Comments on: User Callout

User Callout

norm — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:42:20 -0800

Dear 111, I wanted to email this to you but you listed no email address. I thought you were rude in the "brights" thread and wanted to let you know. Your position was unhelpful, off-topic, and served to intentionally deflect attention from the topic at hand.

By: norm

norm — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:45:52 -0800

Just to clarify, I wouldn't have posted this at all except a) no backchannel information and b) he (wild guess on the gender) told me to take it here if I had a problem.

I do, insofar as the discussion (and it was a good one, IMHO until it was derailed) was about a need or propriety of a political movement to fight public religion in the US, and 111 managed by sheer trollish delight to turn it into just another stupid MeFi atheism thread.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:56:07 -0800

now there ya go, bringing up gender. just as surely as dancing leads to intercourse, gender leads to genitalia. i was hoping this would be a good baptist thread.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:57:48 -0800

I'd respond, but I'm running late for a meeting with a spaceship and some kool-aid.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:58:33 -0800

ah yes, Lutheran Ladies Guild. have fun!

By: cbrody

cbrody — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:02:47 -0800

I assume by "stupid atheism thread" you mean one in which Believers ask Brights to prove the non-existence of something they can't even define properly? It's a non-starter.

This argument has been going on for thousands of years and somehow I doubt it will be concluded in a frenzy of MetaFilter troll-feeding.

I take the birth of this new meme quite seriously, and was pissed off at the intentional derailment by 111, and by those who pointlessly took the bait.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:10:56 -0800

psst: I think he just does it to be contrary, perhaps as some means of proving his intellectual excellence. For further proof, see the Blair Hornstine thread.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:12:19 -0800

Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities.

this is a sentence from one of the pages linked to , looks like 111 is on topic to me.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:19:39 -0800

111 is often contrary and even rude, but this isn't much of an offense if you ask me. So your "bright," so what? So 111 isn't so "bright," again, so what?

If you find his line of questioning off-topic then ignore him.

By: norm

norm — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:26:03 -0800

If you find his line of questioning off-topic then ignore him.

I understand your point and to a degree your advice was followed. The sheer persistence of baiting on the point of whether there is a God eventually overwhelmed the thread, which is more evident if you read it from the beginning. As pointed out, this MeTa post was more an open letter since I couldn't backchannel, and wasn't intended as a 111 bash. If there is a larger point I intended it is more "please don't intentionally derail threads."

By: stefanie

stefanie — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:28:09 -0800

I brought info to the thread that reveals the atheist emperor's nakedness.

111 is not on topic. The topic was whether atheists/humanists needed to come out as a political group, and if they should adopt a lame word to describe them. 111 popped in to fling circular logic in order to argue that atheists are wrong in their (non)beliefs. The bait was taken and the thread went south.

Solution? Don't feed the 111.

By: weston

weston — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:33:11 -0800

The sheer persistence of baiting on the point of whether there is a God eventually overwhelmed the thread

The question of whether there's a god being debated in a thread about athiesm?

That's almost like a discussion about whether prayer works being in a Pat Robertson vs the Supreme Court thread.

I don't see any unusual foul here.... and you can argue that the usual is the problem, but given the fact that posts like the later are posted by the founder and posts like this get little in terms of comment attention, I think it seems pretty clear that MeFites like the MeFights over such topics.

By: transona5

transona5 — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:01:40 -0800

What weston said.

111 is quickly becoming my new favorite poster. S/he made terrific contrarian arguments in the Blair Hornstine thread. 111's posts in the bright thread didn't have that much to do with the term "bright," but they were absolutely on-topic. 111 may be a devil's advocate, but s/he is not an ideologue and absolutely not a troll.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:17:02 -0800

Jeez, I'd understand someone whining louder about getting called a 'sissy' than the complete non-attack by 111. I personally found beth's post more off-kilter (although I continue to enjoy her input in threads). Here's ten bonus points to you, 111.

By: signal

signal — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:29:53 -0800

111 is my favorite troll.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:56:01 -0800

good lord people, get some thicker skin.

By: 111

111 — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:58:03 -0800

norm, you say in the thread you are "never wrong"; if that is so, please start by quoting the exact moment where I

1-derailed the thread;
2-went off-topic.

Let us briefly reassess the thread. Here's my 1st comment: Well, pardon me, but I've got to wear shades. Other than that, I repeat the classic question: who is the prime mover of the universe and all perceived forces, sensations and verifiable data? homo brightus? Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins?
To trust your sensations (as the average person normally does) already implies acknowledgement of a silent mediation between man and nature, man and perception, man and feeling and so on. Who performs this mediation? Is it rational to suppose that it acts itself out so to speak?
Is everything created out of nothing?
ps: why the confidentiality clause on the site? I mean, what's the point of signing up when you feel somewhat ashamed of your own bright worldview?"

The fact that people chose to react to the 1st (the atheism fallacy) as opposed to the 2nd point (confidentiality clause in a self-professed open group) was their choice; at any rate it moved the thread into a theoretical/epistemic discussion which is not only pertaining but essential to the issue. How can you discuss an atheist group's social action without taking into account the very basis of atheism and the interplay between religion and society throughout history?

Atheism and political action are broad issues; it's naive if not dumb to expect to discuss them only in terms of "oh, the Brights will be the voice of reason in our political landscape". This is so simple-minded it insults both believers and atheists alike.

Also please clarify what you mean by "unhelpful position". Did you subconsciously expect me to turn into an atheist because Daniel Dennett says so? Let me tell you this: life is full of conflict. Deal with it as an adult. Don't whine if people disagree with you and your own narrow expectations.

The real issue here is:

-does MetaFilter have a partyline that, once crossed, will always provoke hysterical accusations of trolling and rudeness or is it a community where ideas are exchanged freely within different intellectual backgrounds and capabilities?

Do we have to conform and settle for a dull, populist, uninformed, cowardly, makeshift, poorly argued chitchat that will amount to little more than
"Bush sucks!"
"Yeah!"
"Yeah!"
"Right on"
"Miguel too, sometimes!"
"Yeah!"
"Right"
"Yeah!"
"quonsar too!"
"Please dude, get a grip!" (obs: actual remark in the thread)

As I said elsewhere, this is completely inane and soul-destroying in the worst Jerry Springer-audience way. I refuse to even consider the idea of censorship or dumbing down issues.

