Opinions, not agenda May 3, 2004 10:52 AM Subscribe
I humbly and publicly request a moratorium on referring to opinions as agendas. The linked thread is full of this. Not only does it stifle any sort of honest discussion, debate, or genuine and warranted insulting, it also seems slightly fascistic, Fox News-ish, and embarrassing.
MoratoriumFilter
posted by PrinceValium at 10:58 AM on May 3, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 10:58 AM on May 3, 2004
Request denied. I will keep on choosing the words I consider appropriate, thank you very much.
posted by 111 at 11:09 AM on May 3, 2004
posted by 111 at 11:09 AM on May 3, 2004
thirteen, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The CIA's job is to enable the US government to make informed decisions. Everything that's royally fucked in Iraq now is the product of uninformed decisions. Think about that, and decide if the lives of people dedicated to fixing that ignorance are still so fucking disposable to you.
From your link, I noticed another gem by NortonDC.
Very shrill, very brutish.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:22 AM on May 3, 2004
From your link, I noticed another gem by NortonDC.
Very shrill, very brutish.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:22 AM on May 3, 2004
the sad fact that is self-evident here is that the Right really is terrible, terrible at playing defense -- they've been playing attack (successfully) for so long that playing defense terrifies them, because they simply can't. all of them -- from their hero (ie Bush) not finding ONE mistake he made in almost 3 years and a half (cause he's afraid to look soft if he admits even a tiny mistake), down to our MeFi right-wingers. whose only rhetorical weapon by now is "you guys are biased/fag-lovers/Osama-lovers/anti-semites/greaseballs"...
after all, what else could they say -- all those dead GI's, all those invisibile WMD's, the felonious outing of Valerie Plame, etc -- there's an avalanche of facts playing against them.
an avalanche of facts, and of innocent blood.
so their only weapon is squealing "bias", whining, hurling insults. Iraq is going to hell fast. the budget is busted, the economy is nothing to write home about (recovery means jobs, and a lot of them: where's that recovery?).
I understand their anger. I do. their king is bare-assed.
personally, I liked so much the Riviera demolition of Midas' (my favorite MeFi right-winger, by the way) whiny comments that I'm all for opinion-as-agenda-Filter at this point.
as I said already, FishInABarrelFilter.
boom-boom.
posted by matteo at 11:45 AM on May 3, 2004
after all, what else could they say -- all those dead GI's, all those invisibile WMD's, the felonious outing of Valerie Plame, etc -- there's an avalanche of facts playing against them.
an avalanche of facts, and of innocent blood.
so their only weapon is squealing "bias", whining, hurling insults. Iraq is going to hell fast. the budget is busted, the economy is nothing to write home about (recovery means jobs, and a lot of them: where's that recovery?).
I understand their anger. I do. their king is bare-assed.
personally, I liked so much the Riviera demolition of Midas' (my favorite MeFi right-winger, by the way) whiny comments that I'm all for opinion-as-agenda-Filter at this point.
as I said already, FishInABarrelFilter.
boom-boom.
posted by matteo at 11:45 AM on May 3, 2004
I think this whole "keeping score" thing isn't really working out.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:29 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:29 PM on May 3, 2004
I'm as against "agenda" as anyone else (Come on, American Right Wing, just come out and say "conspiracy." You know you want to.) -- but I'm not sure you can really request a moratorium on MeFi of things that are not really MeFi-specific, if you catch my drift.
You might as well post a MeTa asking for a moratorium on dairy products.
posted by rafter at 1:38 PM on May 3, 2004
You might as well post a MeTa asking for a moratorium on dairy products.
posted by rafter at 1:38 PM on May 3, 2004
Talking about politics is a zero-sum game here. Start with a shred of nuance or a finely calibrated, concise argument and get your ass pushed into a corner by someone who is just sooo sure he or she knows what you're about. Why bother, really. I can't continually write good stuff like Ethereal Bligh or troutfishing can, so almost invariably I stay silent. I don't know if there others like me on this site, mayhap they're quiet too on the political stuff for fear of getting bitch-slapped by one of the usual suspects. And then what? Actively engage a known ideologue? No way, I don't generally enjoy speaking to voids that I can count on to organize differing views not as ideas to be considered on their merits, but as enemy attacks of various threat levels.
