Some come for the snarky discussion

August 25, 2002 5:58 AM

Danger! An idea is loose! KillkillkillkillKILL!

This guy is obviously an idiot and is best ignored.

Sir I hope your ignorance bites you in the ass.

Farenheit 451, anyone?

I'd like to ask this guy to blow me.

Fuck you....you dumb bastard and your attempts at public debate.

Well! I'm glad to see that the standard of Metafilter discussion is as high as ever! We wouldn't want this place to sink to the level of Fark, Plastic, or Free Republic, heaven forfend.
posted by Slithy_Tove to Etiquette/Policy at 5:58 AM (51 comments total)

What the hell are you talking.... Oh libraries?

Well there's reason to get all wound up. Goddamn libraries!

I don't see what the fuss is about. I do take issue with the word "sink", as if BetterThanYouFilter is something to be applauded.

If Fark sucks so much, how come it lives in an igloo?

How's about this: Please post about things that you like so much, you'd want your best friend to read them?
posted by hama7 at 8:02 AM on August 25, 2002

Gee, ST, why don't you take a couple statements out of context to make your case? Each of the quotes you extracted were directed, not at other MeFites, but at the subject of the FPP. Has the Cabal Of Matt-eMailers determined now that expressing one's feelings goes beyond the guidelines?

Shades of Ashcroft, the censors continue to creep in, inch by inch.

posted by mischief at 8:25 AM on August 25, 2002

feh, no one reads metafilter unless they are shirking work. oops, gotta run...
posted by machaus at 9:12 AM on August 25, 2002

mischief, I'm taking statements 'out of context' because it's inappropriate to repeat the entire thread, of course. If you want to read them in context (where, I submit, they come out much the same), by all means read the thread, it's not that long.

Yes, these quotes are directed at the subject of the post. That's the point. The thread is composed mostly of insults, with almost no one trying to come to grips with the writer's points and address them.

Can public libraries be defended? Of course. But no one's doing it. Most contributors to the thread are just attacking reflexively. I'd like to ask this guy to blow me. I mean, come on. Grow up. Is this all the defenders of public libraries have to bring to the table? If so, maybe they deserve to die, because they're clearly mainly used by the terminally inane.

I have no idea whether an outpouring of brainless venom 'goes beyond the guidelines', but it's juvenile. There's plenty of that on Usenet, if anyone is lacking for it.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:23 AM on August 25, 2002

I actually thought that most posters made fairly reasoned arguments. Certainly the thread is not 'composed mostly of insults'. Three of the quotes you used are entire comments and the other two are within otherwise fine comments. I'm not condoning the insults, but on the whole I felt the discussion was pretty informative and useful.
posted by adrianhon at 9:45 AM on August 25, 2002

The thread is composed mostly of insults, with almost no one trying to come to grips with the writer's points and address them.

Nonsense.

madmanz123, dhartung, jimbob, Skygazer, and jessamyn (no surprise!) make substantial arguments against Rockwell. Hildago thinks libraries do need reform. There are some comments on whether or not libraries hold items of value, how inter library loan works, etc. from Umberto, stonegg21, rift2001, and madmanz123.

So anyone who reads the thread will find a fair bit of substance to go along with blowing off steam.
posted by maudlin at 9:49 AM on August 25, 2002

Silthy_Tove: Sometimes people don't comment because others sum up their thoughts pretty well. There are only so many original thoughts to go around. It seems to me there are only so many reactions one could have had to an article as stridently ideological and shallow as Lew Rockwell's anyway. (How many people picked up on the stupidity of the "shut down the Internet cafes" bit almost immediately? I almost wrote about that, but someone else did first. Wasn't this guy, with such silly and worthless comments, practically begging for such reactions as, "Idiot. Why don't you bite me?" You don't have to indulge people like him - they need no encouragement - but the reactions are understandable.) Dhartung later summed up my feelings almost to the letter. The only thing is - still in re to dhartung's post here - I once worked at a small-town library (in Miss., no less, and a non-college town of 7,500 or so), and we had several Umberto Eco books. One day, a guy in hunting gear checked out four at one time. I kid you not.
posted by raysmj at 10:09 AM on August 25, 2002

The original post is not abusive - why should the responses be?

I don't think the argument that they are directed against the author of the article rather than someone on Mefi carries any weight - it still creates an atmosphere that is agressive towards anyone that would be thinking of posting otherwise.