I will not ever dishonor the spirit of the site by derailing any thread, but if you lack the ability to deal with the interplay of forest/trees micro/macrosubjects, it's an intellectual shortcoming you should either try to solve or else embrace (in which case I'd suggest fark.com instead of MeFi), but don't tell me a discussion about the logical basis of atheism and its social effects through time is out of place in a thread about an atheist group whose main participants are well-known public figures who openly express the ambition to influence political life (please see and reflect upon item five).

By: xmutex

xmutex — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:24 -0800

i think matt's going to have to make a "some hurt my widdle feelings" category on MeTa

By: y2karl

y2karl — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:15:56 -0800

Well, the recommended daily allowance of lordly condescension has been met, and then some.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:31:26 -0800

Can I get an "Amen"?

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:42:14 -0800

Dude norm, you got totally showed up. Whatcha gonna do now?

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:47:10 -0800

and now for the final thought ..............

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:58:54 -0800

i think this will settle the debate.

By: namespan

namespan — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:02:21 -0800

111 may be a devil's advocate, but s/he is not an ideologue and absolutely not a troll.

Hmmm. Wouldn't that be a God's advocate, in this case?

Altho', I suppose that if you take one part of the pantheon, you've gotta take 'em all...

By: angry modem

angry modem — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:44:35 -0800

Christians. Can't live with 'em....pass the beer nuts.

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:43:46 -0800

> prove the non-existence of something

psst. Can't prove a negative.

By: mdn

mdn — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:45:45 -0800

My main problem with 111 is his/her attitude; it's obvious that s/he's not interested in really exploring the issues and trying to understand the various points of view. Every comment is an attempt to put down those who hold different positions. There are posters I disagree with who nonetheless express themselves well and sometimes challenge me to rethink things. (Sometimes even those whose arguments do nothing to change my mind still manage to remind me that despite disagreements most people are honestly seeking the truth, etc).

111 is not like that. In the hornstine thread and now in this thread, his/her comments are just rude, condescending & simplistic. I'm all for intelligent debate, but this poster is just trying to puff him/herself up.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:06 -0800

I vote for the creation of a third division of MetaFilter.. known as MetaWhine, or MeWi.

This area will be dedicated to trolls and whiners, and they can provoke and flame each other all the time.. Yes, just like alt.flame on USENET! What fun it could be.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:38:44 -0800

My main problem with 111 is his/her attitude; it's obvious that s/he's not interested in really exploring the issues and trying to understand the various points of view. Every comment is an attempt to put down those who hold different positions... his/her comments are just rude, condescending & simplistic.

Sorry, I don't see that at all. I hadn't read the "brights" thread because the whole idea sounded stupid (and condescending) to me and I had no particular desire to wade into yet another MeFi Godfight, but now that I have, it seems to me 111 was responding (quite politely and reasonably considering the provocation) to a series of putdowns of religion that had nothing to do with the ostensible point of the thread. Read these samples and tell me you think 111 started the rudeness:

No more controversial than giving a child a bible. Have you read that overwrought folderol?

So now they can be bright and cheerful about scorning the false comfort of the unreal?

Now reread 111's comment above and tell me it's rude or simplistic. Frankly, it stands out for thoughtful literacy in this not particularly thoughtful thread. (And no, I'm not a believer, but people I care about are. And I'd eat moldy Brussels sprouts before I'd call myself a "bright.")

Frankly, a lot of supposedly tolerant and multiculti Mefites are way too eager to call anyone espousing religious and/or conservative views a "troll." Can't we all just get along?

By: graventy

graventy — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:22:47 -0800

Geez, languagehat. Sometimes you're such a troll.
;)

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:23:17 -0800

How can you discuss an atheist group's social action without taking into account the very basis of atheism and the interplay between religion and society throughout history?

111 uses lots of scrabble words, but I don't see anything in the quote that he cites that talks about "the interplay between religion and society throughout history." He asks whether God or man is the prime mover of the universe, and seems to imply that the fact that humans have sensations means that there's a God. Huh? Anyway, in this first post, he's just arguing that God exists. Which, as stated earlier, isn't the point of the thread.

I guess 111's second post talks about the "interplay between religion and society through history." For example, he says inter alia that religion teaches moral values and that modern education itself arose out of Christianity. That's, um, interesting (I thought educating kids started with Mesopotamia or earlier circa 14th C BC, which sure wasn't Christian, but whatever), but once again, has nothing to do with whether "athiest" is too gloomy sounding and should be replaced by "bright," in the same way "gay" replaced "homosexual." But I guess I am just being "naive if not dumb."

Let's substitute here: "How can you discuss a homosexual group's social action without taking into account the very basis of homosexuality and the interplay between homosexuality and society throughout history?" I don't think every thread about a gay pride march or social leader needs to devolve into a discussion over whether homosexuality is wrong or immoral or what its historical basis is. I suspect that is, in part, what norm was saying about this athiesm thread.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:26:32 -0800

Languagehat is/was bang on. Nicely put.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:35:04 -0800

psst. Can't prove a negative.

From Julian:

You'll often hear an argument to the effect that atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is (at least) as unreasonable and dogmatic as theism, since, of course, "you can't prove" that God doesn't exist. This is stupid.

First, technically speaking, a-theism just indicates the absence of a belief, rather than a positive denial. Someone who'd never encountered the concept of god could be described as an "atheist." But I don't really want to nitpick semantics. The more important point, I think, is that this is a stupid burden to impose, and one we'd find ludicrous in any other arena of belief. Indeed, you can be sure someone's arguing from a weak position when the best they can do is attack the opposite position as not being succeptible to a 100% deductive proof.

I can't even prove with apodictic certainty that the keyboard I'm typing on isn't some elaborate hallucination, or that I'm not in the Matrix right now. I can't prove that we're not surrounded by invisible, intangible flying monkeys. And every scientific law is open to falsification by a new counterexample. In no other arena of human knowledge do we suppose that absent this kind of irrefutable demonstration, there's nothing to choose between giving a proposition a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Indeed, if a perfectly analogous argument were deployed with respect to the existence of, say, fairies, or the Easter Bunny, it'd be laughed out of court without a second thought.