But keep talking anyway. :)
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:55 PM on May 3, 2004
But keep talking anyway. :)
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:55 PM on May 3, 2004
I did not mind the tone of Norton's post. He is obviously a passionate fella, and we disagree. No problem.
posted by thirteen at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by thirteen at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
SpaceCadet, calling me out for opposing the idea that people are disposable. Keep trying -- there might actually be a way keep it from sounding despicable.
posted by NortonDC at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by NortonDC at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
Of course you do not want the word agenda to be used. The creation of this thread is typical of the left-wing conspiracy to hide the homolefty agenda in a fog of anti-American rhetoric and prevent mainstream America from seeing just how vile the leftist thought-process reallly is. Sad really, just how desperate the left is to hide the tremendous success America is having at freeing Metafilter from it's communist, baby-killing grasp. We will stand on the rooftops and shout AGENDA at the top of our lungs while the traitorous left is hauled off in leg irons below.
Limbaugh/Coulter in '08!
posted by bargle at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
Limbaugh/Coulter in '08!
posted by bargle at 2:17 PM on May 3, 2004
hah. thirteens grace is appreciated, even if I do find his stance genuinely disturbing.
posted by NortonDC at 2:19 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by NortonDC at 2:19 PM on May 3, 2004
I don't know if there others like me on this site, mayhap they're quiet too on the political stuff for fear of getting bitch-slapped by one of the usual suspects
I usually avoid posting in the political threads simply because I do not keep up on things enough to feel like I have enough information to know what I want to say.
However I do enjoy reading the political threads and almost always take something useful (IMHO) from them. Despite the bad reputation such threads have on Mefi.
posted by bargle at 2:22 PM on May 3, 2004
I usually avoid posting in the political threads simply because I do not keep up on things enough to feel like I have enough information to know what I want to say.
However I do enjoy reading the political threads and almost always take something useful (IMHO) from them. Despite the bad reputation such threads have on Mefi.
posted by bargle at 2:22 PM on May 3, 2004
I'm so sick of Seth, xmutex, and Albert Belle pushing their agendas everywhere.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Kwantsar at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2004
I feel complimented when someone thinks my opinion should be elevated to something that could affect change, but that's not in any way going to disprove anything I say, so they're just wasting their breath.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:33 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 2:33 PM on May 3, 2004
Moratorium, nay, but perhaps a momentary frown-in thereon.
posted by scarabic at 2:38 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by scarabic at 2:38 PM on May 3, 2004
Moratorium, nay, but perhaps a momentary frown-in thereon.
The potential for wordplay here is absolutely loopy.
posted by rafter at 3:00 PM on May 3, 2004
The potential for wordplay here is absolutely loopy.
posted by rafter at 3:00 PM on May 3, 2004
It's a sort of virtue, really.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:07 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:07 PM on May 3, 2004
Et tu, Brute?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:46 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:46 PM on May 3, 2004
the sad fact that is self-evident here is that the Right really is terrible, terrible at playing defense
Yep. So bad that it took eight or nine lefties piling on to one guy - and ultimately resorting to personal attacks - just to answer one relatively mild conservative ... making the simple point that while the article was the usual rubbish - long on allegations and almost completely devoid of facts - there is an investigation going on, and the actual facts are being sought (by a Republican administration).
Seems as though the problem is not the Right being bad at playing defense, but rather the ease at which the Left's offense is exposed as rubbish.
personally, I liked so much the Riviera demolition of Midas' (my favorite MeFi right-winger, by the way) whiny comments that I'm all for opinion-as-agenda-Filter at this point
This is cool. The "demolition" of my comments was the assertion that the Rivera isn't satisfied with the pace of the investigation. Rather odd ... as the fact that Wilson himself, while pissed about other things, seems to have a good deal of confidence in the investigation. But if you wish to grasp at that as some sort of "gotcha" victory that gives you pleasure, go for it.
