"Your Asian-fetish weirdness flat out gives me the creeps": volatile & personal

February 29, 2004 8:38 AM

Maybe it's me, but "Your Asian-fetish weirdness flat out gives me the creeps" seems like an awfully volatile & personal way to kick off a thread.
posted by dhoyt to Etiquette/Policy at 8:38 AM (54 comments total)

it sure is
posted by clavdivs at 9:37 AM on February 29, 2004

Yes.
posted by subgenius at 9:43 AM on February 29, 2004

Indeed.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:48 AM on February 29, 2004

adam needs his pill. Can someone please see that adam gets his pill?
posted by JollyWanker at 9:54 AM on February 29, 2004

If you don't like it, dhoyt, you had equal opportunity to have first post yourself. Would you have called him out if his comment had instead been 15th?
posted by mischief at 10:00 AM on February 29, 2004

because of adam's comment, I thought that hamas had linked to some kind "Asian Anal Slutz" site or something.

but Japanese handguns?

shouldn't we talk, if at all, of a gun fetish more than an Asian fetish?
posted by matteo at 10:01 AM on February 29, 2004

The best thing about this whole thing was that, despite adamgreenfield and SpaceCadet's best thread-jacking efforts, the thread was more-or-less back on track the next morning. Ryvar in particular deserves the Blue MeFi Star for On-Topicness Above and Beyond the Call of Duty. Or something.
posted by vorfeed at 10:24 AM on February 29, 2004

Damn, I had my hopes up that it was a link to "Wet Hot Bitches" staring George Takei.
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on February 29, 2004

Or was it ''Young Wet Bitches''?
posted by homunculus at 10:59 AM on February 29, 2004

Excuse me, but Adamgreenfield's hama7-fetish flat out gives me the creeps.
posted by angry modem at 11:35 AM on February 29, 2004

If you don't like it, dhoyt, you had equal opportunity to have first post yourself. Would you have called him out if his comment had instead been 15th?

That's absurd. Do you believe that the first post is chosen by lottery? It's not, it's whoever sees the link first and decides to comment. By the nature of the medium, it's usually someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time browsing the site that is linked to. Anyone who sees the post an hour later, or who takes the time to give the link thoughtful consideration is not going to be first, they will be, like, 15th. And by then, the tone of the thread will generally already have been set -- by the people who posted knee-jerk comments without viewing the site.

This is why the first person to comment (on metafilter links to sites that require attention) is generally a horse's ass. It's also why many potentially good posts die young.

Horse's. Asses.
posted by Hildago at 11:41 AM on February 29, 2004

Horses'. Asses's's.

The asses of many horses!

(runs out of the room, crying)
posted by Hildago at 11:43 AM on February 29, 2004

Of course, it is not a lottery; it is as you say, the first to see it and comment, the opportunity of which everyone has an equal chance of obtaining.

So, my question still stands: would this call out have occurred if the comment had fifteenth, rather than first?
posted by mischief at 12:16 PM on February 29, 2004

a girlfriend !, a girlfriend !, my kingdom for a girlfriend !
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:27 PM on February 29, 2004

"Your Asian-fetish weirdness flat out gives me the creeps"

If you ever met #1 Jap-perv Xeni Jardin this phrase would make a lot of sense.

El Creepo has a patron Saint, and Xeni is her name.
posted by the fire you left me at 12:41 PM on February 29, 2004

Of course, it is not a lottery; it is as you say, the first to see it and comment, the opportunity of which everyone has an equal chance of obtaining.

But you still seem to be on a different wavelength. Not everybody has an equal chance of "obtaining" the first post -- the people who actually read the link thoroughly, the people who generally have more to say about the site, the people who like the site enough to stick around, are less likely to be the first to comment on it, compared to the people who make a snap judgement and post something snarky off the cuff.

So, my question still stands: would this call out have occurred if the comment had fifteenth, rather than first?

Probably not. But quite possibly. What's your point?

One possible point might be that the first commenter has more responsibility than subsequent commenters to set the tone of the discussion. That's why more first comments get callouts than 15th comments.
posted by Hildago at 12:54 PM on February 29, 2004

would this call out have occurred if the comment had fifteenth, rather than first?

