All generalizations are bad -- about Mefi, anyway.

March 27, 2001 1:30 PM

if you ask me, there's *nothing* more 'old' than posts which go beyond "I disagree with posters x, y, and z for the following reasons" into the realm of "you metafilter people are always so x". a couple of recent examples here and here, though I don't mean to imply that these two posters are at the vanguard of this disheartening trend: it's *a lot of us*.

anyway. I submit that comments like these serve no purpose, advance no argument, are gross generalizations, bear a bothersome resemblance to en-masse flames, and really ought to stop. further, I submit that any discussions (as opposed to one-off snark moments) of the bad habits displayed by the community as a whole belong on MetaTalk, not MetaFilter. this concludes my 'blog nicely' moment for the day.
posted by Sapphireblue to etiquette/policy at 1:30 PM (36 comments total)

Well, of course you're right, Sapphireblue. But I think that the people you're talking about will never see themselves as part of the problem, so you're probably preaching to the choir.

You girly girl web developers are always so idealistic.

I'm not much more bothered by the "you metafilter people" than by the "you liberals," "you newbies," and "you whatever" generalizations.

Well, except that there's a certain lack of logic to slamming a group you're a member of. It kind of reminds me of when I was a teenager and my mom called my brother a "son of a bitch." The poor guy didn't have the sense not to point out the logical conclusion. Big mistake.


posted by anapestic at 1:56 PM on March 27, 2001

Why are you taking this so personally?
posted by aaron at 2:28 PM on March 27, 2001

My only complaint about them is that they're as effective an arguing point as comparing your debate opponent to Nazis.

Of course, the unpublished corollary to Godwin's Law is that the first person to link to Godwin's Law is a weenie, so hey, what the hell.

Seriously though, when I see some resorting to that kind of argument, I chuckle at their expense. They're grasping at straws.
posted by cCranium at 2:51 PM on March 27, 2001

I dunno cC: some threads just start off that way :)
posted by samsara at 3:30 PM on March 27, 2001

who said anything about taking it personally?

*reads back*
*remains confused*

for that matter, what is who taking personally? antecedents---I need antecedents.
posted by Sapphireblue at 3:30 PM on March 27, 2001

Thankfully, MeFi is anything but united in viewpoint on anything at anytime.

Wonderously diverse and getting more so all the time.

Such a great place to converse and it doesn't cost you a dime.

When all is said it could be worse with every message caked in slime.

Until that day I must say that Mefi suits me just fine.
posted by john at 3:34 PM on March 27, 2001

You rhymed 'anytime' with 'all the time'

It's just not right.
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:00 PM on March 27, 2001

That's the caveat of impromptu poetry.
posted by john at 4:07 PM on March 27, 2001

Right on Sister Sapphire. It's tiresome as hell, and it's such a pose: oh, look, it's the Spockian outsider smirking down on us poor MeFi members! And now he's written *snicker*! How funny!

If you don't like the people here enough to disagree with them respectfully, why are you here?
posted by rodii at 4:48 PM on March 27, 2001

*snicker*
posted by Neale at 6:02 PM on March 27, 2001

Hmmm, I dunno.
I've always found those Mefi people to be just a bunch of ignorant morons (not at all like you nice MetaTalk folks).
posted by lagado at 6:10 PM on March 27, 2001

if you took all the Mefi members and put them in a big convention hall, to my mother or any other non web, tech, info, digital revolutionary, geek, writer, online journalist, blogger, webzine writer-type of person we would appear to be a group of Peers. we are a very small percentage of people online. the fact that we come here, and read/write thoughts here makes us peers, and someone coming from the outside--don't deny there isn't an Outside--is going to see that immediately. The fact that we are all individuals, and have radically different lifestyles and views from Our point of view isn't the point.

is referring to MeFi people en masse a generalization? Yes. So? It is more accurate than most of us would like to admit. Myself, i don't really give a fuck if people lump me into a generalization i know i don't fit. But then...i'm on the Inside, and i accept others as individuals, and expect the same in return.

I wish i was better at staying with a thought like some of the rest of you...i guess my point is this: Be nice. Dont' get offended when people leap to the MeFi generalization. It may fit from their point of view. We are obviously a diverse group...otherwise there would BE NO DISCUSSION. Let that be self-evident. People will catch on or they will leave.
posted by th3ph17 at 8:50 PM on March 27, 2001

if you took all the Mefi members and put them in a big
convention hall, to my mother or any other non web,
tech, info, digital revolutionary, geek, writer, online
journalist, blogger, webzine writer-type of person we
would appear to be a group of Peers.