Despite the seriously twisted view of conservatives on MeFi, a good number of people in Republican circles do want to know what happened - and will want whomever leaked Plame's name punished. I'm one of them. Bush is another. Its hard to explain if you don't know the culture - but Bush Sr. ran the CIA, and Bush Jr. - from what people who know tell me - has a great deal of respect for it (in sharp contrast to his predecessor). Once someone is an insider in that culture - the barest thought of an agent being named produces a serious emotional reaction ... there is no greater sin ... because the ramifications are severe, and often deadly.
Every now and then it seems as though the board might appreciate hearing a nuanced conservative perspective (at least I keep hoping it does ... but generally it is quite clear that it doesn't). The conservative perspective - in general - is that Wilson did make initial claims for purely political motives, and that he should have been answered. But also, that outing Plame was way over the line - and should be punished (whether it was inadvertant or deliberate).
A good, public discussion of the issue - contrary to what people seem to be saying here - is not something conservatives need to avoid, or "defend" against. In fact, most of the conservatives I know want whomever outed Plame to be caught, and put in jail ... regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat. Conservatives in general do understand the role of the CIA, and strongly support it.
If I claim there is an "agenda" at work here ... it is because in general the left is usually the loudest critic of the CIA. People who - in most other circumstances - equate the CIA with nothing but desperately evil activities, and in past couldn't even mention it without claiming that it is responsible for assassinations all over the globe, suddenly, in this situation, appear to be claiming that it is deeply important to them that its culture of secrecy be honored, that poor Valerie be defended, and the one that outed her be burned at the stake. To me, that seems like it is more than an opinion ... it appears to actually have an "agenda" behind it.
This issue itself is important. Conservatives, within their own circles, are discussing it. Not only Bush, but some of his strongest supporters genuinely want the truth to be found, and want the perpetrator punished. And the people he has investigating the situation are well known - to that point that even Wilson is comfortable that it is the right team (and if there was even a hint that it wasn't, he'd certainly be saying so loudly, and publicly). Investigations like this are also enormously complex - and take time.
So the conservative view is that despite Wilson's politics, and his public attacks on Bush about the war - the outing of his wife is a seperate issue. They want the truth, and want the correct steps to taken once the truth is found.
This FPP, however, lead off with an article that decided it didn't need to wait for the facts, but rather, made a number of assertions prior to having the facts - and then when a conservative responded on MeFi, it resulted in a gang-tackle. It wasn't a discussion ... it was the pursuit of an agenda. The right - it is claimed - is bad at "defense"? It doesn't have to defend itself against allegations that bring no facts to the table to back them up. The fact that it is only in leftist circles this thread could conceivably (bizarrely) be framed as a victory achieved over Bush and conservatives is pretty much the clearest evidence that there is an agenda at work here.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:47 PM on May 3, 2004
Yep. So bad that it took eight or nine lefties piling on to one guy - and ultimately resorting to personal attacks - just to answer one relatively mild conservative ... making the simple point that while the article was the usual rubbish - long on allegations and almost completely devoid of facts - there is an investigation going on, and the actual facts are being sought (by a Republican administration).
Seems as though the problem is not the Right being bad at playing defense, but rather the ease at which the Left's offense is exposed as rubbish.
personally, I liked so much the Riviera demolition of Midas' (my favorite MeFi right-winger, by the way) whiny comments that I'm all for opinion-as-agenda-Filter at this point
This is cool. The "demolition" of my comments was the assertion that the Rivera isn't satisfied with the pace of the investigation. Rather odd ... as the fact that Wilson himself, while pissed about other things, seems to have a good deal of confidence in the investigation. But if you wish to grasp at that as some sort of "gotcha" victory that gives you pleasure, go for it.
