Skip

takes one to know one April 21, 2004 7:48 PM   Subscribe


Even with Google, I can't seem to find the and this is how an Italian lies--written by the second source above, let it be noted--which makes me suspect Matt trimmed a thread.

What I want to know is this, and I am especially interested in Matt's opinion on this, is there a limit on the sort of personal remarks one member can make to another here, beyond which we can't go and has it been crossed in the examples above?

Nobody here likes to admit they are wrong and the hairsplitting people do around here to avoid doing so is outrageous. Given all the twisting and squirming and the here's what I really meant 's, I think that for one member to call another member a liar is the height of hypocrisy, myself.

I'm not calling anyone names if I can help it. How's that for a line?
posted by y2karl at 7:49 PM on April 21, 2004


People are pissing about in an Iraq thread? Goodness gracious!!!
posted by Kwantsar at 7:59 PM on April 21, 2004


I think they're the same person (DD and PP)--the repeated initials are a telling sign.

You missed the latest, after I finally called him a name back. : >

No, you and a large number of Mefi-dwellers are insane, amoral beings with an irrational, pathological hatred of the President Bush.
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on April 21, 2004


with an irrational, pathological hatred of the President Bush.

Admit it, he's right on that point. There's an awful lot of Bush hatin' around here.
posted by rocketman at 8:09 PM on April 21, 2004


My personal opinion on the topic is that most name-calling is allowed here, until the point where it devolves to the most pointed, hurtful bullshit.

People call each other "assholes" and "fuckheads" and "dimwits" all the time here, and most seem comfortable shrugging that off. It's when it starts to go to "n****r" and "k**e" and "f****t" and "w*****k" that it's gone beyond the pale.
posted by rocketman at 8:13 PM on April 21, 2004


People are pissing about in an Iraq thread? Goodness gracious!!!

It's a topic on which people vehemently disagree. They can do so and disparage each other's arguments without getting personal with the name calling and character assassination. Talos and ed\26h provided an example here.


On review, the Bush hatin' is matched by the Clinton hatin'--right down to the Vince Foster was murdered line--let it be noted. There is a difference in numbers but not in kind.
posted by y2karl at 8:18 PM on April 21, 2004


There's an awful lot of Bush hatin' around here.

And it's obviously baseless.

Are you palming your soma?
posted by milovoo at 8:20 PM on April 21, 2004


And really, amberglow, how rude of you to torment the neanderthals so... OK, so it is amusing to imagine their cute little simian facial features turning all red and shiny until you can't tell their heads from their buttholes as they work themselves into contortions of semi-coherent thought in an attempt to out-insult you... but really, don't you have better things to do than dig up endless justification for your side of the argument, knowing full well that ParisParamus is barely capable of rational thought, let alone intelligent and cogent debate? And it has nothing to do with "left" vs. "right" and everything to do with PP being a senile old f*ck with a history here that should have caused you to walk away after his first mean-spirited little salvo... How can you possibly take someone who uses the term "How French" and expects it to be received as an insult seriously?
posted by JollyWanker at 8:22 PM on April 21, 2004


This is my favorite PP insult directed at me: Amberglow: your depravity speaks for itself. You should move to France.

He's still singing the same tune, and apparently still thinks it's smart, or witty, or funny or something. (or is it code?)
posted by amberglow at 8:23 PM on April 21, 2004


I thought Paris was infinitely more fun that one thread when everybody decided to ignore him. Do that more.
posted by furiousthought at 8:27 PM on April 21, 2004


aw...do i have to?
posted by amberglow at 8:30 PM on April 21, 2004


no, it is just paris and he has a right. matt knows well when someone has crossed the line, if this example is it, eh...perhaps you could take it to a higher source

It's a topic on which people vehemently disagree. They can do so and disparage each other's arguments without getting personal with the name calling and character assassination.

the same could be said for iraqis actually trying to do something, but the killing goes on....
posted by clavdivs at 8:33 PM on April 21, 2004


On review, the Bush hatin' is matched by the Clinton hatin'--right down to the Vince Foster was murdered line--let it be noted. There is a difference in numbers but not in kind.

Well, that makes it okay then.
posted by timeistight at 8:37 PM on April 21, 2004


which makes me suspect Matt trimmed a thread.

that just drives me wild. did he really do that again? when he absolutely needs to replace a comment, the fact that he did so should appear where the post doesn't.
posted by quonsar at 8:38 PM on April 21, 2004


the repeated initials are a telling sign.

MidasMulligan? 111?

I don't believe this, by the way, just like spreading conspiracies.
posted by Jimbob at 8:42 PM on April 21, 2004


bad commie?
posted by milovoo at 8:47 PM on April 21, 2004


irrational, pathological hatred of the President Bush.

Actually, some of us posses rational, non-pathological disdain for President Bush. But I think most of MeFi is probably at the rational pathological level.

111?

Someone once suggested here that since 111 was binary for 7 and therefore perhaps an isonym for another famous mefite with 7 in it.
posted by weston at 8:51 PM on April 21, 2004


...irrational, pathological hatred of the President Bush
Pathological? Maybe. Irrational, hell no.
posted by Grod at 8:52 PM on April 21, 2004


I dunno, maybe it's because I've been in a lot of flame wars lately, (not here, thankfully), but the comments listed above seem fairly tame. Insulting, certainly...but I've seen Paris do a lot worse...that comment was fairly coherent. And DD and I have yet to see an issue from the same side, but as snarks go, that one doesn't seem that bad...it's actually fairly polite for David.

Don't get me wrong, I adore AmberGlow and think that mean people suck for picking on him...but I've seen much harder core flamefests between mefi brethern than this.

Also, what Grod said.

Mefi-dwellers are insane, amoral beings

Well, sure...but gosh David, you make it sound like a bad thing...
posted by dejah420 at 9:03 PM on April 21, 2004


What word is "w*****k" intended to be?
posted by willnot at 9:05 PM on April 21, 2004


What word is "w*****k" intended to be?

Take your pick.
posted by Jimbob at 9:11 PM on April 21, 2004


wetback

Doesn't anyone else play challenge-level racial slur crosswords?
posted by milovoo at 9:11 PM on April 21, 2004


Metafilter: challenge-level racial slur crosswords
posted by amberglow at 9:14 PM on April 21, 2004


M*******r: Take your pick.
posted by milovoo at 9:20 PM on April 21, 2004


that just drives me wild.

I can't find it--David Dark mentioned and linked the name Fabrizio Quattrocchi, the Italian hostage who shouted This is how an Italian dies! before he was murdered and then came up with something to the effect of and Matteo shows how an Italian lies. It was the definition of a cheap shot.

I Googled Fabrizio Quattrocchi in MetaFilter and found no comment with his name in it. A cursory search found nothing in matteo's or David Dark's comments that matched. So, I assumed it was trimmed. Your mileage may vary.
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on April 21, 2004


I've seen much harder core flamefests between mefi brethern than this.

be that as it may, is "that's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it" really the level of discourse we're aiming for here? coupled with the constant "french" remarks (look, i like to make fun of the french as much as anyone, but this is just pathological) and the conflation of disagreement with "depravity," that thread really unnerves me.
posted by kjh at 9:26 PM on April 21, 2004


It does seem sometimes that the more egregious and abusive belittling and namecalling seems to come from people with no email.
posted by y2karl at 9:31 PM on April 21, 2004


y2karl, the italian comment is intact.
posted by kjh at 9:50 PM on April 21, 2004


I'm just gonna have to go off and hurl big rocks around in my backyard, in patriotic exultation.
posted by troutfishing at 9:52 PM on April 21, 2004


when [Matt] absolutely needs to replace a comment, the fact that he did so should appear where the post doesn't.

I agree, quonsar. I don't think comment deletion should just get swept under the rug. If you pay attention, Matt is sometimes quite a busy little bee. As great as he is at playing omnipotent moderator, I think he would be even better if it weren't so easy to simply lift and tuck, under cover of darkness, with no trace let behind.

This is no aspersion cast on Matt, it's just a question of the process itself. His no-notation method of yanking comments sometimes leads him to delete large swaths of a conversation, to make the edges of the deletion appear seamless. This is an illusion, one sometimes impossible to maintain without deleting the whole thread. And when he's not quite willing to do that, he winds up leaving wholly execrable comments intact. It's inconsistent and a blunt instrument. Over time, there is no way to evaluate Matt's patterns or method of deletion, or even to know the frequency. This is probably one reason why the moderation is so sporadic, and without identifiable rules.

Thankfully, Matt's judgement is generally very good and we can trust him as well as anyone. But I would prefer a more transparent system, even when the moderator is the nicest, smartest man in the world.
posted by scarabic at 9:58 PM on April 21, 2004


insane, amoral beings

I mean, who isn't?

*removes veil from altar to Yog-Shoggoth*
posted by mwhybark at 10:02 PM on April 21, 2004


as ugly as that thread is, it was kinda worth it to see David Dark tell someone to calm down.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:04 PM on April 21, 2004


I think sporadic moderation with no rules is the best form of moderation. It keeps everyone on their toes. Keeps anyone from figuring out where the line in the sand is.

David Dark and ParisParamus are undoubtedly not the same person. PP is dumb as dogshit, and I slight dogshit when I say that. DD, for all his faults, is smarter than dogshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:08 PM on April 21, 2004


Absolutely nothing but the same tired old propaganda/rhetoric was posted on either side in that thread. The only thing that makes it all worthwhile *is* the hilarious trash talk! Sit back and think of it as crappy TV.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:15 PM on April 21, 2004


[redacted]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:53 PM on April 21, 2004


[This was here. Now it's not.]

Damn you, mathowie. How dare you take away my right to free speech. You think you own this site or something?

See, I told you. He's censoring us.
posted by cedar at 11:09 PM on April 21, 2004


Admit it, he's right on that point. There's an awful lot of Bush hatin' around here.

And most of it isn't irrational or pathological. Trying to avoid debate by characterizing your opponent as somehow mentally deficient is just so fuckin' boring, aside from being intellectually vacuous. Then again, it's been shown at least a couple dozen times that ParisParamus is either unwilling or incapable of formulating well reasoned discourse, which is why I tend not to bother.

This is my favorite PP insult directed at me: Amberglow: your depravity speaks for itself. You should move to France.

If you do, perhaps I'll drop by and we can go out for a couple bottles of red wine, practice our lefty handshakes, and plot the fall of the west in our terrorist notebooks (made from the skin of american children).
posted by The God Complex at 12:01 AM on April 22, 2004


y2karl, the italian comment is intact.

Well, then Matt isn't editing comments, so scratch that thought. That

Trying to avoid debate by characterizing your opponent as somehow mentally deficient is just so fuckin' boring, aside from being intellectually vacuous.

Telling someone that you have utterly refuted them is just so fucking boring, too. Unless you're Wulfgar--because he explains quite clearly how you are utterly refuted and he isn't bullshitting.

Another pet peeve are people who post comments on MetaFilter, copy the links and then rush over to #mefi to paste them and parade them before the peanut gallery. Why not just get them bronzed or something?
posted by y2karl at 12:38 AM on April 22, 2004


And it has nothing to do with "left" vs. "right"...

Of course it does. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise. The right gets insulted and ridiculed ENDLESSLY on MeFi... and everyone else just loves it and often piles on. But when someone from the other side of the fence pipes up in a similar manner, an overly-sensitive MeTa thread results. As others have stated, those comments were TAME compared to other things I've read. I mean give me a break.

PP is dumb as dogshit, and I slight dogshit when I say that. DD, for all his faults, is smarter than dogshit.

ahhhh... continued MeFi-Left hypocrisy. Is it OK to whine about those comments in this thread or should I start a new MeTa thread about it?

I am honestly interested to know which "right-side" members of MeFi does "the left" consider respectable and "worth listening to"? Which one (or perhaps more) IS capable of formulating well reasoned discourse? Can anyone answer that?
posted by Witty at 1:01 AM on April 22, 2004


all this left/right blather is just a continuation of the same-old same-old "you're stupid," "no you're stupid" emptiness.
posted by kjh at 1:46 AM on April 22, 2004


amen kjh, it is not a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, quite the opposite.
posted by johnnyboy at 2:09 AM on April 22, 2004


amen kjh, it is not a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, quite the opposite.

Is that supposed to mean something?
posted by The God Complex at 2:29 AM on April 22, 2004


I am honestly interested to know which "right-side" members of MeFi does "the left" consider respectable and "worth listening to"? Which one (or perhaps more) IS capable of formulating well reasoned discourse? Can anyone answer that?

Steve@ can be good. Midas has well reasoned comments, even if they can occasionally be obnoxious. I don't know if neolibertarians count as "right-side", but I'll throw up Tryptophan-5ht and shepd as well. I got into an argument with shepd once in #mefi, so he must be a right-winger, right? Oh dear, but now we're getting into the problem that it's not so easy to classify everyone into convenient little left/right teams on every issue... And hey, hama7...makes great art posts. There are probably a dozen or so more who appear occasionally.

The ones who aren't worth listening to are generally the ones who make little effort to cover their hatred of Arabs at the same time as feigning anger at what Saddam Hussein did to a bunch of them. I've got no time for these people.

Now, go and do the same thing for the left, Witty one. Or should I say, the "extremist-left", because there are plenty of people around here you could classify as "left" or "right" who don't wear their alliances on their sleeves.
posted by Jimbob at 2:47 AM on April 22, 2004


What I want to know is this, and I am especially interested in Matt's opinion on this, is there a limit on the sort of personal remarks one member can make to another here, beyond which we can't go and has it been crossed in the examples above?

If there is this line, many people have crossed it when addressing myself. However much you disagree with someone's views, there's no need to be rude.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:08 AM on April 22, 2004


And having said that, y2karl, you are as guilty as any of throwing personal comments around.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:09 AM on April 22, 2004


Trying to avoid debate by characterizing your opponent as somehow mentally deficient is just so fuckin' boring, aside from being intellectually vacuous.

TGC, happens everytime on MeFi, including this thread.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:19 AM on April 22, 2004


I really like how our Bush-loving, polite, non-irrational friends often bring up the issue of my being non-USian (or, less politely, and I quote one of our "conservatives", my being a "wop") as if my nationality was somehow relevant to my comments.
"wop"?
I shudder to think what they would hurl at me if I were, say, black.

anyway I sincerely feel for our oh-so-aggressive friends -- to have one's ideas constantly dismantled under a rain of links certainly doesn't make one feel particularly comfortable.

