Did I do something wrong?

August 26, 2002 9:10 AM

I'm sorry, I'm new here. Did I do something wrong? I realize I derailed the thread from the start (for that I apologize), but somehow I became the poster boy for two warring sides in a flame war riddled with insults and heated emotions. I like to think I tried to maintain a civil discourse at the beginning, unfortunately I went to sleep when it got really nasty. Should I have not posted at all? What went wrong here, I would like to know for future reference.
posted by Stan Chin to Etiquette/Policy at 9:10 AM (99 comments total)

". . . I went to sleep when it got really nasty."

Always a good solution.

Personally, I think you did nothing wrong. I was surprised at the response.

posted by hackly_fracture at 9:19 AM on August 26, 2002

Maybe my first post was far too immediate and incendiary to wepeck's honest request for thoughts. The JonBenet snark didn't help either, but at the time I had no idea the atmosphere it would help create. Unfortunately I lost it when I responded to rcade's post.

My followup responses (except maybe this one, which was more MetaTalky) I thought were an attempt to control what was happening and reinforce my position before more people got mistaken. It obviously failed. Was I throwing more fuel into the fire?

On a side note, I received a generous amount of support (and to the detractors: No, I honestly was not trying to collect sympathy) from others who agreed with me... or at the very least realized the discussion was falling apart. There are too many to list here who had nice things to say and tried to defend me, to all of you I appreciated it.


posted by Stan Chin at 9:24 AM on August 26, 2002

You knew your comments would not be well-received, because you included a pre-emptive apology. Playing the victim here is a nice touch; clearly you were meant to be one of us.
posted by rcade at 9:28 AM on August 26, 2002

Nope you weren't wrong or trollish, but I think the people who jumped on you can be excused a little. This is a very emotional story that some people are heavily and sincerely invested in right now. Rational discussion of the media and our responses to it is not a priority for some right now. It's a matter of priorities.

'Course, I'm about as new as you and have already had my share of smackdowns for much "less". Mefi's a little edgy (in a bad way) right now, at least in the news'n'politics threads. Must be the heat. The culture posts are still pretty good tho'. Like this one.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:28 AM on August 26, 2002

rcade is attacking people on a personal level because he doesn't understand the difference between 'not needing to grieve' and 'child murder is good.'

and it's slightly annoying, but not an umcommon occurance on Metafilter where people break down things you say and take them in the context they want in order to bolster their own argument while ignoring the crux of what you said.

Personal attacks and ignoring things other people say is bad. I weap for those who do it.
posted by rich at 9:33 AM on August 26, 2002

Rational discussion of the media and our responses to it is not a priority for some right now. It's a matter of priorities.

Me fail English? Unpossible!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:35 AM on August 26, 2002

I see how I could have been seen as playing the victim, but the apology was just a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my harsh response to the sensitive subject matter, which wdpeck had a clear emotional investment in. If I left it out I would have just been a plain asshole. Unfortunately I came across that way anyway.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:36 AM on August 26, 2002

rogers, i addressed some of your comments in the thread, but for the purposes of this discussion: are you aware that there has only been a rise in reportage of child abductions, not in actual cases? how many abductions should I pause to learn about, emotionally invest myself in, and then work through my grief over before I've passed your litmus test?

And Stan, to answer your question... No, you weren't out of line. People's emotions are really raised on this topic (I'm guessing due to television coverage) so they're overreacting to a logical point you've brought up.
posted by anildash at 9:37 AM on August 26, 2002

Sucks, huh, Stan? Never mind, you've done nothing wrong; in fact, you've demonstrated an admirable unwillingness to be cowed by one MetaFilter's A-list Cabalists (there is no cabal... there is no cabal... there is no cabal...). Keep your backbone stiff and your head unbowed - you've as much right to your ideas, opinions and feelings as anybody with a low-four-digit MeFi ID. It's just the first time someone will misunderstand, misconstrue or simply disregard what you've really said in order to make points of their own; I can all but guarantee you it won't be the last...
posted by JollyWanker at 9:40 AM on August 26, 2002

I became the poster boy for two warring sides in a flame war riddled with insults and heated emotions.

you mean that isn't why you joined?!?!?!?!!?!?!
hee! what was it you were expecting? lottsa elbow-rubbing linky-love with an intellectual bent? i don't know why the culture of mefi is what it is, but it was all that almost 3 years ago when i joked about a 1500 pound elk that crashed into a car killing the teenage occupants and suddenly found myself the poster boy for assholedom. i was declared a sociopath myself when i posted a link to a news story about an unemployed telemarketer charged with murdering children sleeping in thier beds with the line "Telemarketers are Satan Incarnate". shrug it off. enjoy yourself. you have a right to be here until matt says you don't. its just a web site. a fairly simple website, which for reasons beyond me has become exceedingly popular and continues to be held in a worshipful light by some. stop beating yourself. the people beating you can just fark off if they don't like you!
posted by quonsar at 9:47 AM on August 26, 2002

It's an emotive subject so people are going to start shouting. I wouldn't worry too much about the response you got from people. You made a valid point, and I think 90% of people got what you were saying. Personally, I'd wipe back the tears and get to posting somewhere else. (Maybe here)

posted by seanyboy at 9:53 AM on August 26, 2002

There are a few things going on here that lead to the problems. The first few comments were a bit too emotional in spots, and a bit too cynical, and as is often the case, the first couple comments often determine the path the rest of the thread will follow.

The thread starts off with someone doing something many users don't like, which is to tell them how to feel and ask them to pray (not saying that lead to stan's response, I'm just saying). Stan then questioned the media coverage, in my opinion, a bit too cynically, and given the emotional topic was sure to garner an emotional response. There are few absolutes in these kinds of discussions, I can't say who was completely wrong or completely right, there are subtle things done by members that eventually blew up.

