Bad Bush thread.

August 25, 2001 1:51 AM

Boy, is this Bush link ever a bad thread.
posted by anildash to MetaFilter-Related at 1:51 AM (20 comments total)

We've got a long-time, active member making a post that is instantly antagonistic, discusses a topic that's been well-covered, and is sourced from the New York Times.

I don't like Bush, but this isn't about that. Paris, you know nothing useful will come of a thread like this. We liberals will moo our agreement and the few conservatives here will feel even more antagonized and marginalized. What is the thought, that:

Just a Reminder That The White House is Occupied by a Clueless, Dangerous Man I'm not sure what to add, except I wish he would just resign. And that I wish the median national IQ would rise into the low 90's.

Was going to inspire some intellectual debate? That a person would change his vote in 4 years due to this comment?

If there were a reprimand for bad posts, I would recommend it for this one, even though I agree with the sentiment expressed in the message.
posted by anildash at 1:56 AM on August 25, 2001

I pretty much agree. This is the kind of post that gives MeFi a kneejerk-liberal reputation. It furthers a stereotype that probably isn't even all that true. (Bush may not be a deep man, but that doesn't mean he's dumb.) Worse, it plays into the comfort that some (either liberal or conservative) seem to seek that they're smarter or morally superior to t'other guys. If -- speaking generically -- we're right only because they're dumb, it says very little good about us. It's a form of argument that appeals to the emotions, not the intellect. It's a kind of demagoguery. It's dragging Metafilter down.
posted by dhartung at 2:09 AM on August 25, 2001

I'm a dittohead for what dhartung said.
I also agree with Anil D.
< / rhyme >
posted by allaboutgeorge at 2:13 AM on August 25, 2001

Trolling aside, you don't think that the article was worth discussing? Personally, I was glad to know from the horse's mouth, that the military defense complex is more important than our economic health.
posted by machaus at 6:22 AM on August 25, 2001

The article may have been worth discussing, but the way ParisParamus introduced it, there's no chance it's going to be discussed intelligently. I expect better from long-time members.
posted by rcade at 6:40 AM on August 25, 2001

Metafilter has become a very selective experience for me specifically because of threads like this. Since it's come back online, I've only read all of about three threads. The rest are the same old shit.

Sure, I keep peeking in for the unusual and fun, but the Bush/fat/SUV-bashing, death penalty, yaddayadda...yawn.
posted by frykitty at 6:42 AM on August 25, 2001

While I agree that the post could have been phrased more diplomatically, I disagree that it's a bad thread. No, it didn't shed any new light, but so far it's been as civil as I can remember a "Bush is evil" thread ever being, and a couple of well-thought-out points have been made. On a higher level, though, I have to wonder what constitutes a "good thread". It seems to me that there are 2 basic kinds of threads on MeFi:

1. Someone posts something because he/she thinks it sucks and wants you to agree;

2. Someone posts something because he/she thinks it's cool and wants you to agree.

So in that sense, a good thread is one where people enjoy arguing about things that suck or agreeing that something is cool, and a bad thread is one where the argument goes too far or the things that's cool isn't very cool or... well, whatever. The point is, "good thread", "bad thread", it's subjective. If you're having a good time, it's a good thread. anildash, you say it's a bad thread for the reasons you stated above, I think it's a good thread because I enjoy bitching about George W.

Metafilter is just like any random gathering of people -- boring chatter punctuated by occasional brilliance. You can't expect it to be brilliant consistently, the brilliance just happens when it happens.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:14 AM on August 25, 2001

i have to say that posts like the kind that anil pointed out annoy me greatly. i see them on slashdot all the time -- postings about hotmail with a little snark on the end about how windows sucks, or a blurb about QNX with a trailing bit reminding you, and don't you forget, nothing beats linux.

the way i feel is that the text of and surrounding the link on the front page is no place for commentary. one might post a thread saying, "bush says dwindling surplus will halt gov't growth" (for example). no one could reasonably be upset at that, because there's no opinion. if you hate bush, you should still be able to say it: all i'm saying is that is why link comments exist.
posted by moz at 7:39 AM on August 25, 2001

It's true that I was in a somewhat unmeasured mood when I posted that; it was just my gut reaction when I read the article last night; seeing come to life the fears of the "W" presidency.

I don't think the thread is evolving in a particularly horrible way. Nor am I sure that a more measured post would have guaranteed a more thoughtful thread. Perhaps just the opposite.

posted by ParisParamus at 9:16 AM on August 25, 2001

moz, Mefi is not set up to be an Associated Press, or even New York Times. Perhaps I could have intergrated the specific subject of the article into the into, though.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 AM on August 25, 2001

It's an example of "good link, really, really bad description." Why wasn't it posted as so?

Under the guise of decreasing gov't spending with the decreasing surplus, Bush mentions the possibility of dipping into social security funds to bolster military spending. Is this a correct use of funds?

I'm surprised there is anything useful in the thread as it was posted, since it's so antagonistic and baiting.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:37 AM on August 25, 2001

... and expressing an opinion on the front page is fine, as long as it is handled well. This example is a bad one.

Oh, does anyone see any similarity between this W post and the crack about prision bitchdom in the polygamy post? A bad description can obscure a good thread is my point (there's lots of great points in the polygamy thread, but a lot of bickering over a lame, sophmoric crack in the original post).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:42 AM on August 25, 2001

mathowie:

well, yah, you're right. i mean, if you say "i think this page is nice" in the description of the link, chances are most people won't come back with "how the fuck can you think that, you shit eating cuntbag?". (unless they're in a really bad mood.) i guess the real problem is, are you baiting people? either in the link description or inside the thread, there's not much good that can come out of baiting.
posted by moz at 10:21 AM on August 25, 2001

Trolling aside, you don't think that the article was worth discussing?

I think this was precisely my point: A thread shouldn't have to proceed despite the post that starts it. It should be helped by the initial post.

Not to mention that the initial post didn't say anything about the subject of the link.
posted by anildash at 4:16 PM on August 25, 2001

Perhaps I could have intergrated the specific subject of the article into the into, though.

Gee, you think so? Perhaps you shouldn't post links at all, Paris. You could post this ...

Just a Reminder That The White House is Occupied by a Clueless, Dangerous Man I'm not sure what to add, except I wish he would just resign. And that I wish the median national IQ would rise into the low 90's.

... every single time you find a Bush news story you don't like, and you wouldn't have to change a word. Doesn't that point out a problem with your approach?

posted by rcade at 7:15 PM on August 25, 2001

... every single time you find a Bush news story you don't like, and you wouldn't have to change a word. Doesn't that point out a problem with your approach?

Perhaps. I was tired and needed protein. It wasn't my "approach". Stop piling on.

posted by ParisParamus at 8:47 PM on August 26, 2001

OK. Just doling out a little toughlove.
posted by rcade at 5:39 AM on August 27, 2001

We've got a long-time, active member making a post that is instantly antagonistic, discusses a topic that's been well-covered, and is sourced from the New York Times.

PS: since when is antagonistic a no-no?

posted by ParisParamus at 5:31 PM on August 27, 2001

PS: since when is antagonistic a no-no?

Since people come here for discussions, not fights?
posted by cCranium at 8:25 AM on August 28, 2001