I expect so (without the "kick off a thread" bit, obviously) - the call out was about the inappropriateness of the comment, not where it occurred in the thread, it would have been a valid call out regardless of what number the comment was.
posted by biscotti at 1:17 PM on February 29, 2004

the call out was about the inappropriateness of the comment, not where it occurred in the thread

and the question was, would it even have come to anyones attention, spurring a metatalk thread, if it hadn't been the first comment? the answer is no, in my considerable snark-bombing experience. the offense is only in the eye of the beholder. the commenting member didn't choose to be the first, and probably chose not to censor himself based on a silly thing like thread position. the same comment, nestled snugly amongst others safely down the page, would likely have barely been scanned.
posted by quonsar at 1:42 PM on February 29, 2004

Quite often, comments are first impressions of a link as those impressions occur. That someone else takes the time to view an entire link before commenting does not invalidate their opportunity to comment first. They simply chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity.

What do you propose? A ban from commenting until, say, an hour has passed?

FWIW, if that comment had been fifteenth, I strongly doubt this MeTalk would be occurring. Whether inappropriate or not, it was mild compared to many other comments in many other threads that never received callouts.
posted by mischief at 1:43 PM on February 29, 2004

Excuse me, but Adamgreenfield's hama7-fetish flat out gives me the creeps.

hama7? I thought he was talking about johnny7....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:46 PM on February 29, 2004

One possible point might be that the first commenter has more responsibility than subsequent commenters to set the tone of the discussion. That's why more first comments get callouts than 15th comments.

interesting viewpoint, it would explain why so many people are susceptible to media manipulation. they confuse importance with positioning. to paraphrase biscotti, one possible point may be that the reader has the additional responsibility of weighting each comment equally, applying judgements based on content rather than arbitrary position.
posted by quonsar at 1:48 PM on February 29, 2004

It would have been a shitty, stupid comment in 15th position as well. It just also happened to derail an entire thread, hence it got noticed.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:04 PM on February 29, 2004

hama's and johnny's 7-fetish weirdness flat out gives me the creeps.
posted by homunculus at 2:31 PM on February 29, 2004

The comment was not a derail at all. It was on topic and gave the commentor's opinion of the site.
posted by mischief at 2:36 PM on February 29, 2004

Put another way: would the following have been acceptable?

Your fascination with Asian-fetish weirdness intriques me immensely.

posted by mischief at 2:38 PM on February 29, 2004

derail an entire thread

derail is in the eye of the beholder. usually, the beholder who gets stuck on one comment, because it is at the top and thus most easily accessible and he feels that due to its accidental position at the top that he cannot ignore it under fear of pain and death.
posted by quonsar at 4:15 PM on February 29, 2004

Or maybe the beholder who sees the one comment cause a bunch of other comments in response which thus fucks the thread right in the brown spot despite the fact that this beholder sat quietly and didn't contribute to the flame war.
posted by cortex at 4:40 PM on February 29, 2004

cause and effect are in the eye of the beholder.
posted by quonsar at 4:46 PM on February 29, 2004

Ow! My eye!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:34 PM on February 29, 2004

adamgreenfield: Whatever, LowDog. Think you can field-strip an M-16A1 faster than I can? Tool..

What.
the.
fuck.
adamgreenfield?!?!

Let's hope this is just another harsh example of the harmful effects of drinking at the keyboard.
posted by elphTeq at 6:22 PM on February 29, 2004

To ignore all the attempted derailings of this thread: yes, it was a stupid, shitty comment, regardless of where in the thread it came. hama7 is one of a very few MeFites who have consistently posted "the best of the web," and adamgreenfield was way out of line. (And what is this hama7 fetish? Good find, angry modem.)
posted by languagehat at 6:33 PM on February 29, 2004

interesting viewpoint, it would explain why so many people are susceptible to media manipulation. they confuse importance with positioning.