I like the way how, these past 3 and a half years, I have been called an asshole, a wop, a prick, an anti-semite, an anti-American, I have people wishing my death by suicide-bomber in appalingly graphic terms, people threatening to bust my teeth, and so forth.
so much for rational argument.
way to go for intellectual clarity, my "conservative" friends (pet peeve: how sad to see the beautiful name of conservatives -- ie the fiscally conservative, libertarian, full of respect for religion but secular when it comes to state affairs -- hijacked by a bunch of budget-busting, civil-rights-destroying, welfare-for-the-rich Arab-hating thugs, but I'm digressing)

it's also funny how our most vitriolic, insult-loving friends always happen to be, ahem, conservatives.
the shrill left indeed.
damn lefties, they're never as calm and rational as their right-wing opponents

and to be clear about this, I never mentioned Quattrocchi. DD did.

oh, last thing: somebody asked, "what would happen if Cheney had been greased by Saddam, damn liberal hypocrtites, blah blah blah).
it happened already, buddy.
check out Halliburton sweet deals with Iraq and other regimes.
check out Rummy's handshake with Saddam, America's funding of Saddam's illegal weapons program.
Saddam is your man, not the left's.
Your man, your former employee's, not the left's.
Deal with it. and don't blame the messenger for pointing that out. enjoy your slaughter in Mesopotamia quietly, don't insult people who dare to tell you that water's wet and your kings is, sadly, bare-asssed
posted by matteo at 4:00 AM on April 22, 2004


Get your own blog matteo!
posted by Witty at 4:40 AM on April 22, 2004


... y2karl, you are as guilty as any of throwing personal comments around.
This is true, but let he/she who is without sin in this regard cast the first ad hominem.
posted by dg at 4:55 AM on April 22, 2004


Is that supposed to mean something?

I apologise for the shitty allegory; how apt your username.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:56 AM on April 22, 2004


And it has nothing to do with "left" vs. "right"...

Of course it does. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise. The right gets insulted and ridiculed ENDLESSLY on MeFi... and everyone else just loves it and often piles on. But when someone from the other side of the fence pipes up in a similar manner, an overly-sensitive MeTa thread results. As others have stated, those comments were TAME compared to other things I've read. I mean give me a break.


Sorry, witty, if I was going to fast for you. I was referring specifically to MetaFilter's own poster child for Abusing Alzheimer's Victims, PP. Left... right... doesn't matter. Even Postroad is capable of civil discourse when the spirit moves him (which, come to think of it, it has a great deal in recent memory), but PP is a hopeless case and as we've learned and relearned in the past, the only way to handle him is to not handle him. That he may believe all that shit is completely immaterial; he's still a troll and amberglow is naughty to dangle bananas and bright shiny objects in front of him, just to make PP shuffle about and say all funny stuff and like that.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:16 AM on April 22, 2004


This is true, but let he/she who is without sin in this regard cast the first ad hominem.

If that's true that we all commit this sin, then I don't see the point in this thread - unless we ban everybody!
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:17 AM on April 22, 2004


as if my nationality was somehow relevant to my comments.
"wop"?


[luca brasi]

You want I should mail them a fish, paisan?

[/luca]
posted by jonmc at 5:17 AM on April 22, 2004


I agree with Witty regarding the lefties on MeFi being the most rude and arrogant, and also the ones most likely to ad hominem and least likely to counter-argue a point.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:36 AM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet, assholes come in all political stripes and I, for one, would rather have a conversation with a decent guy I disagreed with, than a flaming asshole I agree with.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 AM on April 22, 2004


the italian comment

that was seriously unacceptable. if it were up to me i'd give dd a forced time out. pp's insults towards amberglow were also over the line, especially considering amber wasn't engaging in similarly ignorant behaviour.

and least likely to counter-argue a point

*blink* you getting enough oxygen lately...?
posted by t r a c y at 5:44 AM on April 22, 2004


*blink* you getting enough oxygen lately...?

Yeah, I'm doing fine. I'm breathing the same air as everyone else.

Examples abound regarding ad hominem though. If you hold a minority view, you're automatically labelled a troll. From that point on, let the scorn flow. The lefties are rather weak arguers, as they rely on strawmen so much. For example, criticism of feminism becomes misogyny in their eyes (easy then to attack and ridicule - hmm, never mind that feminism is an ideology, not a gender). As for religion, they look for people who hold extremist views, and then paint an entire religion in this extremist colour. When you can't counter an argument, create something simple to counter.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:12 AM on April 22, 2004


As for religion, they look for people who hold extremist views, and then paint an entire religion in this extremist colour.

Like Islam, for example?
posted by y2karl at 8:11 AM on April 22, 2004


When you can't counter an argument, create something simple to counter.

heh. it's the first thing Karl Rove taught you, isn't it? worked wonders for the RNC these last 10 years.


the lefties on MeFi being the most rude and arrogant


feel free to back that, ahem, straw man up with links. you know, the liberal's equivalent of our beloved right wingers ethnic slurs against people they don't agree with, liberals posting genocidal comments like some of our right-wingers enjoy to do, please link to those damn liberals acting like, you know, "you are an asshole. There is just no arguing that. But I have not called for the revoking of your membership. still, let me reiterate: Shut the Fuck Up."

Or, DON'T FUCKING REPLY!
You make me sick...


how I missed your drivel...
...go fuck yourself...


this is just one "polite conservative", off the top of my head, with a 3-minute Google search. want me to link more?

______________

For example, criticism of feminism becomes misogyny in their eyes (easy then to attack and ridicule

let's see:

All posts by SpaceCadet:

The Drama Triangle Here's an example. Dad comes home from work to find mom coming down hard on Junior with, "Clean up your room or else" threats

Women Lose When Feminists Bash

Conservatives Win Big With Fetus Bill

Why men should not marry



I'm Italian, please help me: how do you spell "huge chip on shoulder"?
posted by matteo at 8:12 AM on April 22, 2004


Oh, the beautiful, beautiful irony of SpaceCadet whining that other Mefites refuse to counter-argue and rely on strawmen. I nearly snorted my coffee.

SpaceCadet, here's a little paragraph from our last conversation that you failed to rationally counter-argue. I can't believe you couldn't even come up with a fresh fallacy....

Here's what I wrote. Remember this?
Last but not least, plenty of feminists criticize feminism, albeit in a thoughtful, constructive way that would be utterly foreign to you. Read some bell hooks, for starters; try "from margin to center". And given that feminists actively critique feminism, even you should be able to grasp the absurdity of your assertion "that anyone who criticises feminism is automatically a misogynist".

And before you rhapsodize on my hatred, please keep in mind that's all in your head, not mine. You inspire pity and laughter, sweets.
posted by clever sheep at 8:18 AM on April 22, 2004


And here's the link, in case of a selective memory malfunction.
posted by clever sheep at 8:20 AM on April 22, 2004


Well, characterizing conservatives by pointing at ParisParamus and SpaceCadet is to do genuine thoughtful conservatives (and there are such creatures here) a disservice.

I'm not gonna trot out the shopworn "Mefi lefty bias" line because nobody's barring conservative membership or anything like that. But conversely, I don't think anyone even bothers to argue that MeFi isn't predominantly left/liberal. And arguing a minority viewpoint anywhere takes some bravery. But the histrionics of the aforementioned do their supposed beliefs a disservice.
posted by jonmc at 8:28 AM on April 22, 2004


If you hold a minority view, you're automatically labelled a troll.

automatically? actually, I think if you're hostile to others and use crappy logical fallacies to make a point is the key. this may not be the case 100% of the time, but to say automatically strikes me as some of that ole (and I'm not helping matters by saying this) "help, help! I'm being repressed! the media is liberal! the schools are liberal! mefi is liberal! help!" attitude.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:40 AM on April 22, 2004


Ah, matteo comes back after what, a vacation? What a troll and Karl, I see you on the mefi# saying nothing, like your about to fumble or let loose all that anger you have. You have the balls to SAY you refrain from name calling then chastise someone for an extra letter in a word on the blue?

I suggest therapy karl.
I respond because i think you have a brain left but i notice you do not have the nerve to post your fact packed iraq related posts.
Mr Dark has convinced me that Matteo is a troll. See, it is the law of opposites. I've been here 3 years and started posting like the mad man, some people loved it, i received many e-mails from mefis but have never once e-mailed another.
yes, the point, well you seem to be the madman and I , perhaps a little mad and bad syntax but none the less happy with the advice other mefis have given. I see good stuff in the last week and I believe it is do to few newsfilter posts.

oh and here is your patron saint

and a shout out to David Dark for his persistence.
posted by clavdivs at 8:41 AM on April 22, 2004


amberglow is naughty to dangle bananas and bright shiny objects in front of him, just to make PP shuffle about and say all funny stuff and like that

Next time you're in London, Jolly, email me. I'll buy you a beer for that one...
posted by dmt at 8:54 AM on April 22, 2004


Like Islam, for example?

Let me get this straight. The constant barrage and dogpile of derision on Christianity is as common on MetaFilter as the color blue, yet this is your wry retort? Priceless.

Will The Real Islam Please Stand Up? - J. Glasov
posted by hama7 at 8:57 AM on April 22, 2004


Ain't human nature grand?
posted by rushmc at 9:01 AM on April 22, 2004


Really, I'm not sure that this comes down to partisan differences. For example, in SpaceCadet's case, the conflict arises mostly because he's an asshole.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:08 AM on April 22, 2004


I'm Italian, please help me: how do you spell "huge chip on shoulder"?

So criticism of something means "chip on your shoulder"? Help me out here, my mother tongue is English.

In that case, you may say that all feminists have a chip on their shoulder (after all, it's an ideology based on criticism).

cleversheep (from the thread she links to): In turn, I expect you to comfortably ignore my quite immutable view of you as a deeply illogical, laughably misogynistic cro-magnon throwback.

another, more personal attack from clever sheep: Sometimes I feel flashes of pity, which generally disappear upon reflection that you are personally responsible for your ugly family breakup.

Now I'd never stoop to such low tactics as second-guessing somebody's private life to such detail. For one, I can't be bothered. For two, I know I can't bullshit well about some stranger's private life - it would just sound like I'm being hateful.

And this all came from simply pointing out a pattern in your posting history. Such scathing remarks from such an innocuous observation I made.

clever sheep, thank you for providing the examples.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:08 AM on April 22, 2004


Really, I'm not sure that this comes down to partisan differences. For example, in SpaceCadet's case, the conflict arises mostly because he's an asshole.

The examples are coming in thick and fast. Like I say, if you can't generally counter-argue someone's point, you can always call them an asshole!
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:11 AM on April 22, 2004


What I'm hearing is a deafening WHOOSH! as the biggest hypocrites at MeFi are rushing to vigorously paint everyone else as bigger hypocrites. Just another day at the 'Filter, in other words.
posted by dhoyt at 9:22 AM on April 22, 2004


new rule: you're no longer allowed to reply to ParisParamus or David Dark. if you feel compelled to answer them, just type whatever you want to say in wordpad and then close it without saving.

and I feel like I should double the point that MidasMulligan is a good poster, if not one of our very best. he's changed my mind about things in the past, and in this instance he's made me much more skeptical of the UN. (but don't get any funny ideas, I still think bush has even less credibility!)
posted by mcsweetie at 9:25 AM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet, you still haven't responded to my prior statement that even feminists critique feminism. This was offered in specific counterpoint to your statement that criticism of feminism is "automatically" characterized as misogyny. How many times do you plan to dodge? I can be very patient when it suits me.

In addition, you say that feminism is "an ideology based on criticism." For starters...uh...so what? Criticism can be healthy, valid, and necessary to social progress. And as a follow-up: many people view feminism as a movement which promotes equal rights for and valuation of women--in other words, glass-half-full to your own glass-half-empty. Tomato, tomatoe. If you wanted to slam feminism, try again...or better yet, learn something about it instead.

Finally, what makes you think I need to second-guess your private life? You've splashed your personal hell around on this site for all to see. Your choice, sweets; live with it. And I think it's fair to raise the subject of your own publicly proclaimed failed marriage when you're giving marital advice to others, as you were in that situation.

Oh, and thank you for proving my point, SpaceCrank, by once again dodging any legitimate argumentation. I'm smiling as I head off to lunch.
posted by clever sheep at 9:28 AM on April 22, 2004


oh and matteo, i see you use the same "arguments"

check out Halliburton sweet deals with Iraq and other regimes.
check out Rummy's handshake with Saddam, America's funding of Saddam's illegal weapons program.
Saddam is your man, not the left's.
Your man, your former employee's, not the left's.


hmmm, you respect Bob Baer right? I do not think he will mind if i quote from 'See No Evil'

concerning the oil going into turkey, 1995.
"what I couldn't understand was why the white House didn't intervene. All it had to do was ask Saudi Arabia to sell turkey a hundred thousand barrels of discounted oil, the U.S. managed to turn the Kurdish opposition against itself even as it helped Saddam pay for his Praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot. (pg. 193)

"...not long afterward, Saddam started trading food for oil, which eased the suffering inside Iraq just enough to stem the tide of defections from his army. So if we want him out now, it will probably take a war, not a coup." (pg.213)

WOW matteo, (it was "greaseball" I called you for which i apologize)
care to comment on that, that little bugaboo Clinton and his phonetapped NSC adviser Lake? (I agree with Lake to quit the madmen den about Cambodia but i guess revenge is sweeter then lite crude eh?)

care to comment on that. dam straight he was the lefts "man" he was everybody secular bug a boo to counter the fundamentalists rise.

I suggest everyone read this book and his 2nd.
posted by clavdivs at 9:30 AM on April 22, 2004


Thanks, Ethereal Bligh, for making me clean Diet Coke off my monitor.
posted by Vidiot at 9:32 AM on April 22, 2004


(it was "greaseball" I called you for which i apologize)


I don't care about what you think: it's Matt you should apologize to, send an e-mail for once in your life -- I'm fairly positive that posting ethnic slurs on his site is not something he particularly appreciates.

(but yeah, I admit I'm deeply touched by a several-weeks-after-the-fact half-assed apology. I really am)

The constant barrage and dogpile of derision on Christianity is as common on MetaFilter as the color blue,


no, liberals do have a problem with theocracy. not with Christianity per se.
separation of Church and State -- used to be a Conservative pet issue, once upon a time, before the Christian Coalition / RNC era. but I understand that pretending that "liberal = Taliban" is a very useful tool in certain circles.
oh, hamasheaven, I loved the FrontPage link. calm, unbiased analysis.
I especially dug this:

The problem here, therefore, is that Islam is inherently oppressive and violent. Yes, I know about all of those verses here and there in the Koran that talk about peace and love.
(...)
...the Taliban was not an aberration of Islam, but the logical extension of it.


good, well-informed, fair and balanced stuff.
posted by matteo at 10:09 AM on April 22, 2004


Damn. Only Hama7 can come out of no where and bash Islam. (I know a few Muslims, they're not all nut jobs. You'll have to trust me I guess. One day, if you're feeling particularly brave, you should go to mosque and talk to some.)
posted by chunking express at 10:14 AM on April 22, 2004


Oh also Hama7, while you're at it, may as well talk to some Buddhists, Hindus and Jews as well. It may make you a more well rounded person. Just a suggestion, feel free to stereotype all you like.
posted by chunking express at 10:19 AM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet, you still haven't responded to my prior statement that even feminists critique feminism.

You're right, I'll make a response to it in the other thread on Ask (here's not the place - I'll get blamed for de-railing).

In addition, you say that feminism is "an ideology based on criticism." For starters...uh...so what? Criticism can be healthy

I agree. I see nothing wrong with criticism. matteo was equating criticism to "having a chip on your shoulder". Perhaps you should respond to her post. I wasn't criticising....um, criticism.

Finally, what makes you think I need to second-guess your private life? You've splashed your personal hell around on this site for all to see. Your choice, sweets; live with it.