Despite the seriously twisted view of conservatives on MeFi, a good number of people in Republican circles do want to know what happened - and will want whomever leaked Plame's name punished. I'm one of them. Bush is another. Its hard to explain if you don't know the culture - but Bush Sr. ran the CIA, and Bush Jr. - from what people who know tell me - has a great deal of respect for it (in sharp contrast to his predecessor). Once someone is an insider in that culture - the barest thought of an agent being named produces a serious emotional reaction ... there is no greater sin ... because the ramifications are severe, and often deadly.
Every now and then it seems as though the board might appreciate hearing a nuanced conservative perspective (at least I keep hoping it does ... but generally it is quite clear that it doesn't). The conservative perspective - in general - is that Wilson did make initial claims for purely political motives, and that he should have been answered. But also, that outing Plame was way over the line - and should be punished (whether it was inadvertant or deliberate).
A good, public discussion of the issue - contrary to what people seem to be saying here - is not something conservatives need to avoid, or "defend" against. In fact, most of the conservatives I know want whomever outed Plame to be caught, and put in jail ... regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat. Conservatives in general do understand the role of the CIA, and strongly support it.
If I claim there is an "agenda" at work here ... it is because in general the left is usually the loudest critic of the CIA. People who - in most other circumstances - equate the CIA with nothing but desperately evil activities, and in past couldn't even mention it without claiming that it is responsible for assassinations all over the globe, suddenly, in this situation, appear to be claiming that it is deeply important to them that its culture of secrecy be honored, that poor Valerie be defended, and the one that outed her be burned at the stake. To me, that seems like it is more than an opinion ... it appears to actually have an "agenda" behind it.
This issue itself is important. Conservatives, within their own circles, are discussing it. Not only Bush, but some of his strongest supporters genuinely want the truth to be found, and want the perpetrator punished. And the people he has investigating the situation are well known - to that point that even Wilson is comfortable that it is the right team (and if there was even a hint that it wasn't, he'd certainly be saying so loudly, and publicly). Investigations like this are also enormously complex - and take time.
So the conservative view is that despite Wilson's politics, and his public attacks on Bush about the war - the outing of his wife is a seperate issue. They want the truth, and want the correct steps to taken once the truth is found.
This FPP, however, lead off with an article that decided it didn't need to wait for the facts, but rather, made a number of assertions prior to having the facts - and then when a conservative responded on MeFi, it resulted in a gang-tackle. It wasn't a discussion ... it was the pursuit of an agenda. The right - it is claimed - is bad at "defense"? It doesn't have to defend itself against allegations that bring no facts to the table to back them up. The fact that it is only in leftist circles this thread could conceivably (bizarrely) be framed as a victory achieved over Bush and conservatives is pretty much the clearest evidence that there is an agenda at work here.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:47 PM on May 3, 2004
I did not mind the tone of Norton's post. He is obviously a passionate fella, and we disagree. No problem.
Thirteen is a good man.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:53 PM on May 3, 2004
Thirteen is a good man.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:53 PM on May 3, 2004
Yep. So bad that it took eight or nine lefties piling on to one guy
I find "piling on" far more offensive than any "agenda." I mean, hell, if you're looking to avoid people with strong opinions, then MeFi ain't the place. But when I see 8 or 9 people slamming the same person and oftentimes going overboard (I'm not saying that's what happened here, just seizing an oppurtuninty to make a point), it's gets me a bit pissed whether I agree with the pile-onee or not. Firstly, it's uncomfortably close to playground bullying, we're-the-cool-gang-'round-here type behavior for comfort and secondly, hearing endless echochambering makes for boring reading and that's what happens sometimes when someone strongly diverges from majority opinion. I understand feeling the need to respond, but it's not neccessary to call in all your buddies to take a whack, too.
