Will there ever be a time when one link news posts are disallowed?

February 27, 2005 5:24 PM

Will there ever be a time when one link news posts are disallowed?

A news link is rarely best of the web, in my view, and why Metafilter is the best of the web is in the density of the matter presented, a more comprehensive evaluation of our world.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket to etiquette/policy at 5:24 PM (110 comments total)

Gee, we've never covered this ground before.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:29 PM on February 27, 2005

...yeah, and there are new members now with thoughts on this that I wouldn't mind hearing. MetaTalk shouldn't be for discussing everything once. There should not be points for originality of MetaTalk threads. MeTa threads are never conclusive about anything, but the do shape the majority view of what goes. That's like trying to steer a ship safely and complaining "Gee, we've already been east".
posted by nthdegx at 5:38 PM on February 27, 2005

Will there ever be a time when one link news posts are disallowed?

Very few things are disallowed here because there are few hard and fast rules.

Why drag that post into the newsfilter debate? The post sucks, plain and simple, and should be deleted based on nothing more than that.
posted by vacapinta at 5:41 PM on February 27, 2005

Yeah what does "disallowed" even mean?
posted by scarabic at 5:47 PM on February 27, 2005

nthdegx: Normally I'd agree, but my point is not that we've covered this *once*. We've gone over this again and again and again. Heck, a third of my MetaTalk posts are complaints about newfilter. Matt is simply not going to take a stand against news posts. You can listen to the new users all you want, but it's not going to accomplish anything.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:47 PM on February 27, 2005

Everyone has their own opinion.

Mine: This post sucks, the fpp sucks, one link news posts sometimes suck, sometimes don't. YMMV.
posted by caddis at 5:48 PM on February 27, 2005

[bangs head against wall]
posted by five fresh fish at 5:54 PM on February 27, 2005

Personally, I somewhat dislike the posts with a great number of tags, especially the one tag per word posts. They feel like they're trying to be 'cute' instead of 'informative'. I'm not interested in how densely and vaguely you can pack your tags into a small space... I want to know what they are, roughly, BEFORE I click on them. (dear god, please no more surprise 'bears!' posts. Ack.)

That said, I appreciate multiple viewpoints and resources on the same subject. Particularly good are well-reasoned rebuttals to the main link. I don't mean the current journalistic crap method of 'come up with some bozo who thinks evolution is wrong and stick him on TV', but rather intelligent, well-educated, differing opinions. Presenting the best of both sides of an argument strikes me as some of the finest posting one can do. .

On the whole, I didn't see anything particularly wrong with this post... it wasn't best of the web, perhaps, but it certainly wasn't worst of it. It could lead to some interesting discussions: ie, it's not just US soldiers who abuse people, and how do we go about preventing the worst of this kind of thing?

Given the tenor of the last few weeks, however, I think it's more likely to get derailed and turned into a pissing match. But that's not the poster's fault.
posted by Malor at 5:57 PM on February 27, 2005

These metatalk posts, in the end, are usually not about whether posts should be allowed or not, but what constitutes a good post and what constitutes a bad post. That said, one link news posts are usually poor. If the point of the post is to generate discussion, the poster should provide some framework for the discussion, and possibly some links to compliment the main news item.
posted by boymilo at 6:14 PM on February 27, 2005

I think the more important question is whether this post violates any intellectual property laws.
posted by c13 at 6:19 PM on February 27, 2005

There are very few links that could have been behind that post that would have improved it.
posted by smackfu at 6:21 PM on February 27, 2005

The post additionally sucked for being old news. Once a story like this ages, it behooves the poster to find something new to dress it up a bit, be it some new facts, interesting opinions, political analysis, or perhaps some comedic commentary. Please don't just take a story several weeks or older and post it with nothing new.
posted by caddis at 6:23 PM on February 27, 2005

Matt is simply not going to take a stand against news posts.

I don't like that many news posts but I don't want to see them banned. It isn't important that Matt takes a stand; it's important that the discussion continues, informing the community of new opinions and the evolving opinions of others. That's part of the self-policing vibe, and for the most part I think it works quite well. If it is discussed a lot it's because it is an issue we constantly need to keep an eye on. The implications of not discussing it fairly regularly might be worse than you think. It's an organic, dynamic process.
posted by nthdegx at 6:26 PM on February 27, 2005

It could lead to some interesting discussions

Metafilter is not a discussion site. A good link may result in more discussion, but more discussion does not make a bad link good.

