And more newsfilter....

May 9, 2005 3:19 PM

Now might be a bad time, but PartisanFilter (#1, #2, #3, #4) today seems hardly "the best of the web." Particularly focused on #1 as it's just an "ActionAlert' for something that somebody thinks is Really Imporant and was already discussed in a NewsFilter FPP two days ago.
posted by thedevildancedlightly to Etiquette/Policy at 3:19 PM (262 comments total)

And, yes, flagged. And, yes, I averted my eyes away from the offending posts. Just registering my opinion that one or two a day is probably acceptable, 3-4 a day is why MetaFilter gets linked in the Huffington Post blogroll.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:23 PM on May 9, 2005

3-4 a day is why MetaFilter gets linked in the Huffington Post blogroll.

I wanted to be outraged by this, but then I saw LittleGreenFootballs on the same list, so consider me apathetic. This place is left-leaning and has some politically outspoken members. Get used to it.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:35 PM on May 9, 2005

vaginal cream may be harmful for face.
posted by quonsar at 3:42 PM on May 9, 2005

Agreed. These posts sucked.

Also, posting links from the New Yorker (which I read) on MetaFilter is akin to posting clips from Variety on a SAG forum. Lazy.
posted by docpops at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2005

Awesome. My first MeTa callout.

Part of this ties in to the whole "Doesn't everyone read BoingBoing/slashdot/whatever? It's everywhere already!" but I know a lot of people haven't even heard about the bill yet, and the "everyone reads X" thing has been mooted to death before, so I won't bother.

So, yeah, I'm boot-strapping via MeFi to spread the word in a broadcast fashion. I have no apologies about that. I feel this is pretty important, important enough to even tell my mom, and direct her to the Library of Congress Thomas database and walk her through searching the bill so she could decide for herself if she wanted to contact her Senators.

Best of the web? Probably not. But not everything on MeFi needs to be nifty-keen and entertaining. Sometimes work and drudgery and boring stuff is in order. Sometimes subjectivity is in order.

(All reporting is subjective. Try being totally unbiased, neutral, and objective in any form of media. The whole point of "media" is "mediation" and subjectivity. I don't care if it's mixed media, music, postering, essays, books, or even encyclopedias. True objectivity is extremely difficult. And bland. The only form of media that can even be considered truly objective, IMO, is the immediacy of doing something or engaging in something yourself - the sort of temporary art and poetic terrorism Hekim Bey expounds, the very act of creating something meaningful only to oneself.)

However, between the discussion in the in the NewsFilter thread and my own, I (and others in my own social network) learned a bunch of stuff I/we didn't know before.
posted by loquacious at 3:48 PM on May 9, 2005

quonsar speaks from experience ; >

One person's "PartisanFilter" is someone else's "interesting, found on the web" Filter. I for one had no idea of the rampant bestiality going on in Red States. There ought to be a Constitutional Amendment against it. It's worse than terrorism. It's ruining families. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:48 PM on May 9, 2005

Correction: Hakim Bey
posted by loquacious at 3:52 PM on May 9, 2005

I for one had no idea of the rampant bestiality going on in Red States. There ought to be a Constitutional Amendment against it. It's worse than terrorism. It's ruining families. ...

What a ridiculous straw man. Hey look! amberglow became the bizarro version of 111.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:59 PM on May 9, 2005

not everything on MeFi needs to be nifty-keen and entertaining

!!

Sometimes work and drudgery and boring stuff is in order.

!!!!

I think the point isn't that the subject matter of the post was boring drudgery, but that the post itself was shallow and lazy. Most of us here find issues "nifty-keen" and entertaining to discuss. But front-paging an action alert on an issue that had just been posted three days ago- and still had an active discussion going - is just lame.
posted by mediareport at 4:28 PM on May 9, 2005

Shit happens, devildanced. ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:28 PM on May 9, 2005

we can whine until hell freezes over about what's bad around here, but as long as we have even just a few posts a week as great as scody's, everything's good at MetaFilter. whenever I feel bad about the posts' quality, a user here surprises me, again. and again. there's some bad stuff here, sometimes even quite a lot of it, but posts like scody's make the effort worthwile
posted by matteo at 4:44 PM on May 9, 2005

Awesome. My first MeTa callout.