Which brings me to my second, and slightly more offensive main point: agnosticism is a weak-kneed copout. We can't know with absolute certainty whether God exists? Well golly gee, what a fucking revelation. There's precious little we can know with absolute certainty. But in most other arenas, we bite the bullet and make a choice based on the available evidence. And here, too, we do the same thing for practical purposes. You either live your life as though you expect there's an afterlife and a grand design an all that jazz, or you don't. Unless you address nightly prayers "to whom it may concern," that makes an agnostic operationally indistinguishable from an atheist.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:07:30 -0800

Let's just agree to cut out the evangelicalism, both for very religious types and the more pushy atheists as well? It's tiresome, and people go into the discussion with the wrong intentions or spirit and it turns into a meltdown rather quickly.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:00:20 -0800

111 was trolling for an unwinnable argument, and he got one. The sad fact is, everyone gave him exactly what he was looking for.

I try and limit my apthiest proselytizing for face to face situations. The expressions of anger and confusion don't come out nearly as well on the internet.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:28:23 -0800

Well, I at least want to apologize for my comment in that thread, which definitely leaned towards the childishly provocative. Sorry.

Of all the fights that can be picked, the ones about religion are especially counterproductive. Can we please not have another one here?

By: j.edwards

j.edwards — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:43:32 -0800

That quote from Julian makes me cringe.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:46:35 -0800

Not to add to the flames, just because I think it's funny as hell and marginally on topic, and we're quoting stuff -

George Carlin : "Do you think there's a thing as sanctity of life? Personally, I think it's a bunch of shit. Who says life is sacred? .....god? Great, but if you read your history you know that god is one of the leading causes of death and has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, all taking turns killing one another, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god, the blood of the lamb, vengeance is mine, onward Christian soldiers. Millions of dead motherfuckers. All because they gave the wrong answer to the God Question:

"Do you believe in god?"

"No."

BAM! Dead.

"How about you? Do you believe in god? "

"Yes."

"Do you believe in MY god?"

"No."

BAM! Dead!

My god has a bigger dick than your god!

For thousands of years all the bloodiest and most brutal wars have been based on religious hatred. Which of course, is fine with me; anytime "holy" people are killing one another, I'm a happy guy......but please, don't kill each other and give me that shit about sanctity of life."

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:29:28 -0800

111: Come on here. For someone who talks alot about raising the bar here you seem to practice quite a bit of hypocracy. The least you can do is not insult our intelligence by justifying it with a bunch of rationalizations, half-truths and bordeline fabrications. (The alternative is to believe that you really are earnest in your convictions that you were not trying to divert, but that would be insulting to your intelligence.)

Basically, you come into a thread about politics with a mess of a summary of C. S. Lewis and the Transcendental Argument for God, and a bigger mess of straw men about Darwinism(1) and atheism. Here is a hint, most of us who have been looking into these issues for a while (about 15 years for me) have heard what you said before, from apologists who were much better spoken, much more repectful, and much more persuasive than you (and quite a few more who were much worse). Having been profoundly unconvinced the first several times, what makes you think that a rather less coherent presentation laced with no small ammount of venim will convert anyone this time around.

Then you whine, bitch and moan because instead of dropping everything to waltz with yet another new dance partner into the morbid, messy, morass of metaphysics, we would prefer to polka along a practical path of politics. Metaphysics tends to be a wearisome, esoteric and pointess debate that ends up with both sides building massive stacks of conclusions on firmly held but arbitrary starting assumptions.

So here is a practical suggestion, instead of bitching and whining because you tried to divert a political thread and got called on it, why not do what is truely in the spirit of this place? Take the time you spend bawling about how you are so poorly mistreated, and misunderstood and spend it reseaching a fpp that provides links to some better and more coherent explanations of the TAG. I could always use a review.

(1) Utilitarianism, Capitalism, The Declaration of Independence, Democracy, Pragmatism, Marxism, Epicurus, Positivism, Feminism, and yes, Protestant Christian reform movements such as Unitarianism have played a much greater role in shaping humanistic ethics than Darwinism.

By: Opus Dark

Opus Dark — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:24:50 -0800

The Absolute-Highest-Why-Didn't-I-Think-Of-This-Before-Stupendous-Irrefutable-Transcendent-Truth-Which-Everyone's-Been Searching-For-But-Could-Never-Find will debut on MetaFilter.

Thursday, the second week in October.

I don't know what year.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:49:48 -0800

Opus: X-Post!

Note: if you got this reference you are way too entwined in the MetaFilter universe.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:38:34 -0800

I'd just like to add my opinion that 111 turned a thread about a dopey rebranding atheism notion into something I personally found much more interesting. I need more ammo for the drunken arguments I have with theists and he/she, by framing the arguments for God in a thoughtful way, brought out several new (to me) counter arguments.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:55:02 -0800

111's contributions to that thread kept reminding me of an exchange from A Fish Called Wanda.

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!

By: johnnyboy

johnnyboy — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:05:45 -0800

For thousands of years all the bloodiest and most brutal wars have been based on religious hatred

- Except for that picnic known as world war 2

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:08:42 -0800

I've yet to agree with 111, but I definitely learned a little bit about an opposing viewpoint in the "brights" thread. Part of my being an atheist is wanting to comprehend what allows other people to believe, and s/he helped with that.

I don't know why it's always bad if the topic veers a bit. That's how discussion works. Save the accusation of trolling for the truly deserving, because the applied definition is becoming closer to "someone who disagrees with me."

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:11:21 -0800

johnnyboy:
Oh, I think that WWII had its fair share of religious hatred. That whole holocaust thing and all.

By: bonehead

bonehead — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:13:20 -0800

"Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

R. Zelazny, "The Agnostic's Prayer", from Creatures of Light and Darkness

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:29:51 -0800

"No more controversial than giving a child a bible. Have you read that overwrought folderol? "

"So now they can be bright and cheerful about scorning the false comfort of the unreal?"

Now reread 111's comment above and tell me it's rude or simplistic.

The first quote above is addressing the issue of whether discussing atheism with children is okay, although the description of a bible was probably unnecessary. The 2nd comment seems to be from a believer's perspective, or anyway someone who feels atheists are scornful.

so yeah, let's reread some of 111's comments:

If the very foundations of your thoughts are fragile (as in atheism, communism, leftism, populism etc etc), it doesn't surprise me you'll act defensively and whine about trolling, but you're just offering additional evidence of your ultimate ignorance and lack of argumentative skills.

I brought info to the thread that reveals the atheist emperor's nakedness.

why do they keep reacting and responding? ... why not ignore all my previous statements and hop into other threads? Perhaps because your intuition may be telling you that this long, complex, discussion may be on to something after all.

you really don't think he's being condescending and rude?