Perhaps you might want to read the guidelines again.
posted by justgary at 7:09 PM on February 27, 2005

This is like the pot calling the kettle aluminum.
posted by wendell at 7:11 PM on February 27, 2005

BoingBoing is not a discussion site. MetaFilter is still one. However, to get the discussion going we do like a good link that can stand on its own, not just a subject tossed onto the blue.
posted by caddis at 7:12 PM on February 27, 2005

Into the gulf between 'disallowed' and 'discouraged', community policing plummets.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:17 PM on February 27, 2005

perilously.
posted by quonsar at 7:22 PM on February 27, 2005

MetaFilter is not primarily a discussion site. The raison d’être of a post is not the discussion which may or may not follow it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:27 PM on February 27, 2005

The implications of not discussing it fairly regularly might be worse than you think. It's an organic, dynamic process.

Very well said - especially with all the new users/opinions here.
posted by Quartermass at 7:32 PM on February 27, 2005

"That's part of the self-policing vibe, and for the most part I think it works quite well. If it is discussed a lot it's because it is an issue we constantly need to keep an eye on. The implications of not discussing it fairly regularly might be worse than you think. It's an organic, dynamic process."

Hey, don't you know that nothing productive can be accomplished here in MeTa? That's what all the cool kids are saying. MeTa is for entertainment purposes only. Get with the program.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:38 PM on February 27, 2005

Hey, uh, hey guys...um..."nothing productive can be accomplished here in MeTa!!" Yeah!! Rock on!!

Just establishing that I'm one of the cool kids
posted by Bugbread at 7:59 PM on February 27, 2005

Speaking of self-policing, how about one callout per day rule? I'm referring to this
posted by c13 at 8:20 PM on February 27, 2005

perilously.

Precisely!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:32 PM on February 27, 2005

I don't know what makes a good post, but if there have been 20 comments and nothing productive has been said about the post itself and it's a one-link news story. That strikes me as a bad one.

There are such as acceptable one-link news stories, depending on how big the news story is. Wow. This isn't even close. I don't even want to comment in that sewer water of a thread.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:07 PM on February 27, 2005

Paging Mr. Bucket... Cleanup on aisle four... another shitty fpp needs brutalizing...
posted by drpynchon at 10:09 PM on February 27, 2005

I agree with caddis. I hovered over the FPP link, saw it was news, read the remainder of the one-sentence headline (which was all the post was) and didn't click. There just wasn't the interest there.

It seems to me that nobody's demanding news posts are *banned* on the blue, but that many people don't want to see them there unless they're bloody good. So what about being able to tag them "Newsfilter" and filter the blue on that basis? Wouldn't that solve things, at least to an acceptable extent?
posted by paperpete at 12:38 AM on February 28, 2005

Hi! New person, here.

May I ask, is "The Best Of The Web" (TBOTW) some kind of mantra that's supposed to sway opinion? I mean, I've been a non-member reader of the site for years, and by now I honestly believe that TBOTW has become completely meaningless by now.

Seriously, every time someone calls out a post or poster, TBOTW comes out. every time someone is defending a post or poster (often the same post or poster. y2karl is an example) TBOTW comes out.

I'm new, like I said, but if it matters I'm getting sick to death of hearing it. Could you imagine if every single time a letter was written to the New York Times the letter writer made reference to the "All The News That's Fit To Print" slogan? Can we please make a greater argument for or against something than a reference to a slogan? just my $.02
posted by shmegegge at 12:59 AM on February 28, 2005

that's right, TWO, count 'em TWO uses of the words "by now" in the SAME sentence!

THAT'S value.
posted by shmegegge at 1:00 AM on February 28, 2005

It's that kind of value for the post that makes Metafilter truly the best of the web ^_^
posted by Bugbread at 1:34 AM on February 28, 2005

You only have to look back at news posts on major events such as 9/11, the Bali bomb, Indian Ocean tsunami etc. to see the value of news posted on MeFi.

In this particular case tho' it's a tedious troll. It could have been made into a decent FPP if the poster had bothered to spend a few minutes on it but I think the desire to make a point (badly) got the better of him and we got some premature postulation on the front page.

Mop & bucket, or maybe jut a box of tissues, to aisle 4 indeed...
posted by i_cola at 2:24 AM on February 28, 2005

I was more disappointed to see phrases like "Grab a fucking blue beret and ship the fuck out to Africa, you twat", and "thanks for that link title, jfuller, you sick cunt" than I was to see a one-link news story on the front page—which is an everyday occurence, and can be easily skipped over.

I'm curious why riviera's extreme comments didn't warrant any callouts or apologies. I'm no prude, but did they not seem unacceptable to anyone else?
posted by jenleigh at 6:52 AM on February 28, 2005

Wow, jenleigh, those are obnoxious comments. I think not very many people read the thread because it looked like such a boring newsfilter post and that is why no one has really put up a stink about them. riviera needs to apologize. Time outs have been given for less, but perhaps if riviera gets the apology in before Matt sees those comments a time out can be avoided. Who knows?
posted by caddis at 7:04 AM on February 28, 2005

*yawn*
posted by mischief at 7:36 AM on February 28, 2005

"I'm new, like I said, but if it matters I'm getting sick to death of hearing it."