When both sides in an argument are present, it is much easier to keep a discussion balanced. When, as in this case, the discussion is predimnantly one-sided it places additional responsibilities on the majority to maintain a decent atmosphere. It's all too easy to drop into some kind of mob mentality.

If people want Mefi to be somewhere where different ideas can meet, rather a club for those that agree, then we should be concerned about threads like this. If I agreed with that article I would think twice before posting on that thread - is that what people really want?
posted by andrew cooke at 10:34 AM on August 25, 2002

Slithy_Tove , you took my last content out and ignored all the valid points I made. That was rather crappy of you.

Contrary to popular belief I get to express not just my reasoned view, but also my feelings on the issue. A paragraph of reason and a summary on my feelings is very appropriate to the discussion. I advise if you have a problem with my posting style you take it up with me personally.

I dislike comments based purely on logic, because life isn't based purely on logic. Argue without soul and passion if you enjoy that. I do not.
posted by madmanz123 at 10:39 AM on August 25, 2002

sorry, typo, meant to say "You took my comment out of context".
posted by madmanz123 at 10:40 AM on August 25, 2002

I'll probably move my comments over to trackback as soon as its set up, I think the metafilter police are getting a bit out of hand.
posted by madmanz123 at 10:42 AM on August 25, 2002

I think the metafilter police are getting a bit out of hand.
the Evil Axis of 14K have taken down the Skyscrapers of Superiority, and the ensuing clamor for laws to control and protect against them is fucking hilarious.
posted by quonsar at 10:57 AM on August 25, 2002

If I agreed with that article I would think twice before posting on that thread - is that what people really want?

No. But please note that Hildago disagreed with the majority and somehow escaped being flayed and tacked up on the wall as a lesson to dissenters. I usually agree that an argument is stronger if it doesn't include insults, and that insults lead to counter-insults, but you know, people will sometimes vent. If there was nothing but vitriol on that thread, I would be more concerned.

If anyone here is seriously concerned that the thread is bad, go there and make it better. Make some decent arguments for your position.
posted by maudlin at 10:59 AM on August 25, 2002

thank you quonsar!

and have you seen the apologetic comments on front-page posts today?
First post, hope it's okay
and
(Forgive me if I offend, this is my first post)

Is that the result the skyscraper-dwellers wanted? or anybody here?
posted by amberglow at 11:02 AM on August 25, 2002

I decided long ago to never post a new item on metafilter for fear of making a mistake that will lead to one of these damn threads and I've been reading Mefi and Metatalk for a long time.
posted by madmanz123 at 11:07 AM on August 25, 2002

This is ridiculous. When I saw the cross-post to MeTa, I sat there for a minute re-reading the thread, trying in vain to figure out what the issue could possibly be.

Yes, there are a lot of flippant comments. And no, the wording of the post itself did not promote such a tone. But the article itself did. Come on, it's a poorly-researched, whimsical piece of trash. With all the attention MeFi is now getting, I'm proud to be part of a community that is calling this idiot out on his bullshit.

If I agreed with that article I would think twice before posting on that thread - is that what people really want?

Definitely. It might make you think twice about whether you really agree with the article.
posted by bingo at 11:37 AM on August 25, 2002

Am I the only person who's sat uncomfortably thorugh conversations where a group of people have agressively reinforced each other's prejudices? If you've ever walked away from a bunch of people asserting how stupid women/asians/etc are and backing their stance with rhetoric aimed at those that dissent, can't you see the parallel here?

I would have thought that anyone who felt strongly enough about public libraries to be drawn to language like Fuck you....you dumb bastard must have experienced this kind of behaviour from the other side. And if you have experienced that, how can you then become part of it?

I'm sorry if this seems like I'm advocating some kind of police state here. I would say instead that I'm trying to explain why I'm surprised people find this acceptable. There have been moments in my life when I've been deeply frustrated because I've held different opinions from others and have been unable to discuss them with those that felt otherwise. I don't think it requires a great leap of empathy to see how posts like those quoted generate a similar situation here.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:12 PM on August 25, 2002

If you've ever walked away from a bunch of people asserting how stupid women/asians/etc are and backing their stance with rhetoric aimed at those that dissent, can't you see the parallel here?

Not even remotely. First, the rhetoric in this case is aimed at the author of the article. Second, there is a huge difference between making negative statements about an entire demographic of people for no reason, and making statements about a person who has written an article that exposes his own ignorance.

I would have thought that anyone who felt strongly enough about public libraries to be drawn to language like Fuck you....you dumb bastard must have experienced this kind of behaviour from the other side. And if you have experienced that, how can you then become part of it?