Especially considering he did not respond to most of the arguments presented to him. His answers were always along the lines of "because that's how god is defined" as if that made god real. HIs evidence was along the lines of "because I am alive / can experience things" as if naturalistic explanations were of no use. And even if you want to split the world like that, you still need to explain, basically how GOD works, if he's the mediator - which would make him naturalistic after all. LIke asimov said, magic is just technology we don't understand. If it works, it must work...

I don't mind threads devolving into somewhat familiar debates, and I think threads can maintain two topics for some period of time, but 111 was not really engaging with the people responding to him (KirkJobwhatsit had some very good comments, eg); he was just throwing out more insults.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:44:48 -0800

languagehat, being a languagehat, ignores the tacit side of the equation--a hamhanded sneering tone.

you're wrong and bitter because, to reclaim the old saying, I brought info to the thread that reveals the atheist emperor's nakedness...

You either misconstrue "ethics" or "naturalistic". The fact that you had to be toilet trained should be enough to make you rethink that assumption.

It's one thing to present a mishmash of assertions and tautologies and another to spike the ball and do the jiggy dance in the end zone of one's amore propre in the process. When someone continually addresses others in a seventeen percent solution of the senate intern's letter, it's not entirely about the disinterested exchange of ideas. It's one thing to hint one is the intellectually superior to those he addresses, another to throw an Jerry Springeresque chair into the first row of the studio audience while doing so. A little contempt goes a long way--a lot grates very quickly.

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:47:17 -0800

I've recently given up contesting outraged theists and condescending atheists here and elsewhere. I think we may all now assume that everyone here has made their case and that all arguments for every possible position on the matter have been put forward; interested parties could peruse the religious archives at MeFi until Judgment Day or the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first. In my observation, talking rarely change people--experience changes people.

Regardless, it's entirely possible to discuss even a subject such as the "brights" without dragging out the howitzer of one's own personal faith (or lack thereof) story. All that's required is tact and common sense.

By: taumeson

taumeson — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:54:51 -0800

111's post was fantastic for its content, but not for the few bits of invective.

Which means, really, that the Signal/Noise ratio of his post fit in nicely with an average MeFi thread.

It's pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion about God that doesn't boil down to "Prove it!" / "But I can't, and that's part of the point!". If people want to bitch about it, let 'em, and scroll on past.

on preview:

I like what vraxoin says about how experience changes people, not arguing. Something I need to take to heart, actually.

But I disagree with Regardless, it's entirely possible to discuss even a subject such as the "brights" without dragging out the howitzer of one's own personal faith (or lack thereof) story.

So what? I mean, I think talking about faith (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with the political credibility of a PAC involving atheists. Just because it's possible to dance around a topic doesn't mean that that will lead to a good conversation. Sometimes difficult topics need to be broached.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:56:45 -0800

My main problem with 111 is his/her attitude; it's obvious that s/he's not interested in really exploring the issues and trying to understand the various points of view. Every comment is an attempt to put down those who hold different positions.

What a joke. Everyone (and I mean everyone) on MetaFilter is "guilty" of this. Presumably 111 has had years to contemplate the arguments others are making. He has just as much right to try to convince others who disagree with him, as they have to get him to understand their point of view. What you are, in effect, saying is: "111 doesn't agree with me, therefore, I don't think he's 'really exploring the issues,' and he's not 'trying to understand [my] point of view'!"

What have you (or anyone else who disagreed with 111 in the named thread or this one) done to "explore" his arguments, or to "try to understand" his point of view?

I don't necessarily think 111 is right (I'm an agnostic myself, and the "since we can contemplate God He must exist" argument doesn't convince me), but faulting him for taking a particular position in an argument that has befuddled philosophers (and pretty much everyone else) for thousands of years is ridiculous.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:32:18 -0800

I can contemplate a unicorn.

Therefore there exists a unicorn.

This sort of logic, it appeal to some infants and those who have recently suffered head trauma, but you know, it's bunk.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:41:25 -0800

MetaFilter: Why ya'll have to be asses about it?

(this tagline brought to you courtesy of yhbc, by way of da5id's recently-deleted post)

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:41:53 -0800

Sometimes difficult topics need to be broached.

Oh, no. I agree. It's just that on MetaFilter there are so many people with so many wildly varied backgrounds and beliefs that the shit inevitably hits the fan when this topic comes up. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I believe x," or even saying, "I disagree with y for reasons a, b, and c." The trouble always starts when someone says, "You're wrong/stupid for believing z," and that's when all coherent dialog crashes to a halt.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:55:29 -0800

Sometimes, 111's oft shared contempt for the brutish masses makes one wonder whether an undead Ayn Rand has risen from the grave. Being an uberman is such a lonely occupation.

By: 111

111 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:45:34 -0800

Being an uberman is such a lonely occupation.

y2karl, that may well be, but it is quite handsomely paid, you know? For instance, I do appreciate the fact that many of the people above who find it legitimate to write the things I did were agnostics, nonbelievers and atheists themselves. It means that, unlike those who'd like this site to become a partisan clique, some of us are ready to discuss and challenge their own views.

If you let the uncultivated, the undemocratic and the insecure have their way, you'll eventually find yourself in a situation like this.

By: Mid

Mid — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:50:52 -0800

Oh great, he's Portuguese or something.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:07:21 -0800

For my part, I laughed loudly when 111 said it wasn't possible to discuss the post without questioning the nature of atheism. Of course it is, don't be a twit. The post wasn't about atheism, it was about a group of atheists, and the question wasn't whether there's a god, it's what the "brights" should do next.

That's like saying you can't discuss the Catholic sex scandals without first debating the existence of God.

By: Tin Man

Tin Man — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:17:00 -0800

Hey, 111, I think that if your goal is to bring other people around to your views, you have to realize that it isn't always easy for human beings to separate content from the way it's presented. In other words, it's going to be a whole lot easier for people to consider your views if you're a bit more easygoing in presenting them. People don't like to feel that they're being talked down to, but for whatever reason, the language you use, whether you intend it or not, comes across as pretty condescending to some people.

Sure, you can say, "Well, if they can't get past the condescension, then that's their problem, and then they're not people I'd care to convince anyway."

Which... I guess... is fine... but... the fact is, you're not going to get as many people to agree with you that way.