There has to be some sort of happy medium, one where we can discuss the sadness about the loss of life, and question the source of extreme violence, but then also distance ourselves emotionally from the subject to talk about media manipulation and question how and why certain stories catch a wide audience and are promoted. The middle ground isn't very exact or stable, and I'm not sure myself the best way to present those two ideas together on a page, but I would hope that it is possible to someday acheive that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:02 AM on August 26, 2002

I think you made a good point Stan Chin, although you might have picked a poor time to do it. Then again, what was the purpose of the FPP? It's not like a news report about the murders of two people can spawn much useful discussion.

It's curious which cases get national press (generally blonde girls from the suburbs) and which cases get ignored. (I've chosen one that's local to me.)
posted by hyperizer at 10:05 AM on August 26, 2002

Personal attacks and ignoring things other people say is bad. I weap for those who do it.

But not murdered American biomass, of course.

I don't have as much problem with Stan's sentiment as you (or Anil) think I do, though I disagree strongly with it. To me, going out of your way to express how little this affects you is just as fake as being over-emotive. Ryvar does a good job of making my point, with all his talk about how he wants to be perceived, as if he's running for governor of the state of ennui.

Am I grieving for these kids? No. Unlike the person who posted the link, I'm not in Oregon and I have not been particularly invested in this tragedy. My only strong visceral connection to the story is a growing sense of unease about the media's capacity to disturb me with anecdotes documenting man's inhumanity to man. Do I feel badly about these murders? Sure, but I've never claimed that my emotional response is particularly genuine, admirable or significant.

I think it's offensive to use the murders of a couple of kids as an excuse to demonstrate what a delightfully misanthropic person you are, especially in Ryvar's case where he's making claims like the perception that these kids were leading privileged lives. So I registered my disgust.

Stan expected a strong discussion about a controversial opinion; he got one. I see no reason for this to prompt such a public wringing of hands.
posted by rcade at 10:08 AM on August 26, 2002

I think Stan's post was spot-on. Our cultures have developed a perversely biased method of deciding exactly how tragic a particular event is. And our ghoulish media has found that tragedy sells. It reflects an ugly and irrational attitude (the need to investigate tragedy, as long as it's someone else's, and not too far away or large) back at us. Stan pointed this out. Lots of people freaked.

I would occasionally walk into the fire with respect to "tragic" threads to say that if I selected 100 Americans at random, I probably wouldn't find 10 who could tell me where on earth hundreds of thousands of people hacked each other to pieces with machetes within the past ten years. People didn't like that either.
posted by websavvy at 10:14 AM on August 26, 2002

You did nothing wrong IMO, Stan Chin. You can't control other people's reactions to your thoughts, here as elsewhere. You can only try to present them as clearly and accurately as you can.

I think the people who jumped on you can be excused a little.

I disagree. Bad behavior on Metafilter is not excusable because a subject is topical or because someone chooses to invest a greater than normal amount of emotion into it. I think your entire premise that people should be excused for violating the rules of the site (by launching personal attacks on other members) because they cannot control their mental and emotional states is badly flawed and a terrible precedent.

This is a very emotional story that some people are heavily and sincerely invested in right now.

Why?

Rational discussion of the media and our responses to it is not a priority for some right now.

Then they shouldn't be posting to Metafilter. This is not an emotional support group or grief-fest. It is a place for rational discussion of just the kinds of things you cite, among others.
posted by rushmc at 10:20 AM on August 26, 2002

Overall, it doesn't seem that you're being beaten up. There are a lot of comments supporting your view. Seem to be operating on much better ratio than the couple people who made a point of leading the insensitivity cause back in the first Kaycee thread.

In both cases, the calls for community handholding in the original post - 'damn, damn, damn' here, 'take a minute and pray' back with Kaycee - cry out for the questioning of public displays of grief for strangers.

And then it all goes downhill, until you get someone referring to tragically dead teenagers as biomass.
posted by TimTypeZed at 10:20 AM on August 26, 2002

I don't have as much problem with Stan's sentiment as you (or Anil) think I do, though I disagree strongly with it. To me, going out of your way to express how little this affects you is just as fake as being over-emotive. --rcade

rcade, I'm glad to hear that you don't have too much of a problem with Stan Chin's statement. I really don't think Stan Chin went out of his way to express his feelings on the subject--I'm not sure that a discussion of this nature could have avoided this kind of sentiment, however. I think that the it's a rather common topic when a group of people get together to talk about the horrors of the world.

Though I agreed with Ryvar's Stalin quote, I felt that he was very much over the top regarding the rest of his post. If there was trollery going on, it may have been there.
posted by ashbury at 10:27 AM on August 26, 2002

Stan: you were beyond civil, and you came across as reasonable to me at least. You seem rational and calm, I hope to see more posts for you.

Myself I threw quite a bit of fuel on the fire, so here's my apology for the manner, if not content, of my posts.

Matt: I almost wish there was a way to . . . how to put this? I've been lurking here for about two years despite my high user #, so I'm into/used to the site format and all, but I keep seeing people fall victim to the same thing I do - not posting unless they are impacted by the topic at hand. There's a lot of muted subtext of outrage underlying many posts out there which makes a happy medium difficult to achieve.

I kind of wish there was some way for the community to define aspects and sides of the discussion so that people could, if they wished, visually flag themselves for or against a side of the discussion or multiple sides simultaneously.

rcade: not going to go back into it here of all places.
Tim: the 'biomass' bit was a Snowcrash reference aimed at all Americans (of which I am one), I'm really surprised nobody seemed to get that.
posted by Ryvar at 10:32 AM on August 26, 2002

Bad behavior on Metafilter is not excusable because a subject is topical or because someone chooses to invest a greater than normal amount of emotion into it.

True, but when the main thrust of an argument is that an emotional response to a tragedy is fake and worthless, what's the likelihood that emotion will be absent from the subsequent discussion?
posted by rcade at 10:36 AM on August 26, 2002

This is a very emotional story that some people are heavily and sincerely invested in right now.

Why?

Empathy, I guess. I generally don't emotionally invest in these stories (though I think it's sad and terrible), but people from all walks of life have gotten personally wrapped up in this kind of news for decades, maybe centuries.

Rational discussion of the media and our responses to it is not a priority for some right now.

