1st-degree personal attack February 14, 2005 6:00 PM Subscribe
Seems like he was criticizing the content of the comment to me, and it seems like he was on target. I read hank_14's comment and could make heads or tails out of it either. Clarity matters.
Don't get all upset because someone's reaction isn't what you'd like it to be.
posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on February 14, 2005
Don't get all upset because someone's reaction isn't what you'd like it to be.
posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on February 14, 2005
I'm not bothered by it. Like I said, I'd be willing to explain it further, if folks are interested. If not, no biggie.
posted by hank_14 at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by hank_14 at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2005
Sounds to me like he criticized the content of the post. That's different from a personal attack. A lame comment perhaps, but sheezus criminy, let an acerbic retort through the sphincter now and then, please.
posted by scarabic at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by scarabic at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2005
Critical, yes. Personal? Maybe. But it's not an ad hominem, like "You're an asshat."
The first comment was a little convoluted, but it would appear that hank_14 was undaunted and attempted to clarify.
I don't think it warranted a callout, but whatever.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:08 PM on February 14, 2005
The first comment was a little convoluted, but it would appear that hank_14 was undaunted and attempted to clarify.
I don't think it warranted a callout, but whatever.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:08 PM on February 14, 2005
oh, and post-sort-of-didn't-preview, what hank_14 said. heh.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:10 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by exlotuseater at 6:10 PM on February 14, 2005
After reading what was one of the most interesting comments on the thread (to me), I then read something which might as well be parsed as "OMG ur a retard." It was not a criticism of content, as it referred to no content whatsoever. I just think the thread would be a lot better off with a coherent counterargument, or constructive criticism, in place of what amounts to name-calling. Certainly delmoi believes some argument could have been made, but did not attempt to do so - nor did they just ask hank_14 to clarify.
On preview - I'm glad you're as thick-skinned as I would be in your position, hank_14.
posted by mek at 6:16 PM on February 14, 2005
On preview - I'm glad you're as thick-skinned as I would be in your position, hank_14.
posted by mek at 6:16 PM on February 14, 2005
I can't understand why someone wouldn't understand that comment. I mean, it was a bit long and could have probably withstood some pruning, but his point was clear, and I thought quite nicely written.
If that's gobbledygook, well, I'm amazed. Still, not really a big deal. Just thought I'd let hank_14 know that it's not as bad a comment as people are making it out to be. I might not agree with everything you said in it, but it was certainly plainly understandable. Cheers.
posted by livii at 6:18 PM on February 14, 2005
If that's gobbledygook, well, I'm amazed. Still, not really a big deal. Just thought I'd let hank_14 know that it's not as bad a comment as people are making it out to be. I might not agree with everything you said in it, but it was certainly plainly understandable. Cheers.
posted by livii at 6:18 PM on February 14, 2005
It was not a criticism of content, as it referred to no content whatsoever.
Yes it was. It said (to me at least) that he found hank_14's comment indecipherable. To be frank, I did too. hank has offered to clarify which is admirable, as well.
But saying that something can't be understood is a criticsm of content, mek. Or are you implying that if we find something incomprehensible, we should all just nod our heads since it's obvious that if you can drop obscure names and use big words that you know better than the rest of us?
Cause that's 1)insulting and condescending and b)it's just plain bad discourse and stops coversation cold.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 PM on February 14, 2005
Yes it was. It said (to me at least) that he found hank_14's comment indecipherable. To be frank, I did too. hank has offered to clarify which is admirable, as well.
But saying that something can't be understood is a criticsm of content, mek. Or are you implying that if we find something incomprehensible, we should all just nod our heads since it's obvious that if you can drop obscure names and use big words that you know better than the rest of us?
Cause that's 1)insulting and condescending and b)it's just plain bad discourse and stops coversation cold.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 PM on February 14, 2005
If you didn't agree with the comment, you could have said so in the thread, and you would still have been on topic. Saying that someone isn't clear is in no way an ad hominem attack. It may not have been the most articulate comment, but if you're going to call out everything that's inarticulate around here, you're going to be very busy.
posted by anapestic at 7:14 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by anapestic at 7:14 PM on February 14, 2005
I thought hank_14 was totally clear, and well reasoned to boot. I also agree with the opinion expressed.
posted by mwhybark at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by mwhybark at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2005
I'm not bothered by it. Like I said, I'd be willing to explain it further, if folks are interested. If not, no biggie.
Amazing. We have an adult in our midst.
Stone him immediately!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:19 PM on February 14, 2005
Amazing. We have an adult in our midst.