No, it's your hopeful interpretation (what you want to believe) so you can easily caricature me and make me a target of your lazy ad hom attacks. You've wielded this sword to the point that the blade has been dulled from overuse and it's very tiring - try actually, you know, responding to my posts rather than spewing your willful misinterpretations of my private life.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:22 AM on April 22, 2004


I suggest therapy karl.

Well, gee, clavdivs, I thought I was just teasing you when I made that crack about St. Jerome--something along the lines of

One of these days, clavdivs will have to explain how his time machine then broke and he came to be trapped with us here in the 20th and then 21st Centuries.

You weren't bothered by one light hearted comment then and even responded to it in kind and here you take another light hearted remark as an example of my perfidy. You've taken a slight and not ill meant tweak far too seriously and far too personally. You are not being very generous.

I have said mean things to you in the past, most often in response to mean things you said to me and then again I have said that I think you are a complex human being who is not always a cartoon caricature to me:

For instance, clavdivs and I go at it from time to time and take pokes at each other but I don't mistake my pokes for the mystery man on the other keyboard. Oh, he's doing that again comes to mind for me with him, but then again, so does Well, that's a switch ! He's not cut out of cardboard for me, not do I get that I am for him.

As for posting about Iraq--jeez, people have complained about this and I am trying not to overdo it. I switched to trying a once a week post limit on Iraq posts and people complained. So, I've gone to every two weeks. The same people will going on about how I do it daily when and if I do post something Iraq related.

And you yourself have apologized more than once in the blue for going off the deep end and getting personal and screaming at people. After the fact and in another thread, usually, but you have on occasion owned your ill-will and apologized for your excesses, however slightly and conditionally.

You really do seem to have mood swings, you know. The hostility you showed languagehat in the last week was really sad--I mean, here's a guy who stuck up for hama7 way back when I thought hama7 was the spawn of the devil--he was trying to reach out to you in a friendly way as you two once had had a friendly email correspondence in the past--and when he asked you if you had a working email, you just cut him off. You get on your high horse and there's no stopping you, even when someone is waving an olive branch--and you were on your high horse then. Who, pray tell, is the patron saint of the sin of pride ?

Don't tell me I need to be in therapy. Coming from you, that's an especially ironic comment.

You are often quite incomprehensilble--which has been noted by several people besides me. What is it that you have against writing clear, simple sentences ?

And as for #mefi, I go there sometimes for human contact. I am single, live alone and friends my age have families, obligations and I have to book a month or two in advance to see them. I get tired of being by myself. You are one of two people I have used the ignore button on--you have a mean streak plus I don't go there to argue. I go there to watch people talk mostly.


hama7, link aside, you of course have a point. I get tired of the Christian bashing, too. You have never seen me doing it.
posted by y2karl at 10:42 AM on April 22, 2004


liberals do have a problem with theocracy. not with Christianity per se.

Hilarious. Thanks for that. Secular humanism is a religion.

separation of Church and State -- used to be a Conservative pet issue

More than just a "conservative pet issue", it's the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I get tired of the Christian bashing, too. You have never seen me doing it.

True enough. Point taken.
posted by hama7 at 10:54 AM on April 22, 2004


I would love to know what any of you (people complaining about being personally attacked) are doing to help the situation. The snide and belittling comments have not subsided, on either "aisle" (I quote aisle because these feuds have nothing to do with political parties or issues, but are instead about hurt feelings and vendettas), and no one here seems willing to change their behavior selflessly; you just want Matt, or seemingly the community, to condemn the people you don't like, which is ridiculously rude, and childish.

There are about 10-15 of you who simply want your adversary to admit fault, which will not happen unless candor and humility is observed. Hell, at this point I will admit that these Iraq threads might be a good thing, because although the vicious personal attacks ruin these threads and poison future conversations, at least they maintain a level of seclusion within those threads.

Because most of you (same group of 15) know that you'll never hear an apology, and because it's ridiculously unfair to tell Matt to fix it, what do you want, really?

By the way, just in case quonsar, y2karl, or anyone else feels that I'm being too serious...

CHOO CHOO!
posted by BlueTrain at 10:57 AM on April 22, 2004


Someone once suggested here that since 111 was binary for 7 and therefore perhaps an isonym for another famous mefite with 7 in it.

Absolutely flawless reasoning. OK, I confess:

Besides 111, I also go by the names of "Ignatius Reilly" and "wonderchicken".
posted by 111 at 11:13 AM on April 22, 2004


I would love to know what any of you (people complaining about being personally attacked) are doing to help the situation.

I, for one, am not complainig about being eprsonally attacked.

What am I doing? Trying not to call people names. I have never been about trying to get people to admit fault. It's not in human nature to admit error in the face of the derision of strangers. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to do so and that comes from the heart. Here is the arena of ego--the ego never admits error and makes itself right by making the other wrong. People rarely speak from the heart here.

And, in response to your obligatory look-at-me jab--when you are not playing the victim card, you're holding up your end of our little mutal dislike society: for all your complaints about being picked on, you just have to get a lick in every chance you get. I'll admit I do, too--but tweaking your apparent sense of self-importance with CHOO! CHOO! is not the same as calling you a liar or saying that you're taking glee in the deaths of American soldiers, you will have to agree.
posted by y2karl at 11:32 AM on April 22, 2004


What I want to know is this, and I am especially interested in Matt's opinion on this, is there a limit on the sort of personal remarks one member can make to another here, beyond which we can't go and has it been crossed in the examples above?

THAT was your first comment in this thread, y2karl. And now you claim:

I, for one, am not complainig about being eprsonally attacked.

So what, your complaining on others' behalf?

And, in response to your obligatory look-at-me jab--when you are not playing the victim card, you're holding up your end of our little mutual dislike society: for all your complaints about being picked on, you just have to get a lick in every chance you get.

What the hell are you talking about? quonsar made it abundantly clear that I take myself far too seriously, so I decided to add a little CHOO! to lighten up my comment. (Not to mention that on more than one occasion you've neglected a response to my comment and interjected a CHOO! instead). I'd like to know where, in my last comment, I participated in a "lick". Quite frankly, my comment wasn't directed at you, because it's quite obvious my opinion is of no value to you. So ignore it, and me. Please.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:43 AM on April 22, 2004


So what, your complaining on others' behalf?

This particular time? Yes.

quonsar made it abundantly clear that I take myself far too seriously,

Following this phrase, you take yourself seriously. Whether too seriously or not is up to the individual reader.
posted by y2karl at 12:01 PM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet, you still haven't responded to my prior statement that even feminists critique feminism. This was offered in specific counterpoint to your statement that criticism of feminism is "automatically" characterized as misogyny. How many times do you plan to dodge? I can be very patient when it suits me.

I answer you in this thread
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:04 PM on April 22, 2004


karl and blue train up in a tree
k-i-s-s-i-n-g...
posted by jonmc at 12:07 PM on April 22, 2004


dam right i have mood swings. Use the ignore button, but what you don't know is that I do converse with people and the folks help another out, in real time, which to me is better then e-mail. LH's writing to me and him I is our business, but i do see your point and to help you better understand, that account has been closed or in limbo for a while and i did reactivate it so as to see what LH wrote, I found nothing from him, true he could have written a week or two before...but, the rest is my business. Yes, I felt slighted which is my problem. (about jeromne...do'h) Hey, i did not agree with the post entirely but read further. amberglows post made me think and I gave full blessings to the project for what that is worth. A reversal of position, something you may or may not appreciate. I do not like people attacking amberglow, I have, but do not recall resorting to vicious namecalling. Amber was the first to make me feel welcome at #mefi and i miss his presence there. He asks questions and some of us call him "dumb". Well, thats a problem but for me, it was frustration for him wanting to see my point which is cajoling after the fact. I have ceased this towards amber and i hope he understands.
Good on the slow down but keep posting karl, despite my feelings, it is worthy of discussion.

yes i do have a mean streak at times but I have argued for people who have been banned from #mefi. I asked you a question last night, but how could you reply if you had me on the ignore list. There were some of my mefi favs there last night and wished i could have stayed longer. (though they may have me wanted me to go) There some real funny and serious people there and if i vent there, better then in Mefi. I do not have to prove much to you but the fact I have been at mefi for 3 years and not made a post, to me, is good. I'm to concerned that an agenda would seep through thus adding to the noise. (I do enough noise in comments)

I was hoping to talk to you last night (type rather) because #mefi is a place of peace in my view despite some underhanded, sly cracks i have made. I trust the OPs to cut me down if i get outta line and i do not think i have.

Please do not bring up e-mail to me again . It further devalues your statement concerning LH in that I trust he is mature enough to let go some anger I posted towards him.
i see you like to watch, ok, fine. I'm sorry your lonely.
and the sebastian was funny though i felt it to be a slight which leds me to believe that you just engage in low key bashing but i was wrong, it was funny. See, to angry to get a nice joke.

I'm fairly positive that posting ethnic slurs on his site is not something he particularly appreciates.

uh-huh, well that will be matts decision. I'm really sure you accept my apology....yeah.
SO... want to respond to what Bob Baer has to say or did that through you for a loop.
posted by clavdivs at 12:08 PM on April 22, 2004


I appreciate you writing that, clavdivs, I really do.
posted by y2karl at 12:21 PM on April 22, 2004


I, for one, am not complainig about being eprsonally attacked.

neither am I -- after all I didn't open a MeTa thread after an ethnic slur had been hurled against me. but of course I can't avoid to notice that we apparently lack a policy when it comes to these things -- as of today, calling a user a "greaseball" is OK here. I assume "raghead" is, too? what about -- excuse my language -- "kike"? and "nigger"?
we just lack a policy, that's all. all this, in a community where people have been forever banned for making fun (admittedly, in a very mean-spirited way) of the overweight.
me, I wouldn't be unhappy if a policy re: ethnic/racial slurs were implemented but it's just me. we'll see what happens if a few Arab users finally join -- we probably just need an incident to see change.

It's not in human nature to admit error in the face of the derision of strangers. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to do so and that comes from the heart

very true. I'm not here to change people's minds, Allah forbid. I don't care in the least. I think this is one of the most interesting sites around, and there are many very very interesting users. that's all.
plus, I'm grateful to have the chance to interact here with people whom I'd never meet in RL -- unless I watch again Dr Strangelove. frankly, it's only here I can find people who still take Bush seriously -- or think he's "fighting terrorism" in good faith. but I'm digressing.

to see right-wingers act childish/rude (the amount of insults they hurl against opponents here is far, far greater and more malicious than the left wing's, thank you very much) does not surprise me. insults are cheap -- they're the cheap man's favorite weapon. cheap arguments, cheap manners. that's all.

__________

Secular humanism is a religion.

heh. of course. the opposite of a thing is that thing.
black is white. white is black.
the difference being of course, non-believers and theists will change their mind if/when God actually shows up somewhere and they can see Her, after all these years of absence.
but all those fossils and Carbon 14 etc. never seem to be enough for people who think that the world is 6,000 years old. Aren't they?
talk about facing the facts.
;)

More than just a "conservative pet issue", it's the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
heh. the same Constitution written by theists and fans of the Enlightenment. and now enforced by, you know, Rehnquist and Scalia. let's just hope your President does not spray-paints anti-gay graffiti on that marvelous document.

but again, hamasheaven, thanks for the link, it's priceless:

The evil of secular humanism is particularly obvious by the fact that one of their primary purposes is the corruption of youth

one day you'll be so kind as to tell us where do you dig up that stuff. seriously.

__________________

SO... want to respond to what Bob Baer has to say or did that through you for a loop.

sorry, this greaseball is too busy cooking gravy for his spaghetti, singing opera, (insert random stereotype here). I'm sure you'll find an Aryan user more to your taste, to debate Baer's books.


/derail
I just find funny how right-wingers (you're not the first of course) seem to be serious about linking Clinton and the Left. of course -- the Telecommunications Act, executing brain-damaged criminals, welfare reform, etc. all make for a real lefty. the fact that a right-wing mob tried to lynch Clinton does not make him part of the Left ex abrupto, not really.
but of course to some people here, anybody not as far off to the right as a Militia must be a lefty.
what's next? that liberal Colin Powell?
a nice Rohrschach test

posted by matteo at 12:31 PM on April 22, 2004


is there a limit on the sort of personal remarks one member can make to another here

Ideally, one shouldn't be making them at all. I am unable to recall any instance wherein I've seen "rules of conduct with regards to the belittlement of others". I don't get out much, but I don't think that's why...
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:40 PM on April 22, 2004


new rule: you're no longer allowed to reply to ParisParamus or David Dark. if you feel compelled to answer them, just type whatever you want to say in wordpad and then close it without saving.
I'm taking that advice as of now...hold me to it mcsweet.

and y2k was sticking up for me, BlueTrain, and I thank him, but know what i was getting into. It's the personal insults that are shitty and make civil conversation impossible. Even when I disagree with someone, and I disagree plenty with PP and DD, I don't call them immoral or depraved. You have to be a certain kind of nasty to do that, I guess.

clav : > (your temper is a problem, but not lately, i've noticed--which saint is yours?)
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on April 22, 2004


to see right-wingers act childish/rude

and then:

but again, hamasheaven, thanks for the link, it was priceless

Yeah, nothing childish about name-calling.

Matteo, you've been as rude as anyone here at MeFi for years, making nasty swipes at anyone who disagrees with you, and deep down you know this. Stop pretending to take the high-road based on whichever "wing" of the political spectrum you subscribe to. It (obviously) doesn't excuse you, or me, from being a jerk on occasion.
posted by dhoyt at 12:40 PM on April 22, 2004


dhoyt, I like your style, man, and you've had my back in certain threads where no one else has and I appreciate it, but let me tell you something:

There's not a single prolific poster on this site of any political or cultural persuasion who hasn't acted like a complete tool on occasion, myself included. That's not the issue in this thread. There's certain uses who do nothing else (like the two linked in the post) and that's what's got everybody riled.
posted by jonmc at 12:51 PM on April 22, 2004


You know, these slightly homoerotic group-therapy we-need-to-talk threads, full of dramatic, sobbing "you've been rude to me" moments will haunt you guys when you're sober. Quit being a a bunch of oversensitive crying babies.
posted by 111 at 12:51 PM on April 22, 2004


111, I am sober, and your Ann Coulter fan club t-shirt hugs your abs nicely.
posted by jonmc at 12:55 PM on April 22, 2004


Really, that "secular humanism is a religion" link is hysterical. Mixed in with the all the unsupported assertions and other profoundly irrational excuses for argumentation, is this priceless gem:
Do they hate Christians? Yes. "We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds", they say.
The identification of Christians with "intolerant sectarian creeds" is her own, no one did that for her, and she seems quite happy to assert that identity exists between the two. Even most atheists I know wouldn't go that far.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:56 PM on April 22, 2004


Really, that "secular humanism is a religion" link is hysterical.

Is it?

"I have absolutely no doubt that the secular and scientific vision is right and deserves to be endorsed by everybody, and as we have seen over the last few thousand years, superstitious and religious doctrines will just have to give way."

Daniel Dennett
posted by 111 at 1:09 PM on April 22, 2004


I apologise for the shitty allegory; how apt your username.

No, I was serious. I don't have any idea what you meant by your comment. I understand the expression about not telling your left hand what your right hand is doing, but the way you used it made zero sense to me. I thought maybe it was the late hour, but I still don't know what you were talking about.