Then they shouldn't be posting to Metafilter. This is not an emotional support group or grief-fest. It is a place for rational discussion of just the kinds of things you cite, among others.

I agree with you. But Mefi is different things to different people. I'm slowly learning to keep out of the news'n'politics threads, because 9 times out of ten they're pretty much worthless, signal:noise-wise.


posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:41 AM on August 26, 2002

Bad behavior on Metafilter is not excusable because a subject is topical or because someone chooses to invest a greater than normal amount of emotion into it

True, but when the main thrust of an argument is that an emotional response to a tragedy is fake and worthless, what's the likelihood that emotion will be absent from the subsequent discussion?

Fine, involve emotion. But put together a more constructive defense than "I pity you," even if you really do.

Not that I've been around for all that long a time, but congrats, Stan. I think you just completed you MetaInitiation.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:48 AM on August 26, 2002

"...when the main thrust of an argument is that an emotional response to a tragedy is fake and worthless..." - rcade

"I apologize if you thought I was attacking you or anyone else for caring, I think that's fantastic and indicative of a wonderful heart." - Stan Chin (very early in the discussion)

Admittedly, some folks besides Stan went a little far, but it's always a good idea to keep track of what each person has actually said if you're going to attack them for it.
posted by tdismukes at 10:50 AM on August 26, 2002

Ashbury: May I ask a favor? Please email me with specifically what it is that you find 'over the top'. I just want to know for future reference. I do write posts with a specific aim to convince people that my views are correct (does anyone do otherwise?) and I also don't want to contribute to any future hysteria, so your doing so would be greatly appreciated. That's a wide-open request for criticism to anyone out there, by the way.
posted by Ryvar at 10:56 AM on August 26, 2002

when the main thrust of an argument is that an emotional response to a tragedy is fake and worthless, what's the likelihood that emotion will be absent from the subsequent discussion?

I would say that depends entirely on the participant. I reject your assumption that everyone is equally incapable of calmly and rationally examining their own emotions, even when in the midst of them.
posted by rushmc at 11:00 AM on August 26, 2002

people from all walks of life have gotten personally wrapped up in this kind of news for decades, maybe centuries.

That doesn't justify it as optimal or even defensible behavior. People have also been whipped up to emotional frenzies in order for wily and cynical politicians to initiate wars and other actions in order to further their own ends. I think people have a responsibility to view things dispassionately even--or especially--when they find them emotionally affective, in order to avoid being manipulated by others. This does not conflict with having a normal human reaction (emotional or otherwise) to misfortune or tragedy. Stepping back to look at the bigger picture doesn't imply that one loses the ability to appreciate the subtle details which comprise it.
posted by rushmc at 11:05 AM on August 26, 2002

I reject your assumption that everyone is equally incapable of calmly and rationally examining their own emotions, even when in the midst of them.

When did I assume that, Mister Spock?
posted by rcade at 11:17 AM on August 26, 2002

rcade: if this were the first incidence of this sort of piling-on on this very subject, I might be surprised. But I've been bit by this same cadre; learn the lesson I am apparently only periodically able to and walk away. There's no debate here; blazing away at your keyboard gains you nothing but the ire of people whose respect you won't get and don't need.

Walk away, and save your valuable time for other topics. I'm going to try and do the same.
posted by UncleFes at 11:39 AM on August 26, 2002

Waiting for the day this debate will be made about dead black children.
*not holding my breath*
posted by owillis at 12:16 PM on August 26, 2002

*pounds head into desk*

*repeats*
*repeats*
*repeats*
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:23 PM on August 26, 2002

Nah, you did right, Chin. I'm with you on this one. Grieving for people you don't even know is pretty dumb. This is why I was rather indifferent to 9/11 and these kidnappings. Sure, nasty things happen, and that is not a nice thing, but how can I grieve for people I don't even know!?
posted by wackybrit at 12:47 PM on August 26, 2002

The thread starts off with someone doing something many users don't like, which is to tell them how to feel and ask them to pray

Exactly. Stanchin, you may be sincere in your grief, but this is neither a support group nor a prayer meeting

Waiting for the day this debate will be made about dead black children.
*not holding my breath*
Post a link about dead black children then, oliver. Maybe you'll breath easier


posted by matteo at 12:53 PM on August 26, 2002

Waiting for the day this debate will be made about dead black children.

The media covered the abductions of Tamara Brooks and Erica Pratt extensively.
posted by rcade at 1:02 PM on August 26, 2002

The media covered the abductions of Tamara Brooks and Erica Pratt extensively.

So if you're a black child who has been abducted, you just have to make a daring escape from your abductor to make the national news....
posted by hyperizer at 1:18 PM on August 26, 2002

Exactly. Stanchin, you may be sincere in your grief, but this is neither a support group nor a prayer meeting

matteo: Stan didn't ask anyone to pray (that was wdpeck). How about reading the thread first, eh?
posted by sad_otter at 1:28 PM on August 26, 2002

So if you're a black child who has been abducted, you just have to make a daring escape from your abductor to make the national news....
Amen.
posted by owillis at 1:41 PM on August 26, 2002

Well, I was about to jump into the thread with some ultra-inflammatory comments, paying the race card (ya beat me, owillis) and 9/11 (tying it to my dread about the pending forced outpouring of emotion come 9/11/02 and Ground Zero becoming a tourist trap while I'm just trying to go about my daily life here), but then thought better of it.

I will say this- Stan, I applaud your cajones. Next time, don't apologize- it just opens the door for more people to get out their beating sticks. If someone responds to your opinion with personal attacks, ignore them.

God, I feel like your mother now... ;)

posted by mkultra at 1:42 PM on August 26, 2002

Grieving for people you don't even know is pretty dumb

This may be neither here nor there but perhaps being a father or mother has a lot to do with how one reacts to news like this. I always imagine it could have been my daughters and, by extension, I feel somehow lucky it wasn't and so my heart does indeed go out to the unlucky parents who, in some perverted twist of logic, took the rap for all of us.