Stone him immediately!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:19 PM on February 14, 2005
Now this is a personal attack (merely for illustrative purposes, mek, I promise you).
You are one tight-assed, well-meaning-but-overdoing, la-de-da-wouldn't-everything-be-better-if-we-all-did-like-you-say motherfucker.
I kid! You walked into that one.</small<
posted by scarabic at 7:25 PM on February 14, 2005
You are one tight-assed, well-meaning-but-overdoing, la-de-da-wouldn't-everything-be-better-if-we-all-did-like-you-say motherfucker.
I kid! You walked into that one.</small<
posted by scarabic at 7:25 PM on February 14, 2005
Upon rereading, the comment is pretty clear except for a few lines in the middle. A callout?
posted by Gyan at 7:31 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by Gyan at 7:31 PM on February 14, 2005
Your failure to properly close your tags obviously identifies you as a lazy waste of human flesh whose very life sucks vital oxygen from the lungs of the competent, scarabic!
Couldn't resist. No hard feelings.
posted by Saydur at 7:31 PM on February 14, 2005
Couldn't resist. No hard feelings.
posted by Saydur at 7:31 PM on February 14, 2005
mek-
You're a whiney little pussy.
(See, now THAT was "personal attack".)
On preview: Shit- I should have read all the way through to scarabic's comment. Note that my assertion, too, was merely for illustrative purposes.
posted by Doohickie at 7:40 PM on February 14, 2005
You're a whiney little pussy.
(See, now THAT was "personal attack".)
On preview: Shit- I should have read all the way through to scarabic's comment. Note that my assertion, too, was merely for illustrative purposes.
posted by Doohickie at 7:40 PM on February 14, 2005
Well, since It's reached MeTa I might as well explain myself.
hank_14's comment starts with a factual inaccuracy, That most people die hooked up to machines. This is false, most old people these days have DNRs, and don't end up hooked to all kinds of mechanical devices.
It ends with So fuck Kurzweil. ... it would be nice if he could shut up.
Between those two sentence were a bunch of ponderous paragraphs filled with mixed-up vocabulary which basically state that our modern view of life is somehow different then his interpretation of ancient greek philosophy, or something, and that this is wrong, for some reason (see Agamben, Homo Sacer).
Now, I knew that I disagreed with that but there was nothing specific I could really complain about in the pile of linguistic flotsam.
posted by delmoi at 7:46 PM on February 14, 2005
hank_14's comment starts with a factual inaccuracy, That most people die hooked up to machines. This is false, most old people these days have DNRs, and don't end up hooked to all kinds of mechanical devices.
It ends with So fuck Kurzweil. ... it would be nice if he could shut up.
Between those two sentence were a bunch of ponderous paragraphs filled with mixed-up vocabulary which basically state that our modern view of life is somehow different then his interpretation of ancient greek philosophy, or something, and that this is wrong, for some reason (see Agamben, Homo Sacer).
Now, I knew that I disagreed with that but there was nothing specific I could really complain about in the pile of linguistic flotsam.
posted by delmoi at 7:46 PM on February 14, 2005
Now delmoi, I've been fine and jolly about this, but now you're being silly. Linking to a page that offers a definition of a DNR cannot possibly imply evidence for the idea that "most old people" now have DNRs. The majority of the very old, which are women, do die on their own, either in nursing homes or in hospitals, and often without loved ones. And while the public is generally aware of options like DNRs and living wills, it turns out that even when they prepare advance directives regarding life and death issues, they are often ignored, either for moral reasons or bureaucratic problems.
As for my ponderous exposition, you have my apologies. I offered to try to clarify, and even offered a "two sentence" summary of what I was trying to say. But I have difficulty feeling too bad about it, considering I've offered, others have understood it just fine, and I provided a cite for further research, should anyone be interested. If you don't get it, you don't get it, but next time it might just be easier to either ask about it or simply iggy and move on.
posted by hank_14 at 8:10 PM on February 14, 2005
As for my ponderous exposition, you have my apologies. I offered to try to clarify, and even offered a "two sentence" summary of what I was trying to say. But I have difficulty feeling too bad about it, considering I've offered, others have understood it just fine, and I provided a cite for further research, should anyone be interested. If you don't get it, you don't get it, but next time it might just be easier to either ask about it or simply iggy and move on.
posted by hank_14 at 8:10 PM on February 14, 2005
This is false, most old people these days have DNRs, and don't end up hooked to all kinds of mechanical devices.
