lot of intelligent and insightful people here, yourself included, with a lot to share when it comes to this subject.)

Also, please remember that many of the people here saying "hoo yeah, not good framing" are doing so because they are remembering their own posts that got deleted for the exact same reasons. (Or, in my case, posts I made and ultimately deleted myself because I just couldn't seem to write them without injecting my own editorial viewpoints.)

To sum up: you are awesome, this is a first draft of an awesome post, and I hope you will make it again.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:01 AM on May 13, 2015 [12 favorites]


Given that this was NotATailor's second ever FPP, it must have been pretty horrifying to trip over a 100-comment thread dissecting their motivations and mental state based on a single deleted post. Is this how we as a community want to introduce ourselves to new posters?

I'm a little confused as to what the take away is supposed to be from this comment. Metatalk is a portion of the site set up specifically to hash out site related issues, including standards for deletion. What you seem to be suggesting is a sort of special pleading where if a poster is newish to the site and/or doesn't have a lot of posts under his or her belt normal discussion of deletion standards that have been taking place on this site for years should cease, and instead only positive and supportive comments should be included (so in this case, only comments that think the mods screwed up this deletion should be posted, while those members who are in support of the mods decision should keep quiet to avoid hurting a new poster's feelings?)
posted by The Gooch at 8:01 AM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'd honestly like to say that, as the person who posted it, the apparent editorializing was an attempt to set a tone that would, hopefully, avoid people just going in and saying 'everyone who says their mother is a bad one is a liar' or 'kids always hate their mothers but they grow out of it.'

Yeah, I totally get that instinct, and I want to be clear that the formal mod takeaway from this is basically "no worries"; you took a shot at a post, it came out in a way that doesn't work on the front page, it got deleted, and that's not something we consider a big deal in any way. Anybody who posts has a shot at getting a post nixed now and then, and early on is when it's most likely to happen because you're still sort of limbering up and seeing what works. It's not wrong-doing, it's just finding your feet. Usually it doesn't end up getting debated publicly in Metatalk, but now and then this is where we end up.

And ultimately, we're talking about what works on this specific site; there's nothing inherently wrong with what you wrote or how you chose to frame that, it just wasn't a good match for framing expectations for posts to the front page of Metafilter. That's a pretty specific mode of presentation, and hardly a universal one, and even at that it's the sort of thing that if it had been a comment in a related thread would have not had the same issues.

So, no big, and please don't let the deletion or the ensuing lengthy community analysis leave you feeling like you shouldn't post. Just nudge your framing-o-meter and you'll be fine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:48 AM on May 13, 2015 [10 favorites]


MetaFilter: It was a good effort, even it was was considered a bit problematic.
posted by 99_ at 10:56 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older MetaFilter wordbot jam?   |   Should No-Doxxing Policies Apply To Links/FPPs Too... Newer »

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