Dances, sings, quips, shoots Americans on sight

May 1, 2004 10:09 AM

*dances, sings, quips, shoots Americans on sight*
This strikes me as a bit over the top. (MI)
posted by clavdivs to etiquette/policy at 10:09 AM (93 comments total)

this is the comment in question.
posted by clavdivs at 10:10 AM on May 1, 2004

What is this, Gaza City?
posted by PrinceValium at 10:28 AM on May 1, 2004

you didn't like stav's imitation of an iraqi joe sixpack?
posted by quonsar at 10:52 AM on May 1, 2004

yeah, it's OK only to shoot Iraqis, didn't you guys get the memo?
posted by matteo at 10:56 AM on May 1, 2004

So, clavdivs, tell me this-- is a sentence like The closest this monkey ever comes to commenting on his hatchet jobs is "Hearts and Minds 2.0" and "Hey, what happened to hearts and minds" and "Have I mentioned lately that I want to suck Juan Cole's cock?" OK by you? Just wonderin'...
posted by y2karl at 11:13 AM on May 1, 2004

Over the top, perhaps when taken alone out of the context of the post. He's obviously harboring some anti-American feelings himself and the language is harsh, but I think he did a good job of illustrating the feelings of many Arabs regarding these photos. IMHO.
posted by caddis at 11:17 AM on May 1, 2004

I'd agree. I don't think it is over the top considering the context of the post. Did you look at the photos?
posted by chunking express at 11:38 AM on May 1, 2004

This strikes me as a bit over the top.

So do 90% of the complaints logged in MeTa, but I didn't start a thread about it.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:41 AM on May 1, 2004

I think we (the Americans among us) should just threaten to shoot Stavros on sight, and then we'll be even.

Ah, the smell of self-righteousness in the morning. It smells like...shit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:53 AM on May 1, 2004

Maybe you should turn him in to the secret service?
posted by bingo at 11:54 AM on May 1, 2004

frankly, I'm tempted to shoot all of you on sight, american or not.
posted by crunchland at 11:54 AM on May 1, 2004

wow. thanks for that link y2karl, i somehow totally missed david dark, prestidigitator extraordinaire, disappear all those dead kids in a blustery swirl of outrage over network sweeps week maneuvers. unfuckingbelievable!
posted by quonsar at 12:08 PM on May 1, 2004

Stav is in Korea, last I read, so he will get his due (BillSaysTongueInCheek) when Kim Jon Il goes completely and finally over the edge. No need for a MeTa callout!
posted by billsaysthis at 12:24 PM on May 1, 2004

clavdivs, aren't you on record as threatening to skullfuck stavros's vowels? So there's an issue of prior contempt instead of spontaneous outrage.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:31 PM on May 1, 2004

How 'bout reading the thread from the top where stav makes his feelings perfectly clear:

Fuck America and its lickspittles.

Fuck Al Qaeda and its jihadis.

What do you do when you have nothing left but contempt for both sides? What the fuck option is left for people that are actually sane in this massive global clusterfuck that these assholes have created for us all?

Can't say I blame the guy for being a bit pissed off...
posted by i_cola at 1:25 PM on May 1, 2004

to be honest, every single comment of stavros's I read, I was thinking the words 'shut the fuck up'. more so than usual.
posted by angry modem at 1:40 PM on May 1, 2004

So, "a bit over the top" merits a call-out?
posted by mischief at 2:13 PM on May 1, 2004

Oh, for fuck's sake: eat me on sight.
posted by scarabic at 2:30 PM on May 1, 2004

Fuck America and its lickspittles.

Fuck Al Qaeda and its jihadis.

While you're at it, fuck melodramatic & attention-mongering Canadian keyboard jockeys.