By: Tin Man

Tin Man — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:18:43 -0800

Well, that, and not addressing people's counterarguments.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:28:25 -0800

taumeson: It's pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion about God that doesn't boil down to "Prove it!" / "But I can't, and that's part of the point!". If people want to bitch about it, let 'em, and scroll on past.

I disagree. One of the things that Chistian churches have been quite able to do in the 20th century is agree to disagree on fundamental doctrinal differences in order to engage in inter-denominational discussion about their role in American society. There are quite a large number of interdenominational coalitions, including coalitions that cross the traditional boundaries of faith. This is, perhaps, one of the great triumphs of American Democracy, that basic differences of philosophical belief no longer required segregation in the public sphere in an age where such differences of opinion meant being expelled from the university, or even exiled from your community.

In my experience it is not only quite possible to engage in productive inter-faith discussion, even about issues of theology, but it can be quite comfortable as well.

pardonyou?: I don't necessarily think 111 is right (I'm an agnostic myself, and the "since we can contemplate God He must exist" argument doesn't convince me), but faulting him for taking a particular position in an argument that has befuddled philosophers (and pretty much everyone else) for thousands of years is ridiculous.

This is radically missing the point. 111 is welcome to his position and I would welcome more discussion on it. The TAG is a very interesting bit of philosophy, even if ultimately unconvincing. What he is not welcome to do is derail what had been a productive discussion by demanding that the world drop everything to cater to his need for conflict using the TAG in posts that offer much more heat than illumination. It rather reminds me of the trolls who try to start a platform war in any discussion of software. Yeah yeah, the problems and benefits of Linux/FreeBSD/Macintosh/MSWin are very worthy of discussion, but making them the focus of every single discussion of computing issues is basic partisanship.

111: It means that, unlike those who'd like this site to become a partisan clique, some of us are ready to discuss and challenge their own views.

The problem is that discussion and challenge seem to be two things you are poorly prepared for. Discussion requires dialoge, a give and take of views in which both sides are interested in listening to what the other has to say. Challenge requires actually knowing something about what your are challenging. Your posts are so loaded with fundamental misconceptions that there really isn't any challenge there.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:51:13 -0800

Give 111 a break, he's got a bigger willy than all of you.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:54:40 -0800

For instance, I do appreciate the fact that many of the people above who find it legitimate to write the things I did were agnostics, nonbelievers and atheists themselves.

Hmm, as noted above, it's not the content, such as it is, but the delivery. Serve an angelfood cake with shit frosting and no one will ever get past the frosting. I'd hazard you aren't one with a wide circle of friends--it's the withering contempt thing, you know.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:58:39 -0800

You can't discuss angelfood cake without debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

By: graventy

graventy — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:00:52 -0800

47. Now, a better question is; with or without strawberries and Cool Whip?

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:04:11 -0800

You can't discuss shit frosting without debating the existence of the Big Baker in the Sky.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:06:54 -0800

It means that, unlike those who'd like this site to become a partisan clique, some of us are ready to discuss and challenge their own views.

If you let the uncultivated, the undemocratic and the insecure have their way, you'll eventually find yourself in a situation like this.

Yeah, yeah, we get it: you're right, we're wrong, and if we don't appreciate that you're just acting as a free thinker because we're all afraid to, and understand that you're challenging authority and standing up to the idiot masses (like us) who don't know any better, then we're all going to end up sitting around a table and OH MY GOD WHO IS THE PIG AND WHO IS THE MAN AND WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN TO 111!!?!!!?!?!?

By: transona5

transona5 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:09:20 -0800

I'd hazard you aren't one with a wide circle of friends

Why am I powerfully reminded of this thread?

By: The Michael The

The Michael The — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:36:50 -0800

I'm going to go with KirkJobSluder on this one; as usual, he's quite on-target. 111 stated:

It means that, unlike those who'd like this site to become a partisan clique, some of us are ready to discuss and challenge their own views.

The problem that I see is that he doesn't seem to want to challenge his own views. To quote mdn:

My main problem with 111 is his/her attitude; it's obvious that s/he's not interested in really exploring the issues and trying to understand the various points of view. Every comment is an attempt to put down those who hold different positions.

I've been reviewing 111's comments from the past several weeks, and to my surprise, I found little that was truly egregious. Many (many, many) things I disagree with, but little truly egregious. What I did find was a general unwillingness to consider the viewpoints of others. I also found a few nasty potshots:

from "Blair Redux": p.s.: quarsan, good point. For a fraction of a millisecond I actually thought quonsar had finally said something interesting , but no such luck.

also from "Blair Redux": ...today only the very stupid give sports more than passing attention...

from "Du'a of Sheike Muhammad etc.": ...you're a failure of evolution...

Of course, these don't constitute the whole of 111's discourse, but they seem to be somewhat indicative of his attitude, particularly the last; said attitude being "Well, MeFiers have these preconceived notions and should open themselves to new ideas, BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND THEY'RE WRONG!"

If I'm totally offbase, 111, please email me and let me know. I'd even be glad to discuss why I believe god does not exist. Perchance, however, you'll see some truth in what I've just pointed out, and you'll reconsider your behavior on this site. Just as you refuse to believe arguments that conflict with your currently held notions, others refuse to believe arguments that conflict with their notions. It's usually healthier to not evangelize around here, regardless of the cause you're fighting for.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:42:15 -0800

I'd hazard you aren't one with a wide circle of friends

I'd hazard you aren't one with a big wiener.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:10:51 -0800

spend it reseaching a fpp that provides links to some better and more coherent explanations of the TAG

i can scan my birth certificate, that should be all the proof needed. oh wait, you mean this whole argument isn't about me, tracy ann graham...? hmm. nevermind.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:20:29 -0800

70+ comments? Congrats, 111, you're bigger than jesus!

(the above is in no way related to the brewing "wiener conflagration")

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:23:25 -0800

I'd hazard you aren't one with a big wiener

I know you are a big weiner.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:31:49 -0800

"I know you are a big weiner."

You forgot "...but what am I?"

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:36:51 -0800

You really can't discuss big weiners without debating the effects of masturbation on the male prostate.

Metafilter is such a boyzone.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:39:44 -0800

My point is that you blast the guy for ad hominem attacks and poor delivery using ad hominem attacks and poor delivery yourself. So, if you can't beat em, join em, I say.