Other people have expressed the same irritation and there's no doubt that "best of the web" is extremely ambiguous.

Even so, I think its use as a litmus test can be defended on the basis that, ambiguous as it is, it succinctly summarizes what is obviously Matt's intention for MetaFilter. Putting aside the fact that the expression wasn't invented by the people who use it; when you compare it to other possible standards it becomes obvious that it's closer to the spirit of mefi than anything else. I mean, mefi isn't a news aggregator. It isn't a political discussion site. It isn't fark, or somethingawful. It isn't Yahoo! It isn't just like a personal blog except that it belongs to 20K people.

The very name "MetaFilter" unambiguously implies that the subject of MetaFilter is the rest of the web (not the opinions or random thoughts of its members) and that there is some standard by which the web is "filtered". Fark, SA, Yahoo! are all examples which are, more or less, also a view on the web but clearly have different standards for how they're filtering their view of it. Yahoo!'s may be closest to "best of the web" except that the emphasis is less on quality than on completeness and it intends to be a reference source. MetaFilter certainly does not intent to be a reference in anything more than a "fun" sense.

The only type of widely-accepted post that doesn't fit this mold (both in terms of conforming to implied design mandate and in terms of popular consensus) are Really Important News Events. Personally, I've always been somewhat ambivalent about their appropriateness, but Matt is very unambiguous about their acceptability and so is community consensus. I think what's clear in this exception is that although MetaFilter may not be primarily a discussion site, it is secondarily a discussion site and a community and the magnitude of the importance and interest in Really Important Events promotes the secondary standard to the primary.

From the beginning there's been portions of the community that, although they prefer MetaFilter to other sites, see it as more like one of those other sites than different. In other words, some see it as a refined Fark. Or a left-of-center LGF. Or a current events discussion site. Or a chat community. Some of these people are radical and explicitly campaign for a very different MetaFilter. Others just prefer a different emphasis and so gently but insistently push MetaFilter in that direction. There's no avoiding this, it's human nature. A problem, though, is if one group for whatever reason becomes particularly influential for a period of time they both normalize their preference and attract new members/lurkers that share their preference. But it's important to consider that Matt hasn't ever really changed the site mandate, the posting guidelines; it's never been the case that this is a fully democratic community where the majority decides exactly what sort of thing MetaFilter is.

"Best of the web" summarizes most conveniently (though ambiguously) the standard which is implicit in the idea and the intent of MetaFilter. Because there are always forces pushing MetaFilter in a direction away from its original mandate, it becomes useful to invoke this standard, even though it's ambiguous.

So, I think that while your complaint is valid and shared by many, a good defense for "best of the web" can nevertheless be made. It may be a difficult standard to use, fraught with differences of opinion, but it's pretty much the only standard we've got.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:37 AM on February 28, 2005

I think someone must have pissed in Mean Mr. Bucket's wheaties yesterday, and then shoved them up his ass. At least, they ought to've.
posted by crunchland at 7:39 AM on February 28, 2005

Not that I condone rivera's outbursts, but jfuller's post title is pretty much a blatant troll that is going to elicit that sort of response. I know I thought the same thing when I read the title myself. "US out, UN in. Out, in, out, in" in this context is right twatty and seems more about scoring points than raising awareness or solving problems. It certainly rises above [falls below] a mere one-link, Newsfilter post such as you describe jenleigh.
posted by Fezboy! at 7:39 AM on February 28, 2005

I was more disappointed to see phrases like

You were more disappointed by that than the fact that jfuller used this awful story as an excuse to post a tasteless gloating troll FPP? OK, then.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:40 AM on February 28, 2005

Metafilter is the 'Best of the Web' filtered through the 'Tragedy of the Commons'
posted by boaz at 7:42 AM on February 28, 2005

You were more disappointed by that than the fact that jfuller used this awful story as an excuse to post a tasteless gloating troll FPP?