God is watching us
God is watching us
God is watching us
From a distance

Maybe, maybe not. I don't get the impression that the people whom Sapphireblue was speaking about value the diversity all that much.

Sometimes I don't value it all that much. There are certain issues (gun control, close presidential elections, many others) where feelings run so strong and opinions are so polarized that it's impossible to have a nuanced discussion because people can't agree on fundamental assumptions.

You can have plenty of diversity of opinion within a limited band of the spectrum.

Of course, there are also a lot of topics (mostly the less inflammatory ones) where the broadest possible range of opinion is desirable.

In any case, the "y'all are so x" posters are frequently wrong. When I first arrived, I saw a number of posts lamenting how liberal MeFi posters are. Some are, but many aren't. When people don't agree with your position (perhaps because it's poorly articulated), the easiest thing to do is to dismiss the population stating the opinion.
posted by anapestic at 9:05 PM on March 27, 2001

You know, Metafilter's not the only time in history we've seen this kind of ignorant behavior. Back in 1940s Germany, the Nazis used to make "gross generalizations" about the Jews. And we all know how that turned out.
posted by waxpancake at 11:50 PM on March 27, 2001

hi, here's me clarifying.

i am not speaking out against 'diversity'. any of us is smart enough (benefit of the doubt, eh?) to express a contrary opinion without making an ad hominem attack on 4800 people.

if it's bad form to shoot down a person instead of an argument, it is *really* bad form to substitute snarky comments about an entire community for a reasoned opposing view.
posted by Sapphireblue at 4:09 AM on March 28, 2001

Neale, you are such a shit. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)
posted by rodii at 5:47 AM on March 28, 2001

The diversity of opinions on MeFi has definitely improved over time. Howver, that does not mean that certain beliefs still make up the vast majority of the MeFi groupthink. Just today, MeFi has proven that it largely still speaks with one specific voice that overwhelms most others, and that is far more likely to be followed up by sycophant yes-posts than any debate.

posted by aaron at 11:53 AM on March 28, 2001

"certain beliefs still make up" = "certain beliefs don't still make up"
posted by aaron at 11:54 AM on March 28, 2001

aaron, it seems to me that your last post is an example of the sort of rhetoric that Sapphireblue was referring to when she started this thread. Terms like "MeFi groupthink" are a slam on the community as a whole.

As for "Just today, MeFi has proven that it largely still speaks with one specific voice that overwhelms most others," you've taken one issue where most posters are in agreement and extrapolated it to the community as a whole. Opinions are a lot more mixed in most threads.

Even in the environmental thread you mentioned, there was a significant amount of dissent; it just wasn't well-reasoned dissent.

And if it's as bad as you say, why stick around?
posted by anapestic at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2001

Just today, MeFi has proven that it largely still speaks with one specific voice that overwhelms most others, and that is far more likely to be followed up by sycophant yes-posts than any debate.

I can't believe you're still dragging out that persecution complex, Aaron. There was a time when you could count all the outspoken right-wingers here on one hand, but that glorious era has passed. Look at any of the threads involving guns.

The biggest problem I have with all of these overgeneralizations about MetaFilter, liberals, the A-list and similar targets is that they are conversation killers. If you can't respect the people here enough to treat them as individuals instead of lumping them in with a despised group, why bother posting here at all?
posted by rcade at 1:08 PM on March 28, 2001

Aaron,

I diss politicans on both sides. Don't confuse consensus of democrats dislike of GWB with independant dislike of GWB. I would probably be in no better mood if Gore and Leiby were in office. Leiby's stance on games scared me more.
posted by john at 1:55 PM on March 28, 2001

rcade,

Us firearm enthusiasts aren't all right-wingers. Help, help, I'm being repressed. (from here)
posted by accountingboy at 5:05 PM on March 28, 2001

Aaron is arguing for more diversity of opinion as long as it's not from the left of center.
posted by lagado at 4:44 AM on March 29, 2001

I never suggested that anyone leave MetaFilter, Aaron. I just question the logic of participating in discussions in a way that undermines the likelihood that people will genuinely listen to what you are saying.
posted by rcade at 12:44 AM on March 30, 2001

What rcade said.
posted by anapestic at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2001

But obviously many MeFites consider those posts to be the height of intellectualism.

This is exactly the lack of respect I'm talking about. When you denigrate the people here using terms like "brainless" and "sycophants," it contributes to an atmosphere of mutual disrespect that prevents a genuine exchange of ideas from taking place.

If that's genuinely how you feel about us, I have to ask again: Why bother posting here at all?
posted by rcade at 1:48 PM on March 30, 2001

Never realized there were referencing good ole "ow" here on metatalk - lemme add a couple of thoughts.