I will happily be a 'weiner', however, since the term has little meaning, as opposed to 'wiener'.

By: 111

111 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:43:27 -0800

I laughed loudly when 111 said it wasn't possible to discuss the post without questioning the nature of atheism. Of course it is, don't be a twit. The post wasn't about atheism, it was about a group of atheists, and the question wasn't whether there's a god, it's what the "brights" should do next.

Hmmm. Indeed. So you mean a group with undisguised political ambitions shouldn't have its core values analyzed. More than that, you say we should resign ourselves like good slaughterhouse sheep to discuss what the "brights" should do next. More than that, even though this group's central motivation-- atheism-- goes against the beliefs of a sizable percentage of the US population, and even though atheism has proven disastrous in other countries, you still want the thread to have one single aspect-- what will the "brights" do next. Will they update their site? Will Dawkins dye his hair? Will they order a pizza? Stay tuned!

You know, there was a certain National Socialist group in Germany whose core values were once underplayed as well; people simply chose to try to guess what would be next and the end results were not exactly satisfactory. You are free to choose whatever aspects on a given issue you find interesting or appealing, but not to try to restrict the discussion to those aspects. I find it terribly moronic to limit oneself to superficial discussion of trivial matters, but that's me. Ultimately, the thread will reflect these differences, and while I won't try to make you understand issues out of your league, I won't buy a propeller beanie and watch TV with you either, Hidalgo.

Tin Man, I have no interest in "convincing". I believe in intuitive knowledge-- one that ultimately stems from individual experiences based on info we gather as go through life. I don't react to counterarguments because 1) they don't really counter anything or disprove any assumptions and 2) are not arguments but invectives-- your views are not original etc etc etc. All I could say would be reread my comments (at least this one) on the original thread and make up your mind. I also like the unsentimental, unflinching behavior of the Zen Master-- if you do not concentrate on the matter as opposed to your own bruised ego, forget it-- you're miles away from true knowledge regardless of your own points of view.

y2karl, my only true friend in this world is quonsar. No, wait a minute, I loathe quonsar... OMG!!! No seriously, friendship is a relevant subject, even for a great man like Aristotle, and my friends are indeed very important, but that happens in the real world. We are not here to make friends, but to exchange ideas. If you're desperate enough to sacrifice whatever views you may have in order to remain popular or at least safely ignored, it will be even harder to find friendship and company out there.

TheMichaelThe, you're offbase because you're not thinking right-- like TheGodComplex, you generalize; I criticize individuals and groups of individuals here, even when I name no names-- they know who they are and well, you know the drill: do not ask for whom the bells toll...
You also see a single category where there's none, or where it's wider than you seem to think. I do not behave any differently from most people here; I simply happen to use other kind of weaponry.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:47:38 -0800

Way to slip the Godwin in there, 111.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:51:59 -0800

I keep thinking this can't possibly get any more tedious; I keep being proved wrong.

By: signal

signal — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:54:26 -0800

Please, do not feed the 111.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:54:51 -0800

I simply happen to use other kind of weaponry.

"Men have many ways of using their prostate which do not involve women or other men."

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:59:35 -0800

Wow, 111 is taking on the mob with a lawnmower.

By: angry modem

angry modem — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:25:29 -0800

111 smells like poo.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:26:25 -0800

Serve an angelfood cake with shit frosting and no one will ever get past the frosting.

Curious how strangely silent some of you are when folks with a worldview similar to your own are smearing angelfood shit cake all over the walls of MeFi, and yet the scrutiny of 111 has led to an 82 comment thread and a colorful analogy involving pastry.

Wasn't 111 just doing what users do all the time (opining, veering off-topic, being snarky) without getting their wrists slapped in MetaTalk?

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:51 -0800

mr trivia here notes that 111 is the royal tenenbaums house number , i take it this is a wind up....

By: clever sheep

clever sheep — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:35:50 -0800

Wow, what a post! 111 just convinced me.

Convinced me, that is, that the majority of criticisms of him/her from this thread are warranted. What a maroon!

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:36:11 -0800

I believe in intuitive knowledge-- one that ultimately stems from individual experiences based on info we gather as go through life. I don't react to counterarguments because 1) they don't really counter anything or disprove any assumptions and 2) are not arguments but invectives-- your views are not original etc etc etc.

Really? You should check out interpersonal communication some time. It's pretty fuckin' sweet, if you ask me.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:43:17 -0800

Wasn't 111 just doing what users do all the time (opining, veering off-topic, being snarky) without getting their wrists slapped in MetaTalk?

Not really.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:45:24 -0800

I believe in intuitive knowledge

Translation: "I make it up as I go along." And you expect this to be persuasive?

We are not here to make friends, but to exchange ideas.

Unlike many, I would agree with you there. But that does not mean that one should go out of one's way to make enemies, either. Promoting Grudgefilter values degrades the quality of experience of the site for all of us.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:50:56 -0800

*bats eyelashes, wiggles butt, smiles knowingly at 111*

By: 111

111 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:00:44 -0800

Prince, Danke schön. Ignatius, I'm actually very shy, so I have this curious "Everybody's Talking at Me" feeling, but that's all. Actually, it's not about me or even about religion, brights and atheism; it's about voicing legitimate, non-sugarcoated opinions. I think it's an important thread in the sense that many of us here have revealed our true colors. clever sheep, for instance, calls me a "maroon".
sgt, I like the movie, but no; it's not some sort of shout out to Daryl Hall and John Oates either. It's purely randomic and timesaving.

I believe in intuitive knowledge
Translation: "I make it up as I go along." And you expect this to be persuasive?

rushmc, no, the actual translation is "I believe in ideas that stand the test of time, real life and history".

---> off to get a restraining order against that freak quonsar--->

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:12 -0800

rushmc, no, the actual translation is "I believe in ideas that stand the test of time, real life and history".

Then I would suggest that you consider broadening the segment of time and history that you examine: zooming out changes the perspective dramatically. As for "real life," well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes that.

{rant deleted}

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:16:56 -0800

We are not here to make friends, but to exchange ideas.

At any rate, I was speaking of tone and expression, not ideas. Speaking in a tone of contempt is not an idea. People who would consistently address others in real life as you have here are not apt make friends easily--this is my intuition.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:18:31 -0800

sigh--apt to... etc.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:29:07 -0800

We're almost up to 100 comments here. Wouldn't it be ~~poetic~~ pathetic if we could get to 111 and then stop?