Knowing nothing of jfuller or his established opinions on U.N. peacekeepers—and only having seen the [title] tag just now—I hadn't any reason to see it as a gloating troll. Just another 'cleverly' phrased one-link news post in a loooooong line of same, which is what I'd thought this thread was about ("Will there ever be a time when one link news posts are disallowed?"). Jfuller's phrasing was in poor taste, as was riviera's, but worse. They should both take a different route next time, yes?
posted by jenleigh at 8:02 AM on February 28, 2005

Depends. Define 'poor taste'.
posted by mischief at 8:04 AM on February 28, 2005

I'm no prude, but did they not seem unacceptable to anyone else?

so, you like rape jokes but you hate when somebody calls out those who crack rape jokes? what about rape haikus? you dig those too? see, some of us don't. and for the record, again: what riviera said in the original thread. jfuller's post title is sick and disgusting. but of course you're free to attack riviera for pointing that out. sick, sick, sick.
posted by matteo at 9:21 AM on February 28, 2005

I've no idea how to respond to that. I 'like rape jokes'? I just condemned both users upthread for their 'jokes', and the [title] tag I hadn't even noticed. As seen above, I have no problem pointing out both users were in the wrong. Do you?
posted by jenleigh at 9:26 AM on February 28, 2005

jenleigh: wow. It looks like almost everybody commenting in that entire thread is way out of line. riviera, yeah, but the rest of 'em too, starting with jfuller. And I disagree: jfuller's was worse; riviera's position in the discussion actually started out pretty good, and only deteriorated when everyone else did. I don't think it would work to single out people, since they're almost all just trolling.

What a crappy thread. That makes me really sad.
posted by koeselitz at 9:29 AM on February 28, 2005

Oh, and on preview: matteo, if you're going to troll (as in "so you like rape jokes?") keep it in the shitty threads. You're just making it worse.

The point isn't that riviera was wrong. In my estimation, riviera was damned right about jfuller's fpp being crap. But we need to realize that "you sick c***" is never the way to respond to a post. It only makes it worse; and doing that put riviera pretty much on jfuller's level.
posted by koeselitz at 9:35 AM on February 28, 2005

And I disagree: jfuller's was worse;

Actually, you agree:

Jfuller's phrasing was in poor taste, as was riviera's, but worse.

And for the record, "So you like rape jokes" is as reprehensible as anything in that thread.
posted by jenleigh at 9:39 AM on February 28, 2005

It looks like almost everybody commenting in that entire thread is way out of line.

Feh. jfuller's post got exactly the thread it deserved. The system worked.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:41 AM on February 28, 2005

jenleigh: "Actually, you agree."

Arg. Yeah, sorry. I misread that sentence. We're completely agreed. Especially on matteo's comment; it's stupid, and I only gave it a response because this is meta, and because I have an irrational amount of hope in the ability of people to improve themselves.
posted by koeselitz at 9:49 AM on February 28, 2005

Actually, you agree:

The way you phrased that, it's hard to tell what "worse" was meant to modify.

Yeah, that thread started off completely on the wrong track, so it's hardly surprising where it went from there. I think a lot of us scrolled right past it based just on the "spread 'em" opening, nevermind the title.

Re: newsfilter in general, though, no one's posted about the iraq car bombing, right? Or has it been deleted? Or am I blind...
posted by mdn at 9:50 AM on February 28, 2005

I wondered why no one flagged this post or any of the comments until I looked at the available (negative) reasons:

offensive content
noise
derail
it breaks the guidelines

The list is missing All of the above.
posted by casu marzu at 10:06 AM on February 28, 2005

"So you like rape jokes"

well, you didn't have a problem with jfuller's rape joke in the thread -- it's a fact. you only had a problem with riviera who pointed out how sick it was. then, you kind of changed your mind.

let's read it again:

I was more disappointed to see phrases like "Grab a fucking blue beret and ship the fuck out to Africa, you twat", and "thanks for that link title, jfuller, you sick cunt" than I was to see a one-link news story on the front page—which is an everyday occurence, and can be easily skipped over.

I'm curious why riviera's extreme comments didn't warrant any callouts or apologies. I'm no prude, but did they not seem unacceptable to anyone else?
posted by jenleigh at 6:52 AM PST on February 28

hence: jfuller's work is ok, but riviera's warrants callouts + apologies. you never complained about jfuller's rape joke, jenleigh, never -- one has to assume that you didn't have any problems with it. I cannot read your mind, luckily enough.
posted by matteo at 10:15 AM on February 28, 2005

Let's face it, anyone whose point of view even slightly diverges with matteo's is a fascist, McCarthyite, rape-loving, Bush-worshipping neocon.
posted by casu marzu at 10:22 AM on February 28, 2005

matteo, you're stretching it a bit. Scroll up and read the last few comments; she did complain about jfuller.

And even if she hadn't, jumping to "so you like rape jokes?" right off the bat would've been pretty bad. Am I wrong?