Your morning after pill is on the way.
posted by jonmc at 4:59 PM on May 9, 2005

Eat shit, thedevildancedlightly. Your favorite assholes already own and control everything. Whining about a little dissent is just fucking immature. Why not treat yourself to another ivory back-scratcher instead of playing besieged?
posted by interrobang at 5:01 PM on May 9, 2005

uh. oh.
posted by docpops at 5:05 PM on May 9, 2005

Criticism Is Wrong.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:20 PM on May 9, 2005

Well, there's criticism, and then there's needless nitpicking, and I'd say that three threads over a deleted image qualifies as "needless." And matt isn't running the country, just a website. And considering that he's got his hands full at the moment, I'm inclined to cut him quite a bit of slack.
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM on May 9, 2005

Eh, I'm not seeing it.

#1 isn't partisan. As far as I know, nobody views the RealID act as a primarily Republican or Democratic issue. It's criticism of the government's attempt to restrict our freedoms--a hallowed American tradition.

#2 doesn't even constitute criticism. The article clearly doesn't land one way or another.

#3 also isn't partisan. I'd like to think any decent American would be apalled by what's going on there. Confusing Bush and Jesus? Please.

#4 is a joke. (I hope).

You seem to think any criticism of the govenment whatsoever is a deliberate attack against Bush and attempt to undermine the entire Republican party. It's not.

Use of the word 'partisan' is an interesting trick though. I suppose there are many people who would love to call LGF and Metafilter two 'partisan' sites with opposing views and therefore false them into a false equivalency. But really, any honest person can tell the difference between a series of partisan attacks and discussing politics. The only people who benefit by casting all political commentary as partisan are, of course, those in power.
posted by nixerman at 5:24 PM on May 9, 2005

That's an interesting typo. I meant force them. Is that my Boston accent sneaking through in my writing???
posted by nixerman at 5:28 PM on May 9, 2005

You seem to think any criticism of the govenment whatsoever is a deliberate attack against Bush and attempt to undermine the entire Republican party. It's not.

I was actually going to use the word "PoliticsFilter" originally and was really on the fence. Honestly, my main problem was #1 - using MeFi to further your agenda (be it Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socailist, Diest, whatever). Saying "hey, y'all need to do something about this Really Important Issue" is a poor use of MeFi space.

Is that my Boston accent sneaking through in my writing???

Go Sox! Watching the gamecast while writing. Wild pitch just scored another run.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:30 PM on May 9, 2005

I was under the assumption that this place stopped being the 'best of the web' sometime around the time the gates were reopened last winter.
posted by item at 5:35 PM on May 9, 2005

"... this place stopped being the 'best of the web' sometime ..."

Sometime after 1997.
posted by I EAT TAPES at 5:50 PM on May 9, 2005

And matt isn't running the country, just a website.

I hear lots of USA users are complaining over thousands of deleted Iraqis
posted by matteo at 5:54 PM on May 9, 2005

I hear lots of USA users are complaining over thousands of deleted Iraqis

Wow, I am SO going to post that in my profile. Credit to matteo, of course.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 6:08 PM on May 9, 2005

And matt isn't running the country, just a website.

I hear lots of USA users are complaining over thousands of deleted Iraqis

A lot of us are, but y'know what, matteo, I'd really rather you didn't use my comments to make unrelated points for yourslef. Thanks.
posted by jonmc at 6:15 PM on May 9, 2005

Eat shit, thedevildancedlightly. Your favorite assholes already own and control everything. Whining about a little dissent is just fucking immature.

Classy.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:25 PM on May 9, 2005

Wankers
posted by I EAT TAPES at 6:29 PM on May 9, 2005

Best of the web? Probably not. But not everything on MeFi needs to be nifty-keen and entertaining. Sometimes work and drudgery and boring stuff is in order.

Um, WHAT???
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:29 PM on May 9, 2005

I think the point isn't that the subject matter of the post was boring drudgery, but that the post itself was shallow and lazy.

Yeah, it read like a copied and pasted sentence from a MoveOn email. You're advocating for something I totally agree with and I still found it a lame post.
posted by jessamyn at 7:07 PM on May 9, 2005

MetaFilter -- You're Advocating for Something I Totally Agree With and I Still Found It a Lame Post

jon: the alphanumeric gentleman liked it, though.
posted by matteo at 7:13 PM on May 9, 2005

So, yeah, I'm boot-strapping via MeFi to spread the word in a broadcast fashion. I have no apologies about that. I feel this is pretty important

With love and respect, and in perfect agreement with your political standpoint, loquacious: um no.

