cheerleading/jeerleading: new info or be quiet

August 2, 2001 9:01 AM

Cheerleading posts. (Or their opposites: let's call them jeerleading.) We're seeing more of them. They don't add to threads: and if you're the one being praised, it's a bit embarrassing.

Can we just take it for granted that some people will agree, others disagree, and that if you want to support an argument, you should either provide some useful background or suggest other lines of discussion?
posted by holgate to Etiquette/Policy at 9:01 AM (18 comments total)

Can you give examples. I have a sense what you mean, but never thought "Me too" comments were a big part of threads.-
posted by rschram at 9:57 AM on August 2, 2001

amen holgate!
posted by ericost at 10:04 AM on August 2, 2001

holgate for president!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on August 2, 2001

ditto!
posted by briank at 10:18 AM on August 2, 2001

I was going to ask if you were referring to this, but then realized that you posted this thread before fooljay's, and that you were referring to comments within a post.


Nevertheless, when you begin a thread by saying, "Bashers, have at it..." aren't you just asking for a f**ked thread?
posted by Avogadro at 10:33 AM on August 2, 2001

It all depends who the poster is.
posted by xiffix at 10:42 AM on August 2, 2001

I sort of thought this was unnecessary. I mean, if you're going to discuss political issues (which lots of MeFi users seem to think is worthwhile), that's kind of the way things go. I'm not sure this is the type of thing you're referring to, holgate, but it was the first example that sprung to mind for me.
posted by binkin at 11:11 AM on August 2, 2001

I thought that Skot was spot on in his criticism of that thread. You don't have to discuss political issues that way, but when there is an abundance of "me too", or "so and so sucks" posts without much pertinent discourse, then the thread quickly sinks.
posted by Avogadro at 11:26 AM on August 2, 2001

I guess it wasn't so much Skot's comment on that particular thread, specifically, so much as it feels like I've seen a lot of those type of posts recently. My apologies for not expressing that clearly....
posted by binkin at 11:36 AM on August 2, 2001

Well, as much as my ego appreciates the back-slapping, I'd rather it were by email, otherwise you end up having side arguments about "who cheerled whom" that remind me of primary school gangs.

And if you're going to criticise a thread for re-hashing the same issues, why not suggest an alternative approach? If you think it can be salvaged, try to salvage it with your criticism; if not, give up on it. After all, there are plenty of posts on MeFi about the blinkered perspectives of mainstream media...

(This is starting to sound like the "you're all individuals" scene from The Life of Brian.)
posted by holgate at 11:47 AM on August 2, 2001

I'm not!
posted by binkin at 11:56 AM on August 2, 2001

It's true. I probably just should have given up on the thread entirely and kept my mouth shut, but I got frustrated with the random, aimless viciousness. It's just that it happens so often lately, and that seemed like an egregious example. But that doesn't mean I needed to point it out in the thread (and Hijinx hoisted me on my own petard right afterwards, as it turned out). Mea culpa.

The thing is, I used to enjoy a lot of the political threads. I guess the right strategy for me now is to stay the hell away from them, which is what's so upsetting.
posted by Skot at 12:25 PM on August 2, 2001

It's not just you, Skot: when I preview a paragraph and delete it, thinking "oh, fuck it, it's not going to rescue things", it's pretty depressing. And I'd rather see comments like yours, than ones which say "oh, I've had enough" or "this is stupid".

Anyway, MetaFilter Pro's "preview" screen will run a Bayesian search against the entire database and explain in a neat sentence how I'm repeating a point that was better made, by someone else, in April 2000. And link to it.

Won't it, Matt?

(Or should that be MetaFilter Classic, where Pro gives you an opt-out from just-in-time peer review?)

posted by holgate at 12:32 PM on August 2, 2001

Avogadro, I'm conservative and am tired of the personal attacks on Bush and the White House (note, I said personal). This story, which was relevant, was right up that alley... I would say that most of the aforementioned posts are f*cked from the start, so I just calls em like I sees em. :-)
posted by fooljay at 7:02 PM on August 3, 2001

How is it a personal attack to criticize the way a missile test was conducted?
posted by rcade at 7:34 AM on August 4, 2001

It's not. What made you think I said that it was?
posted by fooljay at 9:53 AM on August 4, 2001

Poor reading comprehension skills, I guess. I thought one of the "personal attacks" you were lamenting here was Joe Conason's column in Salon about the missile test, which proved our nation can be made safe from any nuke that is equipped with a GPS beacon.
posted by rcade at 1:25 PM on August 4, 2001

Oh, no. Not at all. I actually meant personal attacks by Metafilterians (and others in society) on a President. If one disagrees with his politics or his actions while in office, then attack those.

Straw-man ad-hominem attacks on the presidents intelligence, looks, personality, accent, or even linguistic skills (all of which have been rampant here and elsewhere) do nothing to further intellectually informed discussion, in fact comments like these stifle and derail it. Furthermore, it reduces one's ability to see through all of the bullshit and discover good things about the despised...

Does that make sense?
posted by fooljay at 5:30 PM on August 5, 2001