Geez, this is so meta that it's ridiculous. It's a crappy thread, right? Let's just make sure it never happens again. End of story.
posted by koeselitz at 10:26 AM on February 28, 2005

I'm tired of the sneering, intolerant, bullying tone which never seems absent from anything you write, matteo, so I've emailed you in order to spare everyone the details.
posted by jenleigh at 10:27 AM on February 28, 2005

"keep it in the shitty threads"

He did, considering that this was a shitty callout. How do you define shitty.? ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:39 AM on February 28, 2005

I've emailed you in order to spare everyone the details.

Good luck with that!
posted by trharlan at 10:53 AM on February 28, 2005

How do you define shitty.?

Great. Now we're going to get into a discussion on the semantics of 'shitty'. I'm sure someone can write four paragraphs on that.

On spellcheck: 'Shitty' is in the Spellbound dictionary. Crazy.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:58 AM on February 28, 2005

By the way, jenleigh, I hope you don't take the comments of snarking trolls too seriously. I know it may seem, from the way you've been attacked a few times, that mefi doesn't really enjoy having you around, but I assure you that the opposite is the case. The shrieking you may hear emanates from the angry few; but the large body of us willing to engage in civil discussion really like having you around, for what it's worth.
posted by koeselitz at 11:11 AM on February 28, 2005

By the way, jenleigh, I hope you don't take the comments of snarking trolls too seriously.

She's keeping track of what people say about her.

(Boy, if I cared enough to write up every thing anyone ever said about me that could possibly be taken as an insult, I suppose I could go twenty screens with a little enemies list cum history of persecution complex ... )

By the way, jenleigh, in regards to your scroll of martyrdom, I said it before and I will say it again: Hat Maui thought your sarcastic adjective for Barrack Obama was possibly racially insensitive. He did not call you a racist. If you hadn't gone for that little dig, he wouldn't have brought it up. Claiming he was calling you a racist is taking playing the victim way too far. Do not a mountain from a molehill make.
posted by y2karl at 12:25 PM on February 28, 2005

OK, I'm posting the email she sent me in my profile page now
posted by matteo at 12:53 PM on February 28, 2005

just kidding
posted by matteo at 12:57 PM on February 28, 2005

On spellcheck: 'Shitty' is in the Spellbound dictionary. Crazy.

If you mean the spellcheck here, it suggests shifty. Makes sense--outrage is dependent on whose ox is being gored.
posted by y2karl at 1:02 PM on February 28, 2005

posted by casu marzu at 1:08 PM on February 28, 2005

Given that the subject of the post was rape, using the words "twat" and "cunt" to insult the poster was particularly offensive. JFuller's phrasing was pretty tasteless and unnecessarily antagonistic. Using language that rapists use for women to describe him was sickening.
posted by carmen at 1:19 PM on February 28, 2005

carmen, riviera is British -- in Britain calling someone (usually a man, like in jfuller's case) a "cunt" is like using "prick" or "asshole" in the US, it's different (don't ask me why, it's not my language). in other languages jfuller could have been called, say, a connard, a brutta testa di cazzo, a mentulator. they're sexual words but not meant to be misogynist, in this context.
it depends on where one is from, really.


hi casu marzu!
posted by matteo at 1:26 PM on February 28, 2005

He did not call you a racist.

The implication was pretty heavy though, don't you think? How else is one going to interpret the line: "which tells me all i need to know."

If you mean the spellcheck here

He doesn't. Nice point though, if a bit one-dimensional.
posted by catachresoid at 1:27 PM on February 28, 2005

y2karl: yeah, I know. I just didn't want to be a jerk about it.

Wow. Bad thread + bad callout on meTa + migrating jerkishness = another trainwreck.
posted by koeselitz at 1:49 PM on February 28, 2005

That may be true Mateo (I'll take your word), but in the US, where a large part of the readers of the comment live, c*** is a very naughty word, and never appropriate.
posted by caddis at 1:51 PM on February 28, 2005

A mentulator?
posted by euphorb at 2:01 PM on February 28, 2005

matteo, I didn't think that riviera was *trying* to be misogynistic, although since you point out the Brittish/American distinction, I could point out that you should know better. Yet here is your comment:

"oh, and what riviera said, as always. especially the "sick cunt" part, of course"

The use of cunt as an insult is deeply entwined with violence against women. Your (and others') use of it in this thread is insensitive to women in general and the topic in particular.
posted by carmen at 2:03 PM on February 28, 2005

(and by 'this thread' I meant the thread we are discussing, not the thread we are in. Sigh)
posted by carmen at 2:05 PM on February 28, 2005

erm... does anyone like kites?
posted by koeselitz at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2005

The use of cunt as an insult is deeply entwined with violence against women.