You can present political flashpoints in an informative way that presents facts and choices to the membership without getting shrill and hammering your opinion into our faces. This is the worst kind of editorializing in a post. This has aboslutely nothing to do with the content of your post. I couldn't agree with you more. But people always want every issue to rise to such a level of importance that all media, all public spaces, all principles of objectivity be damned to serve their point of view. That's just downright undemocratic. Have respect for the population you're addressing: we have lots of different points of view. Don't presume that spamming us with yours is okay.

There are many websites where rabid, one-sided political action alerts belong. This isn't one of them. BoingBoing, is, after all, a personal blog.

Shame on you.
posted by scarabic at 7:22 PM on May 9, 2005

If I never see the phrase "best of the web" in a callout again... well, it will mean I've stopped reading metatalk.
posted by goatdog at 8:02 PM on May 9, 2005

Eat shit, thedevildancedlightly. Your favorite assholes already own and control everything. Whining about a little dissent is just fucking immature. Why not treat yourself to another ivory back-scratcher instead of playing besieged?

Oooh, interrobang's all, like, edgy 'n stuff. Tellin' it like it is!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:14 PM on May 9, 2005

I had a chicken fajita for lunch today. Then I thought, "chicken vagina?" This is what meta does for me.
posted by bardic at 8:23 PM on May 9, 2005

devildanceslightly's usual routine, to whine that we're all being mean, fails when even he can't bring himself to defend mule-sodomy.

But the 'fax your senator' link did suck. Should have been called out on its own instead of trying to bit off too much.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:03 PM on May 9, 2005

thedevildancedlightly:

I was actually going to use the word "PoliticsFilter" originally and was really on the fence. Honestly, my main problem was #1 - using MeFi to further your agenda (be it Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socailist, Diest, whatever).

PoliticsFilter? Like, you can't talk about politics on MeFi? No, that's just stupid. You couldn't have meant that. Maybe the word politics to your mind is synonymous with "furthering one's partisan agenda." Ok, well I could see that being a reasonable objection, despite the misguided name, but then... all your examples of "PoliticsFilter" are posts that criticise the current administration. So... wouldn't that mean that your MeTa callout is an example of furthering your own political agenda against dissent and/or liberals?

Or here's a better question. When you say your main problem is with furthering political agendas of any kind on MeFi, aren't you lying? I think what you really mean is that your problem is with furthering non-conservative political agendas on MeFi.

Saying "hey, y'all need to do something about this Really Important Issue" is a poor use of MeFi space.

No, it's not. Remember the perma-link to the tsunami relief fund on the front page for weeks on end? There's no rule about posting Really Important Issues. You're just making up conditions for fpps that suit your taste.

Ultimately, this is just another lame conservative MeTa callout disguised as an objection to poor post formatting and newsfilter. See similar threads by dios and Steve_at_Linnwood.
posted by shmegegge at 9:12 PM on May 9, 2005

Don't equate humanitarian relief for the world's biggest disaster in recent memory with highly charged partisan controversy over a bit of legislation. This is the logical fallacy known as the false dillema: "If we want to be able to participate in worldwide relief efforts for giant catastrophes, then we also need to tolerate having partisan opinions explosively shat onto the front page. The only alternative is to ban both."

Wrong. Next.

Ultimately, this is just another lame conservative MeTa callout

Hah. I fully support this callout and I challenge you to stalk my comment history and tell me that's how my opinion on this is motivated.
posted by scarabic at 9:19 PM on May 9, 2005

PoliticsFilter? Like, you can't talk about politics on MeFi?

That's why I changed it. Discussing interesting political issues is one thing and I'm all for it. Heck, post more political FPPs that are well-structured and not "I'm really against X and you all should be too." I'm happy to discuss them in the thread and I respect your right to your opinion. See my comment history if you don't believe me. I'm just making the point that "Call your senator to stop this horrible legislation" is a really poor frame for an FPP, even if some users think it's Really Important.