I remember once, too, where you referred to Ben Franklin & Thomas Jefferson as "slave owning fuckalls". Yeah, because let's face it, in another hundred years no one's gonna remember those peons. Regarding substantial contributions to the world, the history books of the future will surely ignore the Founding Fathers altogether so that entire chapters to can be devoted to the malcontent & self-possessed ramblings of an internet personality called the "wonderchicken". Feh.
posted by dhoyt at 2:35 PM on May 1, 2004

And you'll be linking to that alleged comment won't you dhyot? I only ask as I don't seem to be able to find anything close to that in the MeFi archives & I'd hate to call you out as a liar before I had proof one way or other. Just to be fair 'n' all.

[10 pages of Google on 'stavrosthewonderchicken' & 'fuck' though.]
posted by i_cola at 3:25 PM on May 1, 2004

to be honest, every single comment of stavros's I read, I was thinking the words 'shut the fuck up'. more so than usual.

Thank you clavdivs for this. More sanctimonious lunacy again from the wonderchicken is unacceptable, though I've said as much and more with regard to the wonderchicken's self-described "black comedic stylings" before. This childish, diarrheic, hate-filled, vulgarity-strewn tirade is irresponsible and disgusting.

Is it not ironic that the wonderchicken lives in a country which has helped defend itself against tyrannical brutality largely by virtue of the lives and assistance by the United States and its citizens?

How sharper than a serpent's tooth...
posted by hama7 at 4:07 PM on May 1, 2004

This childish, diarrheic, hate-filled, vulgarity-strewn tirade is irresponsible and disgusting.

I prefer to have responsible diarrhea.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:30 PM on May 1, 2004

This strikes me as a bit over the top.

Nope.
posted by subgenius at 4:44 PM on May 1, 2004

Sure it was over the top.

And?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:04 PM on May 1, 2004

*GASP* He's not even repentant! Quick, let's all jump on him some more!!!

Seriously, the only problem I've got with the wonderchicken is his own tendency to play MeFiCop/MeFiParent around here (here being MeTa, specifically). While this wasn't his brightest moment, those kinds of statements speak for themselves and perform their own sort of condemnation of the speaker - there's no need for us to add anything or register in with our oh-so-holy sanctimonious opinions.
posted by Ryvar at 5:10 PM on May 1, 2004

Hama7 has me a touch confused here: Are we supposed to be outraged because we really believe that stavros was advocating violence, or that he was disrespecting America? Shakespeare not withstanding, American benevolence didn't give birth to Korea or Canada, so I'm confused by what *exactly* hama7's on about.

Other than that, I would like to request of hama7 and clavdivs, if we agree that stavros was "over-the-top" with his ranting, precisely what would you like us to do about it? What punishment should be mete to one so loathsome that they would use angry satire on this website? Maybe we should pee on him, if we meet him of course? Considering that many here have vented their spleens at the French, or the "thugs", or whomever else has them pissed at the moment, what should be the appropriate MeFi response? Really, I'm seriously askin'?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:14 PM on May 1, 2004

I suggest you all make jokes about me that hurt my feelings and injure my unreasoning love for [fill in idol here].

The punishment should suit the crime, after all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:18 PM on May 1, 2004

*dances, sings, quips, eviscerates hama7 on sight*
posted by quonsar at 5:23 PM on May 1, 2004

What we should do is what we are doing—express disaproval. That's what community policing is.

I've done what Stavros did more than once (elsewhere, not here). I was angry, I was self-righteous, and at the moment I felt well justified in making an outrageous comment in response to what I thought was obviously an outrageous provocation. But it was a mistake. It's narcissistic and unproductive. It never goes well. The few people that are in the exact same state of mind think it's great; but a bunch of other people are pissed, and most of the rest are left with the impression "that guy's an asshole". Worse, whatever discussion was occuring becomes sidetracked by the outrageous comment.

There's bunches of things that I see and hear that make me really fucking angry, and they're generally the same sort of things that Stav finds provocative, and not Hama7.

Finally, Stav's comment implies a pretty large degree of villification and dehumanization of an entire class of people; and I can't help but think it's sad and ironic that it was the same sort of dehumanization that encouraged these American and British soldiers to feel "justified" in committing their crimes.