Not in the UK, it isn't, any more than "prick" is deeply entwined with violence against men. It's rather culturally insensitive (possibly even imperialist) of you to impose your interpretation of the word on people outside of the US.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:12 PM on February 28, 2005

Do you ever wish that a stolid barbarian warrior Visagoth would just enter these threads and chase everyone away with a studded club? I think that would neat.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2005

The use of cunt as an insult is deeply entwined with violence against women.

not in Britain, really -- it's used all the time between men (just google up "Liam Gallagher" + cunt).
following your theory, then if Americans say "asshole" it should immediately to be considered an anti-anal sex slur. of course it isn't. it's a figure of speech.
you use the name of genitals/private parts to insult someone displeasing.

as I said, riviera is a Brit -- his use of "cunt" is not misogynist. it's just like an American saying "asshole".
but I concede I would never call a woman a "cunt" for the reason you state -- not being a native speaker I personally don't have a preference for regional insults in English -- British , American or whatever. it's also a very boring language when profanity is involved.

I mean, in Naples people say things like "affammocca a chi te muort'e", in Sardinia they call each other "Coddaproccusu" which is completely genius. see, "Coddaproccusu" literally means "pig-fucker". it is not meant to involve images of violence against pigs. it's the equivalent of Americans "asshole", only much funnier.

on preview, what Armitage said. USians don't have final say re the use of the English language which, funnily enough, is spoken as a first language even -- the horror! -- by non-USians

so let riviera call an asshole a cunt, so to speak. he's a Brit after all. in the UK, "fags" are cigarettes, you know, not homosexuals
posted by matteo at 2:21 PM on February 28, 2005

*kicks back with popcorn*
*laughs at dozy yanks*
posted by i_cola at 2:23 PM on February 28, 2005

*kicks back with popcorn*

Move over. Front Bottom and Alexander is on.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:29 PM on February 28, 2005

Americans: don't call people "assholes" in threads.
British people: don't call people "cunts" in threads.
Wulfgar!: VISIGOTH!


posted by koeselitz at 2:34 PM on February 28, 2005

*relaxes with glass of gin*
*finds amusement in weaselly, intellectually dishonest backpedaling performance by unctuous Eurotrash*
posted by dhoyt at 2:41 PM on February 28, 2005

clavdivs at least had the balls to say "greaseball"
posted by matteo at 2:54 PM on February 28, 2005

riviera can use whatever language he pleases, as far as I'm concerned: even when he's calling someone a cunt, he's doing it with intelligence. Rapier, not club. He's long been one of the most consistently excellent commenters here, and I'd much rather see... well, let's just say that I don't want to get on anyone's profile-shitlist. Again.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:56 PM on February 28, 2005

weaselly, intellectually dishonest backpedaling performance by unctuous Eurotrash

Sigh. Finds no amusement in dhoyt's parochially blinkered ignorance.

American English dictionary definition:

Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.

Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable.

British English dictionary definition:

noun [C] OFFENSIVE
a very unpleasant or stupid person:
You stupid cunt!
He's a right cunt.

See the difference? Perhaps you should complain to the unctuous Eurotrash at the Cambridge University Press.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:57 PM on February 28, 2005

Ya know, I have to do this about once a quarter, and the old timers are probably tired of this rant...but here we go again.

Ok...as one of the few in this boys club that have one (of my own...not just one I'm allowed to visit periodically)...I'd like to hereby take-back the word "cunt". Just as gay men were able to take back the words fag and queer and adopt them for use.

Kate Millett sums up the word's uniquely despised status: "Somehow every indignity the female suffers ultimately comes to be symbolized in a sexuality that is held to be her responsibility, her shame[.] It can be summarized in one four-letter word. And the word is not fuck, it's cunt. Our self-contempt originates in this: in knowing we are "cunt".

Jonathon Green concurs that "the slang terms for the vagina outstrip any rivals, and certainly those for the penis[.] They encompass what is generally acknowledged as the most injurious of monosyllabic epithets. This objectification and denigration of a woman's genitals is so pervasive that we've created a culture where the value of women has also become denigrated as we are the "carriers of cunt".

Well, to borrow a phrase....fuck that. I stand alongside Inga Muscio as she calls every woman to be the Cuntlovin’ Ruler of Her Sexual Universe.

Cunt I have one.
Cunt I'm very fond of it.
Cunt. I'm not ashamed of it.
Cunt brought you into this world.
Cunt can't hurt me. I own it. I revel in it. You can't demean me with your vaginal fears.

There. I feel better. Cunt as a derogatory is one of my personal pet peeves.

And yes, I could have linked to the identical rant from last summer, but we've already proven today that clicking links isn't high on many people's priority list.
posted by dejah420 at 2:59 PM on February 28, 2005

It's apology time riviera. We are waiting. . . .
posted by caddis at 12:06 AM JST on March 1

Like fuck 'we' are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:59 PM on February 28, 2005

See the difference?