It's compassion but mainly worrying by proxy. I wonder whether those who felt more strongly were parents and those who found it easier to shrug it off weren't. If so, give yourself a start, read the emotional reactions and know that will probably be you when you deliver or take delivery of your first little bundle of joy. ;)

Before I was a father my reaction to these things (and anything involving the abuse of children - or parents!) was definitely more aloof.

On the matter at hand, I think both Stan Chin and Ryvar not only made valid points but behaved better than their more hysterical, holier-than-thou denouncers. I'm also sure they spoke for a lot of people who, out of respect perhaps, chose not to participate.

I was very impressed by those who stuck up for both these posters, even though they didn't at all agree with them. That is MetaFilter at its best, imo.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:46 PM on August 26, 2002

So if you're a black child who has been abducted, you just have to make a daring escape from your abductor to make the national news....

Both abductions were being covered extensively before the escapes. In the case of Tamara Brooks, the widespread coverage was a reason for the rescue.

Maybe some of you would think more of media coverage if you paid some attention to it.
posted by rcade at 1:51 PM on August 26, 2002

Both abductions were being covered extensively before the escapes. In the case of Tamara Brooks, the widespread coverage was a reason for the rescue.

Actually, contrary to what you and other posters in the original thread say, it's much more likely the Amber Law (which posted alerts on highways and such) that ultimately had an impact, not media coverage.

Maybe some of you would think more of media coverage if you paid some attention to it.

There's a cheap, snarky comment I could make, but I'll settle for "Don't bring your bickering from the original thread over here."
posted by mkultra at 2:01 PM on August 26, 2002

There's a cheap, snarky comment I could make, but I'll settle for "Don't bring your bickering from the original thread over here."

You should have gone with the cheap snarky comment. Owillis played the race card here. My response to it here is no more inappropriate than your own claim that the rescue of Tamara Brooks had nothing to do with media coverage.
posted by rcade at 2:10 PM on August 26, 2002

You asked for it...

Law enforcement officers Friday continued to credit the new statewide "Amber Alert" system with leading police to Ratliff...

California police say one of the keys to the rescue of two kidnapped girls near Los Angeles was the "Amber Alert System."

Oh, just search on Google for ("Tamara Brooks" "Amber Alert" credit). And please show some respect by not putting words into my mouth (that her rescue had nothing to do with media coverage). It's poor form.

posted by mkultra at 2:37 PM on August 26, 2002

Owillis played the race card here
It actually makes sense here. But hey, you can actually name the two black children abducted out of how many? But anyway - this is Metatalk, and not the right place. Just keep track of how many blonde-haired, blue-eyed moppets get their mug pasted all over MSNBCCNNFOXETC in the next few months versus those of the "darker nation".
posted by owillis at 3:27 PM on August 26, 2002

That the media ignores the abduction of minority children is probably a blessing for us in many ways, but we won't appreciate it until it's no longer true.
posted by anildash at 4:30 PM on August 26, 2002

The Amber Alert plan began in my hometown and I'm well-familiar with the plan and the tragedy that inspired it.

The plan was begun by the Dallas radio media, in cooperation with police, and has become popular throughout the country largely as a consequence of the media's treatment of child abductions, which drives considerable public demand for alert services. The California alerts didn't go out in California for highway signs to use until the media broadcast it at 7 a.m., and they were saved a few hours later.

I think the media deserves some of the credit, along with law enforcement personnel, lawmakers who passed Amber Alert laws, and any entity that broadcasts the alerts.

posted by rcade at 4:33 PM on August 26, 2002

When did I assume that, Mister Spock?

Well, in the passage I quoted, for one, which was, um, why I quoted it.
posted by rushmc at 5:22 PM on August 26, 2002

This may be neither here nor there but perhaps being a father or mother has a lot to do with how one reacts to news like this.

I think that's too easy, Miguel. Certainly, a parent may take a general situation involving children, or a remote case, and think of it in terms relating to their own child(ren). That's understandable and can even be advantageous. But that doesn't justify hysteria, for all the same reasons listed above and in the original thread. It remains the case that hearing about an abduction in Oregon doesn't alter the chances that your child will be grabbed in Delaware--except perhaps to decrease it slightly by raising everyone's awareness. Therefore I think any argument that suggests that it is reasonable or appropriate for parents to react differently from non-parents is fallacious. People with children are no doubt a bit more in tune with all children in general, by and large, but not with each of the millions of children on the planet in any significant way. Their own, of course, are a different story.

We all have family and friends who could be injured, maimed, or killed in a car wreck, whether we have children or not, but that doesn't mean that we should (or do or could) grieve deeply and intensely over everyone killed in a crash (that's a LOT of people), nor that we should suddenly panic, thinking that our (or our loved ones') chances of dying in a car have suddenly shot up from what they were previously just because of a particular crash that the media choses to sensationalize.
posted by rushmc at 5:34 PM on August 26, 2002

I think the media deserves some of the credit, along with law enforcement personnel, lawmakers who passed Amber Alert laws, and any entity that broadcasts the alerts.


Fair 'nuff!
posted by mkultra at 5:37 PM on August 26, 2002

Personally, I think you did nothing wrong. I was surprised at the response.

Personally, I think you did nothing wrong either (except apologise for your opinion - if you are right, there is no need to apologise) and you did it with style and respect for the feelings of others. You also refused to rise to the bait of those who cannot will not understand that you have a right to your own way of thinking and that this does not make you wrong.

I am not, however, surprised at the response.
posted by dg at 6:39 PM on August 26, 2002

I'm glad you're here, Stan. Illegitimis non carborundum.
posted by bingo at 7:03 PM on August 26, 2002

We all have family and friends who could be injured, maimed, or killed in a car wreck, whether we have children or not...

Pardon my showing a little "emotion" or "hysteria" here rushmc but I disagree. At the risk of sounding like an over-reactive parent, I am with Miguel on this one. Since I've had my daughter, my skin is a little thinner and sensitive to cases like this regardless of distance. So yes, I do grieve a little more than I used to. I think it's presumptuous to assume that people have no capacity to feel a little something when they here of cases like this.

