"Harshing on Metafilter"

December 20, 2002 3:02 PM

The Gawker-Metafilter Saga continues. After this it now continues here - "Harshing on Metafilter". Where will it end ?
posted by Voyageman to MetaFilter-Related at 3:02 PM (62 comments total)

ughm - could the people who post on and enjoy MetaFilter please be a little less uptight and reactionary about the people who comment about MetaFilter?

You're happy with it (or you're not). That's fine. No need for histrionics. It just makes us look dumb.
posted by willnot at 3:04 PM on December 20, 2002

Where will it end? When you stop bringing it up.
posted by Stan Chin at 3:07 PM on December 20, 2002

I think the big question is "who really cares?". Not me. It's just a web site.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:13 PM on December 20, 2002

Here's my take in case you missed it.

I thought Nick's comments were hilarious thus far, but then again, I have no problem laughing at myself.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2002

Also keep in mind that metafilter does not equal me and vice versa. I can laugh at a metafilter joke, because I know that while I'm part of it myself, I understand how metafilter sometimes appears, and it's perfectly fine to poke fun at it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:26 PM on December 20, 2002

Oh, It's so on Matt!

So, how many mathowie's does it take to screw in a light bulb?

31

• One to suggest it
• Nine more to discuss the various merits of using halogen bulbs versus compact florescent versus incandescents
• One more to suggest forgoing to the light bulb to build a small self-contained nuclear furnace that could generate power and throw off a little light
• Five more to complain about how the light is only illuminating the left half of the room, and show that it clearly indicates bias
• Fourteen to jump all over him for using the exact same light bulb that was already screwed into the lamp at the bed stand
• And one goon to make a lame-ass, snarky, inside joke about it

posted by willnot at 3:41 PM on December 20, 2002

[warning: tasteless joke]

What's blue and won't stop whining?

A baby in a fishtank!


That's right, a Metafilter Dead Baby joke. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitstaff.
posted by Stan Chin at 3:59 PM on December 20, 2002

"Where will it end?"

When did it start?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:08 PM on December 20, 2002

What's the difference between Metatalk and a Dead Baby?


You know when to stop beating the baby.
posted by riffola at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2002

Appologises to all but I can't not post this one.

What's the difference between metatalk and gawker?
3 people can equal the garbage produced by 17000.
posted by riffola at 4:25 PM on December 20, 2002

What's the difference between metatalk and gawker?
Nothing. They both suck.
posted by crunchland at 4:26 PM on December 20, 2002

Meh. One unfortunate thing about weblogs is that they often seem to make it OK to write about something in public just because it was funny or whatever in private. I thought it was unkind to make a joke about MeFi on Gawker (though I thought the joke itself, on IM, was funny); and I think Denton's comments on his own site are funny, too, and even good-natured overall, but I don't know that I agree with the decision to publish them when he must know they're likely to be misread.

metafilter does not equal me and vice versa. I can laugh at a metafilter joke, because I know that while I'm part of it myself, I understand how metafilter sometimes appears, and it's perfectly fine to poke fun at it.

But just because a person's going to take a joke well doesn't necessarily mean it's OK for another person to publicly make one at his expense.

I dunno. Private etiquette's different from public etiquette, isn't it? You can't control how a public remark will be interpreted; I don't think you can escape the fact that jokes at its users' expense will make MetaFilter itself look bad to at least some of the jokes' audience. So I guess I don't think those jokes are worth making in public, and I think we all -- especially those of us with more widely read sites -- have a responsibility as publishers to be aware of these things.

Which isn't to say I know what "Saga" Voyageman is talking about -- I haven't a clue. But, personally, I do wish people (me included) were quicker with their heads and their hearts than with their tongues.
posted by mattpfeff at 4:27 PM on December 20, 2002

What, are you guys this desperate for drama? Don't you have any alcoholics in your family to burn down the Christmas tree with their unattended cigarettes? Sheesh, talk about mountains from molehills.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 4:28 PM on December 20, 2002

Why did mathowie cross the street?