When you say your main problem is with furthering political agendas of any kind on MeFi, aren't you lying? I think what you really mean is that your problem is with furthering non-conservative political agendas on MeFi.

I think loquaous admitted that this wasn't a left/right politcal issue. See above. Saying "I believe X is bad, you need to do Y" copied-and-pasted out of a LGF thread is just as bad as copying it out of a MoveOn email.

The rule "don't editorialize in your FPPs" is hardly a new rule. If you want me to start posting about every Really Important Issue and advocating for my position on it then I'd be happy to. But I think MeFi would be a lot worse for it. This isn't a left/right issue, this is a good-post/bad-post issue.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:44 PM on May 9, 2005

Oops, sorry, I was looking for the Snitch n' Bitch thread. I'll just be going...
posted by BoringPostcards at 9:44 PM on May 9, 2005

Wow, that's just not what I said. Nice try, though. Have you read this thread? At all? In case you haven't, here's the comment I was replying to:

Saying "hey, y'all need to do something about this Really Important Issue" is a poor use of MeFi space.

See? He was saying that attracting attention to important issues and asking for action was a poor use of MeFi space. It isn't and I said so. Everything I put above that already addresses his notion of what you call "partisan opinions explosively shat onto the front page." Thanks for not even mentioning that bit. It's called the Straw Man fallacy to only address what you think is your opponent's weakest point.

I wasn't stalking him, either. Everyone is well aware of devildanced's party of choice. It's like saying that you have to stalk quonsar's history to know his posting style.
posted by shmegegge at 9:50 PM on May 9, 2005

Am I ashamed of my link? Nope. And though I appreciate the community defense, it's not really needed. I've already admitted that the FPP itself, as a link, as a post, pretty much sucks.

So: I know the link itself sucks, but I also knew that the link would most likely stick, and that a whole bunch of people would appreciate it and take action on it, and that in-thread the MeFi community would help develop and support - or even denigrate it - further.

It wasn't posted to be a troll or debate-starter. It was posted as a method of getting the word out. Would I post this to Fark or LGF? Hell no. MeFi is lefty, and will probably always be lefty, so I posted it here - where the call to action would be received better.

It's really not worth any serious effort to attack (or defend it) in detail. Straight up, at the most basic level, it's indeed a media-channel hijack. I'll totally own up to that.

But it's timely one that's been fairly well received - and hopefully acted upon in one way or another. Grassroots and all that. I know a ton of people hadn't even heard about it, much less that they were voting on it tommorow, and even less that it hadn't even been debated on the Senate floor.

So I trade a little whuffie and cred to spread the message, and I'm guessing that Matt hasn't had any problem with that, 'cause it's still there.

At this point it could be deleted from the MeFi stream, and it will have served it's immediate purpose for the most part. And I'm cool with that. However, there's some good stuff in-thread, and it'd be a shame to lose that. And so on.

On Preview: Yeah, it wasn't a left-right issue. I wasn't calling specifically to lefty Mefites, but I knew they'd react to it more and act on it. My mom voted for Bush both times as an Independent, and she actually contacted her reps over it.

I guess I could have safely couched it within the broadcast-media FCC rules against call to action, with mealy-mouthed wording along the lines of "If you want to and care about this issue, perhaps you would like to contact your reps" or something.

Fuck that. This is the internet. And there's plenty of pussyfooting without me trying to frame something I feel strongly about in neutral terms. Come'on now, we're adults right? Do we need FCC safe language to prevent any of us from being swayed against their will by a few words? I certainly hope not.
posted by loquacious at 9:54 PM on May 9, 2005

Everyone is well aware of devildanced's party of choice

Umm, not really. I think I've mentioned a few times that I didn't vote for Bush, never voted for a Republican, and live in San Francisco (about as liberal as you get). But that's entirely besides the point.

He was saying that attracting attention to important issues and asking for action was a poor use of MeFi space. It isn't and I said so.