Because this is always the feeling—the feeling that some other person or persons has provoked one beyond all forebearance and that any response, no matter how extreme, is appropriate and their own damn fault, anyway. It's a sentiment that responsible communities censure, not encourage.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:39 PM on May 1, 2004

Good lordy, you can pontificate about the obvious, Ethereal Bligh. I've noticed in your short time here your tendency to assume that others, less clever than you, can benefit from the boon of your delicate insights. It's already getting a bit tiresome, cap'n. 'course, I've been know to do the same thing...

But what led you to think that I wasn't entirely aware of the irony you point to? Being angry doesn't mean being stupid.

Look, there are those who dislike me because they are either threatened by or in disagreement with my attitudes towards America (if not Americans, for the most part). There are those who would prefer me to 'shut the fuck up' because they don't like what I say, or how I say it. I'm OK with that, and don't feel the need to go into florid disquisitions on freedom of speech as a result. In a community of this size, anyone who says things that are in any way provocative (or employ, as Wulfgar! aptly said, 'angry satire') is going to find some whose mission is to poke the provocateur with sticks, and harry him into silence.

My politics are no secret. My contempt for the status quo and those who would preserve it is no secret. My fear and loathing for America (the nation) and its leaders is a matter of public record. I have a tendency, as clavdivs suggests, to go over the top sometimes, but I do it in an attempt to make a point. I do not rant incoherently. I am known to use language like a weapon, and sometimes more like a bludgeon than a rapier, I admit.

But I try to tell the truth as I see it, sometimes in character, couched in satirical japes, sometimes not. I worship no -isms. I am no fool, although I play one on television. I make no apologies unless I have done something wrong. In this case, I don't think I have.

But I do get angry sometimes. Sorry 'bout that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 PM on May 1, 2004

I love the wonderchicken. He can shoot me anytime he wants. Smooches.
posted by ColdChef at 6:16 PM on May 1, 2004

God save us from self-styled community "gadflys". We're supposed to believe they're performing a service, when, really, they're just performing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:17 PM on May 1, 2004

I've noticed in your short time here your tendency to assume that others, less clever than you, can benefit from the boon of your delicate insights.

I say we all benefit from Ethereal Bligh's insights. He's a breath of fresh air around here, quite frankly. Just because he takes the time to express himself clearly and calmly, rather than just spouting off a derogatory quip, doesn't mean he's not insightful.

Being angry doesn't mean being stupid.

Yes it does, frequently. Biologically, anger impedes your ability to think rationally. Pragmatically, if you're posting while angry, then you're not posting because you have something useful to contribute. Instead, you're posting because you want to hear yourself talk. And that rarely (but occasionally) leads to intelligent discourse.

But back to the topic at hand: stav's comment. As an American citizen and a conservative, I have to say: meh. I've heard worse, and from close friends. And compared to the usual level of discourse around here, it was positively tame and witty. Not worth discussing, i don't feel.
posted by gd779 at 6:22 PM on May 1, 2004

Just for the record (because sometimes it gets confusing), can someone make a list of who is against whom in this thread? It might make it easier to keep score. Sometimes, I think I have an idea, but then other times not.

*breaks out the popcorn*

These axe grinding threads are very entertaining. And has anyone else noticed the tendency for them to break out on Saturday's? Perfect way to kill time at my shitty weekend job!

I LOVE this place!!!
posted by Quartermass at 6:28 PM on May 1, 2004

dhoyt, your 'founding fathers', other than Ben Franklin, were slaveowning turds. I'd never use a clumsy word like 'fuckalls,' though. Ineuphonious.

God save us from self-styled community "gadflys".

Gadfly? Me? Hardly. I say things I believe -- whether or not they are provocative to others is pretty far down my list of Things That Concern Me. Provocation for the sake of it is infantile attention-seeking, I agree. Once again, you seem to assume that I'm just not clever enough to see that. It's getting really tiresome now.

So God save us from pompous windbags, perhaps. I can get behind that.

Also also : stop it, Chef. You're making me all tingly!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:31 PM on May 1, 2004

I do not rant incoherently.

pussy.
posted by quonsar at 6:33 PM on May 1, 2004

anybody else hear the charlie brown grown ups voice in their head as they read meta call outs...? no, just me...? ok.
posted by t r a c y at 6:33 PM on May 1, 2004

pussy.