To get the hell away from Metafilter!

;-)
posted by rusty at 4:30 PM on December 20, 2002

p.s: my jokes are based on crunchland and stanchin's. They deserve all the credit. I deserve the blame ;)
posted by riffola at 4:31 PM on December 20, 2002

one more for the road:

What's the difference bet Gawker and Metafilter?

People actually read Metafilter!
posted by amberglow at 4:31 PM on December 20, 2002

But just because a person's going to take a joke well doesn't necessarily mean it's OK for another person to publicly make one at his expense.

I don't know about this. I'm seeing mountains out of molehills, as if we're slashdot and getting offended at people mocking linux, or we were kuro5hin and worried about outsiders thinking we're a cult of zealots.

A joke about MetaFilter is funny, especially when there's an element of truth to it. Gawker is site that's already a tongue-firmly-in-cheeky-cheek place, and a AIM conversation making a crack at a bunch of uptight people on the internet is par for the course for that type of site.

Look, I'm totally not offended at all by anything people have said and I think folks here should let it go. Seriously, it's just a website, and I'm the person that spent more than 10% of my life building and maintaining it.

I'll work on some gawker jokes though.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:53 PM on December 20, 2002

A traveler wandering on an island inhabited entirely by web-savvy cannibals comes upon a butcher shop. This shop specialized in human brains.

The sign in the shop read:

Brain Type/Price per Pound

Metafilter readers' brains/$9.00

Plastic readers' brains/$12.00

Fark readers' brains/$15.00

Gawker readers' brains/$29.00

Upon reading the sign, the traveler noted, "My, those Gawker readers' brains must be quite tasty!"

The butcher replied, "That's not it. Do you have any idea how many Gawker readers you have to kill to get a pound of brains?"
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:00 PM on December 20, 2002

Oh, I almost forgot.

Tip your waitperson, and try the veal. I'll be here all week.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:01 PM on December 20, 2002

seriously, this is giving gawker a lot more attention than it truly deserves.
posted by crunchland at 5:04 PM on December 20, 2002

we make fun of ourselves quite often, why shouldn't anyone else join in on the fun? (not that i'm necessarily mefi-prime, but i can dream can't i?! hey! why isn't anyone making fun of me dammit!)
posted by poopy at 5:07 PM on December 20, 2002

"why isn't anyone making fun of me dammit!"

With a name like poopy, why expend the effort?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:17 PM on December 20, 2002

I don't get it. Gawker, and certainly this Nick Denton guy, are trolling. Not in the usual "let's randomly piss of people on the Internet" sort of way, either. They're looking for traffic. The yuppie aesthetic is just to get eyeshare, and based on that thread, it's working. At this point (namely, December of 2002) anyone pushing yuppie culture has an agenda. It's like 80's retro, but with a(n evil, social engineering) brain.

That being said, I still like their site. Oh, and, how many Gawker readers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two. One to mix martinis while the other calls the electrician.
posted by mmcg at 6:03 PM on December 20, 2002

or...

"hey why are metafilter brains so much cheaper than gawker brains?"

used goods, sir.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:07 PM on December 20, 2002

So this guy's telling us how to party, get jokes and generally carouse?

Crass, crass I know. But good god, he ain't lookin' too alpha male to me either. The things the internet allows us to do. . .
posted by crasspastor at 6:21 PM on December 20, 2002

I don't know about this. I'm seeing mountains out of molehills, as if we're slashdot and getting offended at people mocking linux, or we were kuro5hin and worried about outsiders thinking we're a cult of zealots.

Yeah, no, for me at least it's just my personal take on etiquette. No great shakes.

That is, I do wonder if things like this, for instance, constitute yet more unintended humor, or if the guy who wrote it gets it. Not because I find it offensive, or think anyone should particularly care; but because I think publishing remarks like the ones that inspired it is poor form, because of the way such remarks will inevitably be (mis-)read in certain quarters.

