Weak sauce

January 19, 2004 12:47 PM

Blatant front-page troll.
posted by nicwolff to etiquette/policy at 12:47 PM (34 comments total)

It's not a troll so much as a poorly-formed fpp based upon a poorly-formed story. I might disagree with Steve on, say, 98% of his politically-motivated discourse, but it's fair to say he's pretty consistent in his opinions.

That said, it's a non-story and not worth posting. I just take issue with spouting off "troll" every time someone says something you don't agree with.
posted by The God Complex at 12:55 PM on January 19, 2004

Well, lets also have a look at these as well.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:58 PM on January 19, 2004

Yeah, I especially love the comment in the thread wherein Steve documents his knowledge of the fact that he is simply parroting the "Bush Bashing" posts that he feels are illegitimate. If we are to apply Steve's own standard, the FPP has got to go.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:06 PM on January 19, 2004

It's a crappy post, for sure, but Steve is right that there's been plenty of posts just as useless about bush. I imagine it's pretty hard not to want to do it back, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

You can do better steve, hama7 has a great posting track record, he keeps his political sniping to other people's bad posts.
posted by malphigian at 1:09 PM on January 19, 2004

the musty stench follows ... and I'm not even a Dean guy.
posted by specialk420 at 1:10 PM on January 19, 2004

Considering that the term "DeanFilter" has been applied here more than once, I think this lie (or what appears to be a lie, or whatever your particular slant on it may be) is absolutely fair game. Dean doesn't deserve a free ride, and should be called out on things that you know MeFi would crucify Bush over.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:13 PM on January 19, 2004

Bullshit. It's a negative post about Dean. There are enough negative posts here about Bush. It's called a different opinion. Get over it. You should be ashamed.

Are you ashamed?
posted by xmutex at 1:15 PM on January 19, 2004

Yes.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:18 PM on January 19, 2004

If we are to apply Steve's own standard, the FPP has got to go.


it's either a very subtle, smart -- if rude -- attempt by Steve at GOPwood to show those elitist terrorist-loving MeFites that they've been bashing Bush for too long and they deserve a taste of their own medicine (and one would probably be overestimating Steve at Bushwood's intelligence) or it is simply a lame "gotcha" post about a weak Time magazine nonstory. but anything goes when you have to try and distract people from those uncomfortable 500 dead GI's coming back home in body bags and tose weird WMD's are reluctant to show up

the fact that insisting for a photo-op with Carter and attacking another country using fake evidence are pretty different crimes of pretty different magnitudes probably escapes our compassionate conservative friend, anyway.
but that would be asking too much probably -- shamelessness is an endearing Republican trait in these post-1992 days. and personally I find Linnwood very funny (until I think about slaughtered Iraqis and charred Coalition soldiers, of course. then Linnwood shtick gets a little annoying, frankly, but that's just me)
posted by matteo at 1:18 PM on January 19, 2004

This is in fact my first-ever troll call-out. So to say that I am "spouting off" is inappropriate.

But posts phrased intentionally to provoke angry responses are trolls, and don't belong on the front page. So, MetaTalk, and it's up to Matt.

The rest of you, sheesh, relax.
posted by nicwolff at 1:30 PM on January 19, 2004

WHATEVER NICWOLFF.
posted by xmutex at 1:34 PM on January 19, 2004

That's tellin' him, xmutex.
posted by jonmc at 1:41 PM on January 19, 2004

*fires several rounds of celebratory gunfire*
posted by hama7 at 1:52 PM on January 19, 2004

*fires several rounds of celebratory gunfire*

hamas7?
posted by jbou at 2:00 PM on January 19, 2004

Well, lets also have a look at these as well.
posted by y2karl at 2:27 PM on January 19, 2004

y2karl raises a good point - obviously posts about the government that's currently in power and creating policy that affects each and every one of our daily lives - whether or not those posts center on the President himself or not - are not to be seen as equivalent to posts about someone who's still only a candidate for the nomination of a given party later this year.