By: macrone

macrone — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:33:32 -0800

After the brights install Dawkins in the White House and start rounding up the despised and defenseless Christian minority for the new concentration camps, then you'll all be sorry you sat by unquestioningly. Haven't the lessons of real life taught you anything? We should be grateful that 111's taking his courageous stand, using holy intuition to expose the creeping fascism of the materialists, while the rest of us get bogged down in mere trivia.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:03 -0800

To the central question, "Is 111 a troller?":

We must first consider the role that the troller plays in modern online fora. The troller is a provocateur, yes, but his means of provocation are not always the rude put-down, the broad insult, the nah-nah-nah-nah-nah of the little brother next to you in the back seat of your parents' wood-paneled 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser station wagon. No; at his best the troller is a jester, a holy fool, exposing and ridiculing the self-satisfaction and egomania of members of the community. The most vivid troller archetype in our collective secular folklore is not, as you might first think, the troll under the bridge in The Three Billy Goats Gruff; it is the tailor in The Emperor's New Clothes. A good troller exposes the foibles of the puffed-up, self-assured dandies of the online community.

How does the troller achieve this noble goal? A skilled troller must be able to write for two audiences: those he seeks to provoke, and those he seeks to entertain. This requires subtlety. To insult the community broadly would merely bring forth the derision of all (it would, in other words "bait flames", and a troll is a much more serious and important piece of writing than mere flamebait). Too restrained a posting, however, might serve to start a thoughtful discussion, in which all parties appear intelligent and graceful. It is never in the troller's interest for his intended targets to appear intelligent and graceful.

One classic troll strategy is what might be called the "absurd assertion". The troller makes a claim, typically using the tone of an expert, that is on its face contradictory to common sense and common knowledge. Most readers comprehend immediately what is happening: they say to themselves, "Ah! A troll!", sit back, and watch. Some readers, however, are outraged at the apparent affront to the integrity and intelligence of the forum, and they go out of their ways to discredit the troll's absurd claims, often making fools of themselves.

A less sophisticated approach, and one which appears to be playing out here, is to insult one side of a debate. The partisans of that side are sure to respond with bile, and if the insults are sufficiently coated in a veneer of reasonable discourse, the rest of the community will hesitate to object to the troller. There is no doubt that 111 deals in the currency of insults. In addition to the comments that The Michael The cited above, we now have:
"... there was a certain National Socialist group in Germany whose core values were once underplayed as well..."
" I find it terribly moronic to limit oneself to superficial discussion of trivial matters..."
"...I won't buy a propeller beanie and watch TV with you either, Hidalgo."
and
"...TheMichaelThe, you're off base because you're not thinking right...."

Furthermore, the question of "Is 111 a troller" has been answered, in a way, by 111 himself:
"I have no interest in 'convincing'."
No. Of course not. The troller is not here to convince us of anything: his role is merely to hold a mirror up to us so that we may see our own hideousness, our pathetic human weakness.

I think a more interesting question might be "Is 111 a good troller?". I would answer, "No, no, a thousand times, no!", but this is largely an aesthetic judgement. It's been a long time since talented trollers were commonplace on the internet. You still see one, now and again, on Slashdot, but things just aren't like they once were. The world has changed. But, in these topsy-turvey times, there is still a role for the dedicated troller. I exhort you, young members of Metafilter: study the art of the troll, and devote yourselves to this noble calling!

Yes, I know it's been done before

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:43:07 -0800

Tin Man, I have no interest in "convincing". I believe in intuitive knowledge-- one that ultimately stems from individual experiences based on info we gather as go through life.

then why do you argue? And why do you make comments about how peopel in threads are finally having the truth revealed by none other than you? If you have no intention of responding to counter arguments, why raise the problem to begin with? If you aren't interested in exploring the issue further, why don't you just stay offline and meditate or experience?

On top of which, you state that life-experience is the only source of information and yet your whole case for the existence of god is based on a rational argument [one I, like others, don't find convincing, but still] ... what's with that?

I'm baffled that people are still defending this guy. There are plenty of pro-religious people around here who represent their viewpoint without being condescending...

I dunno, he obviously likes being contrarian, and he obviously thinks he's well educated or smart, but his knowledge seems pretty superficial (lotsa references without much appreciation for the body of work as a whole, etc), maybe as if he's just starting out on studies? Or maybe he just googles...

By: transona5

transona5 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:51:17 -0800

The idea of the "troll" has really outlived its usefulness. Right now, it seems to mean one of two things: someone the majority doesn't agree with, or someone you're not supposed to disagree with because doing so would be "taking the bait." Either way, the main effect is to stifle debate. A well-liked poster can "troll" selectively to make assertions that go unchallenged for fear of appearing to take them too seriously. "Oh, he was only trolling. I guess it got a reaction."

There are plenty of pro-religious people around here who represent their viewpoint without being condescending...

Leaving open the question of whether 111 is condescending, or was before being set upon by the mob, I'm not defending him because we need our token religious people to appear diverse. I believe that the quality of his posts is consistently well above average.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:55:04 -0800

clever sheep, for instance, calls me a "maroon".

WHOOSH!!!!!!

By: anildash

anildash — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:59:54 -0800

You know, there was a certain National Socialist group in Germany whose core values were once underplayed as well

awww, yeah. that's the stuff. i like that real nice.

By: xowie

xowie — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:11:02 -0800

"You know, there was a certain National Socialist group in Germany whose core values were once underplayed as well..."

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:21:33 -0800

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:22:54 -0800

that resize function in image editing software is there for a good reason.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:28:27 -0800

clever sheep, for instance, calls me a "maroon".

don't tell me you've been so busy tracking the almighty down that you missed your quota of saturday morning cartoons...? maroon = moron in bugs bunnyese.

i can't believe my previous post didn't shut this thread down. it was classic conversation-killing stupidity designed to make me look silly and frivolous for all time. here i was willing to embarrass myself in order to save us all and it meant nothing to any of you...! and now look, we've got fark-sized graphics being posted.

this thread proves there is no god, not on the blasted interwebnet at any rate.

By: zarah

zarah — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:33:31 -0800

Dear 111,

Please put an email address in your user profile. This will save us much gnashing and flailing in the future! Thank you.