Would that it were so. DNRs are routinely ignored.
posted by mlis at 8:12 PM on February 14, 2005
Would that it were so. DNRs are routinely ignored.
posted by mlis at 8:12 PM on February 14, 2005
I thought his comment was perfectly clear, and was puzzled by delmoi's reaction.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:59 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 8:59 PM on February 14, 2005
As for my ponderous exposition, you have my apologies.
It's not an attack on you, hank. I think we could all do well to remember that MeFi is a general interest, general admission site. Especially when posting on esoteric topics, less jargon and assumptions of knowledge and perhaps a link to something expository might be in order. The benefits of this are two fold: it supports the open character of the site, and it gets more people involved in the conversation which means more perspectives and better discussion.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 PM on February 14, 2005
It's not an attack on you, hank. I think we could all do well to remember that MeFi is a general interest, general admission site. Especially when posting on esoteric topics, less jargon and assumptions of knowledge and perhaps a link to something expository might be in order. The benefits of this are two fold: it supports the open character of the site, and it gets more people involved in the conversation which means more perspectives and better discussion.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 PM on February 14, 2005
I thought hank_14's comment was fine and perfectly comprehensible. But then I would.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 PM on February 14, 2005
Well, does anyone have actual statistics on DNR usage? My knowledge on the subject comes from my grandma and ER.
Anyway, if hank_14 wants to keep writing like that on mefi, it's totally up to him. I promise I won't bitch about it anymore.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 PM on February 14, 2005
Anyway, if hank_14 wants to keep writing like that on mefi, it's totally up to him. I promise I won't bitch about it anymore.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 PM on February 14, 2005
hank_14:
Is this pretty much what you meant:
the greeks had two words for life, bios and zoe. Bios relates to human life, and culture while zoe refers breating and eating and reproducing. According to Agamben's Homo Sacer the west is shifting from a bios focus to a zoe focus, meaning that we as a society promote living only in the biological sense. One symptom of this is the ban on euthanasia, forcing old people to die hooked up to machines in cold hospital beds.
When Kurzweil talks about his singularity, it serves to promote the ascendancy of zoe. Kurzweil is an Extropian, and extropians tend to be fuck-the-poor randites. Nazis also liked science -- Coincidence?
If The word "Singularity" means anything beyond a sci-fi gimic, then it is a justification for fucking over the workers of the world. This justification somehow reproduces a 'west-first' model of consumption, and excaserbates the world's rich-poor gap, which in turn exacerbates north-south tensions.
?
posted by delmoi at 11:28 PM on February 14, 2005
Is this pretty much what you meant:
the greeks had two words for life, bios and zoe. Bios relates to human life, and culture while zoe refers breating and eating and reproducing. According to Agamben's Homo Sacer the west is shifting from a bios focus to a zoe focus, meaning that we as a society promote living only in the biological sense. One symptom of this is the ban on euthanasia, forcing old people to die hooked up to machines in cold hospital beds.
When Kurzweil talks about his singularity, it serves to promote the ascendancy of zoe. Kurzweil is an Extropian, and extropians tend to be fuck-the-poor randites. Nazis also liked science -- Coincidence?
If The word "Singularity" means anything beyond a sci-fi gimic, then it is a justification for fucking over the workers of the world. This justification somehow reproduces a 'west-first' model of consumption, and excaserbates the world's rich-poor gap, which in turn exacerbates north-south tensions.
?
posted by delmoi at 11:28 PM on February 14, 2005
delmoi's comment does include a irreducible personal attack on hank_14, but it's not in the part that most of you are addressing in here.
You should really learn to express yourself more clearly if you want to be taken seriously.
The part that I bolded presupposes that hank_14 has not learned to express himself clearly. That assigns a failing to hank_14 himself, not to his comment. A small edit would have maintained the thrust of the complaint, without making it a jab at hank-14's personal character or abilities: "You should really express yourself more clearly if you want to be taken seriously."
As it was written originally, yes, it is a personal attack on hank_14.
posted by NortonDC at 12:46 AM on February 15, 2005
You should really learn to express yourself more clearly if you want to be taken seriously.
The part that I bolded presupposes that hank_14 has not learned to express himself clearly. That assigns a failing to hank_14 himself, not to his comment. A small edit would have maintained the thrust of the complaint, without making it a jab at hank-14's personal character or abilities: "You should really express yourself more clearly if you want to be taken seriously."
As it was written originally, yes, it is a personal attack on hank_14.
posted by NortonDC at 12:46 AM on February 15, 2005
I don't think delmoi needs to be chastised here for his initial complaint, but I definitely don't think hank_14 should be scolded for his interesting comment.