I do appreciate your acknowledging that parental attachment does influence how one looks at events like this. Two years ago I would have never admitted as much.


posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:34 PM on August 26, 2002

Upon further review "...when they hear of cases like this..."

Sheesh.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:36 PM on August 26, 2002

Therefore I think any argument that suggests that it is reasonable or appropriate for parents to react differently from non-parents is fallacious. --rushmc

Having a child increases one's personal involvement with another human being. As these little people grow and develop, so too does one's attachment to them, and by extension, the children of other people. Most parents have an affection for and interact with many children that aren't their own, not because of proximity, but because of a desire to--children, quite simply, are amazing, and to watch them can be exhilirating.

I shouldn't speak for parents and non-parents world-wide, but I think I can safely say that most parents will feel more emotion than a non-parent when confronted with child murder/abduction. I realize that this is a general statement and by no means a truth for everybody. Many childless people have plenty of emotion for calamities that occur to children. By no means does this imply that a parent will go into paroxysms of grief when hearing of child calamity that has no relation to them, but it shouldn't surprise anybody that a parent may have strong feelings regarding the subject.

But you are talking about hysteria, aren't you? If somebody is hysterical, they probably have a very good reason for it, whether it's logical or not. Does hysteria have a place on MetaFilter? No, I don't think so. But anger and passion do, and they should never be mistaken for hysteria. As long as the poster retains a sense appropriateness within their passions, whatever those passions may be, there shouldn't be a problem.

Where did you get the idea that MetaFilter frowns on discussion that is emotional, anyway? Everytime time this subject pops up, you are there pounding away at the logical and unemotional end of things, which is fine, but I don't understand why a logical, point by point discussion can't coexist with an emotional viewpoint, especially in this kind of forum where a majority of people prefer to be unemotional. Granted, emotional viewpoints can be messy, but they can also get to the core of an argument in a more meaningful manner than otherwise.

I'm sure you have all kinds of ready answers to this.
posted by ashbury at 8:38 PM on August 26, 2002

owillis: Waiting for the day this debate will be made about dead black children.
*not holding my breath*

Not until the pervs figure out that there's a trivial way to slip below media and the law's radar. And there could be an awful lot of dead kids before the appropriate people realize there's a loophole that needs closing.
posted by swell at 9:56 PM on August 26, 2002

Since I've had my daughter, my skin is a little thinner and sensitive to cases like this regardless of distance.

See, I'm not questioning that parents get more sensitive to cases like this, as a general rule. I'm simply denying that that validates an excessive reaction. Look at it this way: there is an approximate appropriate level of reaction to any given situation. In this case, either the parents (and others) are overreacting, or some of the non-parents (and likely some parents as well) are underreacting. Given the arguments presented here and in the other thread, it is very clear to me which is the case. Therefore the whole parental thing is pretty irrelevant.

(And certainly everyone is free to react as they wish...I'm talking about what is reasonable and rational, not trying to dictate others' behavior.)
posted by rushmc at 10:01 PM on August 26, 2002

If somebody is hysterical, they probably have a very good reason for it, whether it's logical or not.

Would you care to provide me with an example of a "very good reason" for anything that is illogical?

Granted, emotional viewpoints can be messy, but they can also get to the core of an argument in a more meaningful manner than otherwise.

Can they? I've yet to see it happen here. I've seen many of the messes, though.

Once again, some are trying to shove me into the box labelled "emotionless," "Mr. Spock," et al. Fortunately, I just laugh when people do that. I'm a big fan of emotions, as it happens. I simply think that in certain situations they are unhelpful, often counterproductive, and that too many people use them as a lazy, easy way to avoid the necessity for thought, reason, and analysis, which are far better and more reliable tools in many situations.
posted by rushmc at 10:07 PM on August 26, 2002

some are trying to shove me into the box labelled "emotionless," "Mr. Spock," et al.

Not to worry, rushmc. You're Joe Pesci-level excessively emotional and hysterical about reason and logic, for instance, and this irrefutably and agreeably places you well within the hottest parameters of the human race. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:19 PM on August 26, 2002

The people in that thread who were the most hysterical were the ones on the side of not caring about strangers, not those who were on the side of empathy. They reacted far more defensively, probably because they were freaked out to be called as they are: rather mean spirited.

And stan is a big baby to come crying to metatalk regarding the rather tame response to his thread. If it took "cajones" to live through that thread then he ain't long for this zoo, unless he gets his berries teflon-ed first. "did i do something wrong?" Gawd, talk about looking for hugs and cuddles. And from strangers no less. *rolls eyes*
posted by zarah at 12:23 AM on August 27, 2002

I'd like to shoot down this whole concept that anyone and everyone who responded with an emotional and/or opinion contrary to Stan's is somehow illogical, hysterical, thoughtless, "lazy," or otherwise. It seems to be replicating swiftly, and annoyingly.

Stan stated an opinion that he was highly aware would draw negative responses; when you hit the send button on a post that rather succintly says that one doesn't care for little children who've been raped and/or murdered, expect that there will be people who take offense. Expect emotional responses.

Tossing in the crack about Jon Benet, oh classic touch. It's the "I know it's a horrible thing to say," that's really the kicker, though. While not an apology, it is indicative of being aware of the high potential for negative response. ...Which makes this MeTa thread little more than a ploy for sympathy and/or back-patting in my estimation, if not some sort of taking to task of the people who didn't jump on the "no sympathy" bandwagon.