Anyone who barks back at "Deanfilter" with "Bushfilter" examples doesn't quite understand analogy.
posted by soyjoy at 2:33 PM on January 19, 2004

These posts about Bush's suspected lies & indiscretions must be posted to the homepage, people. It's our duty as tolerant, justice-seeking, consciousness-raising citizens to be vigilant against corporate fa$cism!!! Furthermore....


Oh, wait --
the post was about Dean?

Goddammit, why do we allow these posts? Take it down immediately. And for good measure: Bu$h is teh suXors LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!1
posted by dhoyt at 2:35 PM on January 19, 2004

This subject has been broached multiple times in MeTa. The difference this time is that it is against someone on the left.

It is equally a poor post, but it is remarkable the backlash.

Everyday there are several single-source op-ed FPPs that are designed to smear the Republican. The same group of people consistently grind their axe and annoy a great number of readers.

I, for one, would hope that ALL of these posts would be deleted.

But, I must admit a large amount of schadenfreude to see people get upset who support the same crap as long as it comports with their ideology.

Who said irony is dead?


Get rid of ALL NewsFilter; LeftyFilter; AntiBushFilter; LGFilter posts!
posted by Seth at 2:51 PM on January 19, 2004

Steve may be playing 'gotcha,' but a lot of those people bashing him have been playing the same game for a loooong time.



.
posted by dhoyt at 3:03 PM on January 19, 2004

Yea and verily, these words are true. Let them be chanted from the rooftops and sung in the bazaar, teach them well to thy children and hold them close to thy heart in these dark and dangerous times, let them be as a beacon to guide thee to safe harbour when lost in a tempest of assholes : Bu$h is teh suXors. LOL evermore.

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:13 PM on January 19, 2004

I'm kinda with Seth on this one. it was a bad post with a worse article, but the backlash was a little upsetting. I like dean but I would like to see some legitamite criticisms.
posted by mcsweetie at 3:20 PM on January 19, 2004

I like dean but I would like to see some legitimate criticisms.

I guess the point would be that these criticisms aren't all that legitimate, it seems. Dean may have misspoken or misrepresented the intended date of his get-together, but it's not as if he manufactured it out of nothing.

This subject has been broached multiple times in MeTa. The difference this time is that it is against someone on the left.

That's only true to a very small extent. This was a poorly-framed post about a poorly-executed news story dealing with an issue that seems to have nothing substantial behind it. As has been pointed out, both in this thread and the thread in question, most of the "anti-bush" posts are dealing with something much more serious and effecting than a possible misrepresentation of a meeting with Jimmy Carter as an electioneering tool. In these instances we're talking about blatant, planned misrepresentations of evidence against foreign nations as a means to destabilize the middle east and seize lucrative assets for the good of the empire, complete with attempts to brand dissenters as non-patriots. Or, we could be talking about the (white, male) guiding hand of America, writing anti-abortion bills and undoing separation of church and state for the benefit of George's fellow believers (amen), or any other number of mind-numbing events that have taken place in the past three years or so. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing.

Some of the threads happen to be a bit frivolous and/or overwrought and are decidedly deserving of the axe brought down upon their exposed neck, but that doesn't mean they all are, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're of the same league as the strange anti-dean strain currently running through the major news outlets.

Plus, let's be honest, if, in a year, President Dean is in office, I think it's fair to say that there is still going to be a fair number of posts decrying some of the actions he takes. One would only hope the actions aren't as uniformly and abjectly distasteful as those suffered through for the last three years.
posted by The God Complex at 4:32 PM on January 19, 2004

Doesn't Matt usually axe single-source op-ed FPP's? I've never posted one, but I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that we don't need every week's Krugman column on the front page of MeFi in any case, right?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:46 PM on January 19, 2004

i have to agree with everyone calling for the deletion of this post. what kind of precedent are we setting if we allow this sort of partisan b.s. to rule the front page? like malphigian said, Steve_at_Linwood would be better off posting non-political posts (following the example set by hama7) as the fine art of unbiased political rhetoric is best left to those who know what exactly it is they're talking about.
posted by poopy at 5:16 PM on January 19, 2004