Sincerely,

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:35:48 -0800

t r a c y, not to mention that classic image of the illiterate neocon war supporter holding a sign referring to anti-war demonstrators as 'maroons'. i thought everyone must have seen that by now.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:41:29 -0800

Hate to poop on a good connection, but I believe the word on the sign was "morans".

By: transona5

transona5 — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:44:43 -0800

Sure it wasn't a very subtle reference to Rep. Jim Moran? I mean, he's not popular with the neocons.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:07:13 -0800

inpHilltr8r, shshshshshsh! these mormons will believe anything.

spell check likes "hashish" for "shshshshshsh"

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:13:10 -0800

ah yes, the subtle image itself (thx crash!)

By: iconomy

iconomy — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:13:39 -0800

What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:15:24 -0800

Hmmm. Indeed. So you mean a group with undisguised political ambitions shouldn't have its core values analyzed. More than that, you say we should resign ourselves like good slaughterhouse sheep to discuss what the "brights" should do next.

No, I mean you're acting like a complete dipshit.

More than that, even though this group's central motivation-- atheism-- goes against the beliefs of a sizable percentage of the US population, and even though atheism has proven disastrous in other countries, you still want the thread to have one single aspect-- what will the "brights" do next.

Yes, because that's what the post was about.

By: The Michael The

The Michael The — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:47:19 -0800

TheMichaelThe, you're offbase because you're not thinking right-- like TheGodComplex, you generalize; I criticize individuals and groups of individuals here, even when I name no names-- they know who they are and well, you know the drill: do not ask for whom the bells toll...
You also see a single category where there's none, or where it's wider than you seem to think. I do not behave any differently from most people here; I simply happen to use other kind of weaponry.

Such a classic ad-hominem attack. You do not respond to my assertions because of some supposed fault of my own. You're also generalizing just as you accuse me of doing the same.

How about this: one cannot prove that something does not exist, but you can prove that something does exist. So, show me the existence of evidence (comment-tracking exists in user profiles for a reason) that you indeed are receptive to notions you do not currently hold and are not as closed-minded as your comments lead us to believe.

And what is this other kind of weaponry of which you speak? Aristotelian metaphysics? A large diction? Sorry, I subscribe to empirical philosophy, and I can use large words and complex sentence structure as well. As can many other MeFites. Concurrently, using such purportedly different weaponry does not prevent you from behaving differently from the plurality of MeFites. I applaud you for being such a populist, but you, barring any other restrictions of which I do not have knowledge, still have the ability to rise above if you so choose. Please do us a favor and rise.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:07:37 -0800

Things I like about MetaFilter, Number 4,312:

Even a patently useless pissing (and moaning) match of a thread can lead to a clever and well-presented tidbit of information. See, maroon.

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:24:58 -0800

If Matt had any sense of aesthetics, he'd delete this comment along with four others, and close the thread to commenting.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:07:48 -0800

Naw – he should wait until it gets to 666.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:57:26 -0800

he/she... his/her... 111's quite obviously male.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:09:06 -0800

111's quite obviously male.

"It has been suggested that Tiptree is female, a theory that I find absurd, for there is to me something ineluctably masculine about Tiptree's writing."
--Robert Silverberg on James Tiptree, Jr. (pseudonym of Alice Sheldon)

I must say, it's impressive to me the number of people chastising 111 for being smug, not presenting cogent arguments, not listening to counterarguments, &c; I can only presume that all these people have consistent histories of being reasonable, listening to others and changing their views accordingly when they find reasoned criticism, never talking down to opponents, &c. And of course making similar criticisms of people whose views they happen to agree with. I'll have to keep an eye out for their comments, because it has seemed to me that such people were vanishingly rare on this noisy, contentious site.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:26:27 -0800

one need not be a musician to write a music review, languagehat...

111 does not appear to respect the community, so the community rejects them. In real life, we'd do it with body language; online, we do it by pointing out just exactly what is wrong with 111's behaviour.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:32:29 -0800

I certainly aspire to all those qualities, languagehat. Of course I've done those things which I ought not to have done and left undone those things which I ought to have done, but I do try.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:28:27 -0800

STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS, JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:48:07 -0800

It took me a second to get xmutex's joke.

By: Opus Dark

Opus Dark — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:25:56 -0800

My sensus divinitatis keeps telling me to hush up, study Theomatics, and multiply by 8. Then it says 'Lest ye', cuts off, and repeats itself.

All smart-assery aside, I don't get get the lambasting. Seems forced and contrived. As for tripleOne's alleged arrogance, my biopsy says it's non-malignant - I recommend salve and fortnightly mortification. -- I. C. Chapatis, MD

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:27:35 -0800

It was with relieve that I found Holmes diverted once again from his malady of boredom. The reasons for this account can be my no measure told until the death of the great detective so it is with in some measure out of curiosity and of a uniqueness that I now give the account.

It was an october day in 89'. A thick greasy fog had settled in and Holmes attention was given upon his Monograph : 'Detritus, Fuel, and Creosote accumulation in the Modern Parlor Stove'.

Holmes: "Take a read at this telegram from the ambassador of...

Watson: "...let me Guess...."

(knock upon door)

By: Hildago

Hildago — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:21:01 -0800

One cannot discuss parlor stove accumulations without first debating the very nature of modern life.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:58:33 -0800

If the stove makes me hot, there must be an arbiter of the sense of heat, and therefore only the unenlightened and non-Spicolioed blathering pallywinkle could possibly deny the existence of EZ-Burn magic logs.

By: Opus Dark

Opus Dark — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:08:30 -0800

TAG, TANG,
Pancakes and Kittens,
on aisle 4
by the Oven Mittens.

By: signal

signal — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:09:59 -0800

But if you accept that the stove is outside your hand, and take (on faith) that the skin on your hand is blistering, isn't it neccesary sine qua non to posit the existence of an agent other than caloric? And of course the stove exists, otherwise IT WOULDN'T BE A STOVE!

QED.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:39:42 -0800

This place never changes. Good grief.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:26:19 -0800

You can not put your hand on the same burner twice.

By: euphorb

euphorb — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:28:36 -0800

...I recommend salve and more nightly fornication...

Now that's an idea I think we can all get behind. Definately an idea whose time has come, oh yes.

By: Opus Dark

Opus Dark — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:10:12 -0800

This place never changes.

It's the dynamic equivalent of a permanent object.

Now that's an idea I think we can all get behind.

Nary a mission has no apposition.