I do appreciate the not-quite-contrite yet ever so "genuinely baffled" tone of the inquiry, so for future reference--there will always be people who take offense at that sort of comment. Roll with the punches and throw your own, or don't make them. Whatever you do, just don't whine later about it.
posted by precocious at 12:29 AM on August 27, 2002

...or uhm, what zarah said. *ding*
posted by precocious at 12:29 AM on August 27, 2002

I think Zarah needs a hug. But not from me I don't really care. :P
posted by Stan Chin at 4:11 AM on August 27, 2002

I think what we have here is the classic dichotomy between 'Thinkers' and 'Feelers' in the Meyers-Briggs or Keirsey personality type framework. Snippets from this page:

"Everybody has thoughts (T) and feelings (F) but some pay more attention to their thoughts than to their feelings while others pay more attention to their feelings than to their thoughts. [...] There is some criticism exchanged between these types. The Tough-minded are often accused of being "inhuman," "heartless," "stony-hearted," "remote," of having 'ice in their veins," and of living "without the milk of human kindness." In the same way, the Friendly are chided for being "too soft-hearted," "too emotional," "bleeding-hearts," "muddleheaded," "fuzzy-thinkers," and for "wearing their heart on their sleeve." [...] Another polarizing (and inaccurate) stereotype is that the Friendly types have more and deeper emotions than the Tough-minded types -- one side is seen as sensitive and warm-hearted, and the other seen as insensitive and cold-hearted."

Being strongly 'T,' I tend to agree with rush. Ultimately, I'd rather think rationally about ways to solve the broader problem than become emotionally invested in a particular instance of the problem. As others have noted, if I grieved for every terrible thing I read in the paper every day, I'd be a nonfunctional basketcase.
posted by Medley at 4:12 AM on August 27, 2002

Medley!

Having watched 19462 (and ensuing Metatalk) from the sidelines since the very beginning, and having more than once subdued an errant urge to post, I am now delighted. Your Meyers-Briggs snippet sums up my thoughts exactly, and explains very simply how this became such an unexpectedly polarizing thread. Nail, head, etc.
posted by taz at 5:17 AM on August 27, 2002

If it took "cajones" to live through that thread then he ain't long for this zoo, unless he gets his berries teflon-ed first.

Quentin Tarantino is on MeFi and his username is Zarah

(I'm a big fan, by the way)

posted by matteo at 5:41 AM on August 27, 2002

There you go again rushmc; ruining my perfectly emotional response with that pesky logic. Damn it!
*wink*
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:26 AM on August 27, 2002

Medley, thanks for pointing that out. As I watched the thread in the grey turn into a 60+ comment extension of the one in the blue, I knew there was a psychological reason but I just couldn't put my finger on it. I figured what was happening, that the Feelers were offended because they thought the Thinkers were accusing them of being naive, and vice versa. It was the succinct answer I was looking for, despite claims that I was "whining" and "looking for hugs and cuddles."

And yay, I'm a initiated Mefite now. Oh, and I think my berries are fantastic. I think everyone should cuddle them.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:28 AM on August 27, 2002

rushmc, I apologize. I'm not trying to peg you as Mr. Spock or any other Star Trek character. Your points are very valid, I just feel that it's impossible to make every user respond in a logical and thoughtful way.

stan chin, you weren't whining. Whoever said that (too lazy to track it down) was being crass.

zarah, mean-spiritedness goes both ways.
posted by ashbury at 6:42 AM on August 27, 2002

Hey Stan, nobody cuddled my berries as a newbie so stand in line because I am owed some serious berry cuddlin'. And on my Mefi Birthday no less.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:59 AM on August 27, 2002

"Since I've had my daughter, my skin is a little thinner and sensitive to cases like this regardless of distance. So yes, I do grieve a little more than I used to. I think it's presumptuous to assume that people have no capacity to feel a little something when they here of cases like this."

See, I have kids. And I can understand added sensitivity, but 'grieving' is a very specific kind of reaction, (deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement b : a cause of such suffering - m-w.com).

Grieving is not 'a little something', and I think the outpouring by people unrelated to the event has been on the level of grief. And that is what I (and I think what Stan and the others) find to be somewhat unsettling.

and rcade: your response to my "Personal attacks and ignoring things other people say is bad. I weap for those who do it."
being: "But not murdered American biomass, of course." is pure troll, and indicative of how you've fueled the fire and shows how you've been intentionally trying to provoke a fight.

posted by rich at 7:05 AM on August 27, 2002

Being strongly 'T,' I tend to agree with rush.

<----- INTJ
posted by rushmc at 7:43 AM on August 27, 2002

and this irrefutably and agreeably places you well within the hottest parameters of the human race.

I KNOW you didn't just call me human...put up yer dukes, ya Portuguese punk!! Dems fightin' words!
posted by rushmc at 7:44 AM on August 27, 2002

I think Zarah needs a hug.

Do you? I think Zarah needs a high-five. Go girl.

*sneers in rushmc's general direction, while she's here*
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:46 AM on August 27, 2002

rushmc, I apologize. I'm not trying to peg you as Mr. Spock or any other Star Trek character.

It's okay, just get it right. I'm far more Jean Luc than Spock. ;)

I just feel that it's impossible to make every user respond in a logical and thoughtful way.

It may be, but I shall never giving up trying to persuade (not make) them to do so.
posted by rushmc at 7:47 AM on August 27, 2002

*sneers in rushmc's general direction, while she's here*

*waves in a friendly manner*
posted by rushmc at 7:48 AM on August 27, 2002

Do you? I think Zarah needs a high-five. Go girl.

Yes I need a hug dammit! Can't you see all of this has been a blatant cry for attention? Look at me! Love me!

Kevin, I'm not going anywhere near your berries.

posted by Stan Chin at 11:10 AM on August 27, 2002

A guy stops into a thread about brutalized children, and says, "I know it's horrible, but I'm oversensitized to these kids, I have no sympathy. --Oh yeah, what's up with that Jon Benet case? *snicker*" So, we've got a guy who not only doesn't empathize with children, but makes an obvious sneering reference to a well-known dead child.

Oh, yeah. That's going to go over really well.

Then he starts a thread in MeTa under the guise of earnestly not really knowing what he did wrong, and wanting to know for future reference. All but begging for people to come over from the blue to the grey and argue about who's right and who's wrong. That's two threads now.

How many people here actually believe that he didn't know he'd get that kind of response? Great! You've won an all-expense paid trip to Gullibleland, all I need from you now is a credit card number. You know, for adult verification purposes.

Hands raised or not, it's time for a vigorous round of back-patting. In an alternate universe, his comment would have been called for what it was and MeTa'd much earlier. As it hasn't, I'll say what embarrasingly enough has just become clear: This has been a troll.