I suppose I do seem to be making a mountain of a molehill. But it's not that I think Gawker or Denton committed so grave an offense; it's just the hope of gettingirrational compulsion to try and get the broader issues right that makes me write all this crap....
posted by mattpfeff at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2002

I think publishing remarks like the ones that inspired it is poor form

But keep in mind that it reflects poorly on the person making them if they're really poor form. If Nick Denton goes around trashing blogs willy-nilly, people are going to say he's starting to sound like an asshole trolling for hits. I think Suck.com raised the reputation for being an ass to an artform, by trashing complete strangers in the utmost petty and cynical ways on a daily basis.

It was often funny, and suck often looked like a group of total assholes in the process.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:53 PM on December 20, 2002

Um, who the hell is Nick Denton?

(No answer expected)
posted by Shane at 7:55 PM on December 20, 2002

I think Suck.com raised the reputation for being an ass to an artform

See, that's just the thing; I don't think it's the joke that's the issue, but where it got published. Sure, Gawker's intended to be snarky, but slamming on the little guy? That seemed off the pale. Slam on the big guy all you want -- especially in New York, where capital offense No. 1 is to take yourself too seriously -- but stick up for the little guy! Even the whiny little Internet little guy, even if he too takes himself too seriously. Sure, give him a good ribbing at the same time, but don't just dismiss him and put him down; it's just not sporting.

And coming from a voice of purported authority, I didn't think you could escape that (more unfortunate) reading of that joke.

Um, who the hell is Nick Denton?

Nick's the founder of Moreover, and, more relevantly, of Gawker.

(No answer expected)

Expectations are for getting crushed. Sorry bub.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:42 PM on December 20, 2002

Expectations are for getting crushed. Sorry bub.

My remark was sarcastic and rhetorical, as in, Who gives a f*** what he really thinks? Maybe Nick has a point re:

They're apparently entirely incapable of recognizing irony, detecting a spoof, or realizing that they're taking their Metafilter life far too seriously...

*sigh* Sorry, Bub.

*sigh again*
posted by Shane at 9:11 PM on December 20, 2002

*big big fuckin' sigh, and it's off to bed*
posted by Shane at 9:13 PM on December 20, 2002

My remark was sarcastic and rhetorical

Oh, no kidding?

I suppose I could've tipped you off better I got it, and maybe I should have, but then I'm not much one for sarcasm.

My point was, Denton's not just some punk. I mean, sure, who gives a damn what anyone thinks. But that's not very productive. Denton actually seems like a fellow whose opinions might be worth caring about.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:00 PM on December 20, 2002

oh, and one point about Jason's comment -- since when does he have to read every word? Who's asking him to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the whole site? My goodness, if I read every word on MeFi, I'd go absolutely batshit insane.

(too late?)

And Denton's comment about MeFi readers having no sense of irony...huh? I hope he's simply being annoyingly meta-meta there. Otherwise it sounds like the guy is overdue for a deflating. (why ask for comments and then bitch about how no one gets one's irony?)
posted by Vidiot at 11:36 PM on December 20, 2002

I'm not impressed. Gawker is boring. As far as I can tell everything and everyone related to Gawker is boring. Boring.
posted by rhyax at 11:38 PM on December 20, 2002

The spoof needs some spiffing. Right now, it's ripe for parody, and that's rotten for satire. Should be Teflon-slick; as it is, criticism sticks (and some of it is more entertaining than its target). And I smell pretending; preening bitch got holes in her stockings...

Maybe it'll get better - it's not awful now - but I woulda thought a paid gig would've cranked out an almighty opening number...

Hey, Derek, mix me up another metaphor.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:12 AM on December 21, 2002

It's funny because I don't read any blogs and my experience with them has been purely MetaFiltered. Because of this and my inherent laziness--particularly at such a late hour--I have almost no idea what's going on.