posted by jonmc at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2004
I find "piling on" far more offensive than any "agenda." I mean, hell, if you're looking to avoid people with strong opinions, then MeFi ain't the place. But when I see 8 or 9 people slamming the same person and oftentimes going overboard (I'm not saying that's what happened here, just seizing an oppurtuninty to make a point), it's gets me a bit pissed whether I agree with the pile-onee or not. Firstly, it's uncomfortably close to playground bullying, we're-the-cool-gang-'round-here type behavior for comfort and secondly, hearing endless echochambering makes for boring reading and that's what happens sometimes when someone strongly diverges from majority opinion. I understand feeling the need to respond, but it's not neccessary to call in all your buddies to take a whack, too.
posted by jonmc at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2004
It doesn't matter if it's one or if it's 8 or if it's 20, if the person being 'piled on' isn't responding to their points but rather is jumping up and down screaming about Clinton then it really doesn't make a difference.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2004
It doesn't matter if it's one or if it's 8 or if it's 20, if the person being 'piled on' isn't responding to their points but rather is jumping up and down screaming about Clinton then it really doesn't make a difference.
Actually - I answered points at length. Reducing all of my answers to "jumping up and down screaming about Clinton" (who I only mentioned once) is pretty much just extending the "piling on" to MetaTalk.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:23 PM on May 3, 2004
Actually - I answered points at length. Reducing all of my answers to "jumping up and down screaming about Clinton" (who I only mentioned once) is pretty much just extending the "piling on" to MetaTalk.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:23 PM on May 3, 2004
You know, many of MidasMulligan's posts are loud conservative screeds that I have a really hard time reading without wanting to yell at him and/or shake him until his head falls off. I often find him unbearable, pompous and egotistical. And yet . . .
And yet the remarks he made in-thread were relatively concise, were faithful to the linked article, raised solid and valuable arguments against the validity of the article, and frankly, he was far more fair and even-keeled than his detractors and fellow rhetorics. AFAIC, I don't think anybody has any reason to pile on to Midas in such a volatile manner for any of the remarks he has made.
I'm as much of an "impeach Bush or get him out of there in any way possible" as the next lefty who comes along, but come on! there's no need to be so shitty towards Midas. Jonmc's right, these are playground bullying tactics and the people who jumped on should maybe take a look at their own actions and reassess themselves and their liberal morality.
xmutex, often opinions are agendas. In this particular case I feel that the two can be mixed up quite easily and be mistaken for each other. People feel strongly about Bush, Plame, the CIA, Bush, Iraq, etc. What to do? In my opinion, calling a moratorium on it is pointless and it's my agenda to make sure that people who don't like op-eds and political threads to skip them or skip the posts that come across as such.
if the person being 'piled on' isn't responding to their points but rather is jumping up and down screaming about Clinton then it really doesn't make a difference.
The measure of a president is based on the actions of other presidents, usually the one immediately preceding him/her (oh yes, she will be along soon enough) altho not always. In this thread and the thread before we have mention of Clinton, Bush Sr. and Nixon, but nobody's getting bent out of shape by Nixon or Bush-pere. If a president sets a precedent, be it good or bad, then the following presidents will get measured by that precedent. Get over it 'cause it's necessary.
posted by ashbury at 9:23 PM on May 3, 2004
And yet the remarks he made in-thread were relatively concise, were faithful to the linked article, raised solid and valuable arguments against the validity of the article, and frankly, he was far more fair and even-keeled than his detractors and fellow rhetorics. AFAIC, I don't think anybody has any reason to pile on to Midas in such a volatile manner for any of the remarks he has made.
I'm as much of an "impeach Bush or get him out of there in any way possible" as the next lefty who comes along, but come on! there's no need to be so shitty towards Midas. Jonmc's right, these are playground bullying tactics and the people who jumped on should maybe take a look at their own actions and reassess themselves and their liberal morality.
xmutex, often opinions are agendas. In this particular case I feel that the two can be mixed up quite easily and be mistaken for each other. People feel strongly about Bush, Plame, the CIA, Bush, Iraq, etc. What to do? In my opinion, calling a moratorium on it is pointless and it's my agenda to make sure that people who don't like op-eds and political threads to skip them or skip the posts that come across as such.
if the person being 'piled on' isn't responding to their points but rather is jumping up and down screaming about Clinton then it really doesn't make a difference.