The "Fuck you...you dumb bastard" was directed at the author of the article, not other people on the thread. And he is a dumb bastard.
posted by bingo at 1:33 PM on August 25, 2002

It isn't my job to make other people feel comfortable about their opinions. Its called having the guts to express your opinion when you think the topic is worth it. I was fully ready to debate the merits, instead I'm called out of line for expressing my opinion in a passionate manner, if my post was entirely emotion based I could see your point. If someone asked me to express my opinions on say Bush, I'd say he was a scumbag and then I'd give you some reasons why I think that. I don't mince words so as not to offend people. Too often things are over intellectualized and made politically correct. Dancing around the base issues of this guys personality is wasteful.
posted by madmanz123 at 1:34 PM on August 25, 2002

...sucks...
...no one reads...
...feh...
...inappropriate...
...brainless venom...
...crappy...
...quonsar...
...stupid women/asians...

Well! I'm glad to see that the standard of MetaTalk discussion is as high as ever! We wouldn't want this place to sink to the level of MetaFilter, heaven forfend.

posted by gluechunk at 1:35 PM on August 25, 2002

Not even remotely. First, the rhetoric in this case is aimed at the author of the article. Second, there is a huge difference between making negative statements about an entire demographic of people for no reason, and making statements about a person who has written an article that exposes his own ignorance.

I think you're misunderstanding the parallel I am drawing here. I have been in situations where people with a view I didn't hold expressed it along with agression. That agression stopped me from expressing my dissent.

Here we have a thread which expresses a view someone else may disagree with. It contains agressive statements that may intimidate that person from expressing their dissent.

As I said before, who the agression is "aimed at" is irrelevant - if I felt library funding was a bad idea I would find that agression opressive, even if I wasn't the author of the original article.

If you have ever expressed dissent you must be aware how difficult it can be in agressive situations where you are isolated. I'm not defending the original author at all - I'm trying to make it possible for others who feel similarly to express their opinions (not because I agree with them, but because it seems the decent thing to do and because, of course, there's always the chance that I may be wrong and learn something from what they say).

When a group speaks with (pretty much) one voice it is important not be agressive if you want an atmosphere where dissent is possible.

I'm repeating myself - a sure sign I've said enough.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:32 PM on August 25, 2002

...quonsar...
[quonsar ponders, counts to ten, pets the cat, counts to ten again, and offers his reasoned response.]
eat me, gluechunk.
posted by quonsar at 2:47 PM on August 25, 2002

When a group speaks with (pretty much) one voice it is important not be agressive if you want an atmosphere where dissent is possible.

No. Dissent is always possible. But replace the word "possible" with "probable" and it's true.

MetaFilter does not need to be so nurturing that no one could ever be offended by it. That's babying.
posted by goethean at 3:16 PM on August 25, 2002

I agree with andrew, and also with madmanz. When someone makes an argument sometimes the idea is seen by many to be so preposterously dumb that people won't take it as seriously. Public funding for books for people who can't afford them on their own, and as a resource for the community falls into that category. Now, some people would just yell out at this proposition, "he is an idiot" because they think it's obvious. If I said I think x race should be eradicated, should I expect a proper debate of the reasons? Probably not. I am not saying that they are similar except in the characteristic that many people see them as something no rational person would support. For these people it is sometimes hard to argue against it.

In a perfect community, I think people would argue against everything they didn't believe in. If people say close the libraries, people who object would calmly state their reasons for allowing the poor to have access to books. And if someone posted something exceptionally hostile the community would calmly explain why it is a bad idea in unison. This is not a perfect community though, so when someone posts something many people see as clearly wrong it will often just get shouted down. This should be expected, it's how people work, but on the whole I think metafilter does a better than average job of supporting beliefs rather than just shouting down opponents.

As for madmanz comment, I think it's a pretty good example of the perfect response, to take that one line out of context is irresponsible, and draws attention away from the 3 paragraphs above it.
posted by rhyax at 3:24 PM on August 25, 2002

There was a library thread five days ago that addressed issues similar to the thread in question. Not very many of the same commenters. But then, Metafilter seems to be a different animal on the weekends.
posted by whatnot at 4:03 PM on August 25, 2002

From where I'm sitting, there's nothing wrong with strong opinions passionately expressed. I wouldn't want Metafilter to turn into a polite afternoon tea conversation, where people have to restrain themselves for fear that the timid will be even more intimidated.