As for my username, well, I'd really call it more of a demi-God complex that I have, but thanks for noticing!

For example, criticism of feminism becomes misogyny in their eyes (easy then to attack and ridicule - hmm, never mind that feminism is an ideology, not a gender).

I admit I did that once, quite rudely, in fact, because it's something that had been bothering me for awhile about the tone of both your posts and many of your off-topic comments in other threads, where you attempted to attack some mythical feminist agenda when the thread had little or nothing to do with feminism. For that I apologize, since I let my emotion get the better of me an cloud my judgement (up until that point I'd done my best to simply ignore your comments and let them go).

I will say now, however, since the subject has been breached, that your critiques of feminism are not in any way attacks on extreme forms of feminism. Your attacks on feminism are thinly-veiled attacks on women who think for themselves and wish to act independently. You attack something like marriage as a prison for men, used by women to manipulate men. You mischaracterize statistics within the courts to make it appear that the law favours women. Judging from most of what I've read in your comments and the tone of your posts, I feel entirely comfortable drawing the conclusion that your "critiques of feminism" hint at a larger underlying issue with women, one that I think is fairly clear.

-----

Now, someone, I think Witty, wanted to know which of the users on the right I think makes reasonable, salient points. It's a hard question to answer because I honestly don't have a list of "right-wingers" offhand. As far as people who ardently support the current Bush administration, I can probably say that I don't think any of them make reasonable counter arguments, because I don't think there are any to make. The only possible counter argument that can be made at this point is "sure they lied to us dozens of times, but it was worth it." If someone admitted that they simply didn't care that that administration did this instead of responding to the evidence presented in many of the links with rhetoric about lefty propaganda, then perhaps something approaching debate could take place.

In saying that, I don't mean there aren't those here who are on "the right" and make good arguments about the war, only about the current administration. There are many who seem to think if you support the war you have to support the administration, which seems to be sheer folly. Others, however, such as BlueTrain (who I almost never agree with in issues of politics) are either are center or somewhat right of center (or simply play devil's advocate because of the large left-thinking contingent here), often admit that the Bush administration fucked up but then make counter arguments regarding the war. Now, I don't always follow BlueTrain's logic, and more often than not I vehemently disagree with him, but he doesn't fall into the same trap so many others do. MidasMulligan seems to have toned it down since his return and makes fairly cogent arguments, even if--again--I never agree with him and often think stavros could drive his fabled auto through the holes in his logic.

Then there are the conservatives that don't really talk that much about the war, such as Miguel. I like Miguel, even when I dislike what he's saying.
posted by The God Complex at 1:15 PM on April 22, 2004


Actually, 111, the SecHum link is rather pointless:
why say
"The evil of secular humanism is particularly obvious by the fact that one of their primary purposes is the corruption of youth. (p. 16) Jesus had strong words about those who harm children: "it were better for him taht a millstone be hung around his neck, and be cast into the sea.""
when the cited article A Secular Humanist Declaration does not have page numbers. How do you refute that - they don't even print the offending quote!

Laughably inept.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:26 PM on April 22, 2004


I'm sure you'll find an Aryan user more to your taste, to debate Baer's books.

uh-huh. well, god bless you for dodging the question.

and bless 111 because....don't...think...I ...can make...it...without a....a
wisecrack.

amber- The venerable Alfred Pampalon and St. Dismas.

:)
posted by clavdivs at 1:33 PM on April 22, 2004


There's not a single prolific poster on this site of any political or cultural persuasion who hasn't acted like a complete tool on occasion, myself included.

Have I?
posted by timeistight at 1:42 PM on April 22, 2004

...homoerotic group-therapy...”—111
I think it's good that we've talked about this. Anyone want me to suck their luscious cock?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:45 PM on April 22, 2004


and St. Dismas

the patron saint of thieves.

I realize in retrospect that I really should have not brought up your row with languagehat. It's really none of my business. Sorry about that.
posted by y2karl at 1:57 PM on April 22, 2004


111, precisely what do your latest farting of comments have to do with MetaFilter as a whole? Your list of labels for Mefites is probably getting a bit long by now: Secular humanist anti-christian homoleftys. Have I covered everything?

I actually appreciate the personal vendettas, if for no other reason than it keeps the generalizations to a minimum. Notice that the angriest spats I've had in my tenure here were with owillis (my generalizations were at fault), mapalm (I really can't stand passive aggressiveness, because it paints all dissent as cruel and indecent), f&m (mostly because no one can be "left" enough to please him, hence we're all at fault for the bad things in the world), and y2karl (someone else generalized, to which I reacted angrily, and karl took fairly personal offense to my reaction. No sweat. I love a good fight, as long as its honest.) I have also, in my tenure here, come to agree stridently with 3 of those individuals, and defended them on occasion.

Point being, it isn't about the person, its about the ideas. If you want to take the worst possible color, and paint the person with it (and everyone around them as well), than you're going to end up lumping people into classes to be dismissed. You might as well use racial slurs at that point, because the reasoning behind it is just as weak.

So lets get a few things straight:

Metafilter is not "homolefty". There are people here who support gay rights, and that isn't open to political generalization. It either works for you, or it doesn't.

Metafilter is not anti-Christian. There are those who argue stridently from that viewpoint. There are also those who defend Christianity without faith, but with an appreciation of the viewpoint. Painting Mefi as secular humanist is degrading, and ultimately worthless except to your own hurt feelings. Now THAT, I think, is worthy of derision.

In short, argue the belief that offends you; and quit letting every person offend you because they don't share your offense to the level your ego requires.

Why, yes, that was very much directed at hama7, 111, and SpaceCadet. I'm glad you asked.

And, for what little its worth, I do agree with matteo that racial insults leveled at another user here should be cause for a smackdown. That isn't, as the homolefty collective, our choice.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:00 PM on April 22, 2004


clavdivs, I too appreciate your writing that; it's one of the few bright spots in this train wreck of a thread.

I trust he is mature enough to let go some anger I posted towards him.

Absolutely. We all fly off the handle from time to time; this is MeFi after all! I kind of wish I felt more comfortable with the IRC, so we could interact on #mefi. Ah well.
posted by languagehat at 2:02 PM on April 22, 2004


And one final request (a personal pet-peave). Can we please what happens on #mefi on #mefi, and not flick the dirty laundry in faces around here? 'Just askin'.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:05 PM on April 22, 2004


What Wulfgar said, especially because the #mefi crowd is such a tiny subset of the MeFi crowd—the discussion might as well be about an argument at a local bar. Also, #mefi is very extemporaneous and, logs aside, transient...while MeFi/MeTa is practically carved in stone in comparison.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2004


You're all a bunch of damned p*********h*******es.
posted by xmutex at 2:21 PM on April 22, 2004


Have I?
posted by timeistight at 1:42 PM PST on April 22


You have been known to be a bit of a goostepping poxi on occasion, but only when it gets stuffy in here. But then ol' Matt, he opens a window and you calm right down.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:28 PM on April 22, 2004


Daniel Dennett

oh well, OK then, if Dennet says so...
*snicker*

but I admit that more than a few scientists -- or, for that matter, more than a few Early Christianity scholars -- sometimes have a tendency to be skeptical towards organized religion. because, among other reasons, it requires an act of faith -- literally, a suspension of disbelief. there may very well be a deep psychological attraction to supernatural myths (there certainly is one, historically well-documented, to apocalyptic myths). but, you know, free thinkers are just like that -- they don't like dogma -- they believe in doubt.


We all fly off the handle from time to time; this is MeFi after all

But make no mistakes and switch up my channel
I'm Buddy Rich when I fly off the handle
posted by matteo at 2:28 PM on April 22, 2004




you're the one who stabbed Bad Commie, aren't you hamas?
Repent!
posted by matteo at 2:35 PM on April 22, 2004


Secular humanism, strictly speaking, is not a religion. And for that matter, neither is Dennet's view.

I don't disagree that secular humanism or whatnot is, for some, functionally a religion. But it seems to me that many like you, Hama7, either don't understanding the difference between "necessarily" and "sometimes/often functionally", or obscure the difference to suit your rhetorical purposes.

Please don't sling around the terms "secular humanism", "atheism", "ethical relativism", and, what?, "postmodernism", and whatever else caricatured straw men you're accustomed to setting up and knocking down. That you include them all together, as if each necessarily implied the others, is revealing, again, of either ignorance or deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

I've seen today some extremely vulgar, sweeping, unfair, and inaccurate characterizations of all conservatives on MeFi. That probably pissed you off, as it should. Consider for a moment that you're doing the same thing from the other side of the fence.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:19 PM on April 22, 2004


Metafilter is not "homolefty".

Metafilter is not anti-Christian

Hahahahaha....

.....and Arsenal are not going to win the Premiership.

Yeah, riiiiiigggght. Bad try.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:24 PM on April 22, 2004


Everyone has a duty to be honest and call the shots as they see them. Everyone else has the freedom to react. What is the problem? The more the merrier. Of course, it's nicer if people are polite but it would be boring if everybody was.

Do people really feel personally insulted by comments typed on a web site by people they've never met? Do they really feel flattered? That's just silly.

Of course, the real problem with y2karl and troutfishing - not to mention, as of late, the otherwise adorable amberglow - as ole 6.96 has said in the past, is that they damn well post too much!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:30 PM on April 22, 2004


well Languagehat being leery of #mefi is a concern. I am not that computer savvy to be able to catch any malicious things one may click on, but on the whole, i hope to talk/type to you some day. I do agree with wulfgar and EB (I use acronyms to satisfy my laziness, sorry if that offends) that most #mefi stuff should not be dragged in here but exceptions can be made I hope.

Karl, i needed a back up saint as i am a reformed thief (adolescence sucked). I picked Dimas because it is never to late to repent.

you're the one who stabbed Bad Commie, aren't you hamas?
Repent!

Hamas? ok, typo but how on earth did he get that blade through the cable lines.
posted by clavdivs at 3:30 PM on April 22, 2004


dimas....hmmm, a Rudensky slip.
posted by clavdivs at 3:31 PM on April 22, 2004


hama7: I don't know why you find credible a link in which one foe defines the others beliefs, would you accept Ayatollah Rafsanjani's definition of the US Republican party?

In their own words:
Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. ...ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion. ..secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:32 PM on April 22, 2004


Do people really feel personally insulted by comments typed on a web site by people they've never met? Do they really feel flattered? That's just silly.

Silly, and very sad.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:43 PM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet, you did actually understand the argument didn't you? Just checkin'. 'Cause I'd hate to think your response was born of ignorance of the topic as opposed to an innability to support a position. The former would be sad, and might make me have sympathy for your claims in this thread; the latter would be hypocritally silly, and we don't want that around here, do we?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:50 PM on April 22, 2004


Wulfgar!, no need to get intellectual about something very prosaic: Miguel simply said it was silly to get upset/delighted by comments made on a blogger community website. I agreed, and added it would also be rather sad. I think you're trying to extract blood out of stone there mate.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:57 PM on April 22, 2004


So, while we're doing this sort of thing, I was wondering: Does anybody despise me?
posted by Hildago at 4:01 PM on April 22, 2004


Does anybody despise me?

I used to, when I found out that your name was Hildago, and not Hidalgo. I felt...cheated, fooled, and I loathed you for it. Immensely.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:04 PM on April 22, 2004


Do people really feel personally insulted by comments typed on a web site by people they've never met? Do they really feel flattered? That's just silly.

Yes I do. Both. I *am* silly.
posted by timeistight at 4:09 PM on April 22, 2004


You're all a bunch of damned p*********h*******es.
posted by xmutex at 2:21 PM PST on April 22


Except for quonsar, who's a polite, soft-spoken, suave gentleman working ceaselessly for universal concord and world peace.

Wulfgar, my comment (the Daniel Dennett quote, I suppose) was linked to George Spiggott's, posted immediately above it. You're so blinded by fanatical zeal that you fail to see the obvious.

Metafilter is not "homolefty".
Metafilter is not anti-Christian.


It may be neither for you, but others may think otherwise. Unlike your totalitarian point of view, I think this site is about individuals as much as it's about ideas. Some of the most vocal users here are militant, fundamentalist atheists and homosexuals. Since the Internet is not the little socialist utopia you envisage, their views can be denounced. You can be denounced. The sugarcoated venom some of you people offer day in day out must be countered. The liberal half-truths you sputter so irresponsibly must be exposed.

Basically, what you're trying to do, like others before you, is to promote a purge based on criteria unsurprisingly fitted to remove conservative users from MeFi . But get this: If racial insults were to lead to the stalinist "smackdown" you defend, just about everybody with whom I've had arguments in the past (except perhaps for archimago and troutfishing) would also be out of MeFi by now.

Finally, let me remind you that I, as a conservative, wholeheartedly reject any attempts of the left to define the conservative point of view. You lefties have to deal with the fact that people are no longer willing to put up with your attempts to infiltrate every single medium known to men. This weblog has been continually misused by the left. The likes of y2karl, Ignatius et al have time and again tried to transform MeFi into an anti-Bush, pro-gay marriage haven. Guess what: I for one do not welcome any attempt to replace free speech with PC leftthink. Sorry to frustrate your despotic plans.

free thinkers are just like that -- they don't like dogma -- they believe in doubt.

Since believing is inherently dogmatic, you've just described a situation where "free thinker" becomes a meaningless concept.
posted by 111 at 4:17 PM on April 22, 2004


That's just silly.

Miguel, Miguel, Miguel. one word. not even that. three letters:

neu

Need me to go on?
posted by matteo at 4:22 PM on April 22, 2004


I, as a conservative, wholeheartedly reject any attempts of the left to define the conservative point of view. - 111

That makes I laugh!
posted by dash_slot- at 4:30 PM on April 22, 2004


ok dash: me reject any attempts of the left etc.
On second thought, I'm not Jar-jar Binks or that baboon from the "I am Weasel" cartoons. So as a conservative, I wholeheartedly reject etc etc.
posted by 111 at 4:36 PM on April 22, 2004


, as a conservative, wholeheartedly reject any attempts of the left to define the conservative point of view.

and then...

The likes of y2karl, Ignatius et al have time and again tried to transform MeFi into an anti-Bush, pro-gay marriage haven.

for one do not welcome any attempt to replace free speech with PC leftthink. Sorry to frustrate your despotic plans.

people are no longer willing to put up with your attempts to infiltrate every single medium known to men

It seems you're the one more interested in fitting people into groups of evil wrong doers, hell-bent on infiltrating all known mediums and insidiously plying their trades, their trades of dissent and homosexuality!

I'm not interested in replacing free speech either. I am interested, however, in eliminating the prejudiced, wholly ignorant, and untenable position many here hold in regards to homosexuals.

In that respect, perhaps you are correct in that some members here would like to see metafilter as a place where people of different orientations can be accepted fully in the same way those of different race, ethnic, or class backgrounds can be. The fact that you see this as something to rail against is disturbing and ultimately unacceptable, regardless of your religious affiliation.

Anyone who sincerely believes that these people should be denied equal treatment and rights (both here and in the real world) because of religious beliefs--beliefs written thousands of years ago and altered and manipulated god (!!) knows how many times throughout the centuries in order to solidify power bases and oppress dissenters--should by all means have their logically insubstantial views ridiculed and torn apart as often as necessary. That is discrimination against an idea, not against a people.