The measure of a president is based on the actions of other presidents, usually the one immediately preceding him/her (oh yes, she will be along soon enough) altho not always. In this thread and the thread before we have mention of Clinton, Bush Sr. and Nixon, but nobody's getting bent out of shape by Nixon or Bush-pere. If a president sets a precedent, be it good or bad, then the following presidents will get measured by that precedent. Get over it 'cause it's necessary.
posted by ashbury at 9:23 PM on May 3, 2004
It doesn't matter if it's one or if it's 8 or if it's 20
Of course it does. It's precisely the boldness that comes from the thought that "the herd agrees with me" which leads people over the edge of polite discourse into completely burying whoever they're talking to once and for all.
posted by scarabic at 10:36 PM on May 3, 2004
Of course it does. It's precisely the boldness that comes from the thought that "the herd agrees with me" which leads people over the edge of polite discourse into completely burying whoever they're talking to once and for all.
posted by scarabic at 10:36 PM on May 3, 2004
That is to say, it affects the people doing the piling-on, regardless of how the piled-upon responds (or doesn't).
posted by scarabic at 10:37 PM on May 3, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:37 PM on May 3, 2004
/dons Agent Smith glasses
"It is ... inevitable, Midas."
posted by namespan at 11:24 PM on May 3, 2004
"It is ... inevitable, Midas."
posted by namespan at 11:24 PM on May 3, 2004
Are "Agenda" and "Opinion" really the issue here, or is it whether there can even exist a descriptive framework - a coordinate system, if you will - in which these two are orthogonal in the semantic - or algebraic - sense?
posted by freebird at 12:17 AM on May 4, 2004
posted by freebird at 12:17 AM on May 4, 2004
freebird: I fail to see the basis in your question.
*high-fives other mathgeeks in the corner.*
posted by kaibutsu at 12:33 AM on May 4, 2004
*high-fives other mathgeeks in the corner.*
posted by kaibutsu at 12:33 AM on May 4, 2004
What manifold of *Filter, what Filtration is this? Where on the axis of Flatness do we lie? These questions, I think we can all agree, not some false Agenda/Opinion dillema, are the really important ones here, and the solution space is not spanned by mere Category.
posted by freebird at 1:01 AM on May 4, 2004
posted by freebird at 1:01 AM on May 4, 2004
If I claim there is an "agenda" at work here ... it is because in general the left is usually the loudest critic of the CIA. People who - in most other circumstances - equate the CIA with nothing but desperately evil activities, and in past couldn't even mention it without claiming that it is responsible for assassinations all over the globe, suddenly, in this situation, appear to be claiming that it is deeply important to them that its culture of secrecy be honored, that poor Valerie be defended, and the one that outed her be burned at the stake. To me, that seems like it is more than an opinion ... it appears to actually have an "agenda" behind it.
Hey Billy! Guess what I learned today! Mr. Mulligan told us that Lefties think the CIA is just a bunch of evil dours! And since that's what they really think then they are just pretending and being very disingenius whenever they rant on and on about that CIA chick who got her cover blowed up. Really they prolly wish she'd gotten killed or memed or maybe even something worse! The Lefties don't care about the CIA or nobody in it or this country as a hole they just hate President Bush!
Yur Friend,
Brocky Vond
posted by Opus Dark at 2:44 AM on May 4, 2004
Hey Billy! Guess what I learned today! Mr. Mulligan told us that Lefties think the CIA is just a bunch of evil dours! And since that's what they really think then they are just pretending and being very disingenius whenever they rant on and on about that CIA chick who got her cover blowed up. Really they prolly wish she'd gotten killed or memed or maybe even something worse! The Lefties don't care about the CIA or nobody in it or this country as a hole they just hate President Bush!