The real problem with a comment like "Fuck you...you dumb bastard" is that it's boring. I read that discussion hoping for some interesting ideas about why public libraries have a useful role, and instead all I got was a Slashdot-style groupthink beatdown. Some threads have a lot of invective in the service of a lot of ideas; this one had the heat without the light.

The nice thing about MeFi is that if you do disagree with the content of the discussion, you can always try to make a reasoned counterargument. From what I've seen in my many months of lurking here, well-argued comments get respect, and sometimes can change the tone of the discussion. That's why I joined in the first place.
posted by fuzz at 4:35 PM on August 25, 2002

When someone makes an argument sometimes the idea is seen by many to be so preposterously dumb that people won't take it as seriously.

See Columbus, Christopher.
posted by rushmc at 5:33 PM on August 25, 2002

Did Christopher Columbus say that world's being seen as flat was to blame for totally unrelated things such as, say, the failure of Spain to have Portugal within its borders? Or that the Moors had stayed as long as they did because of the earth-is-flat argument? And then somehow brought the architectural influence of the Visigoths into it all? Then you have an analogy going there.
posted by raysmj at 6:34 PM on August 25, 2002

I agree with Andrew Cooke in that I don't believe in taking an argument to the level of invective. If the guy you're going to insult is obviously a moron, then it goes without saying anyway.

Plus, when people curse out a guy who isn't even there, it reminds me of watching television with my grandmother.
posted by Hildago at 6:41 PM on August 25, 2002

Hildago, I sent the author of the article my exact post :). I just wanted to make sure metafilter had a copy. Also one on my weblog. Course the I would have been a good deal less upset if I was informed my post was being discussed, instead of having to find out here, common courtesy and all that. ;)
posted by madmanz123 at 7:12 PM on August 25, 2002

andrew cooke: I think you're misunderstanding the parallel I am drawing here. I have been in situations where people with a view I didn't hold expressed it along with agression. That agression stopped me from expressing my dissent.

In that case, I find the fault with you for being a coward. Unless you were worried about getting physically attacked, which is hardly a possibility here.
posted by bingo at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2002

Plus, when people curse out a guy who isn't even there, it reminds me of watching television with my grandmother.


Ha Ha.. Especially during Jeopardy.
posted by hama7 at 9:57 PM on August 25, 2002

madmanz123 :

Course the I would have been a good deal less upset if I was informed my post was being discussed, instead of having to find out here, common courtesy and all that.

I admire your follow-through on mailing the author your comments to him, for whatever that's worth, but I don't think it's practical to expect to be mailed whenever someone on meta* responds to something you said on meta*, whether it was the original source or not.
posted by Hildago at 10:23 PM on August 25, 2002

In that case, I find the fault with you for being a coward. Unless you were worried about getting physically attacked, which is hardly a possibility here.

Oh, come on.. You act as though not vocalizing your disagreement at every opportunity is an unnatural act. In fact, it's so common we've got several phrases for it. It is called, alternately "holding your tongue," or "choosing your battles," and it hardly makes anyone a coward, unless you choose not to distinguish between moments when it is necessary to speak up, and moments when you simply believe everyone deserves to hear what you think.

Many threads on Metafilter do become circle jerks, and sometimes we mere mortals decide it is not worth becoming the minority of one. In a perfect world, Robert's Rules of Order would be followed, and everyone would get an equal chance to present their argument. Here on planet Earth, the lone dissenting voice often gets drowned out by the voices of the mutually-assured, or else patronizingly dismissed, and consequently many choose not to participate at all.

Given this, we either attempt to impose some sort of civility on our discussions, or we accept the fact that we'll never have a real dialog, and continue insulting each other. I think what andrew cooke is saying is that the former is better than the latter. I would tend to agree.
posted by Hildago at 10:26 PM on August 25, 2002

Jesus H. Christ. The noise on Metatalk is a million times worse than all the new posters posting on Mefi. You people fucking amaze/confuse/annoy me sometimes. Like now.

How about we limit Metatalk posts to one per month?
posted by owillis at 10:30 PM on August 25, 2002

I like Owillis's idea. Lets go with that.