(see above)
posted by precocious at 11:15 AM on August 27, 2002

I interpreted the Jon Benet reference as pointing out a particularly egregious case of the media's near pornographic salaciousness over a beautiful dead child and the ongoing miscarriage of justice to which it seemed to contribute.

I could have been wrong, though.
posted by timeistight at 11:28 AM on August 27, 2002

precocious, give the guy a break. He seems to be genuinely bewildered by the response he's garnered. If you want to look at him as a troll, go right ahead, but because you say so doesn't make it so.

what timeistight said, too.
posted by ashbury at 11:57 AM on August 27, 2002

It is this type of complexity of emotion and comprehension that separates homo sapiens from the lesser species, isn't it?

Trendily cynical little islands. We so don't need them, here on the mainland.

On a lighter note: find yourself unable to empathize with others? Lying come naturally? Narcissistic? You might be a psycho/sociopath. There's even a lovely test.

Precocious, first of all: The above comment was on a lighter note, my inhumane apathy has extended towards this monster discussion, and I personally did not feel like firing back at Zarah and aggravating this entire thing with a reasoned and thought-out comment.

I'm not going to try to change your mind on whether or not I am a troll, or even point out why I think I'm not a troll. Both would be useless. I've already said I've acknowledged that I may be a troll, abeit in my opinion accidently.

I began this Metatalk thread with sincerity. I honestly thought the thread needed one, and I believe I have been vindicated by the popularity of this thread. The percentage of posts in the other thread that were incendiary and personal discussions I believe necessitated this Metatalk. I had no intention of others bringing what should have been in the blue back to here. I did in no way "beg for it."

I don't know what you have against me, or why you are so steadfast in believing I'm a sociopathic monster. I have made errors about my cynicism and I have earnestly apologized for them. As far as I know, I have not fired back and anyone with the insulting level of discourse those have gave me (I may be wrong, you may see my comments as such).

I can only assume that you believe I was being incendiary because of my opinion and "wrong time, wrong place." In hindsight, I should have started my own thread and allowed the other for a place of grieving and/or discussion of the events of the murders. I acknowledge that now.

Meanwhile, there are those telling me I should not apologize, and come straight of the gate with asshole comments, but here I am apologizing now. I apologize for my candor, but I do not apologize for my stance on the issue.

If you did not attack my integrity I would have never bothered even thinking about these threads again. I am beyond sick of it.

I am not a sociopath. I am not a monster. I do not celebrate child murder.

I'm not going to ask you to get over the issue.

Get over me.




posted by Stan Chin at 12:00 PM on August 27, 2002

rcade: your response to my "Personal attacks and ignoring things other people say is bad. I weap for those who do it."
being: "But not murdered American biomass, of course." is pure troll, and indicative of how you've fueled the fire and shows how you've been intentionally trying to provoke a fight.

That's rich, rich.

After posting that I'm "attacking people on a personal level" because I don't "understand the difference between 'not needing to grieve' and 'child murder is good,'" you're fueling things as much as anyone else.

If I was spoiling for a fight, I wouldn't have ignored Stan's "fuck you" or the multiple comments about my testicular deficiencies (each a perfect opportunity for me to play the injured party).

I discussed a provocative subject in a provocative manner, and for that reason ignored the personal vitroil I got in response. I figured that was only fair; Stan should have done the same after cracking wise about Jon Benet.

Then again, if he did that, he would've missed out on all the effusive fan mail. So it's all good. I don't think he was trolling any more than I was.
posted by rcade at 12:06 PM on August 27, 2002

the personal vitroil

Why, it's better than Brylcreem!

Vitroil, a little dab’ll do ya!
Vitroil, you look so debonair!
The trolls will all pursue ya,
They’ll love to get their fingers in your hair!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:15 PM on August 27, 2002

There's those curly aposrophes again.
posted by timeistight at 12:33 PM on August 27, 2002

I don't know what you have against me, or why you are so steadfast in believing I'm a sociopathic monster.

I think the remark by precocious about sociopaths was in jest, Stan.

In hindsight, I should have started my own thread and allowed the other for a place of grieving and/or discussion of the events of the murders. I acknowledge that now.

Not to make this place even more irritating than it is, but you shouldn't post a new link to be a spinoff from an existing discussion.

Take it easy. When I said that you clearly were meant to be one of us, I wasn't kidding.
posted by rcade at 12:38 PM on August 27, 2002

rcade,

I don't see the personal attack in my pointing out that you were spinning Stan's comments about not needing to grieve into him saying that child murder is good.

As for Stan's Fuck You, as I remember, and after re-reading it, that came after comments by you lambasting him for his posting history and completely ignoring anything he had said pertenant to the thread. Instead of arguing against his points, you just went to his profile and pulled off some juicy nuggets from completely unrelated posts to throw some comment about how stupid he is at him.

Then I made a general comment that personal attacks are bad, and that not addressing the points your counterpoint makes makes for a bad discussion (not singling out any side), you just turn that into me stating that I don't give a crap if someone dies.

Just try to stop spinning things and address points directly instead of inferring and making crap up. The quality of the discussion just degenerates on both sides when that door is opened and ruins it for everyone.
posted by rich at 1:12 PM on August 27, 2002

Why yes, the psychopath link was my way of acknowledging how ridiculous things were becoming. Consider it my set up for the conversation to eventually move to Hitler.

He seems to be genuinely bewildered by the response he's garnered.

I began this Metatalk thread with sincerity.

When the initial comment was made, it was attached to an, "I know it's horrible, but..." Had he left that bit off, I could believe that he's as clueless as the topic of this thread makes him out to be. I attributed to him the motive that would ultimately leave him clever enough to realize what sort of response his words would garner, be it on MeFi or otherwise.

Now, being a "Feeler," I can't help but feel guilty and muchly mistaken. Stan must really, honestly, genuinely, sincerely have no idea of the dynamics of an online community. So let's shift the focus to helpful hints and tips for an internet forum newbie. Some suggestions:

* A little bit of lurking can contribute much to recognizing community "hotspots." A week of it, and you too will know what/what not to say to spark a fire beneath the volatile mass that Metafilter is.