Some of the people who hold this view could be very nice people, people I'd enjoy watching the game and having a pint with. I would not, however, in any circumstance, accept the viewpoint you seem to espouse, not even from my closest friend. So you keep complaining about people marginalizing the right while you marginalize the left and I'll continue to abhor the principles you stand for.

Then this thread will repeat itself in a week.
posted by The God Complex at 4:39 PM on April 22, 2004


111 - read the god complex to get what I said (hint: I was not correcting your grammar...)
posted by dash_slot- at 4:43 PM on April 22, 2004


Sorry to frustrate your despotic plans.

111 knows about the plan. abort abort!

everything is a liberal conspiracy, isn't it? the liberal stranglehold on academia. the liberal media cartel. the liberal gay agenda. I hope you will rest easy to know that none of these things really exist.

you guys love being victims, and it sorta cracks me up until I think that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people out there like you. doh!
posted by mcsweetie at 4:45 PM on April 22, 2004


Miguel, Miguel, Miguel. one word. not even that. three letters:

neu

Need me to go on?



I did lose it with neu, I admit. And others, quite often, including your good self. But who said I wasn't including myself? God forbid that I should be setting myself up as somehow "better than Thou"! I find it refreshing that I'm free to be as silly as the silliest here.

Conservatives love diversity; difference; individuality; quirkiness; crankiness; stubborness (?); the rich tapestry of life. Metafilter would be poorer without good old Paris Paramus, David Dark and all the other reactionary rowdies who make you absolutely impossible lefties feel all righteous and aglow.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:50 PM on April 22, 2004


mcsweetie you are one of the weakest, jump-on-the-bandwagon wet paperbags out there on MeFi. How does it feel to always support other people's points of view (from the safety of a 20+ pile-on) and never have one yourself? Do you actually have a neck to stick out?!

my god this thread really is getting out the gripes!
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:55 PM on April 22, 2004


Conservatives love diversity; difference; individuality; quirkiness; crankiness; stubborness (?); the rich tapestry of life.
You're perhaps the only conservative here who is like that. And that glow you speak of is from their bonfires, not our inner radiance.
posted by amberglow at 5:03 PM on April 22, 2004


Wulfgar! -Metafilter is not "homolefty".
Metafilter is not anti-Christian.



111 - It may be neither for you, but others may think otherwise. Unlike your totalitarian point of view, I think this site is about individuals as much as it's about ideas. Some of the most vocal users here are militant, fundamentalist atheists and homosexuals.

I see. The "some" make the whole. I get it now. Thank you for enlightening me. Especially as you tell me what I think, while ordering me not to tell you what you think. HHmmmm, you make so much sense, oh rightious one. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter ... or at least share what hypocrite drug your taking.

Since you don't seem to understand logic, and take the general = the specific as your own divine province of judgement, than by all means, let us debate, oh wise one.

You lefties have to deal with the fact that people are no longer willing to put up with your attempts to infiltrate every single medium known to men.



I see. We "lefties" are on the outside, looking to subvert some nebulous undefined "medium" of humanity. Say that with me again: "meeeedeeeeeuuuuhhhhmmm". What does that mean? By medium, in context, I can only assume that you mean informational resource. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought all "meeedeeeuuuhhhm" was already a leftist playground. Could you please clarify your paranoia, that it might at least be logically consistant? And if the "meeedeeeeuuuuhhhm" of which you speak, is already generally categorized as homolefty, than we've already won, and you're on the outside looking in. Sucks, don't it?

Basically, what you're trying to do, like others before you, is to promote a purge based on criteria unsurprisingly fitted to remove conservative users from MeFi . But get this: If racial insults were to lead to the stalinist "smackdown" you defend, just about everybody with whom I've had arguments in the past (except perhaps for archimago and troutfishing) would also be out of MeFi by now.

I see. Calling an Italian a "greaseball" is okay because others have used racial slurs before, right? Oh, fuck, no I don't see. Please, list the litany of those in this forum who've used such racial slams before. Come on, you think I want folks to be banned because of their conservative agenda, then all you have to do is prove it. Show me the proof. Its simple, you simpleton, or at least you'd have me believe so. Show me the proof.

Or perhaps, what you're really saying is that racial slurs shouldn't be taboo, and that only a Stalinist would believe that they are. Ergo, calling anyone black a "Nigger" is just "okeydokey" with you, as a plank of free speech, of course. I admit it. I was wrong. You are welcome to call anyone anything you like anytime you like. Afterall, far better you be thought a racist maggot than I be thought a Stalinist.

Or maybe, you just weren't very clear in the point you were trying to make. Stalinist? I can only assume you were refering to the site's rightful owner, Matt. I am sorry you are so against one person's control of property rights that you would call them a Stalinist. Though I am intrigued. Have you been a commie for very long?

The likes of y2karl, Ignatius et al have time and again tried to transform MeFi into an anti-Bush, pro-gay marriage haven. Guess what: I for one do not welcome any attempt to replace free speech with PC leftthink. Sorry to frustrate your despotic plans.

In all seriousness, 111, I thank you so very much for telling us all that you will not abide the speech of certain users here and will stridently work against it. Your agenda is clear, and that speaks volumes about you. After all, it is about the individual and not the ideas, right?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:04 PM on April 22, 2004


SpaceCadet - If there is this line, many people have crossed it when addressing myself. However much you disagree with someone's views, there's no need to be rude.

SpaceCadet - mcsweetie you are one of the weakest, jump-on-the-bandwagon wet paperbags out there on MeFi.

SpaceCadet, meet thine own petard. How's the air up there?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:09 PM on April 22, 2004


Do you actually have a neck to stick out?!

why, no I don't. I only know that which is outlined in our weekly liberal bulletins.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:18 PM on April 22, 2004


I dislike people who offend me and wish them ill.

With knives.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:21 PM on April 22, 2004


Some of the most vocal users here are...homosexuals.

111! And I thought you were a Morissey fan...doublethink must be hard on the ol' grey matter.

But hell, maybe Metafilter is a seething haven of millitant pinko commie homolefty Jesus hatin' baby killing dope fiends. But why's that got you running scared? You aren't chicken are you, McFly?
posted by Jimbob at 5:23 PM on April 22, 2004


Don't we have any homo-righties around here any more?
posted by timeistight at 5:29 PM on April 22, 2004


You're perhaps the only conservative here who is like that.

Amberglow - are you provoking me so that I post too much? I sincerely hope not.

Conservatives are those people who hate change and would like to leave things as they are, with minor corrections mainly designed to enable things to adapt to the present and so change minimally. This is a horrible thing and very condemnable as the world is not a perfect place and being against change (because conservatives believe human nature is always the same and that most things get worse) is akin to being against progress and betterment. When it comes down to do it, what true conservatives believe is that "this is how things are - let's make the best of it."

However, if conservatives had their way we'd still be living in the Stone Age - that's why we need (and love) you lefties.

As for a few of those who call themselves conservatives here on MeFi, I consider them to be more like fascists, i.e. revolutionaries such as yourself, except reactionary and evil, inasmuch as they hanker for obedience, uniformity and savagery.

True Oakeshottian conservatives may be lazy, over-accepting, situationist fuckers, but at least they enjoy watching the human spectacle, having internalized that this is the perfect way to guarantee the old adage: "plus ça change..." :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:29 PM on April 22, 2004


It's not in human nature to admit error in the face of the derision of strangers. It takes a great deal of wisdom and courage to do so and that comes from the heart.

I have to take exception to the idea that wisdom and courage are not in human nature. It's just that childishness and petty competitive manuevering are in there with them.

I used to, when I found out that your name was Hildago, and not Hidalgo. I felt...cheated, fooled, and I loathed you for it. Immensely.

Um, I agree with BlueTrain. :::shuffles uncomfortably:::

Conservatives love diversity

Not in our world, Miguel. Think of the difference as if "short" meant "tall" in Portugal/Europe.
posted by rushmc at 5:31 PM on April 22, 2004


Some of the most vocal users here are...homosexuals.

And some of us aren't...what's your point?
posted by rushmc at 5:33 PM on April 22, 2004


are you provoking me so that I post too much? I sincerely hope not.
see--it worked ; >

It's funny--I'd never call myself a revolutionary, nor do I think most people here would either. It's more Golden Rule-simplicity or humanist(?), than any agenda or manifesto. (unless the Goldern Rule is now revolutionary?)
posted by amberglow at 5:35 PM on April 22, 2004


make that Golden 2x instead of Goldern
posted by amberglow at 5:38 PM on April 22, 2004


Come on 111. As a homoleftyStalinistFiscalLiveInALogCabinInTheWoodsMontana conservative, time and its value are precious to me. Show me what you got, son.

on preview, amberglow, I prefer the Kantian phrasing:

Take no action that you would not wish any other in that position to take. It follows an old Native dictum: don't count (coup on) a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:42 PM on April 22, 2004


For my money, I think that to voluntarily participate in a community where one holds a minority, contrary viewpoint is the type of thing where a certain personality type self-selects and is not representative of all people who hold such views.

I don't mean to generalize about all such people with minority views. But because of this self-selection effect, I think that fuckwits are disproportionately represented in such situations.

They typically are:

Aggrieved (they are very focused on how they have been hurt and offended by the community majority view)

Paranoid (they believe that there is an intentional and coherent group strategy to suppress their minority view)

Proud/Arrogant (unlike the supposedly conformist majority, they are both perceptive/intelligent enough to embrace the truth and valiant enough to fight the good fight on hostile territory)

Narcissistic (it's really about them and their views; and although they prefer positive attention over negative attention, negative attention is much more acceptable than no attention at all)

Destructive (they are far more focused upon critiquing the supposedly incorrect majority view than they are elucidating and directly furthering their minority view)

Misanthropic (they are unusually comfortable being in opposition against most other people partly because, in general, they have a negative view of most other people)

All these things are true for a disproportionate number of conservatives on MeFi, as they are also true for a disproportionate number of liberal commenters on NRO or LGF or whatever. Really, they're trolls in the newfangled sense of the term, and they are far too common. It has far more to do with personality type than it does (in general) with a particular ideology.

This is also relevant to the other thread because, given this tendency, the more insular a community becomes, the more likely that the only minority and contrary viewpoints that are presented to the community are presented by this sort of person. Which does not, needless to say, leave a good impression; and it encourages, sadly, a reactive stereotyping and caricaturing that mirrors that of the trolls'.

This creates a bit of a dilemma for a community such as MeFi that would like to be less insular and not more because, frankly, what we don't need are more 111s and SpaceCadets but, rather, conservatives that are quite a bit different than they. How do you attract those people? Probably partly by trying very hard to not allow the trolls to mold the community's thinking about the minority opinion. The trolls are not representative.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:52 PM on April 22, 2004


I'm not interested in replacing free speech either. I am interested, however, in eliminating the prejudiced, wholly ignorant, and untenable position many here hold in regards to homosexuals.

Now that's a contradiction, but anyway forget it. If anything, MetaFilter's rabid gay squad can make people more homophobic than ever.

In that respect, perhaps you are correct in that some members here would like to see metafilter as a place where people of different orientations can be accepted fully in the same way those of different race, ethnic, or class backgrounds can be. The fact that you see this as something to rail against is disturbing and ultimately unacceptable, regardless of your religious affiliation.

No, that's a stupid attempt to turn reality inside out. I do not object to different views being held or defended; I do object to enthroning certain liberal ideas as the one and only possible line of reasoning. Homosexuals may talk until the sun goes supernova for all I care, but be prepared to read opinions which are very different from your own.

I would not, however, in any circumstance, accept the viewpoint you seem to espouse, not even from my closest friend.

Don't.
Some of the most vocal users here are...homosexuals.

And some of us aren't...what's your point?
posted by rushmc at 5:33 PM PST on April 22


Oh please rushmc, who do you think you're fooling? You're MetaFilter's flaming faggot #1.
Just kidding. I know you, an enlightened liberal, wouldn't mind being though of as a homo.

Some of the most vocal users here are...homosexuals.
111! And I thought you were a Morrissey fan...doublethink must be hard on the ol' grey matter.


Jimbob, I truly do love Morrissey, but he's not "a homosexual". He's always distanced himself from stereotypes, and he's a genius. He talks to mankind, not to his own clique.

Wulfgar, racial slurs are terrible (and universal, btw), but free speech is often hurt in PC attempts to rid the world of spic/beaner/cracker/ nigger epithets.

Conservatives love diversity

Wrong again, Miguel. Conservatives love diversity as long as it does not lead to the destruction of the very system that makes diversity possible. Plus wasn't it you who posted the chart thingie showing that most MeFites were left-leaning or something like that?
posted by 111 at 6:06 PM on April 22, 2004


being thought of
posted by 111 at 6:07 PM on April 22, 2004


Miguel, Amber: I tend to think of the dichotomy in question to be that of traditionalism versus progressivism; and I think I agree with (what I'm inferring from) Miguel that conservatism is not necessarily equivalent to traditionalism. (And also that what I'm calling "traditionalism" here has some strong affinities to fascism.)

That is to say, to the degree that I think there is a meaningful dichotomy that loosely describes most people's political tendencies, I've come to believe that:

A) Most people are very dissatisfied with the state of the world;

B) They believe in a possible utopia or near-utopia; and,

C) They only differ as to whether that utopia is modeled on an idealized past or an idealized "anti-past".

The important thing is "B"...that they're both essentially utopian. The conservative that Miguel is describing, however, is not; and that's a key distinction. Because they're both oriented towards "conserving the past", however, they may appear to be superficially similar.

This model has a lot of explanatory power for me personally--which is probably why I like it. It's personally helpful because it explains why I fit in so poorly with either tradtionalists or progressives. It's because I'm not utopian in this sense (or perhaps any sense); and, more importantly, I don't assume change is either an inherently good or a bad thing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:12 PM on April 22, 2004


111, I notice that you are avoiding the honest debate. I brought up several talking points and episodes of contention. Care to engage, or are you dodging? Your choice, of course.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:12 PM on April 22, 2004


Rock on, Ethereal Bligh. That was eminently readable.
posted by clever sheep at 6:15 PM on April 22, 2004


Do you actually have a neck to stick out?!

He might not but I do have a neck, and it's bright red, and I still find you a pedestrian numbskull. For someone who claims to be an iconoclast, you're awful predictable space cadet.
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on April 22, 2004


Jimbob, I truly do love Morrissey, but he's not "a homosexual". He's always distanced himself from stereotypes, and he's a genius. He talks to mankind, not to his own clique.

Now I know you're insane, 111.
posted by jonmc at 6:27 PM on April 22, 2004


as ole 6.96 has said [several boring times already--Mr. #1 on constantly tooting his own Mefi Index Horn every microscopic drop down the ladder] in the past, is that they damn well post too much!

Ahem,

Most MeFi Threads

911 mathowie
442 MiguelCardoso
380 Steven Den Beste

Here's a question to end the next post:

What kind of hairsplitting hypocrite are you?