I thought the dead baby jokes were funny, but I might be a little sick in the head.
posted by The God Complex at 2:10 AM on December 21, 2002

This thread was worth it for the brains joke alone. And the hilarious irony. I'll bet Mr. Denton is pleased.
posted by Fabulon7 at 9:12 AM on December 21, 2002

There's more than enough irony to miss, humor to misinterpret, and offense to pull out of thin air right here. I think we should concentrate on whining about what happens on MeFi without taking on the task of whining about what happens on the rest of the internet.
posted by subgenius at 10:13 AM on December 21, 2002

"Nick Denton was harshed on MetaFilter, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"

Size medium, please.
posted by iconomy at 11:11 AM on December 21, 2002

for the record, nick denton and i met at a metafilter get-together that i, for the record, organized. also-for the record-i met goneill there, who is one of my best friends.

that's all.

the "boring" editor or "the preening bitch [who's] got holes in her stockings," (whichever you prefer)

Elizabeth Spiers
posted by lizs at 11:15 AM on December 21, 2002

What's the difference between a Bowling Ball and Gawker?

One has three holes and belongs in the gutter, while people actually enjoy the other one.



And just to show that it's in good fun...

What's blue and grey and full of pricks?

A dead baby being used as a pincushion. (Oh, and Metafilter)


I'm going home folks, have a Merry Christmas and enjoy your stay at Caesar's Palace.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2002

lizs is being truthful.

I was there. Shit-faced, rip-snortin' hammered...but there. I vaguely recall Denton buying me a beer.

Just giving backup, yo.
posted by jonmc at 11:33 AM on December 21, 2002

for the record ...

Hey, didn't that Kottke guy also used to come around here? Traitors, all of them! Now it's personal! And that Haughey character -- sticking up for them -- he's the worst of the lot! Let's mutiny! We need regime change! User No. 2 8 for new MeFi Capo!

on preview: jonmc's a two-faced spy! Let's get the bugger!
posted by mattpfeff at 11:40 AM on December 21, 2002

Hahaha, this is great. I doubt it, but I hope my, now deleted, MetaTalk thread helped twist some more knickers into a knot. Many enjoy trolling and flamebaiting, and these 'I'm not arguing! How dare you say I am!' arguments are always priceless.

I've seen this repeated in a few places, but no matter how many times I read Jason's post, I see no hint of negativity towards MetaFilter.

Again, this is why I stressed timing so much. If someone randomly hints that reading a site is a waste of time, then that's fine. But if it comes within an hour of their own site getting bad feedback, it starts to look like someone is getting bitchy. Or, if not, the timing is so comically divine that it's worth a giggle anyway.

I think this is all great for them. They're getting the publicity and the buzz, even if it's not all good, and no doubt they're going to get picked up by even more media outlets because of it.

Again, I wish them every success, and this little 'controversy' is most entertaining and light-hearted anyway. Lap it up.
posted by wackybrit at 11:52 AM on December 21, 2002

Why is Metatalk grey anyway?

Why is Metafilter blue for that matter?
posted by feelinglistless at 12:44 PM on December 21, 2002

Who the hell are you, Meta-Buddha??

;)
posted by jonmc at 12:46 PM on December 21, 2002

Again, this is why I stressed timing so much.

Oh, c'mon, wackybrit, the guy was in Paris for a month, after which he was moving and working and didn't even have his own furniture. There's the symbolically pregnant timing you're looking for.

No, it's not a question of timing, they've always hated MeFi, all of them. Hates us, they do. But at last -- at long last! -- their careful facade has begun to ssslip....
posted by mattpfeff at 1:35 PM on December 21, 2002

we'll start mattpfeff with some atavan, to even him out, then we'll give him prozac, which should be easy to find, or something else along those lines to make him happy about the next drug, which will be either chlorpromazine or haloperidol. If we give all this stuff to him in his alcoholic beverages he'll never notice. 'Course, he might not survive, but either way, he's out of the picture. He's just getting too close to the truth...
posted by ashbury at 2:15 PM on December 21, 2002

[this is painful]

But ashbury just made it all worthwhile.
posted by taz at 2:38 PM on December 21, 2002

posted by quonsar at 2:50 PM on December 21, 2002

I'm not much one for sarcasm.