If you all think Dean (or any other democrat) is immune to bashing here, just let them get elected president. A good many people think all politicians suck, regardless of party-of-the-day.
posted by mischief at 5:18 PM on January 19, 2004

Come on people. I know MeFi trends to the left, but this is ridiculous. This is absolutely no worse than a substantial chunk of the liberal-leaning political posts here. As I noted in the thread, this looks like skeezy political campaigning to me, and it deserves to be posted.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:42 PM on January 19, 2004

If we are to bitch about Newsfilter posts, I think we must bitch about all Newsfilter posts- regardless of politics. To me, there seems to have been a lot of single link Newsfilter posts recently. I'd point to y2karl- who's posted a couple of nytimes/wapo links recently- but he seems to redeem every post with multiple in-thread links to other valuable sources. (I also don't think I've been posting enough to start Metatalk threads and I'm not that upset anyway.) I think the bitching is pretty hypocritical, but I do question the trend towards DiscussionFilter and hypocritcally think it should be discussed.
posted by superchris at 6:47 PM on January 19, 2004

So I wasn't sure how to approach this call-out. I feel for Steve, because not too long ago I was the "troll". There are several posters in the MeFi thread that love these opportunities, if only to tell themselves and each other, "See, I told you that Steve was a hypocrite. Now I can ignore anything he says from now on." This bothers me, because while I think that Steve screwed up in this instance, many of his posts are well written and deserve a read.

So that's my feeling. The wording of his post was deliberately baiting and unnecessarily charged with partisan politics. "Dean screwed up." was enough. However, I think the rampant name-calling and instant dismissal on the part of others here is equally wrong. You can't claim the characteristic of "tolerant" on the one hand and smack down a different opinion with another. It's poor form.

BTW, I'm not sure if it's possible, or even appropriate, but I think a voluntary moratorium on the term "troll" may be helpful here. If you feel wronged or annoyed by a different viewpoint, and it's not blatantly incorrect or filled with invective (I hate that word, because I'd never use it in a sentence I spoke), just ignore it.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:38 PM on January 19, 2004

There are several posters in the MeFi thread that love these opportunities, if only to tell themselves and each other, "See, I told you that Steve was a hypocrite. Now I can ignore anything he says from now on." This bothers me, because while I think that Steve screwed up in this instance, many of his posts are well written and deserve a read.

I agree with you there. If steve wasn't usually a thoughtful contributor, than this post wouldn't have seemed so goofy.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:11 PM on January 19, 2004

this looks like skeezy political campaigning to me, and it deserves to be posted.
Without the post, would have never known the actual truths on this story. Did we ever get mojofilter running?
posted by thomcatspike at 5:06 AM on January 20, 2004

I agree with Blue Train. As I said in the thread, a lot of the people who jumped all over Steve make themselves look a lot worse than Steve did himself.
posted by cell divide at 10:16 AM on January 20, 2004

Bad post.
Bad reaction.
Bad behaviour.

So, to summarise:

Could do better. Ignore and move on.
posted by asok at 10:43 AM on January 20, 2004

However, I think the rampant name-calling and instant dismissal on the part of others here is equally wrong...

BTW, I'm not sure if it's possible, or even appropriate, but I think a voluntary moratorium on the term "troll" may be helpful here.

Perhaps we should take our own medicine first before prescribing it for others...


We give nothing so liberally as our own advice.

La Rochefoucauld
posted by y2karl at 11:08 AM on January 20, 2004

And the bottom line of course, as always, is that discussion of politics on MetaFilter blows goats....

mathowie, quoted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:33 PM PST on September 11

~chuckle~

As usual, hypocrisy never fails to amuse.
How's that goat taste, Steve@Linnwood? I thought you right-wingers were all about not polluting MetaFilter front page with singe source op-eds.

Sorry I asked. Don't talk with your mouth full.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:20 PM on January 21, 2004