A warning would be good when you link you crazy racist propaganda.

October 28, 2002 7:41 PM

I am more than fed up of this sort of nonsense being posted to MeFi. Can we give some sort of community time-out or other shot over the bows here? [See also here.]

Kablam: were you not content with comments like this last time?
"...I'd think a site should at least have to have a shred of legitimacy to rate a front-page link here...
I find it doubtful that there is anything on this website that is not a lie...You know, being linked to by MeFi is going to make this nazi's guy's day...It's not out of line to expect some sort of warning, if the post has a link of questionable nature...Crap link=Crap Post...we don't want to give these assholes hits..."Various posters
posted by dash_slot- to etiquette/policy at 7:41 PM (18 comments total)

Crikey - it's gone already!
Well, thats a fair verdict.
And kablam: before you start hollering 'censorship': "get your own blog, farkwit!"
posted by dash_slot- at 7:45 PM on October 28, 2002

Here here.

And kudos for the fast delete.
posted by ptermit at 7:48 PM on October 28, 2002

After mistakenly visiting the site last time, I'm glad the post was yanked. It may not mean much to some people, but I refuse to give sites run by biggoted ignorant asses ANY acknowledgement. (That, and I don't want that crap in my browser history.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:58 PM on October 28, 2002

Look, in no way to I agree with the fuckwad and his website, but it doesn't kill me to look at it. I like seeing differing views and opinions on things, because if I find fault in them, it makes my views and opinions stronger.

It's not my blog or my place to bitch, but I find the conspiracy theorists to be a hoot. The guy's still a fuckwad, but at least I can laugh at him.
posted by jstef at 9:51 PM on October 28, 2002

Perhaps this amusing little Flash item could automatically be activated with every crap post...(Note the Ashcroft resemblance!)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:33 AM on October 29, 2002

This thread reminded me of something I wrote a while ago about whether it was a good idea to link to hate groups as evidence while making a point. I agree with dash_slot about the deleted thread, but the bigger issue of dealing with hate sites deserves more than passing mention in MeTa. MetaFilter thread about linking to hate groups.
posted by joemaller at 6:24 AM on October 29, 2002

"Ah! my eyes! my eyes! I must put blinders on!" (sarcasm, drip)

While I may agree that some sort of warning should be given for sites like this, I think it's interesting to know and understand that these places exist - and that the Internet has been a huge benefit for hate groups.

Are there any anti-hate groups on-line organizing? Where we see nothing but bad theory and false statements, why do people still believe stupid people forwarding hate?

In a greater context, I don't think there would be anything wrong in linking to one of these sites. If the main beef is with just putting a link saying "hey, look at this stupid guy," well, then I'd have to concur with the deletion.
posted by rich at 6:27 AM on October 29, 2002

Joemaller & jstef, my objection to the site has nothing to do preserve my precious eyes from a racist website or "hide the ugliness." Racist sites can be interesting or amusing or thought-provoking. (And quite a few of them wind up on CSOTD, which I visit regularly -- thanks, rcade.) But these posts were none of the above.

Kablam posted this conspiracy theory twice, both times with a "I disavow the source, but could this be true?" preface. The first time, the theory was shown to be implausible, and if Kablam's purpose was to make us aware of this conspiracy theory and/or this kook, he succeeded. But then when he posted again, challenging us to find yet more inconsistencies, I think it became backhanded advocacy. I can always go to pravda.ru's forums for that -- I come to MeFi for a higher level of discourse.
posted by ptermit at 6:48 AM on October 29, 2002

In all honesty, the linked-to site was risibly amateurish, and it's paranoid tone, bad science and over-inflated egotism simply hilarious. I couldnt spend any time requesting bans on it for those reasons, nor on PC , anti-racist grounds (many of which I hold to and promote).

My objections were community based: kablam posted a link to a site two weeks ago, and was clearly expecting some flak, to the extent that he had to issue a disclaimer abouty the credentials of the site in the post!. He got fairly well-drubbed for his niaivete, which seemed to thrive under pressure, as this reference to fictional superspy James Bond indicates.

Now, having had that amount of public shaming, if I was wearing kablam's moccasins, would I dare repeat the offence? You just gotta be kidding. But kablam has no shame.

I think that this wasted space, time and effort. It's annoying in a community as thoughtful as MeFi usually is to have to call out the same person about the same thing twice.

joemaller: I would respond in the MeFi post you've started but its similar to this, so one post suffices. I am not comfortable with the sort of ideas & language on the linked site - but like that Voltaire guy said: "I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That says a lot about my appreciation of human rights, which are in themselves attacked by guys like this (who wish to see fellow mwmbers of my race, and sexuality, exterminated with glee).

In sum: gimme a warning about that sort of nonsense; listen to the operational standards* of this online community; and for chrissakes, put it in its context - if the guys as whacked out as that [and doesnt provide sources!], is your association with him gonna bring you any credit? At all?

*By which I mean 'how do we do what we do', not 'what is the morality of what we do'.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:05 AM on October 29, 2002

Yes, please, provide a warning for any links to sites discussing politics or religion or children as well as any sites containing jpegs. We wouldn't want to offend anybody, don't you know.

posted by mischief at 7:40 AM on October 29, 2002

Are you creating mischief, mischief? (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 9:16 AM on October 29, 2002

Why is it not a problem to put "not safe for work" indicating porn or nudity--when this shit is much much worse?

How about a voluntary "hate site" if it's not clear from the wording of the post?

Nothing should ever ever be banned from here, but labelling it (if the poster didn't make it clear) should not be a problem, especially since many of us surf through while at work.....
posted by amberglow at 9:37 AM on October 29, 2002

but what if its a dual-purpose site. like, its a hate site AND a corndog site? and what if lester hates corndogs, does that make corndog sites hate sites as well? my cousin hates the scent of mens underarm deoderant gel, so we'll need a MUDGS indicator as well as a NSFW indicator. i propose we appoint a committee to explore the appropriate designators for every possible type of site because at one time or another, we are going to need them. damn, this internet thing is problematic, huh?
posted by quonsar at 9:51 AM on October 29, 2002

That's ridiculous. Nobody hates corndogs.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:04 AM on October 29, 2002

what Stan said...I think it's usually pretty obvious what a hate site is....
posted by amberglow at 10:32 AM on October 29, 2002

FWIW, I deleted the thread linked in the original post here because it was just some silly update to an already crappy site that people cut up to death. Because the kook running it said something new didn't mean it was worth another post about it.
posted by mathowie at 11:02 AM on October 29, 2002

I think it's usually pretty obvious what a hate site is....
<bart>
i didn't think it was physically possible, but that remark is both fatuous AND humorless!
</bart>
posted by quonsar at 11:30 AM on October 29, 2002

I thought it was pretty craptacular myself....but it doesn't matter because i'm part of the vast zionist conspiracy ruling the world and responsible for Bali and the WTC (unless I'm supposed to be ruling it already?) ; >
posted by amberglow at 11:50 AM on October 29, 2002