I have found myself impatient with some of EB's longer comments in the past, and now I am scolding myself. We want different voices. We may become an eensy bit frustrated with styles that we don't personally prefer, but nothing is more irritating than a droning conformity. So, big words, small words, pithy or expositional — let's have it all.
posted by taz at 12:55 AM on February 15, 2005
I have found myself impatient with some of EB's longer comments in the past, and now I am scolding myself. We want different voices. We may become an eensy bit frustrated with styles that we don't personally prefer, but nothing is more irritating than a droning conformity. So, big words, small words, pithy or expositional — let's have it all.
posted by taz at 12:55 AM on February 15, 2005
So, big words, small words, pithy or expositional — let's have it all.
I still go all popeyed at lack of capitalization (for example), me, but I've got to agree with taz. As usual. Just keep it clean out there!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:16 AM on February 15, 2005
I still go all popeyed at lack of capitalization (for example), me, but I've got to agree with taz. As usual. Just keep it clean out there!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:16 AM on February 15, 2005
Well said taz.
posted by Quartermass at 1:25 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 1:25 AM on February 15, 2005
I got hanks point no problem, particularly relating to his issues with the extropian movement.
posted by Thoth at 1:41 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by Thoth at 1:41 AM on February 15, 2005
Have you ever had blueberry pancakes? Now that's good eatin'.
posted by Doohickie at 5:36 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by Doohickie at 5:36 AM on February 15, 2005
I want to callout this MeTa thread as an example of people making inappropriate callouts in MeTa.
posted by grouse at 6:11 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by grouse at 6:11 AM on February 15, 2005
Yeah, is there some kind of contest this week for Lamest MeTa Callout Evar? It really should be in the sideblog so's we'd all have a chance to enter and win.
Come on, people, you really shouldlearn to pause and think over what you're about to do before unleashing yet another "this single comment is too critical for my tastes" thread in the gray.
posted by soyjoy at 6:58 AM on February 15, 2005
Come on, people, you really should
posted by soyjoy at 6:58 AM on February 15, 2005
I want to call out grouse's callout of this thread as an example of people making inappropriate callouts in MeTa.
NortonDC is correct. It may have been too wordy for delmoi's taste, but I suspect from the tenor of delmoi's rewording that delmoi understoof exactly what Hank was saying and simply disagreed.
I see way too much discussion of the form of comments than engagement in the meaning around here lately.
posted by Cassford at 7:54 AM on February 15, 2005
NortonDC is correct. It may have been too wordy for delmoi's taste, but I suspect from the tenor of delmoi's rewording that delmoi understoof exactly what Hank was saying and simply disagreed.
I see way too much discussion of the form of comments than engagement in the meaning around here lately.
posted by Cassford at 7:54 AM on February 15, 2005
I want to callout Cassford's callout... oh never mind.
I've seen worse, much worse, that has gone by without any calling out.
posted by grouse at 8:21 AM on February 15, 2005
I've seen worse, much worse, that has gone by without any calling out.
posted by grouse at 8:21 AM on February 15, 2005
Yeah, you guys think you're kidding around, but that actually happened a ways back. Before we knew it there were like 18 callouts on MeTa each decrying the last. It was one of the worse messes I've ever seen Matt have to scour.
posted by scarabic at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:32 AM on February 15, 2005
Cassford: Obviously the existance of this thread caused me to go over hank's origional post in greater detail so that I could exposit, if you will, my point.
posted by delmoi at 8:40 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by delmoi at 8:40 AM on February 15, 2005
I've seen worse, too. Scarabic, I'll stop here. I have a feeling I'm about to get pinned as a humorless killjoy.
Doh, too late.
posted by Cassford at 9:00 AM on February 15, 2005
Doh, too late.
posted by Cassford at 9:00 AM on February 15, 2005
i don't necessarily think it requires a callout, but i agree with mek. if you take the time to read it, hank's post is perfectly understandable -- even to someone like myself who is not familiar with all the concepts. perhaps to someone more familiar with the concepts, hank got it all wrong. if so, say what he got wrong. it seems to me that delmoi didn't want to be bothered reading hank's post and just decided to state that hank doesn't know how to express himself. that's a personal attack. not like "i don't get all these greek concepts." more like "i don't wanna be arsed to read your post or any other long post cuz i'm smart and you suck."
posted by nequalsone at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2005
posted by nequalsone at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by bingo at 6:03 PM on February 14, 2005