More cogent comments and fewer crappy posts might provide a better contribution from some people's perspectives, you know.
posted by y2karl at 6:31 PM on April 22, 2004


Wulfgar, racial slurs are terrible (and universal, btw), but free speech is often hurt in PC attempts to rid the world of spic/beaner/cracker/ nigger epithets.

Since this is the only point of content your spine will allow;

Universal ... all do it. Yes, I see. I just need a few examples to get on board with your thinking here. Please, since its universal, show me the examples from Uncle Fess, davidmsc, y2karl, amberglow, fold_and_mutilate, and ljromanoff. That's three from the right, and three from the left. Should be simple enough, given the universal nature of racist speech and all. Take your time ... I'll wait.

And if you're really daring, how 'bout racist speech from three centrists: myself, jonmc, and owillis. I don't want to make this too hard for you, but it is universal and all, as you say.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:31 PM on April 22, 2004


And to prove that you're really the brave hero you think yourself, I only humbly request one more example. Show me the racial slurs spouted by mathowie. Its universal, you know, so that shouldn't be all that difficult ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:39 PM on April 22, 2004


I'd like to interject that the French thing is useful - it's like a dittohead index or something. There is a difference betweeen opposing the policy of the Chirac government and surrending one's mind to the grotesque non sequiter of propaganda that is the anti-France meme.
posted by crunchburger at 6:45 PM on April 22, 2004


Wulfgar!, you're being obtusely ignorant of simple definitions. The term universal does not imply that everyone "does" something, but that everyone is "affected" by something.

While I think that 111 is being a complete asshole (and trust me about this, 111, from one ass to another (ass to ass baby)), your extremely oppressive attitude is only creating added agitation, without any hope for real conversation.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:46 PM on April 22, 2004


So you didn't get the self-critical joke, Karl? Figures. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:59 PM on April 22, 2004


On the contrary, Blue Train. 111 said that racial slurs are terrible, and universal.

Wulfgar, racial slurs are terrible (and universal, btw),

I strongly suggest that we let 111 define his meaning, though in all context, it appears that he meant that all people use them. After all, I am a Stalinist for objecting to their use, yes? Therefore, the view is one of use, and not one of those affected by them. If 111 would like to clarify, I welcome his submission here. However, until then, my challenge to debate with facts stands firm.

Perhaps he meant to say that all use and/or accept them. I would welcome the clarification.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:04 PM on April 22, 2004


Cheers to Ethereal Bligh ("I think I agree with (what I'm inferring from) Miguel that conservatism is not necessarily equivalent to traditionalism") for elevating the discourse, although I'd add that it's important to note which human societies and traditions one is referring to. Over the millenia, humans have tried some crazy shit. "Traditional" covers a wide array of cultural behaviors and beliefs.
posted by troutfishing at 9:26 PM on April 22, 2004


Ethereal Bligh is my new hero. What a lovely thing it is to see such reasoned and well thought out posts in this absolute train wreck of a thread.

I think most everyone just needs to slowly back away from their keyboards and go get a coffee or a beer or some cool, cool water.

Look guys, we're never going to have a consensus on any topic. The glory of online communities is that they attract a vast array of people with different intellects, education, political views, philosophies and lifestyles. But picking names out the air and rehashing old grudges is doing none of us, or the site, any good.

I think if we all approach threads as though they were really a debate, rather than a pub brawl, everyone would benefit. No personal attacks, no insults, no slurs - racial or otherwise. Put the vendettas down. Forget what you think you know about userX. You might be surprised to find out what you can learn.

/after school special lecture
posted by dejah420 at 9:42 PM on April 22, 2004


/Q

/quit

/x

/help quit

/help end

Fuck, how do I stop this thread?
posted by Hildago at 9:58 PM on April 22, 2004


Ethereal Bligh is my new hero. What a lovely thing it is to see such reasoned and well thought out posts in this absolute train wreck of a thread.

Yeah, but he's new here. Don't worry, he'll learn soon enough.
posted by dg at 10:34 PM on April 22, 2004


speaking of the moz...
posted by mcsweetie at 10:42 PM on April 22, 2004


Well, Miguel's posts aren't crappy, just for the record. His posts are quite excellent. I was in a cranky mood and got irritated with him trotting out the same tired joke.

This is a thing I try to remember--that what happens in real life affects how people act here., as in I fight with my girlfriend on the phone and then yell at my cat when she cries for attention because I am still upset. Then I feel shitty for yelling art my cat and I have to make up twiceover. I always try to think of this when clerks are rude to me in stores or people are nasty on the bus--people who are really angry are more often than not angry about something else to begin with.

And I don't think this thread has been a waste at all.

On another note, I suppose by Miguel's standards, I'm a conservative, too--at least when it comes to architecture and public spaces. I hate to see old buildings torn down, I like bowling alleys, corner stores, barbershops, taverns or home style restaurants that have been open since 1934--the going, going gone world that is vanishing like dew on a hot summer morning anymore. In that sense, I am quite conservative.
posted by y2karl at 10:47 PM on April 22, 2004


I do think this may be the most amusing thing I've yet read in MetaTalk: Finally, let me remind you that I, as a conservative, wholeheartedly reject any attempts of the left to define the conservative point of view. You lefties have to deal with the fact that people are no longer willing to put up with your attempts to infiltrate every single medium known to men. This weblog has been continually misused by the left. The likes of y2karl, Ignatius et al have time and again tried to transform MeFi into an anti-Bush, pro-gay marriage haven. Guess what: I for one do not welcome any attempt to replace free speech with PC leftthink. Sorry to frustrate your despotic plans.

What an embarassing thing to have writ!

posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 PM on April 22, 2004


Fuck, how do I stop this thread?

^X^C
posted by eddydamascene at 1:48 AM on April 23, 2004


This creates a bit of a dilemma for a community such as MeFi that would like to be less insular and not more because, frankly, what we don't need are more 111s and SpaceCadets but, rather, conservatives that are quite a bit different than they.

E-Bligh-gum, what a load of nonsense. Let's face it - on MeFi, people get upset when they read a view they oppose. That's the simple truth. It's got nothing to do with the style of the message, but the content of the message that riles people. Witness this thread - this is a good example of somebody getting very angry simply at somebody else's opinion, and not at how the opinion was voiced. Attacking the style of the message or even the person voicing the message is just showing up your lack of counter-arguing skills, or perhaps it's simply that sometimes there is no counter-argument to be had.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:22 AM on April 23, 2004


"Witness this thread - "

there you go again.
you really can't let go of the fact that people here don't share your deep-seated hatred for women, can't you.
listen, you keep linking to "women's issues" threads. you have a perfectly OK "Men's Movement and Men's Rights" blog, as it is your right to try to advance your positions, but I am sure you are aware that your views (ie men are oppressed by women, abortion is murder, etc) are at the very least VERY controversial in the outside world (ie outside of Men's Rights chapter meetings).
so, really, let go. don't blame others here because they often blow up with facts your anti-women statements. I can understand your anger -- it is a very human emotion. but really. get a grip.
posted by matteo at 4:49 AM on April 23, 2004


Jimbob, I truly do love Morrissey, but he's not "a homosexual". He's always distanced himself from stereotypes, and he's a genius. He talks to mankind, not to his own clique.

wait, so someone can be homosexual, but not "a homosexual"? This is so confusing.

The sugarcoated venom some of you people offer day in day out must be countered. The liberal half-truths you sputter so irresponsibly must be exposed.

As opposed to your non-sugarcoated venom, I take it, 111.

It's got nothing to do with the style of the message, but the content of the message that riles people.

See, Space Cadet, I'd have to disagree with you here. I've had pleasant discussions on MeFi with people with whom I drastically disagree. (And, there are people here with whom I tend to agree, but whose style puts me off.) But the people who get me steamed tend to be people who:
--spout racist or otherwise bigoted nonsense;
--name-call;
--avoid logical argument in favor of the above.

And I've gone on record about this before, often with specifics.

As for a few of those who call themselves conservatives here on MeFi, I consider them to be more like fascists, i.e. revolutionaries such as yourself, except reactionary and evil, inasmuch as they hanker for obedience, uniformity and savagery.

Hear hear, Migs.
posted by Vidiot at 5:39 AM on April 23, 2004


Thoughtcrime.

The Only Permissible Kind Of Hate Speech: America Bashing

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson
posted by hama7 at 6:10 AM on April 23, 2004


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us. The wonderchicken does not condone senseless violence, except when required in the name of comedy, satire, sarcasm, hyperbole, aquisition of food, slapping down of trolls, ballet, fried foods, defense of the Homeland, extraction of 111 venom, barfighting for fun, metonymy, neoclassical philosophy, the settling of old scores, or beer consumption Void where prohibited by law. Your mileage might vary. Consult a physician before posting in this thread. I love you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:13 AM on April 23, 2004


Post-post -- I just LOLed for real, OK, that hama7 had posted his, er, stuff, at the same time I was doing my thing.

GMT +9 Comedy Gold!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:17 AM on April 23, 2004


MetaTalk.
posted by hama7 at 6:58 AM on April 23, 2004


Was Evanizer a homo-righty or a homo-centrist? No one was ever able to agree on that.
posted by dhoyt at 8:01 AM on April 23, 2004


matteo, did you actually read the thread I linked?

Here's an extract:-

"I criticise the femaleness of feminism. The dictionary definition of the word "feminism" tells me it's all about gender equality. The term gender equality implies that both genders be equal, therefore to apply equality measures to only one gender would not achieve this possibility as you never address the other gender's inequalities. Sadly, feminism has always operated this way, willfully ignoring it's very definition.

And guess what? I don't hate women because of it. I love my mum, my sister, my girlfriend, and my female friends. They are people. Simple isn't it? I associate myself with people who live by their common sense. I feel rather awkward that I need to explain myself like this, as if to justify my existance.

Notice in my posting history I criticise the institution of marriage, having had first-hand experience of the family courts, which totally destroy any sanctity or meaning marriage supposedly carries. Feminism brought in no-fault divorce. Feminism shaped custody laws such as "lingering doubt" (onus on the accused to prove innocence, not the accuser to prove guilt). Through flimsy laws, I lost meaningful contact with my son. The law shrugs it's shoulders and yawns. Meanwhile, feminists are up in arms that the English language contains words like "chairman". I don't hate women because of this. I criticise the feminist dogma that women can "have it all" - they can, but sadly the family carries the burden of such "freedoms". Again, I don't hate women because of this.

Imagine if you were discriminated against clever sheep
[this post was addressed to her], because of your gender (note: slight tongue in cheek) - wouldn't you feel at least a little radicalised? Or would you, going totally against your feminist beliefs, simply shrug your shoulders and think "ah well, life sucks don't it? I accept all forms of discrimination". No, I didn't think so.

Let me remind you of some classic feminist quotes:-

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers"
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
- Sheila Jeffrys

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
- Andrea Dworkin

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
(Her emphasis) - Marilyn French


Read that matteo? Do you see where the hatespeech is coming from? More from the feminist corner. I'd say I'm actually simply defending myself when I criticise feminism.

Thing is, you WANT to believe I'm a strawman misogynist just like a select number of people who use this site want to believe. It concerns you that more and more men are speaking out against such hatespeech. You'd rather we be "chivalrous" and accept all these feminist myths as true. How dare we speak out...I guess it's still taboo in the States and Canada (the most feminist of countries), but in the UK, it's fast becoming the norm.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:07 AM on April 23, 2004


SpaceCadet, whaddaya trying to say, that there are some screwball fanatic feminists out there? We knew that already. There's also screwball fanatic republicans, communists, animal rights people, and most dangerous of all, Buffy fans. But that's not the point.

I know plenty of self described feminists who are as critical of Dwokin & McKinnon and that ilk as you are, mainly since it's a misrepresentation of what feminism (at least as I understand it) is, and basically an embarrasment.

Yeah some of that stuff is hateful. It used to bother me, too. Then I realized that some of the shit I heard coming from crazy homeless guys on the corner was hateful, too. But I never felt compelled to respond to the crazy homeless guys, dig?
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on April 23, 2004


and most dangerous of all, Buffy fans

hey, Hey, HEY...! you go too far jon, too far.
posted by t r a c y at 8:55 AM on April 23, 2004


t r a c y, to be fair I've never actually watched the show, but I'm pretty sure it's not my bag. But on the plus side, I'd happily be Alyson Hannigan's boy-toy.
posted by jonmc at 9:01 AM on April 23, 2004


jon, the problem is the rad feminists have always held such strong influence in the media and law courts. If they didn't, I wouldn't give a toss about their views. I'd say "yeah, whatever". However, when confronted with a raft of rad feminist lies that have shaped laws/norms - lingering doubt, false accusation culture, mother-knows-best family court rulings, lack of legislation against paternity fraud, unfair child maintenance payment orders to name but a few - you can see that feminism (gender equality) is not working. I guess you have to have gone through the mill to see how things are.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:14 AM on April 23, 2004


I've never actually watched the show, but I'm pretty sure it's not my bag.

Not an uncommon assumption...
...but then when you least expect it, BAM--you're a reluctant fanboy overnight. I've seen it happen to the best of us, er, them.
posted by dhoyt at 9:27 AM on April 23, 2004


I guess you have to have gone through the mill to see how things are.

Ah. So you've bred a child and lost custody, and now you're bitter bent and twisted, and driven to revenge. Gotcha.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:28 AM on April 23, 2004


I guess you have to have gone through the mill to see how things are.

I'm not gonna give you my life story, but suffice it to say that I've been through more mills than most, space cadet. I have concerns about plenty of the things you mentioned, but I don't let it percolate into flat out hatred the way you do.

I'm hardly afeminist poster boy, but I'm here to tell you that you've gotta lotta shit wrong and that the histrionics and antics are oscuring whatever actual insight you might have to offer.
posted by jonmc at 9:32 AM on April 23, 2004


On a side note, not that I mind being compared to him because of his blinding clarity and relentless pursuit of truth, but I'm starting to see why the comparisons (and insinuations) betwwen yours truly and 111 have arisen. I mean it's almost spooky, although I am an early-Smiths-era Moz fan, the similarities are numerous. Right down to quoting Camille Paglia with regard to mightiness of El Rushbo.

I'm almost ready to agree with whichever whiner started a MetaThread requesting that he display an e-mail address on his user page. I'd send him a congratulatory note. Plus, anybody with two eyes can tell he's the better writer.
posted by hama7 at 9:57 AM on April 23, 2004


I know you, an enlightened liberal, wouldn't mind being though of as a homo

Well, I'm no more a liberal than a homosexual, so perhaps you are thinking of someone else? I will accept "enlightened," though...
posted by rushmc at 10:18 AM on April 23, 2004


"I guess you have to have gone through the mill to see how things are."

Ah, the proverbial mill. That mill, the one where nice guys finish last, fathers are stripped of their rights and all those white male judges leap on the feminazi bandwagon to take our children away while making us pay support at bankruptcy inducing levels.

After all, we, as men, don't bear any burden of responsibility for the shambles we have made of our lives. It's the system, the man... or, er, woman. I'm having a hard time keeping track of who I should hate.