From you, q my friend, that's a compliment!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:35 PM on May 1, 2004

anybody else hear the charlie brown grown ups voice in their head

esmeralda hears them too. but hey, she hangs out in #mefi.
posted by quonsar at 6:37 PM on May 1, 2004

Hey, ykarl, does it mater what calvdivs thinks about it? I mean, gosh, don't try use a totally dissimilar comment someone made about you to bring attention to yourself or anything. Does anyone who ever calls out anything have to call out everything?

Oh, and Ethereal Bligh, you're right, but I guess people who want to post actual insights are just lily-liverd elitists who can't handle stavros' straight-shooting stick-it-to-the-man invective.

As a corollary to what gd779 said, being angry might not necessarily mean being stupid, but you can only be judged by what one produces.
posted by Snyder at 6:43 PM on May 1, 2004

I like Stavros most of the time. But I just never see anything good come from that sort of comment. As I said, I've made them. Many of us have. And we usually feel it's a good idea at the time. But it's self-indulgent, I think. There's a conceit that many of us have that poking someone with a stick—especially if they're being recalcritant—will somehow alert them to the error of their ways. (At least, that's why we think we're poking them with a stick. We avoid considering the possibility that we're poking them with a stick because we like poking people with sticks.) But it never works out that way. It just pisses them off, polarizes them (and other people) even more.

Having a strong feeling is never sufficient justification alone for a given action. I get angry sometimes. Sorry 'bout that doesn't read to me like a sincere apology. It sounds more like a lame rationalization.

On preview: Stav, I've never met a self-styled gadfly who doesn't claim to merely be saying what he/she believes; or, more often, to "call 'em like [they] see 'em". The difference between you and Q is that he's (often) irrelevantly provocative; he is, in some semi-adorable sense, nuts. You, you're too earnest to be adorable. Like others here, you're pissed-off about the state of the world and you don't mind getting in everyone else's face about it. Whoppa, whoppa, whoppa, you know?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:44 PM on May 1, 2004

I guess people who want to post actual insights are just lily-liverd elitists who can't handle stavros' straight-shooting stick-it-to-the-man invective.

I wish I had said that.

Having a strong feeling is never sufficient justification alone for a given action.

This is the only criticism I will make of stav's comment and his anti-Americanism in general. (Like Ethereal says, we've all made a hotheaded comment like stav's at some point, and it's never a good idea, so I hesitate to condemn too loudly). But in all my years of reading stav's comments, I've never seen him give a full explanation of his anti-American rhetoric. I presume, based on his comments on other topics, that he could provide a rational argument for his beliefs. But he's never actually done so, to the best of my knowledge. So, in summary, make your quips and insults, stav - but then take the time to clearly and carefully explain the "obvious" to the rest of us, who may not share your background and therefore cannot comprehend or benefit from your insight.
posted by gd779 at 6:57 PM on May 1, 2004

Sorry 'bout that doesn't read to me like a sincere apology.

That's 'cause I'm not apologizing. I said that already.

Look, you're right, EB. You generally are, even if your tendency to overexplain, reminding me as it does of myself, rankles a bit. I am far too earnest, even if I do like to dance around and make a joke now and then, as we all do, and rant a bit too, as we all do. Humans, most of us.

But you're missing my point. I do not aim to provoke. That's what a gadfly (self-styled or otherwise) does. Provokes intentionally, in order to stir the pot in some way that gratifies him or her. I think you'll find that more often than I provoke, I actually attempt to have conversations, sometimes heated. A gadfly does not do this. Thus, I resent being accused of being one. Choosing the word 'provocateur' upthread was unwise -- I meant it merely in the sense of 'one who provokes,' not 'one who seeks to provoke'. For what it's worth.

you can only be judged by what one produces.

And if anyone cares to judge me, I invite them to do so, based on what I 'produce'.