* Before you hit post, think about how well the comment would go over if you were in a room with 15,000 people whose opinions quite likely vary vastly from your own, and who are undoubtedly not all of the "Thinker" persuasion (or whichever you identify with). If you think for a second that you'll receive something other than pleasant nods and me toos, proceed at your own risk.

Google (www.google.com) is a great resource for finding FAQs on interaction within online communities, and I even think someone's creating a MeFi FAQ.
posted by precocious at 2:57 PM on August 27, 2002

As far as I can see, Stan has done nothing wrong apart from starting this MeTa thread. He shouldn't have to apologise for having a different opinion. Nobody owned that original thread. It wasn't for any one set of people or one purpose. Metafilter is not an online support group for the grieving. Perhaps you ought to research the "dynamnics of an online community" yourself, precocious.

A little bit of lurking can contribute much to recognizing community "hotspots." A week of it, and you too will know what/what not to say to spark a fire beneath the volatile mass that Metafilter is.

Nonsense. Stan shouldn't have to worry who he's upsetting, as long as what he says is his genuine opinion and not intended to wind anyone up. A troll is not someone who upsets you, precocious, a troll is someone who enjoys upsetting you.
posted by Summer at 3:14 PM on August 27, 2002

It's true. There is, towards newbies specially, a "learn to know what you can and cannot say without offending anyone" which more or less amounts to:

Either agree with the house mentality (which is whatever each user thinks it is) or forever keep your silence.

Whatever you do (hence the deep, passionate lurve for lurkers), keeping mum is always the best strategy. Speaking out is tantamount to, well, wanting to be one of us. And this we cannot have!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:22 PM on August 27, 2002

zarah: The people in that thread who were the most hysterical were the ones on the side of not caring about strangers, not those who were on the side of empathy.

This is demonstrably not true. Shall we agree on a definition of "hysterical" and make a tally?
posted by bingo at 5:49 PM on August 27, 2002

If you think for a second that you'll receive something other than pleasant nods and me toos, proceed at your own risk.

Huh? Who the heck comes here for nods and me toos? Growth is a struggle. Participation is a risk. The penalties are minor and won't smart for long.
posted by rushmc at 6:56 PM on August 27, 2002

This is demonstrably not true.

So demonstrate it. The Feelers start the bidding with the JonBenet crack, "boring biomass," "fuck you," and the two comments about my testicular issues.
posted by rcade at 7:15 PM on August 27, 2002

rcade: I was responding to a suggestion that the unsympathetic faction were "the most hysterical." I could defend at least two of those items, but at any rate I don't think you could argue that they are signs of hysteria. Exactly what quality are *you* seeking to quantify?
posted by bingo at 2:19 AM on August 28, 2002

I just keep hearing how us unthinking feelers were more hysterical than you unfeeling thinkers, but I feel like my side has done a much better job of documenting our injuries. (Maybe it's because we feel them so much more deeply.) Go team!
posted by rcade at 5:29 AM on August 28, 2002

I'm a thinking feeler, you crazy bastards.

The biomass comment was disingenous.

The Jon Benet comment was easy to read as 'geeze, the media hypes the crap out of this shit. Every step anyone made in the JonBenet case, even after 20 years have gone by is 'breaking news'.' I guess it could also be read as 'why do I care about JonBenet,' but, well.. um.. why do I care about JonBenet, other than as a tragedy?

Everything else degenerated because no one was going to see the other side, and any comment was taken to the extreme of what it could be interpreted as (as sometimes further than that), as opposed to being taken at face value.

But, hey - it's not like *that* happens very much around here.

And then we get into the whole newbie vs vet argument, again, and I have no idea where that came from.

rcade and stan, for the most part, I think have been pretty even-keeled, and probably agree on a number of points, but they became to focal points for the polarization of everyone else, including myself. So, uh, go Chelsea and tally ho and all that.
posted by rich at 8:35 AM on August 28, 2002

I further submit that Stan apparently misinterpreted my "Do you?" to mean not "Do you think zarah needs a hug?", as intended, but instead "Do you need a hug?", and replied with appropriate (?) sarcasm and vim: "Yes I need a hug dammit! Can't you see all of this has been a blatant cry for attention? Look at me! Love me!"

Leaving me speechless at the speed with which the thinkers/feelers tables can be turned: this 'feeler' thinks that Stan, modern-day folk hero to 'thinkers' everywhere (or at least those whose fonest hope is to be perceived as such on MeFi) was not thinking very much when reading my comment---or was perhaps merely too quick to perceive some sort of slight, and had his feelings hurt as a result.

So uh. I wasn't questioning anyone's need for a hug, really, but truth will out, and as a feeler, I've nothing but empathy:

{{{{{{{{{{ Stan Chin }}}}}}}}}}

Glad to help. Anytime. Hey, really, no problem.
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:31 AM on August 28, 2002

Huh? Who the heck comes here for nods and me toos? Growth is a struggle. Participation is a risk. The penalties are minor and won't smart for long.

I was being facetious. I figured the ones who'd believe the really, really earnest question asked in the topic ("Boy howdy, I didn't expect all that negative response to what I said, where ever did I go wrong?") would believe also that I was feeling unbearably guilty. Somehow it's just not as amusing when I have to explain it. Way to go, though, on the succint summation of my overall gist of proceed at your own risk.

I so need the rushmc lexicon of talking to MeFits.
posted by precocious at 11:32 AM on August 28, 2002

...not that I'd know what a MeFit was if it bit me on the ass.
posted by precocious at 11:35 AM on August 28, 2002

My brain hurts.
posted by crunchland at 12:17 PM on August 28, 2002

...not that I'd know what a MeFit was if it bit me on the ass.

It's an evil elemental messenger from the lower planes that has at least three hit dice. Roll a 20-sided die.
posted by rcade at 1:52 PM on August 28, 2002

i ate my wookie.
posted by quonsar at 8:14 PM on August 28, 2002