While MeFi represents a broad range of opinion - the largest block represented would be :

way left liberal, caucasian, pbs-watching folks who have a tendency to be cultural elitists

While I often agree with the majority (being a centrist Clinton Democrat myself) - I often dissent from the majority opinion on social issues. Or should I just walk in lock step?

Would defeat that "broad range of opinion" thing, huh?

Mebbe I'm just too blunt. Oh well.
posted by owillis at 3:40 PM on March 30, 2001

The racial quotas story was overwhelmingly conservative dominated, from what I remember. Libertarians jumped in to bash the extremist-bashing guy writing in re to the abortion-1st Am case, in a way that I felt was totally justified.

That said, I didn't think anyone was going to point out that, yes, plenty of libertarians are really right wing. I used to work for a paper owned by the chain that owns the Orange County Register. A lot of libertarians are scary in a way I find immensely, overwhelmingly disturbing. I just stay out of discussions because I worked for some of them cats and don't trust them, which leads to a blind spot. But in the meantime I sit and read Net folks imply over and over Libertarianism is Cool, and the Future, and it kills me. I instead try to point out the down side of the Libertarian Way to people in a more subtle way, when possible and appropriate.

I dig reading an excellent conservative column now and then, some of them are the finest writers alive. But I tire of the "us against the world" crap from the worst of them. You live in a world full of people who disagree with you. Just get your facts straight, filter out the media-fed spin, know your blind spots, build a strong appeal, etc. It's the only way to get your voice heard.
posted by raysmj at 5:05 PM on March 30, 2001

Correction: The racial quotas story was dominated by people who have a traditionally conservative-oriented view of the matter. But it's more a education/income level thing and to a lesser extent a racial one, being opposed to it that is, than an ideological matter anyway. The responses to the David Horowitz ad were, however, almost totally conservative -- no one pointing out, say, that welfare was not a form of reparations for blacks, as Horowitz stated, knowing full well he was being provocative.
posted by raysmj at 5:18 PM on March 30, 2001

There's a very big difference between bashing a public figure and bashing members of your own community. I personally find it disconcerting when people say things like "that bitch Katherine Harris." If you don't know her personally, how can you make that assessment. It also seems sexist to me to make an ad hominem attack on a conservative female in the same phrase as your making political attacks on conservative males. (I don't feel like finding the quote right now. Ultimately, if you disagree with someone's politics, you undermine your argument by making an ad hominem attack. It's so easy to dispel conservative arguments with logic. Rancor is uncalled for.

However, those people are public figures and ought to have thick skins. It's entirely different to refer to members of your own community as "brainless Bush-bashing sycophants." Not only is it rude, it doesn't make sense. A sycophant is someone who flatters influential people in an attempt to gain favor. A Bush defender might be a sycophant, but just which important person or people are the liberals at MF trying to get in good with? I don't think Matt's going to send a t-shirt to whoever bashes Bush brutally.

It seems to me, aaron, that when someone bashes a prominent conservative, you take it personally. It also seems to me that MF'ers take it personally when you bash MF'ers. Only one of those responses is sensible, and it's not yours.
posted by anapestic at 11:52 AM on April 1, 2001

> A Bush defender might be a sycophant, but just which
> important person or people are the liberals at MF
> trying to get in good with? I don't think Matt's going
> to send a t-shirt to whoever bashes Bush brutally.

With "Bush-bashing sycophants" isn't he saying the opposite?

I have seen negative posts/stories here about Bush and would say that appears to be the flow here (I haven't formed an opinion about the guy). If you were a wet weed you might think anti-bush would get you less flak and a pat on the back. This is unavoidable and no bad thing. All groups have a majority opinion who's members will tolerate insults on one side but not another. "Fuck you Bush" but not "Fuck Nader". I don't think this is particularly insightful.

Furthermore, I do not think it's an awful thing that you can't stoop to the anti-Bush level of insults. You are out-numbered. Any opinions against a flow will have more to go against. For unpopular opinions you can use insults. For popular opinions you cannot use insults. Welcome to planet fucking earth.

A well-reasoned argument that doesn't dare stoop to insults will usually raise the level of others. This is required for unpopular opinions (usually known as tact - something I'm having difficult learning - har! har!).
posted by holloway at 5:20 AM on April 3, 2001

OK, ignore the first sentence. I was late last night, I don't know what I was thinking.
posted by holloway at 3:47 PM on April 3, 2001

> I was late last night,

My subtle way of telling you all that i'm pregant, or something.
posted by holloway at 7:10 PM on April 3, 2001