The second comment is often commentary on the first. The third, commentary on the second. And so on. The nature of ordered discussion. So, if the first post is about shit-all, the thread will be about shit-all, or at least the threads initial momentum. Has nothing to do with confusing importance with positioning, people just tend to respond to what they've just read.
posted by Hildago at 7:09 PM on February 29, 2004

All I can say is thank goodness Adam didn't call him a communist! Then the blood and feathers'd really be flying, by golly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:00 PM on February 29, 2004

i like hama's posts alot - even though i don't like his politics. never the less ... i don't have a bit of trouble with greenfield expressing his opinion about the post - i mean: japanese ww2 handguns? interesting to some ... sure.

if someone you knew had been capped by a handgun ... or killed by germ infected blankets in nanking in 1937, the post would easily take on a quite a different sheen.
posted by specialk420 at 10:06 PM on February 29, 2004

Who said "lucky" seven ?
posted by johnny7 at 10:38 PM on February 29, 2004

I think the issue was that Adam was expressing an insult, not just his opinion.
posted by Hildago at 10:38 PM on February 29, 2004

The comment was not a derail at all. It was on topic and gave the commentor's opinion of the site.

That's patently false.

"Your Asian-fetish weirdness flat out gives me the creeps" has what as the subject of the sentence? Not a web site.

Let us not fail to pile on: adamgreenfield's comment was ad hominem poop salad, and it shall not stand! You go get some torches, and I'll round up the villagers.
posted by crunchburger at 10:56 PM on February 29, 2004

hama definitely has a corner on interesting asian web links ... taken as a whole they trend twords "fetish" ... the ww2 japanese guns, isn't much different from a hypothetical post on german ww2 "schmeissers" -"weirdness" would probably be one of the milder terms used by certain members of this crowd in response to such a hypothetical post.

i don't know that much about greenfield (i wouldn't be suprised if he had a big american flag on his bumper or the back of his monitor) - but i'm down with the sentiment expressed.

hama7 is a big boy - he can defend himself without all the mefi-correctness-police calling foul.
posted by specialk420 at 11:17 PM on February 29, 2004

hama definitely has a corner on interesting asian web links ... taken as a whole they trend twords "fetish"

As opposed to adamgreenfield? Someone explain this to me, because it looks like pot-kettle-black.
posted by subgenius at 11:48 PM on February 29, 2004

hama7 is a big boy - he can defend himself without all the mefi-correctness-police calling foul.

Have you seen his heart?! I've heard that he hide it in an egg in the nest of a Rukh on a distant, inaccessible mountain where none can reach it, making him invulnerable.
posted by homunculus at 11:51 PM on February 29, 2004

So, crunch, you are saying as well that the negation of adam's statement, that being "Your fascination with Asian-fetish weirdness intriques me immensely" would also be inappropriate.
posted by mischief at 11:58 PM on February 29, 2004

i don't know that much about greenfield (i wouldn't be suprised if he had a big american flag on his bumper or the back of his monitor) - but i'm down with the sentiment expressed.

Well he's spent a few years in Japan. Whenever he's commented on the country, he's done so in a very honest way (it's the Japan I know). There are people who go to Japan and become obsessed by the place (or leave with this obsession). Maybe hama is one of these people.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:53 AM on March 1, 2004

It is sad that Adam Greenfield and Space Cadet see any post/comment about Japan (and any post/comment by a person who currently enjoys or has ever enjoyed Japan) as an opportunity to flaunt their bitter hatred towards Japan, her culture, her people and anyone on Metafilter that does not share their bitter feelings.

Here we have two grown adults who had the opportunity to visit another culture - an opportunity that most people on this planet will never have. Obviously, they were unable to get what they wanted and/or expected from this opportunity. Instead of trying to take responsibility by examining what it is that they could have done differently to make the most of this opportunity and/or moving on, they blame Japan for their unpleasant experiences there and continue to harbor a self-consuming hatred not only for the culture but also for those of us here on Metafilter who dare say that there is anything good, beautiful or worth interest in Japan.

I would appreciate it if spacecadet and adamgreenfield would please express their anti-Japan sentiments on their own blogs instead of attempting to destroy potentially interesting discussions on Metafilter. (Thankfully, Ryvar was there to put this discussion back on track.)