Yur Friend,
Brocky Vond
posted by Opus Dark at 2:44 AM on May 4, 2004
I find "piling on" far more offensive than any "agenda." I mean, hell, if you're looking to avoid people with strong opinions, then MeFi ain't the place. But when I see 8 or 9 people slamming the same person and oftentimes going overboard (I'm not saying that's what happened here, just seizing an oppurtuninty to make a point)
Good point, but did you read the thread? That's exactly what happened.
posted by hama7 at 8:31 AM on May 4, 2004
Good point, but did you read the thread? That's exactly what happened.
posted by hama7 at 8:31 AM on May 4, 2004
You know, many of MidasMulligan's posts are loud conservative screeds that I have a really hard time reading without wanting to yell at him and/or shake him until his head falls off. I often find him unbearable, pompous and egotistical.
and then
come on! there's no need to be so shitty towards Midas.
Your logic's got me a little confused.
Some of you were dicks in that thread--you group-bullied someone who didn't deserve it. Admit it and move on.
posted by dhoyt at 8:51 AM on May 4, 2004
and then
come on! there's no need to be so shitty towards Midas.
Your logic's got me a little confused.
Some of you were dicks in that thread--you group-bullied someone who didn't deserve it. Admit it and move on.
posted by dhoyt at 8:51 AM on May 4, 2004
Perhaps we could have a vomitorium?
I thought that's what MetaTalk was.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:17 AM on May 4, 2004
I thought that's what MetaTalk was.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:17 AM on May 4, 2004
SpaceCadet, calling me out for opposing the idea that people are disposable. Keep trying -- there might actually be a way keep it from sounding despicable.
Norton, to use the UK vernacular:- you can't argue for toffee.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:02 PM on May 4, 2004
Norton, to use the UK vernacular:- you can't argue for toffee.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:02 PM on May 4, 2004
It is interesting to see how desperately y'all need to make sure that anyone saying anything against the article has their credibility attacked - since the arguments in the article cannot be defended ... so all that is left is to "attack the messenger".
...MidasMulligan hypocritically said, after attacking messenger Wilson right off the bat in this thread as "He is engaged in a campaign to smear Bush, and sell books. The Bush administration says he's a Democrat, a supporter of John Kerry, and has obvious ulterior motives. I hope it is an effective technique - because he is a partisan Democrat."
And, um, that's not all, is it Midas? Your heroes in the White House personally attack someone by going after his wife's personal safety (so that's just "politics as usual to you and yours, eh Midas? Despiccable...) and after your own smear of Wilson, you whine HERE about personal attacks? Instead of refuting anything in the article, you attack the article as merely "so obviously arranged in the first place to sell books" and "it is a smear piece plain and simple".....and then you whine HERE about "attacking the messenger"? You complain that "the interviewer actually seems to be trying to get him as radical and anti-Bush as possible", right after YOU tried to paint Wilson RIGHT IN THE THREAD as as radical and anti-Bush as possible? YOU blithely assert "I am fairly certain Wilson broke the law for political purposes" in the same hypocritical breath that you admonish everyone else that WE have to wait for the stonewalled investigation to finish before criticizing the Bush administration for possibly breaking the law for political purposes?
Honestly, Midas. If your MetaFilter discourse represented you, wouldn't you find that having two openings through which you blather would present the occasional confusion to your dentist?
You attacked Wilson personally and the article source initially instead of discussing the points Wilson raised. When challenged to back up your claim that Wilson is a "partisan democrat", you duck and run. When Bush is criticized, you reflexively bring up the completely irrelevant PREVIOUS president.
Riviera and others are right: your arguments are NOT credible. They are completely hypocritical, and you consistently take any attack on your vapid arguments as some kind of personal affront to your thin skin. You do precisely the thing you falsely accuse others of doing in some kind of odd projection. Shame on you.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:04 AM PST on May 4
MidasMulligan's arguments and behavior got precisely the hearing and the response they deserved.