(Which is not, I should probably add, an invitation for hama7 to pull out his list of Wonderchicken Word Crimes that he apparently carries around in his wallet...)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:59 PM on May 1, 2004

tracy, I think these call outs are tired too. People need to grow up. You don't have to search hard to find things much more offensive then what the chicken said.

However, as much as I hate these call outs, once in a while you end up with something magical that everyone can enjoy.
posted by chunking express at 7:04 PM on May 1, 2004

But in all my years of reading stav's comments, I've never seen him give a full explanation of his anti-American rhetoric. I presume, based on his comments on other topics, that he could provide a rational argument for his beliefs. But he's never actually done so, to the best of my knowledge.

It's totally unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to provide background material for our stated beliefs, gd779. Don't want much, do you? Shall we all fill our profile pages with essays on why we think the way we do about [pick a random topic]? That's just silly.

But in response to similar requests, I suspect because so many Americans just can't seem to fathom why someone might not love America to bits, I wrote this more than a year ago. I might write it differently now, but it goes some way towards answering your question. You must have missed it the first time 'round.

Happy now?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:10 PM on May 1, 2004

South Park kids' voices here. Matches left to your imagination.

Ethereal Bligh, the way I look at it, preaching at people wears thin fast, very fast. When it comes to a self-appointed moral arbiter, especially one who goes on about it at extraordinary length--a sin shared in common by you two--well, nothing gets lame faster, not even Stavros waxing arty poetic in bad boy amor propre. Good boy, bad boy, in either case, sometimes I'm just not as fascinated by you as you seem to fascinated about you. And you both go on and on and on sometimes. We have a very good idea of how you feel about things, the both of you. In excessive personal detail. Try a little more omit needless words, please.

On review: I got to outside--the vanity is stifling in here...
posted by y2karl at 7:13 PM on May 1, 2004

Shit, did y2karl just say that?
posted by Stan Chin at 7:15 PM on May 1, 2004

Mmmm, vanity. Tasty, satisfying and calorie-free!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on May 1, 2004

It's totally unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to provide background material for our stated beliefs, gd779. Don't want much, do you?

Justifying our beliefs with rational argument is an unreasonable burden now? Okay.

I wrote this more than a year ago. I might write it differently now, but it goes some way towards answering your question. You must have missed it the first time 'round.

Yeah, I did miss that the first time around, and I enjoyed reading it just now. Consider my criticism withdrawn, then.

preaching at people wears thin fast, very fast.

If that were true, nobody would read the political threads, would they? Heh.
posted by gd779 at 7:26 PM on May 1, 2004

It's worth noting that when the pot calls the kettle black, it doesn't mean that either of them are white.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:27 PM on May 1, 2004

Justifying our beliefs with rational argument is an unreasonable burden now? Okay.

Not at all. But it would seem a bit unwieldy to have to trot out a long backgrounder after every single comment one makes (and would drive y2karl bugfuck insane!), and untenable to expect everyone to write essays like I did about their positions on things, offsite. Imagine the volume of unnecessary verbiage (like my equally unnecessary verbiage) that would result! Think of the children, man!

Some degree of succinctness combined with reasoned, well-supported arguments is the aim, and I know that's what you're suggesting, gd779, but I resent the implication that I never do that, ever. (I will grant that I do it more rarely when it comes to my America-bashing hobbyhorse, though. Heh.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:36 PM on May 1, 2004

it would seem a bit unwieldy to have to trot out a long backgrounder after every single comment one makes... and untenable to expect everyone to write essays like I did about their positions on things, offsite. Imagine the volume of unnecessary verbiage

Well reasoned, well thought-out comments should be applauded and encouraged, even if they're voluminous, because they generally encourage further well-thought out discussion. I never did understand why we made Steven den Beste get his own weblog. He may have been wrong sometimes, but he was generally thoughtfully wrong. (Though i distinctly remember some exceptions). But I recognize that I'm in the minority here.

and would drive y2karl bugfuck insane!

True, there are multiple upsides.

Some degree of succinctness combined with reasoned, well-supported arguments is the aim, and I know that's what you're suggesting, gd779, but I resent the implication that I never do that, ever.