We'll skip the drawn out, and never attractrive, orgy of self disclosure, but I got a mill for you, buddy. Right fucking here! They ground me into flour and baked me into puffy little buns. Then, masochist that I am, I went back for more. Oddly enough, today I have sole custody of three lovely children and a glove compartment full of uncashed support checks. Yeah, there are certainly extremist feminists, but your sounding a little extreme there yourself.
posted by cedar at 10:26 AM on April 23, 2004


hama7 is a unicycle.
posted by dhoyt at 11:19 AM on April 23, 2004


111, I notice that you are avoiding the honest debate. I brought up several talking points and episodes of contention. Care to engage, or are you dodging? Your choice, of course.

OK, here's a shocking revelation: not only do I hold conservative views which differ from those some of you people spouse, but I also have this thing called "life" that must be attended to, you know? I have answered your questions but I cannot accept you as one of my remedial students.

RE racial slurs, every race has one and every race uses several others against other race groups. I do think racial prejudices are unavoidable but also dumb. Now what happened to Ron Atkinson in Britain, for instance, seems to be an outright totalitarian misuse of equality standards. To fire someone because when he was off the air he called someone a "thick nigger" is an inquisitorial excess, just like the one you seem to defend.

RE left dominance in the media, it seems transparent to me. The fact that it also happens here can be perceived in this very thread.

Jimbob, I truly do love Morrissey, but he's not "a homosexual". He's always distanced himself from stereotypes, and he's a genius. He talks to mankind, not to his own clique.
Now I know you're insane, 111.


I acknowledge Morrissey as a human being, not as a sexual preference.
Vidiot, consider Moz doesn't cling to the gay stereotype; he's an artist who happens to be gay. This is how real life should be.

C'mon rush, out of the closet already! I know you're a pinko!
Relax dude. I'm kidding.

ps: it's true-- I am hama7! Not really. His FPPs are excellent though.
posted by 111 at 11:24 AM on April 23, 2004


your [sic] sounding a little extreme there yourself.

How so? I'm not the one spouting myths that the media uncritically publish. I am reporting on such things that happen, and that makes me extreme? It's so easy to be extreme here I guess.

As for your own situation cedar, why do you align your own experience to mine (That mill)? You don't know enough of what happened to me to do that, or make a judgement on it.

As for Morrissey:- "vicar in a tu-tu, he's not strange, he just wants to live his life this way". I love the guy.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:42 AM on April 23, 2004


A few posts above, SpaceCadet pasted in his entire last post from our one-on-one AskMe tango. Funny that he obviously didn't learn a thing from my reply. In that response, I specifically pointed out that he was throwing around loonie quotes as if they were some kind of universal feminist gospel:

You quote Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French (twice apiece!) as if they are commonly recognized as leading, mainstream voices for feminism?! Sure, sweets, and in that same universe, Jack Chick is a leading, mainstream religious leader. [shrug]

Despite my response, here in MeTa, he offered those exact same quotes and whined,
Read that matteo? Do you see where the hatespeech is coming from? More from the feminist corner. I'd say I'm actually simply defending myself when I criticise feminism.

Another shining example of intellectual dishonesty, SpaceCadet. Well, either that, or lack of intellect. Take your pick.

If your tactics were to be applied across the board, and any movement's loonies were to be taken as representative, then you and your "men's rights" ilk would be fully responsible for the wildest, stupidest, most virulently misogynistic crap from the hate sites you've posted in the past and anywhere else on the 'net. Right?

I have to quote Wulfgar! here:
SpaceCadet, meet thine own petard. How's the air up there?
posted by clever sheep at 11:43 AM on April 23, 2004


Please ignore "consider" from my previous post.
posted by 111 at 11:49 AM on April 23, 2004


"I understand why straight men hold straight women in contempt. I also understand why straight women hold straight men in contempt. And I understand why gay men hold gay men in contempt, lesbians hold lesbians in contempt, and bisexuals hold everybody in contempt. We all have to make ourselves vulnerable to people we find attractive. Straight men make themselves vulnerable to straight women; straight women make themselves vulnerable to straight men; gay men to other gay men; lesbians to other lesbians; bisexuals to anything that moves. And making ourselves vulnerable means getting hurt. A cruel sexual putdown, a toxic boyfriend/girlfriend, an abusive spouse, a devastatingly bad breakup or divorce, contracting an STD, a total asshole hiding under the bed--those experiences can be terribly scarring. Even people who haven't had bad romantic experiences develop a sort of anticipatory contempt for the people they find attractive. Allowing ourselves to feel and express a little contempt makes us feel a little less vulnerable. So straight men call straight women bitches, straight women will call straight men assholes, gay men call other gay men whores, etc. Everybody does it.

"But the mark of all healthy adults--all adults worthy of sex and human intimacy--is that their expressions of contempt are designed to blow off steam, manage their fears, exorcise their demons, and get it all out of their systems before they have to interact with anyone sexually. "

Dan Savage
posted by timeistight at 12:05 PM on April 23, 2004


Vidiot, consider Moz doesn't cling to the gay stereotype; he's an artist who happens to be gay. This is how real life should be.

But you said nothing of "the gay stereotype" in your original comment. You said: "he's not 'a homosexual.'" Since when does "homosexual" = "the gay stereotype"?

Homosexual is not a slur. Nor is it a perjorative or even a divisive term. It's a description. A rather clinical one, but a description.

And can you define what exactly you mean by "the gay stereotype"?
posted by Vidiot at 12:07 PM on April 23, 2004


One last note re: SpaceCadet's reference to our AskMe exchange. Here in Meta, he posted:
Witness this thread [AskMe link] - this is a good example of somebody getting very angry simply at somebody else's opinion, and not at how the opinion was voiced.

As that "somebody" is very likely me, I welcome the scrutiny. The "anger" and "hatred" that SpaceCadet sees in that thread is his own projection. This is a defense mechanism that allows him to more easily ignore the entire substance of an opponent's argument.

Don't worry, sweets, you'll know if you ever manage to get me mad. But I reiterate: you wish.
posted by clever sheep at 12:10 PM on April 23, 2004


clever sheep, you really have a problem with me! I don't have a problem with you. Have a nice weekend.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:11 PM on April 23, 2004


SpaceCadet, luckily, neither you or your views are my problem. They're yours!

Have a nice weekend yourself.
posted by clever sheep at 12:34 PM on April 23, 2004


Vidiot, the gay stereotype: Will and Grace. Village artistes. Pro-gay marriage fanatics. Etc.
posted by 111 at 12:48 PM on April 23, 2004


the gay stereotype:....Village artistes. Pro-gay marriage fanatics. Etc.

A large percentage of Village artistes are straight. they only act guy to get chicks.

Besides, Morrissey embodies a far worse stereotype-that of the mopey, self-absorbed whiner.
posted by jonmc at 12:54 PM on April 23, 2004


Morrissey embodies a far worse stereotype

Special announcement: jonmc does not care for Moz, before, during, or after the Smiths. Etch this into your minds.

Speaking of favorites, this republican rocker was a member of another of the Greats.
posted by hama7 at 2:05 PM on April 23, 2004


OK, here's a shocking revelation: not only do I hold conservative views which differ from those some of you people spouse, but I also have this thing called "life" that must be attended to, you know? I have answered your questions but I cannot accept you as one of my remedial students.

Ahh, 111, how nice of you to respond. I apologize that I have not done so sooner, as I myself have this life thing of which you speak. However, I must correct you in this; I have not asked to be one of your remedial students, considering that I've taken your words to task, and not vice versa, nor have you answered my questions or engaged in debate, which you so seem to prize above the homoleftythink of what is offered on Metafilter.

For instance, it is you who have generalized all of MeFi to be homoleftythinkers, save your good self, of course, and yet you continually use the word "some". So which is it? Is it some? Are your generalizations so much semantic smoke? Or is Mefi the devil you paint it as? I'm intrigued, and wish to know how you can wriggle your way out of the bonds you have forged. Please, enthrall me!

RE racial slurs, every race has one and every race uses several others against other race groups. I do think racial prejudices are unavoidable but also dumb. Now what happened to Ron Atkinson in Britain, for instance, seems to be an outright totalitarian misuse of equality standards. To fire someone because when he was off the air he called someone a "thick nigger" is an inquisitorial excess, just like the one you seem to defend.

Kindly provide the examples I have asked for. You won't of course, even though it is you who have argued that it is the individual that must be our focus. You won't because you can't. You have lied. You have claimed a universal that you cannot support. If I am wrong in this, please show me how. I know that you won't accept me as one of your remedial students, but how poor is it, that you can't even defend your thesis against one of those poor unfortunates? Sad, really very sad.

By the way, your analogy by example clearly fails. We weren't discussing those who speak their biases "off the air", were we? We were talking about someone publically professing the idea that a user here, in this forum, was a "greaseball" simply for the fact that they were Italian. Come on now, 111, surely you can foster a better argument than that there are those who would hold others responsable for their speech as recorded, and that's bad, can't you? What you're saying is that should someone be held accountable for what they say, than those who judge are Stalinist oppressors ... wasn't that your argument? Why must you hold the belief that others are not accountable for their actions? Don't you see how wrong that is? You must be a leftist, and forgive all slights. I see it now. You leftist apologizer, you.

RE left dominance in the media, it seems transparent to me. The fact that it also happens here can be perceived in this very thread.

Excuse me, oh dim one, but you do realize the apparent contradiction that entails, from your own words, don't you? You said that leftist homoleftists were on the outside, and that you would defend against our inroads into your medium. And yet, now you claim, in the most cowardly of fashions, that the media is left controlled. Which is it? And be clear this time, you coward.

Once again, you have not provided any evidence to support your claims, you have not shown myself or any other to be a Stalinist, you have yet to show that some people's opinion defines the whole of MetaFilter, and you have yet to give any argument that supports your claims that Mefi is "homo" anything (though I will concede that it is populated by homo sapiens).

Really, 111, it does not surprise me one bit that you won't accept me as a remedial student. As it appears right now, logically and with the reason that entails, I know more than you. Would you accept, perhaps, being my remedial student?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:17 PM on April 23, 2004


111 think Morrissey thinks is a genius who speaks to all of mankind.

I think Morrissey is a carrot-nibbling prettyboy who sang fine back-up vocals for Johnny Marr's guitar.

Now play pick the dirty liberal ;)
posted by Jimbob at 3:39 PM on April 23, 2004


Ahh. Wulfgar's rant du jour. Friday wouldn't be the same without it.

For instance, it is you who have generalized all of MeFi to be homoleftythinkers, save your good self, of course, and yet you continually use the word "some".

Wrong. I say the most vocal users of the site (you know who you are) are the ones who try to define MeFi's editorial line, so to speak, as liberal, gay-friendly and irreligious.

Or is Mefi the devil you paint it as?

MeFi is a medium that may or may not be harmed by ideological contamination. The medium is the message, remember?

You have lied.

Oh no I haven't. I never said the specific lefties you mention have used racial slurs towards me, but I 've been called a redneck, bubba, a "jew", a troll and a xenophobe (not to mention outright insults) so often I lost count. Do your own little research if you feel like. I remember y2karl being quite insulting in the Socrates post, for instance. I also remember a race post where some people lost control etc etc.

What you're saying is that should someone be held accountable for what they say, than those who judge are Stalinist oppressors ... wasn't that your argument?

No. I say that racist remarks should be avoided, but not at the expense of free speech.

RE left dominance in the media, it seems transparent to me. The fact that it also happens here can be perceived in this very thread.
Excuse me, oh dim one, but you do realize the apparent contradiction that entails, from your own words, don't you?You said that leftist homoleftists were on the outside

Why? How hard is it to perceive that the conservative users are the ones defending themselves in this thread? How difficult is it to acknowledge the liberal agenda in CNN, universities and so forth? BTW, I say leftists are outside the scope of reason, but unfortunately not outside the scope of history.

Would you accept, perhaps, being my remedial student?

Oh thanks. If I ever have the misfortune to be enrolled in the Fidel Liberace University for Gay Commies I'll ask for your help.
posted by 111 at 3:43 PM on April 23, 2004


You were quite insulting first in the Socrates post's thread, as I recall--being quite insulting was much more your hallmark and specialty around then than now, so I am surprised to see you quite hypocritically complain of it here.
posted by y2karl at 3:57 PM on April 23, 2004


you are one of the weakest, jump-on-the-bandwagon wet paperbags out there on MeFi.

If I ever have the misfortune to be enrolled in the Fidel Liberace University for Gay Commies I'll ask for your help.

Et cetera, et cetera.

I think everyone misunderstood y2karl's original prompt:

What I want to know is this, and I am especially interested in Matt's opinion on this, is there a limit on the sort of personal remarks one member can make to another here, beyond which we can't go and has it been crossed in the examples above?

Rereading, you'll see he was asking if this hypothetical line existed, not pleading us to test it.
posted by rafter at 3:57 PM on April 23, 2004


For what it's worth, by the way, I think the line does exist and I think that David Dark's "how an Italian lies" comment very much crosses the line. As for the other two comments quoted in karl's original post, I think we can accept them as run-of-the-mill hotheadedness and move on.
posted by rafter at 4:01 PM on April 23, 2004


I say the most vocal users of the site (you know who you are) are the ones who try to define MeFi's editorial line, so to speak, as liberal, gay-friendly and irreligious.

Heaven-forbid.

Putting aside "gay-freindly" since this is supposed to be an open-to-everybody forum, this is easily proved to be bullshit.

Lets look at the top 10 commenters:

6277 dhartung-strong critic of the left, although a self-described liberal.

4965 quonsar-pretty much willing to offend anyone.

4807 y2karl-leftist, but respectful of religion.

4399 rushmc-irreligious, but all over the map politically

4316 kindall-critical of anything, regardless of ideology, but hardly firebreathing

3978 skallas-irreligious, and liberal, but agian willing to criticze anyone

3854 troutfishing-liberal, but extremely open discussion and outside POV's, and respectful of sprituality

3759 jonmc-see quonsar

3731 ParisParamus-firebreathing rightwinger.

3471 MiguelCardoso-self-proclaimed conservative and orthodox jew.

Yeah, that's a regular boatload of Jesus-hatin' commies.
posted by jonmc at 4:08 PM on April 23, 2004


y2karl, the way I remember it, I said it was a chaff and wheat post and you lost control. But I'm not complaining. Comparing to your recent flurry of sectarian Iraqfilter FPPs, boy do I miss that post.
posted by 111 at 4:08 PM on April 23, 2004


jonmc, suuure, Miguel's unctuous flirtation with the Guardian-style liberal agenda and his assorted effete antics are totally conservative.
Now on to a few others:

6277 dhartung-strong critic of the left, although a self-described liberal.

Sounds remarkably like "strong critic of homosexuality, although a self-described compulsive fellator."

4965 quonsar-pretty much willing to offend anyone.

Particularly when "anyone" happens to be George W.Bush.

y2karl-leftist, but respectful of religion

For a Catholic, that's a contradiction.

And so on.

To paraphrase my nigga Brak: this is the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends...
posted by 111 at 4:27 PM on April 23, 2004


How difficult is it to acknowledge the liberal agenda in CNN, universities and so forth?

I don't know where you're from 111, but to us Brits, it's pretty obvious. Many of us in Blighty don't take this shit. The media here are pretty savvy to liberal propaganda. For example, witness the kind of articles I subscribe to (not all, but most - a common sense commentator):- Melanie Phillips - particularly witness the comments of people responding to such articles:- "Loaded Justice" (about fucked up family court laws) - see how many SpaceCadets live in England?? Jeez, I'm such a cliché!!