Hildago, if I (along with others) are the subject of a thread which involved accusations of misconduct on this fine forum. I want to be informed. Sorry but that's my opinion. I would like the opportunity to defend against such things.
posted by madmanz123 at 11:13 PM on August 25, 2002

Rather than start a new thread, since it's about the exact same topic, I'd like to say that elphTeq's response to Stan Chin in the missing teenager thread was completely out of bounds. I'd prefer that we save that vitrol for people who actually commit the child abductions.
posted by PrinceValium at 3:38 AM on August 26, 2002

What does the "H" stand for?
posted by adampsyche at 4:05 AM on August 26, 2002

Hidalgo: Oh, come on.. You act as though not vocalizing your disagreement at every opportunity is an unnatural act. In fact, it's so common we've got several phrases for it. It is called, alternately "holding your tongue," or "choosing your battles," and it hardly makes anyone a coward...

andrew cooke was talking about situations in which he felt he had an opinion worth expressing, and worth hearing, and he was suggesting that his battles are effectively being chosen for him by we less sensitive souls.

... unless you choose not to distinguish between moments when it is necessary to speak up, and moments when you simply believe everyone deserves to hear what you think.

And indeed, though I would have worded it differently, failing to make that distinction is essentially what I am accusing him of doing.

In a perfect world, Robert's Rules of Order would be followed, and everyone would get an equal chance to present their argument.

May the heavens fall and may chaos reign in the streets before such a horrid thing comes to pass.
posted by bingo at 4:28 AM on August 26, 2002

What does the "H" stand for?
Herman.
posted by owillis at 6:40 AM on August 26, 2002

What does the "H" stand for?

No one knows, but it has something to do with Elvis. (scroll down near the bottom).
posted by yhbc at 7:01 AM on August 26, 2002

But then again, it could be Harold.
posted by Tarrama at 7:17 AM on August 26, 2002

Rather than start a new thread, since it's about the exact same topic, I'd like to say that elphTeq's response to Stan Chin in the missing teenager thread was completely out of bounds. I'd prefer that we save that vitrol for people who actually commit the child abductions.

Or, perhaps for humor-impaired MetaFilterians? Sheesh...
posted by JollyWanker at 7:23 AM on August 26, 2002

Hfucking.

Jolly - I'm bad-humor impaired, not good-humor impaired.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:24 AM on August 26, 2002

poor stan chin. people keeling over left and right, floods, earthquakes, drunk drivers, drug overdoses, murder, molestation, corruption and disease, and that cold hearted bastard can't find the room in his stone-carved heart to individually grieve over every last one. imagine being such a sociopath. how horrible. i'm going to go grieve for stan now.
posted by quonsar at 8:23 AM on August 26, 2002

Maybe it stands for "Hopping?"
posted by adampsyche at 8:33 AM on August 26, 2002

What does the "H" stand for?


No, no, no everyone; clearly, given his birth-status, it stands for "haploid".

posted by interrobang at 11:05 AM on August 26, 2002

For those stil interested, his reply:

"Dear Mr. Buckley, When even welfare recipients have TVs and expensive cable
packages, I do not find this argument--nor your manners--persuasive."

He didn't like my manners either, of course he just grouped ever welfare recipient into a nice tidy batch. My family hit hard time at one point (like many americans today). we stopped just short of welfare. Many people need it, though like anything with the Gov. It could use reform. Frankly that statement pretty much prove my point ;)
posted by madmanz123 at 2:41 PM on August 26, 2002

Welfare was already reformed in 1996.
posted by raysmj at 3:10 PM on August 26, 2002

Sorry, I meant successfully reformed. Still a truck load of problems, doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit and people don't genuinely need it. Your always supposed to strive for perfection after all.
posted by madmanz123 at 6:27 PM on August 26, 2002

Okay, final review of this MeTa whine by me.

Stuff's been aired. I don't know whether anyone's mind has been changed. People whose minds do change often don't say so. Who knows.

madmanz123, I don't think it's in the MeFi culture automatically to notify someone that his post has been mentioned in MeTa. I check MeTa daily, as I do MeFi, and you are free to do the same. I did post a link to my MeTa post in the source thread.

owillis, is MeTa really different than it was 6 months ago? I haven't noticed much change, and I think the effect of the new blood on MeFi is pretty positive.

I think andrew cooke makes a very good point, i.e., that once an 'aggressive', 'pile-on' tone has been established in a thread, there's usually not much worthwhile that can be accomplished there. I think this is a Godwin-like effect. People with a different point of view will be reluctant to post for fear of being jumped on by the rowdy crowd. Andrew's not the first to point this out, either, we've discussed the phenomenon here before.

Oh, and speaking of which, it's time to update Godwin's law. "As a MeFi discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving John Ashcroft approaches one."

And the 'H' in Jesus H. Christ's name stands for 'Hellzapoppin', hth.

posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:32 PM on August 26, 2002