I didn't mean to imply that, because I know it's not true. I'm sorry if I didn't make that more clear. I may sometimes disagree with you, but you're usually interesting and intelligent, and I respect that.
posted by gd779 at 7:54 PM on May 1, 2004

Thank you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:00 PM on May 1, 2004

It's worth noting that when the pot calls the kettle black, it doesn't mean that either of them are white.

Thank you, Kwai Chang Kane.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 8:33 PM on May 1, 2004

That's "grasshoppa", to you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:42 PM on May 1, 2004

Well, on topic...

This strikes me as a bit over the top.

So do 90% of the complaints logged in MeTa, but I didn't start a thread about it.

plus

I don't think it is over the top considering the context of the post.

summed it up for me. You may now return to your regular navel gazing.
posted by y2karl at 8:46 PM on May 1, 2004

Everyone does it and They asked for it is the moral reasoning of a child.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:01 PM on May 1, 2004

Who wants a valium?
posted by angry modem at 9:18 PM on May 1, 2004

Morality itself is the reasoning of a child.

Just for the record (because sometimes it gets confusing), can someone make a list of who is against whom in this thread?

Yes. Because everybody is doing it, I am going to attempt to draw attention to myself by saying: I am against ALL of you, including myself! Remember, you asked for it!
posted by Ryvar at 9:19 PM on May 1, 2004

Everyone does it and They asked for it is the moral reasoning of a child.

Ethereal Bligh, you are one stuffed shirt. Who appointed you hall monitor? Can the lectures, already.
posted by y2karl at 10:21 PM on May 1, 2004

I'm going to resist commenting on the thread, as I'm as yet unsure exactly what is happening. I will say, however, that the form of this metatalk callout was--at best--horrifying. It consisted of two extra short lines and, for some unknown reason, an indication that there was more inside, a 'more inside' that involved nothing more than a link to the comment in question! This could have been easily accomplished by making the original text a link itself, instead of cutting it into two distinct comments.

This childish, diarrheic, hate-filled, vulgarity-strewn tirade is irresponsible and disgusting.

Thank you hama7 for this. You have summed up the majority of your own beliefs in one all encompassing swoop. That said, it is kind of fun to see someone like yourself (who has seriously spoken in favour of the genocide of Arabs in Palestine) complain about someone doing the same thing somewhat less seriously.
posted by The God Complex at 10:54 PM on May 1, 2004

Well, I went over the top with Ethereal Bligh 'cause I'm in a bad mood. Thankfully, no one has commented in troutfishing's post. Otherwise, what TGC said. OK bye.
posted by y2karl at 11:31 PM on May 1, 2004

I saw a robin today.
posted by namespan at 12:33 AM on May 2, 2004

This strikes me as a bit over the top.-- clavdivs

At one time, clavdivs, I have the impression (possibly mistaken) that it wouldn't have. At one time, I think it would've struck you as interesting. At one time, I think you would've picked it up, held it really close to you face, smelled it, licked it, turned it around and around, tossed it up and down, smashed a beetle with it, tempted your little brother with it, shined it on your tummy, smiled at it, and then set it back down.

Which is what I did with it, just before scampering out from under Ethereal Bligh's looming shadow.
posted by Opus Dark at 12:48 AM on May 2, 2004

some people posting threads (or comments) in MeTa's "etiquette" category remind me of Blink-182 complaining about the sorry state of rock music today.
but maybe it's just me.
posted by matteo at 3:33 AM on May 2, 2004

Let's see:

clavdivs making a call out (in etiquette/policy no less!) about an "over the top" comment by stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken taking Ethereal Bligh to task for his/her "tendency to assume that others, less clever than you, can benefit from the boon of your delicate insights."

And the following from y2karl: "And you both go on and on and on sometimes."



This is all some kind of orchestrated and weird meta-inversion thing isn't it? Or is it just a localised self-knowledge shortage?