I would also appreciate it if Space Cadet and Adam Greenfield learned to address posts and/or comments instead of attacking people. It is doubtful that calling a fellow Metafilter member a "tool" added much to the discussion about Nanbu-shiki handguns.
posted by cup at 6:22 AM on March 1, 2004

If only spinning straw into gold was easy as demonizing members here.
posted by y2karl at 7:43 AM on March 1, 2004

hama definitely has a corner on interesting asian web links ... taken as a whole they trend twords "fetish"

What the hell does this mean? Is anything we have a particular interest in a "fetish"? What about all the people here who are fascinated with iPods and Macs and the like; is that a fetish? Or is it just whatever you personally don't have an interest in?
posted by languagehat at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2004

If someone or something has to be tied up first, it's a given.
posted by y2karl at 11:29 AM on March 1, 2004

i have a brown paper packages fetish.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:13 PM on March 1, 2004

I have a MeFi fetish. Everybody post some more [fans self].
posted by orange swan at 1:22 PM on March 1, 2004

You guys read each others comments? and the link? I just make some stupid comment, then I come back an hour later, hit ctrl-f, and search for my name to see if anyone said how cool I am. Then I print out all the positive comments and glue them to my wall.
posted by The God Complex at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2004

languagehat: you say 'fetish' like it's a bad thing.
posted by mischief at 7:04 PM on March 1, 2004

As always, I support hama7 posting whatever he chooses. I'm not into the Asian art/weapons scene, but it seems like everyone has their own axes to grind (to coin a phrase) here on MetaFilter. One of hama7's is obviously the Orient. More power at him.

~big grin~

And I support adamgreenfield commenting in whatever way he likes. It's just too bad that "fetish" has the connotation it does for some, although the following usage isn't uncommon: fetish - an object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: e.g. made a fetish of punctuality. Given that definition, I'd say we all have a few fetish/axes....among which more than a few might also just creep others out.

Reverence for punctuality? Shudder...

Oh, and hi, dhoyt. It's such a confusing thing. You had no problem with very recently calling someone who wasn't even participating in a thread a "royal dickface", right? And imagine...you didn't crank up MeTa then like you have here over an earlier comment in that same thread, when another member of the PC-police above..."angry modem"....no doubt digging deep intellectually...courageously declared that same special (and clever and good-looking) nonparticipatory someone "pretty fucked up"....right, dhoyt?

(And ok, who knows about subtle nuances for learned technical terms like "dickface" and "fucked up". I checked the OED exhaustively for roots, all of which seemed somewhat....personal....volatile...even creepy. But you know how vague even precise language like "dickface" can be....)

Now dhoyt, no doubt we'd agree about the level of mentality and civility that "dickface" and "fucked up" represent. And hell, I'm for ya! Everyone for sure is entitled to an opinion, no matter how stupidly expressed. Why, given the acceptability of "dickface" and "fucked up", maybe we can even overlook the horrors and potential emotional trauma of "fetish" and "gives me the creeps", eh? For sure I'm cool with the likes of "dickface" and "fucked up". Juvenile, sure. Silly, yes. (Hint: try something from a dead language next time, so we can refresh our Latin). Calling someone names when they're not even present is an interesting although craven life skill, but we could probably overlook all that by placement in the same categories. But viva free expression, right? And volatility's my middle name.

So dhoyt, you can see to this point how much I want to get solidly behind you, but there's still this slight problem. See, there's this odd little Meta thread where someone's throwing a fit over "personal" and "volatile" comments. Since you've appointed yourself today an arbiter on civility and polite discourse, and since you're going all impersonal and nonvolatile on us today, I wondered if today you'd flesh out your thread here by telling us this: how come your standards don't apply to you and those with whom you agree, but just to the special few you choose? I mean, you did mention singling out "established ideological enemies" when you berated adamgreenfield, didn't you? You did say something about how much you admire hama7 for his not "sinking to the level of his detractors' insulting rhetoric", didn't you?

I'm hoping you can shed some light on these issues, but at least there's an entertainment value if you cannot. Hypocrisy and cowardice never fail to amuse, and at this point I'm smiling large at this thread.

/still hardly worth the effort...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:06 PM on March 1, 2004

Come here, ya big commie!

*gives f_and_m noogies*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:19 AM on March 2, 2004

Tortured prose flat out gives me the creeps.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:23 PM on March 2, 2004

Say, fold, could you post your list of MeFi people who aren't cowards, hypocrites, hypocritical cowards, or cowardly hypocrites? Besides you and Migs, of course.
posted by darukaru at 11:32 AM on March 3, 2004