I wasn't referring to the hairsplitting spoogefest that's going on now; I'm referring to the laughable double-standard defense(s) of riviera's shitslinging—which, of course, cannot be defended with either heritage or writing ability. Google "Anton Riviera" for a sampling of his cool, tolerant European sophistication.
posted by dhoyt at 3:07 PM on February 28, 2005

"you cunt!"


"maybe I should've used 'asshole' instead" (via Curb Your Enthusiasm)
posted by Arch Stanton at 3:09 PM on February 28, 2005

Gettin' mighty cunty in here.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course. Anyway, haven't we had the 'cunt' argument, at great and exhausting length, several times before?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:18 PM on February 28, 2005

tolerant European sophistication

Were you bitten by a eurodog as a child?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:26 PM on February 28, 2005

I still don't see how stalking riviera all over the Internet can somehow manage to assuage someone's inferiority complex. but then, I'm EuroTrash so what do i know. (by the way I want to insist -- American insults are just too silly to take real offense. "Eurotrash"? "Pussy"? a cat??? I mean, "cracker"? aren't those supposed to be biscuits?). affammocca...

the average wingnut can only wish she/he had a tenth of riviera's brains and actual grasp of the issues -- even in jfuller's piece of shit of a post, riviera made very good, informed points re the engagement of international forces.
so, stalkers or not, the more they read him over the Internet the more, one hopes, they're going to better their education. or at least the mastery of their own native language.
posted by matteo at 3:38 PM on February 28, 2005

matteo: so let riviera call an asshole a cunt, so to speak. he's a Brit after all. in the UK, "fags" are cigarettes, you know, not homosexuals.

Yes, but jenleigh is also in the UK and she was offended.

riviera made very good, informed points re the engagement of international forces.

Yes, he did, which is why it is a pity he used a vulgarity near the end of his comment.
posted by MLIS at 4:00 PM on February 28, 2005

I still don't see how stalking riviera all over the Internet

Google search != "stalk" = you're a halfwit

By the way, I notice jenleigh is your new favorite female target for abuse these days. Guess your quest to upbraid & humiliate asparagirl and konolia lost its flavor and you sought to cleanse the ol' palate. Why do I get the sense your interactions with women on MeFi are a perfect mirror of your interactions IRL? The difference being, of course, that women on the web actually respond to you. Judging from my visits to Italy and witnessing the treatment of women there, I'd wager you're a perfect gentleman by comparison. Scary.
posted by dhoyt at 4:11 PM on February 28, 2005

Jenleigh: I'm pretty sure you're not winning any minds with your victim act. In fact, it's quite annoying. What's the point of using your profile to to whine about getting picked on by metafilter? Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?
posted by puke & cry at 4:35 PM on February 28, 2005

oh, and what riviera said, as always. especially the "sick cunt" part, of course -- this post's title is pretty fucking tasteless jfuller. you know, I understand all the fascist vermin's glee here -- after all, since Abu Ghraib, they've had quite a shit-smeared chip on their shoulder when nonconsensual assfucking is involved -- but jfuller, I was under the impression you were marginally better than your zero-content, trolling, sadistic buddies here on MeFi.

posted by matteo at 3:26 AM EST on February 28

Keep reaching for that rainbow.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:42 PM on February 28, 2005

dhoyt, jenleigh, y2karl, matteo: I think you all actually have wisdom to contribute to the various debates we have around here, but you all might do a little better to listen(or *gasp* try to understand where the other is coming from) to eachother rather than just try to win arguments and one-up eachother. Maybe then we'd accomplish something productive.
posted by jonmc at 4:44 PM on February 28, 2005

the more they read him over the Internet the more, one hopes, they're going to better their education.

Yeah. When rivera told me to fuck off, I immediately renounced my free-market views and ran to the new members section at the nearest CPUSA office.
posted by trharlan at 4:57 PM on February 28, 2005

Why do I get the sense your interactions with women on MeFi are a perfect mirror of your interactions IRL? The difference being, of course, that women on the web actually respond to you. Judging from my visits to Italy and witnessing the treatment of women there, I'd wager you're a perfect gentleman by comparison. Scary. --dhoyt

Yeah...not that Matteo needs me to defend him, but he and I are friends, both virtual and in real life. Matteo may be opinionated, and perhaps a bit vitriolic when pushed, but I can guarantee you that he is a perfect gentleman in person. (And tall, dark and handsome...so there.)

And while I hardly need defend one of the cradles of modern civilization, Italy is a wonderful place. I've traveled there solo as a woman both as a teenager and as adult, and have been treated better there than in most American cities.