One possible response to repeated valid refutations of "arguments" is to whine that the repeated valid refutations represent "piling on" or "agenda pushing" (or "Bush bashing" or "America hating" etc etc....all accompanied by the usual repeated attempts to try to limit discourse critical of one's special "arguments" with cries of "bias").
Another possible response is to question the validity of "arguments" that earn repeated refutation.
Guess what many of our conservative friends choose to do, time after time on Metafilter?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:11 PM on May 4, 2004
...MidasMulligan hypocritically said, after attacking messenger Wilson right off the bat in this thread as "He is engaged in a campaign to smear Bush, and sell books. The Bush administration says he's a Democrat, a supporter of John Kerry, and has obvious ulterior motives. I hope it is an effective technique - because he is a partisan Democrat."
And, um, that's not all, is it Midas? Your heroes in the White House personally attack someone by going after his wife's personal safety (so that's just "politics as usual to you and yours, eh Midas? Despiccable...) and after your own smear of Wilson, you whine HERE about personal attacks? Instead of refuting anything in the article, you attack the article as merely "so obviously arranged in the first place to sell books" and "it is a smear piece plain and simple".....and then you whine HERE about "attacking the messenger"? You complain that "the interviewer actually seems to be trying to get him as radical and anti-Bush as possible", right after YOU tried to paint Wilson RIGHT IN THE THREAD as as radical and anti-Bush as possible? YOU blithely assert "I am fairly certain Wilson broke the law for political purposes" in the same hypocritical breath that you admonish everyone else that WE have to wait for the stonewalled investigation to finish before criticizing the Bush administration for possibly breaking the law for political purposes?
Honestly, Midas. If your MetaFilter discourse represented you, wouldn't you find that having two openings through which you blather would present the occasional confusion to your dentist?
You attacked Wilson personally and the article source initially instead of discussing the points Wilson raised. When challenged to back up your claim that Wilson is a "partisan democrat", you duck and run. When Bush is criticized, you reflexively bring up the completely irrelevant PREVIOUS president.
Riviera and others are right: your arguments are NOT credible. They are completely hypocritical, and you consistently take any attack on your vapid arguments as some kind of personal affront to your thin skin. You do precisely the thing you falsely accuse others of doing in some kind of odd projection. Shame on you.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:04 AM PST on May 4
MidasMulligan's arguments and behavior got precisely the hearing and the response they deserved.
One possible response to repeated valid refutations of "arguments" is to whine that the repeated valid refutations represent "piling on" or "agenda pushing" (or "Bush bashing" or "America hating" etc etc....all accompanied by the usual repeated attempts to try to limit discourse critical of one's special "arguments" with cries of "bias").
Another possible response is to question the validity of "arguments" that earn repeated refutation.
Guess what many of our conservative friends choose to do, time after time on Metafilter?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:11 PM on May 4, 2004
metafilter: Your logic's got me a little confused.
dhoyt, I meant in context of the thread, not his overall behaviour.
posted by ashbury at 12:41 PM on May 4, 2004
dhoyt, I meant in context of the thread, not his overall behaviour.
posted by ashbury at 12:41 PM on May 4, 2004
SpaceCadet, no matter what you do or say, no matter how long you keep your hard-on for me, no matter long the burning embers of your grudge keep you warm at night, I will always have been the one that showed you for the misogynist you are.
The rest is gravy.
posted by NortonDC at 4:56 PM on May 4, 2004
The rest is gravy.
posted by NortonDC at 4:56 PM on May 4, 2004
Aw, that's so sweet!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:40 PM on May 4, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 9:40 PM on May 4, 2004
NortonDC's "false-dilemma-as-a-valid-method-of-argument" now available on this hilarious video:-
Yes or No?
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:54 AM on May 5, 2004
Yes or No?
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:54 AM on May 5, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by xmutex at 10:55 AM on May 3, 2004