Really?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:13 PM on December 21, 2002

[...] or "the preening bitch [who's] got holes in her stockings,"

Um...lizs, feel free to take it personally, but it wasn't meant that way. The "preening bitch" thing is a metaphor for satire itself. If you read it the way it was intended, you'll see that I was actually offering a nano-particle of constructive criticism. IMO, the best satire never pretends - it never gives the slightest impression that there might be a nice, earnest, fallible person behind it, rubbing him(her)self the wrong way.

Aloofness, people! Unassailable arrogance! Ubermensch! (Nick tries, I guess, but his "Harshing" thing was inelegant and imprecise - like a cow peeing on a flat rock.) Ready? In character now...and ACTION!.

(And certainly you should never deign to react to a lowly MetaTalk post, especially one from that gimlet-eyed space ranger who wanders the Metafilter halls late at night, shining his battery-powered lantern into all the dark places, looking for...shit, the fucking battery went dead again...)
posted by Opus Dark at 8:47 PM on December 21, 2002

Ah, the world, as ever, rife with ill-placed sincerity.

Really?

Surely you don't think my clumsy jests here amount to sarcasm, do you? Granted, I was, and am, a fool (and I knew it even then), but my error lies in meaning too well what I say, not in not saying what I mean.

Aloofness, people! Unassailable arrogance! Ubermensch!

Ope, you have per'aps answered their call. And not a moment too soon; their "A bit of context: Metafilter is a weblog community, which hates everything Gawker stands for" sounds as though they've done gone sweet on this place.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:28 PM on December 21, 2002

Scene: Room split into two sections. One one side, lots of MeFiers shouting, on the other side JKottke, Denton, Bush supporters and capitalists, all shouting back.

In comes the Swedish guy from the Spike Jones lamp advert, 'Schtopp!! Did you realize this is not real liffffe? This is just schom silly people bickering online about nothing of great significance. You are crazzzy!'

Metafilter - Unboring.
posted by wackybrit at 11:22 PM on December 21, 2002

What just happened?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:11 AM on December 22, 2002

Well, I sat down at my desk, and moved a pile of papers so I could reach the mouse. Then I checked out the messages on my home page, then clicked on the Metafilter link in my favorites. I scanned the first three threads that were most recently posted to on the blue page, blanched, and then clicked on the metatalk link. I saw that someone had posted to this thread, and I clicked to read it. I moved my mouse pointer to this comment field box, clicked the right mouse button, and started typing. I just finished typing the letter "r...."
posted by crunchland at 11:51 AM on December 22, 2002

For those who have missed it, here's an encapsulation of what has happened so far:

"Hey... have you heard about Gawker?! What'cha think?!"

"It's pretty good."

"No, it sucks. Here's why I think it sucks."

"Well, this is why *I* think it's good!"

"Look! They're saying nasty things about us!"

"Well, let's say nasty things about them right back!"

"Hey... they're using my quote on their site... cool!"

"Yeah. Guess that makes you a shill for Gawker now, eh?!"

"Wha...?! F*ck. Sssh. Stop mentioning them. You're only giving them hits!"
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:27 PM on December 22, 2002

I'll work on some gawker jokes though.

No need, it already thinks it's a joke. And it's very funny.

Almost as funny as gawker was before it was a joke.

Before the joke was gawker deciding it is a joke before it was a joke. Because it is a joke. And it's very funny.
posted by the fire you left me at 5:30 PM on December 22, 2002

RJ Reynolds, you continue to amaze me with your snarky humor. I giggle every time, you're the best.
posted by swerdloff at 6:39 PM on December 22, 2002

can i vote for willnot's light bulb joke?
posted by danOstuporStar at 11:02 AM on December 23, 2002

He...He...he.. ;D
posted by thomcatspike at 8:33 AM on December 24, 2002

What's the difference between Metatalk and a dead baby?


No one's ever accidently gotten Metatalk all over their shoes.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:36 AM on December 24, 2002