Whatever it is, this thread is too short and insufficiently crazed to keep me entertained. I will not be satisfied until stavrosthewonderchicken threatens to cut off his right hand unless clavdivs stops skullfucking his gerunds while Ethereal Bligh throws sticky bits of kleenex at both of them.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 6:34 AM on May 2, 2004

*feels left out*
posted by quonsar at 7:23 AM on May 2, 2004

Everyone does it and They asked for it is the moral reasoning of a child.

... and that invalidates them how?
posted by mischief at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2004

that's it! this is a message from bizzaro-metafilter!

in that case, my good and quiet friend, Miguel, just doesn't get enough attention around here.
posted by crunchland at 8:40 AM on May 2, 2004

I hate all of you, this site, and the English language.
*froths, gnaws off own leg*
posted by languagehat at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2004

"Morality itself is the reasoning of a child."

Oh, go torture a goldfish, Otto.

"... and that invalidates them how?"

Not been around children much, have you?

Maybe I just don't understand metaquette. But I somehow expect that *shoots Muslims on sight* would have garnered an outraged call-out. And, anyway, it seems that *shoots X on sight*, where X is a class of people (most of them innocent), is self-evidently not hunkey-dorey.

But I understand now that feeling justified and sharing the majority opinion is what normalizes acceptable behavior around here. Given that, I'd like to repeat my assertion that SpaceCadet is an asshole; and add that he's a trollish, misogynist, obsessive asshole who'd best shoot himself in the head forthwith.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:56 AM on May 2, 2004

So much for the Bizarro-world theory then.
posted by yerfatma at 11:57 AM on May 2, 2004

But I somehow expect that *shoots Muslims on sight* would have garnered an outraged call-out. And, anyway, it seems that *shoots X on sight*, where X is a class of people (most of them innocent), is self-evidently not hunkey-dorey.

That's true, but MetaFilter is mostly made up of Americans, and as such we can choose not to be bothered by statements that are directed at us. That's what I do, at least. That's not to say that such statements are any more acceptable when directed at Americans than they are when directed at any other group. It's simply a recognition of the fact that "all X's are evil and should be killed" says more about the person making the statement than it does about the group in question.

It's also a recognition of the fact that MetaFilter is, unfortunately, very often a nasty, vitriolic place with the double standard that usually goes along with a polarized political monoculture. Which brings me to my second point.

But I understand now that feeling justified and sharing the majority opinion is what normalizes acceptable behavior around here.

I share your frustration at this, but there is nothing that anyone can do to change it, so the best thing to do is not to let it bother you. Just notice the people who believe such things, and make a mental note to ignore their opinions in the future.
posted by gd779 at 12:47 PM on May 2, 2004

EBligh, I (along with many others) welcome wholeheartedly your contributions to the 'Filter, but let me warn you that if you begin to believe you could ever be capable of singlehandedly bringing a higher quality of discourse out of some of the crazier bastards around here, then you're guilty of the non-identical twin sins of hubris and "taking yourself too seriously". Just do what you do and lead by example. (was that a single sentence?) You do not want to wear the badge of the "MeFi Police"; it takes all the fun out of your participation here. (I'll stop before I get too far into doing what I've warned you not to do)

And characters like the wonderchicken who "use language like a weapon, and sometimes more like a bludgeon than a rapier," often end up holding a loaded gun - backwards.
posted by wendell at 1:04 PM on May 2, 2004

If you don't like getting preached to, stay out of MetaTalk. That's what we do here, and we do it damn well!
posted by PrinceValium at 1:15 PM on May 2, 2004

I never did understand why we made Steven den Beste get his own weblog.
He took his ball and ran home crying, is more like it.
posted by darukaru at 1:20 PM on May 2, 2004

characters like the wonderchicken who "use language like a weapon, and sometimes more like a bludgeon than a rapier," often end up holding a loaded gun - backwards.

Duck season!

Rabbit season!

*blows own face off*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:20 PM on May 2, 2004

It's simply a recognition of the fact that "all X's are evil and should be killed" says more about the person making the statement than it does about the group in question.