Yeah, Melanie's another "crank". I guess cranks are common in my country.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:50 PM on April 23, 2004


oh shit, I forgot - I'm a misogynist! How the hell can I align myself to a woman's views? (I'm having fun here, please, don't get angry)
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:54 PM on April 23, 2004


Spacecadet, consider yourself lucky. At least the British have the decency to clearly define themselves and their press politically. In the USA, you have blatantly liberal, leftist journalists who'll describe themselves as apolitical or some such nonsense. CNN actually pretended to be an impartial news source until Fox News sent it into well-deserved oblivion.
After reading Melanie Philips initial paragraphs below, all I can say is that I like her already:

"Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has compared Tony Blair’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq to Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia. Hitler, he said, also claimed to be protecting the rights of an indigenous population.

By this remarkable comparison Cook demonstrates that he apparently cannot tell the difference between an act of self-defence (whether one thought the invasion of Iraq well-advised or not) and an act of wanton expansionist aggression. Once again, we see the extraordinary moral confusion now prevalent in this country, so evident in the representation of Israel’s attempts to defend itself as aggression."
posted by 111 at 5:08 PM on April 23, 2004


Rant? Rant you say? I've hardly ranted, as you see it was I who asked you to leave ranting aside and debate me. For my trouble, you've waffled position, alluded to imutable truth without ever proving what that is, claimed that your lack of appropriate response was due to a life (actually an adequate plank of argument), and misrepresented not only my position, but what it is you yourself have said. I'm hardly the one ranting here.

Finally, let me remind you that I, as a conservative, wholeheartedly reject any attempts of the left to define the conservative point of view. You lefties have to deal with the fact that people are no longer willing to put up with your attempts to infiltrate every single medium known to men.

Those are your words, yes? Have you defined my position, or assumed it? Please, enquiring minds want to know.

You have accused MetaFilter of being a lefty haven, (which implies that it is a place in wich lefties find support from the venue, as opposed to a place to just speak freely) and yet you claim that lefties are on the outside seeking inroads into a medium of which you belong. Define that, please.

I never said the specific lefties you mention have used racial slurs towards me, but I 've been called a redneck, bubba, a "jew", a troll and a xenophobe (not to mention outright insults) so often I lost count. Do your own little research if you feel like.

Uhhm, you're lying right here. Which called you such racial slurs? (With the sure and certain knowledge that "redneck" is a slur, but not racial.) Bubba? Racial? No, you're just being oversensitive. If someone called you a jew as a slur, that would be a racial slam, and should be easy to find ... though you conspicuosly haven't. Aren't you the one who wrote:

Quit being a a bunch of oversensitive crying babies.

111- MeFi is a medium that may or may not be harmed by ideological contamination. The medium is the message, remember?

Ideological contamination? Aren't you the one who called me a Stalinist, and claimed that I was the one who wished to silence dissent? Aren't you the little hypocrite. And, as I have argued before, and you actually agreed, no, no, NO, Metafilter is the medium, but the message belongs to the commenter, not the site. Its about the individual, right? If you wish to argue about property rights, with regards to what people say ON Metafilter, we will, though I find it distasteful to argue with communists such as yourself.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:16 PM on April 23, 2004


111, the wonderful thing about the UK is that common sense is highly regarded (as much as it can be in the western world). Political correctness has now become a tired joke in the UK. In fact, it's often aggressively opposed as being anti-meritocratic (hey I'm sure there's such a word!). Feminism has been largely debunked by women in the UK as anachronistic. More and more people are waking up to the pragmatic realities of life. I enjoy debating on MeFi with the momentum my side.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:35 PM on April 23, 2004


In the USA, you have blatantly liberal, leftist journalists who'll describe themselves as apolitical or some such nonsense

A perfect description of propaganda.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:42 PM on April 23, 2004


“Happy Haughey Day Care”
The whining! I think some tykes are ready for a nap. Oh, and somebody check their diapers.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:32 PM on April 23, 2004


And people say perpetual motion is impossible...
posted by Cyrano at 8:12 PM on April 23, 2004


t r a c y, to be fair I've never actually watched the show, ...But on the plus side, I'd happily be Alyson Hannigan's boy-toy.

hey, this means we agree on something - aly's my secret lesbian girlfriend.

Besides, Morrissey embodies a far worse stereotype-that of the mopey, self-absorbed whiner

we agree again...! *feels dizzy and confused* altho' you left out "overrated and not in any way a genius".
posted by t r a c y at 9:03 PM on April 23, 2004


I don't have words for how smitten I am with Alyson Hannigan. Willow was Joss's favorite BtVS character, by the way. I watched "The Body" again recently, and was really blown away by AH's "I can't decide what to wear" scene.

I don't like Morrissey so much as I liked The Smiths. But is anyone else here not-so-secretely in love with Crispin Hellion Glover?

Actually, I'm disapointingly extremely straight. Men are almost never sexually attractive to me; like most straight guys, I'm a very poor judge of attractiveness in men. But, years ago, I was watching a documentary on Peter O'Toole. It featured him telling quite a few anecdotes in an intimate studio setting, and, to my great surprise, I felt a strong sexual attraction to him. He was so cool.

I also think Ricky Jay is extremely cool, but perhaps that's Too Much Information.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:56 PM on April 23, 2004


. It featured him telling quite a few anecdotes in an intimate studio setting, and, to my great surprise, I felt a strong sexual attraction to him. He was so cool.

Is it wrong for me to get the same vibe from Henry Rollins?

I solemnly swear never to visit this thread again.
posted by Jimbob at 10:34 PM on April 23, 2004


In the USA, you have blatantly liberal, leftist journalists who'll describe themselves as...

111, you don't know shit about liberal. In many countries in this world, the American "Liberal" is what the rest of us consider conservative.

Quit your facking whinging. If you don't like this place, move on, move on, move on. It's a big ol' web out there: I'm confident you'll find some place that gives you the thrills you so desperately seek.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 PM on April 23, 2004


will you guys PLEASE stop staring at my wife's breasts?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:50 PM on April 23, 2004


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
posted by y2karl at 11:36 PM on April 23, 2004


MetaFilter: self-described compulsive fellator.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:56 AM on April 24, 2004


In many countries in this world, the American "Liberal" is what the rest of us consider conservative.

There is no way to describe how utterly, completely, and totally, without-one-redeeming-quality, full on, flat-out, flaming-forty-foot-letters WRONG that statement is. Shocking, gut-wrenching, uninformed, nerve-wracking, helmet-wearing nonsense. And sadly typical.

Since I'm in a magnanimous mood, I'll let you in on the writings of one of the best. John J. Ray is a *great* Australian. Please find a sample of his work below:

What Are Leftists?

The Psychology Underlying "Liberalism"

Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder

"Rightists favour progress -- both material and social."

And on this point, I'll disagree with my friend MiguelCardoso, who so awfully mischaracterized conservatives above. A well-known American conservative brought an end to slavery in the Western world. T. S. Eliot and Jorge Luis Borges hardly espoused living in caves. Social change and progress is welcome, but socialized, collectivist depredation is not.

May I also recommend:

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot

The Conscience of a Conservative

Michael Howards Beliefs

How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism 'R' Us - P. J. O'Rourke
posted by hama7 at 6:01 AM on April 24, 2004


Consider the source....
posted by y2karl at 6:41 AM on April 24, 2004


is there anything more unenlightening than yet another masturbatory right-wing editorial about "the left" (other than another masturbatory right-wing editorial about "the right")?

what goes through you guy's heads when you read these things? "AHA! liberals love fascism. I knew it! AHA! liberals are motivated by strong ego needs. deep down I knew it, but I just had to see it! AHA! liberals are actually racist! AHA! liberals eat turds etc etc." I'm not denying that sometimes left-wing commentators dog "the right," but nowhere near as often or as vicious. not even close.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:41 AM on April 24, 2004


Hama7, what he wrote is nearly indisputable. He wrote "many", not "all". "Rest of us" is ambiguous.

I guarantee that the majority of European leftists consider the majority of American "liberals" to be the equivalent of European "conservatives". Put another way, the specturm of political opinion in Europe (and most elsewhere) is much more broad than it is in the US; and both the average and median political view there is to the left of a good portion of the US left. Now, there are some caveats in this, particularly regarding how one defines the left/right axis. Europeans tend to see the economic context as predominating by far in terms of defining "left" and "right"; and it is for this reason that Europe is significantly to the left of the US. (Also the use of military force is a litmus test). On the other hand, on a number of social and non-economic political issues, the Europeans are (pardon the metaphor) all over the map relative to the US.

Also, in case it's not clear to you, the truth value of what five fresh fish says is not dependent upon your definition of "liberal" or "conservative", nor is it dependent upon any one person's idea of the "correct" definition of "liberal" or "conservative". It's only dependent upon what the referenced "many" people in "many" countries of the world consider "liberal" and "conservative" mean, and how this compares to Americans they understand as self-identifying as "liberals".

If you want to argue that Europeans and other people commonly misunderstand American liberals and conservatives, then argue that. But that many people around the world consider a large portion of the American left to be centrist or even rightist in comparison to themselves is beyond dispute.

On Preview: McSweetie, what's interesting is that I see the same sort of gross, convenient, and shallow generalizations made about conservatives and the right, as well. I've spent much of my life trying to discover the organizing principles of the various political (and other) worldviews, and I've found that all bivalences are suspect and most are nearly useless...except as rhetorical devices and cultural myth.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:56 AM on April 24, 2004


I guarantee that the majority of European leftists consider the majority of American "liberals" to be the equivalent of European "conservatives".

Laughable. The majority of suicidal communists considers American liberals to their right, politically. Excellent point. The fact that a majority of Americans are not suicidal lefties, due to the fact that their country was founded on the freedom of the individual and the rule of limited government, does not blur the definitions of left and right.

a large portion of the American left to be centrist or even rightist in comparison to themselves is beyond dispute.

Again, if all the people jumping off a cliff consider the non-jumpers politically "right", who cares? In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. So what?

There is still a difference between individualist freedom, and socialist immorality. The left has butchered and lied its way over the corpses of a hundred million in the twentieth century alone. Time to give it a rest.

Saranoya.
posted by hama7 at 7:37 AM on April 24, 2004


hama7, you may wish to rant and rave endlessly on the immorality and stupidity of liberals, and wish to point to countless talking-head editorials on how "liberal" isn't what liberal is, but the fact remains: the general population, using the general concept of "liberal" as understood by the common man, does not find your American liberals to be very liberal at all.

Bluster all you wish on how wrong the general public is, but this is what they believe. For them, in their terms, it is true.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:24 AM on April 24, 2004


Well, I'll go on record as saying that I find both left-wing and right-wing ideologues to be insufferably self-righteous, sanctimonious, doctrinaire, pompous, and ideologically constipated.

And worst of all neither of them seem to have the capacity to admit they might be wrong or that the opposition might have a point.

Now, I'll be called (and have been called) a fence sitter or unforgivably nuetral for saying those things, but I chalk that up to people's shock and anger that I don't convert to the "one true way" after hearing their personal political gospel. But if I have to sacrifice my ability to choose my own way to be heard in today's political arena, then fuck it.
posted by jonmc at 1:11 PM on April 24, 2004


No, I would call you insufferably self-righteous, pompous and patronizing right back, Mr. Broken Record Party of One.
That dead horse you're beating is beyond jello.
posted by y2karl at 1:59 PM on April 24, 2004


*sigh* well i tried my best, yet somehow it still lives.
posted by t r a c y at 2:07 PM on April 24, 2004


CNN has a liberal bias now?








.
posted by The God Complex at 2:29 PM on April 24, 2004


*sigh* well i tried my best, yet somehow it still lives.

Yeah, well, you're no James Marsters. You need more acerbic wit to kill this foul beast.
posted by The God Complex at 2:29 PM on April 24, 2004


Mr. Broken Record Party of One.

So, I'm a party of one. So what. I'd rather be isolated than follow something blindly. And belive me I've had everybody from every side of the equation pitch every possible -ism at me and the traits they all share in common are what I listed above. Nothing's always right and nothings always wrong. I didn't know that recognizing means I should be a pariah.
posted by jonmc at 2:43 PM on April 24, 2004

Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best.

Wisdom is the domain of the Wiz,
which is extinct.

Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
of a short, cloth neck ornament currently in resurgence.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2004


I'll join your party, jonmc.
posted by timeistight at 3:35 PM on April 24, 2004


jonmc, you're sounding off like you're the unique snowflake while the rest of us are mass-produced, shrink-wrapped drones, aligning binary-style to the "left" or "right". Why do you construct this false dilemma, when each individual, just like you, has a composite of beliefs, based on their experiences and filtered by their personality/intellect.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:00 PM on April 24, 2004


Why do you construct this false dilemma,

I'm not the one who constructed it. It was here when I arrived. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way. Most of the people written off as "apathetic" are probably those who threw up their hands after getting tired of being shouted at from both directions.
posted by jonmc at 4:41 PM on April 24, 2004


Terrorists. All of you.
posted by bargle at 4:50 PM on April 24, 2004


Seriously, Jon, although I'm trying to let this thead die, I feel your pain.

In my case it's not so much that I'm "centrist" as it is that some of my positions are far to the left and some are centrist, and some (by some people's standards) are to the right.

Anyway, I've found that if one doesn't conform to one of the two antagonistic groups, each side considers one an enemy. It's a real pain in the ass.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:05 PM on April 24, 2004


In my case it's not so much that I'm "centrist" as it is that some of my positions are far to the left and some are centrist, and some (by some people's standards) are to the right.

Bingo, Senor Bligh.

Not to mention, as far as I'm concerned the ultimate rhetorical sin is smugness and self-satisfaction, and even if I agree with somebody, if they show any of that, I'll feel obliged to stick a pin in 'em.
posted by jonmc at 5:34 PM on April 24, 2004


Is this something I'd need to be American to argue about?
posted by armoured-ant at 7:16 PM on April 24, 2004


Up to a point, Lord Copper.
posted by malpractice at 10:57 PM on April 24, 2004


Well, jonmc, this smugness and self-satisfaction of which you speak is something which emanates from you, at least for me, when you make these pronouncements--do remember that smugness and self-satisfaction are things one finds more easily in others than in oneself. Other people are soulless unthinking fakes but I am sincere and true--this is the universal human nature default position. There is a word to describe any person who spends much time calling other persons smug and self-satisfied: hypocrite. We are all complex individuals here. All are parties of one. You become a target for all by appearing to make yourself right by making everyone else here wrong--I'm righter than the whole lot of you! There's a balloon begging to be popped right there.
posted by y2karl at 12:01 AM on April 25, 2004


Hey, karl, I can (and often do) publicly admit to all kinds of serious personality flaws. You're trying to tell me that I can be an arrogant prick? I already knew that. Dosen't make any of the things I say any less true. You're whole last post basically amounts to a sophisticated version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Sure, I'm an asshole, but that dosen't mean there isn't a lot of smugness and knee jerk thinking in the poilitical arena and that it isn't a problem.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 AM on April 25, 2004


« Older Why the downtime? For the last...  |  Follow-up to the recent photos... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

Post