That you and Matteo have issues, I do not dispute. But ad hominem attacks on qualities about which you have no personal knowledge is absurd.
posted by dejah420 at 5:14 PM on February 28, 2005

riviera, what a silly bunt.
posted by caddis at 6:11 PM on February 28, 2005

posted by koeselitz at 6:30 PM on February 28, 2005

posted by jonmc at 6:32 PM on February 28, 2005

posted by koeselitz at 7:36 PM on February 28, 2005

The new way to ensure a thread is closed: post irrelevant photos/images!
posted by MLIS at 8:20 PM on February 28, 2005

stavros was on someone's profile shit list ? Man, I missed that.

The Revenge Of The User Page...

but since I'm already on at least one, what stavros otherwise said.
posted by y2karl at 8:25 PM on February 28, 2005

The new way to ensure a thread is closed: post irrelevant photos/images!

Vikings are never irrelevant.

Charge the infidel!!
posted by jonmc at 8:49 PM on February 28, 2005

Ya bunch of Canutes...
posted by i_cola at 1:11 AM on March 1, 2005

The taboo over the use of the word cunt only serves to remind us all that men can be scared of women, with their ability to create life. One way to avoid the resultant feelings of inadequacy is to suggest that the cunt is a not desirable thing to have.
Even the Christian god had to rely on a girl's (uterus) cunt to produce his son. This thing goes way back.
/ pointless

Still, I have to agree with stavros, what riviera says is always worth reading. Would it were the rest of us could provide such rich content. However, in this case the use of the word cunt in a post complaining about the trivialisation of rape seems disengenuous.
If he had used the word 'fucker' would that have been acceptable?
posted by asok at 3:04 AM on March 1, 2005

The taboo over the use of the word dick only serves to remind us all that women can be scared of men, with their ability to create life. One way to avoid the resultant feelings of inadequacy is to suggest that the dick is a not desirable thing to have.

You say dick, I say cunt, you say potato, I say potahto, let's call the whole thing off.
posted by Bugbread at 3:47 AM on March 1, 2005

Why do I get the sense your interactions with women on MeFi are a perfect mirror of your interactions IRL?

because, like your buddy jfuller, you're (in the British sense of course) a sick cunt! that's why!
:)



I notice jenleigh is your new favorite female target for abuse these days

yeah, I'm equal opportunity like that, I cannot call out only men's bullshit -- but no, actually jfuller is the favorite target of my contempt. you didn't even manage to be my favorite wingnut, dhoyty -- you're just not that interesting, that's all. and I love it that you're still defending jfuller's sick rape joke, dhoyt. to each his own kind of humor I guess.

oh, and when did you stop beating your wife dhoyt?


Judging from my visits to Italy

do you mean you have a passport and have dared to visit infidel land? more than once, even? kudos! it's a good start

------

and perhaps a bit vitriolic

nah, I am a teddy bear of a man who's allergic to Fascism, that's all.

____

Krrlson: do you mean it surprised you that I consider you to be fascist vermin? as usual, what's the point of your comment, that I hurt your feelings? if I did, I am sorry. it's not personal, it's political -- dhoyt does not understand this very simple point but I guess you do, being marginally smarter than him: it's not personal.

____


dejah, thanks but never fall in dhoyt's traps -- let him stoop that low by himself. after all, he thinks that rape jokes are funny, it's useless to talk to him -- one can only make fun of such a racist, pitiful man.
posted by matteo at 4:05 AM on March 1, 2005

Blech. matteo, dhoyt, get a room, if you want to continue this tu quoque crap.

...and, by the way, MLIS, Vikings, Visigoths, and northern warriors of all types are the farthest thing from irrelevant. I quote:

Do you ever wish that a stolid barbarian warrior Visagoth would just enter these threads and chase everyone away with a studded club? I think that would neat.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:17 PM PST on February 28 [!]



posted by koeselitz at 8:41 AM on March 1, 2005

posted by y2karl at 9:23 AM on March 1, 2005

Krrlson: do you mean it surprised you that I consider you to be fascist vermin? as usual, what's the point of your comment, that I hurt your feelings? if I did, I am sorry. it's not personal, it's political -- dhoyt does not understand this very simple point but I guess you do, being marginally smarter than him: it's not personal.

It's only political, is it? I suppose that's why you methodically and deliberately hound specific members with vicious attacks specifically designed to belittle and offend, not persuade or prove wrong? What, pray tell, could possibly be the political motivation in that? No, it's all too clear that you derive a great amount of personal satisfaction from it.

And since you ask, my point is that you are, among many other unflattering things, a hypocrite.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2005