Jesus winnebago-raping fuck some people can be humourless sometimes. Does anyone (other than hama7) honestly believe that's what I was saying? Come on already.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 PM on May 2, 2004

Oh! It was a *joke*! Now I get it! "Shoots Americans on sight." It's a pun right? No, that can't be right. Hmmm...

























Okay, I don't get it.
posted by timeistight at 4:38 PM on May 2, 2004

Not been around children much, have you? : You mean other than my own? ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:38 PM on May 2, 2004

Does anyone (other than hama7) honestly believe that's what I was saying?

No, of course I don't think that's what you were saying. To be honest, by this morning I had sort of abstracted this discussion, and in responding to Ethereal I had forgotten entirely about the original context and the original comment. For whatever it's worth, I'll say again that I thought your comment wasn't a big deal, and was even a bit funny.

Okay, I don't get it.

It's a play off of "eats, shoots, and leaves".
posted by gd779 at 4:41 PM on May 2, 2004

Well, fair enough. In future, when I muse about the Open Season on Americans that your government has created, I'll try not to do it in the implied first person.

You know, like : 'A million brown people dance, sing, quip, and shoot Americans on sight.'

All better now. Safely sanitized by sticking it into the third person. Not over the top at all, merely an open-eyed description of the harsh realities of today's world!

Oh! It was a *joke*! Now I get it!

Not a joke. Not a joke at all, timeistight. Not even close to being a joke. It's a goddamn tragedy. You've gotta laugh angrily, or just cry.

But we've had this discussion about humour before -- it's not always funnyhaha jokes -- and there's no point in doing it again. There are people out there, a multitude, who actually do want to shoot Americans on sight. I am not one of them. It shouldn't be necessary for me to say that. But they're out there.

On preview : thanks again, gd779.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:50 PM on May 2, 2004

*ponders photoshopping jesus raping a winnebago*
posted by quonsar at 5:53 PM on May 2, 2004

Stav, honestly, I went back and read the post and link several times trying to figure out what you were saying. It seemed to me you were semi-seriously advocating shooting Americans on sight. Not seriously, of course—any more than someone here might have seriously proposed shooting any and all Arabs on sight. But I thought you intended your sentiment in the same sense as the hypothetical right-wing person might have intended theirs. That's why I thought it was over-the-line. If you had said directly that thousands of brown-skinned people will see these photos and want to shoot Americans on sight, I could hardly disagree with that, because there's no hint of endorsement. But in your comment, it seemed to me that there was.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:59 PM on May 2, 2004

you had to ponder it, q? You're slowing down, I tell ya...
posted by Vidiot at 6:08 PM on May 2, 2004

Well, EB, text is a poor medium for conversation. I try to pack in the ol' nuance, but I guess I fail about as often as I succeed. C'est la internet-vie.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:16 PM on May 2, 2004

People, may I suggest we settle this like they do in the streets? That's right, it's time for a DANCE COMPETITION. Somebody's about to get served.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:46 PM on May 2, 2004

I just want to see q's sacrelicious photoshop.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:51 PM on May 2, 2004

well, it's not q's, but this is fun
posted by amberglow at 9:06 PM on May 2, 2004

Damn Stav,

I cringe at my somewhat rambling comment at the end there. I might have been drunk. I hope so.

Anyway,

Thank you clav for this petty thread that simply does not consider the nature of the person's humor that you are just as aware of as I am. And Ethereal Bligh, just let it rest. Sometimes this place is so devoid of offering the benefit of doubt that it turns everyone into anal retentive grudge mongers monitoring every nuance of a text for possible PC violations to turn into insipid MeTa-masturbatory marathon threads that only serve the cyber-circle-jerking sect stalking here.
posted by john at 10:10 PM on May 2, 2004

*tries to comprehend the set of rueful taglines in john's comment*

*head explodes*
posted by namespan at 12:50 AM on May 3, 2004

insipid MeTa-masturbatory marathon threads
that only serve the cyber-circle-jerking sect

Poetry! Pure poetry!
posted by mischief at 5:08 AM on May 3, 2004

Sounds like Rush lyrics.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:00 PM on May 3, 2004