It's possible to "attract attention" to an issue just by making a balanced FPP, or even one that pretends to be structured around debate rather than just copying an Action Alert from LGF, Daily Kos, MoveOn, or whatever group tickles your fancy. The first post about the National ID legislation was reasonable, bringing a second post up when the first is still active that specifically advocates some political action is a horrible frame for FPPs. Each and every member has something important to them, but that doesn't mean that I mean that we should encourage spamming that opinion all over the front page. I could start using my FPPs to urge people to bury their senators in faxes about IFQs, but I think it's poor form.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:56 PM on May 9, 2005

I think loquacious and I are pretty much in agreement here. Never thought I'd say that. :)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:58 PM on May 9, 2005

bringing a second post up when the first is still active that specifically advocates some political action is a horrible frame for FPPs. Each and every member has something important to them, but that doesn't mean that I mean that we should encourage spamming that opinion all over the front page.

funny how double posting doesn't apply to the other 3 posts you mentioned and how editorializing isn't even something you mentioned in the original post. In fact, the only reason you gave for the other 3 being mentioned at all in the original post was the word PartisanFilter. Within the thread itself, you've backed away from calling out partisan posts in favor of calling out politically aggressive posts, but now it's editorial posts.

I'm sorry, but all these after-the-fact adjustments smell like bullshit. Your callout is suspect, even if the called-out posts (with the exception of that Feith-Based Judge one) are lame.

What's funny is I also think 3 of those posts should be deleted, and I think for 2 of them it's because of excessive editorializing. The 1st one is basically a double post, so delete that, too, but the 2nd one is fine. I can't imagine what you dislike about it.
posted by shmegegge at 10:16 PM on May 9, 2005

but the 2nd one is fine.

Okay. I'll withdraw that one.

funny how double posting doesn't apply to the other 3 posts you mentioned

I draw particular attention to the first one, pretty plainly. The others weren't as bad about editorializing, so they didn't get a callout as much as a mention.

What's funny is I also think 3 of those posts should be deleted, and I think for 2 of them it's because of excessive editorializing

"ExcessiveEditorializingFilter" doesn't have the same ring to it. An FPP that includes "Here's another horse-fucking hypocrite Republican" is just as bad as "here's another whiny-ass bleeding heart Democrat." I call it "PartisanFilter", you call it "ExcessiveEditorializingFilter". I say tomato, you say tomahto. Partisan editorializing is still editorializing. I think we agree but you're trying to somehow turn this into being about my politics when even the poster himself admits that it was a crap post. In his words, "already admitted that the FPP itself, as a link, as a post, pretty much sucks".

What agenda are you trying to carry out here when the poster himself agrees with the callout?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:26 PM on May 9, 2005

For one thing, that's one of four posters.

Second, like I said, I thought you were changing your story as you go.

What it comes down to is my own sensitivity to crap callouts. Especially since the past week or so has had more than it's fair share of what I originally identified this as: conservative callouts couched in guidelines violations callouts.

Thirdly, and this is a largely academic point, is the matter of the call to action. I still maintain that calls to action are not against the guidelines, nor should they be, and are therefore fair game for an FP within limits. Saying "if you find this interesting, you may want to do X" is not a problem. The editorializing in the post is a problem, though, as I said myself.

But either way, I think I'm coming off as harping on this more than I actually feel. That's most likely because this is a convenient diversion from work. If you say you originally intended to callout editorializing, then I accept that. I'm not trying to drag a confession out of you, or anything. But I saw ample reason to suspect bullshit, and I brought it up for debate. It was either that, or just assume it was bullshit and believe that forever.

I'm sure what I think carries such weight with you that you couldn't have slept without knowing I've accepted your story. Sleep tight, shnookums.
posted by shmegegge at 10:47 PM on May 9, 2005

Sleep tight, shnookums

<ReynoldsFilter>You too, darling.</ReynoldsFilter>

Honestly, I think being brought up where I was instilled a sense of definding my honor, for right or wrong. I take it personally when somebody calls BS on me when I honestly believe what I'm saying. It's not ideal for MeFi, but we're all stuck with the hand we're dealt. Nothing personal. I think we disagree about the call to action and that's fine. I'm glad that you brought it out in public and I'll try my best to be even-handed in thinking that posts are shit.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:56 PM on May 9, 2005

So: I know the link itself sucks, but I also knew that the link would most likely stick, and that a whole bunch of people would appreciate it and take action on it, and that in-thread the MeFi community would help develop and support - or even denigrate it - further."

Thank you for revealing your inability to evaluate a choice based on principle. You, like many other droplets of lube on the slippery slope, would rather fuck all and take comfort in the fact that only 50% of the membership thinks you're a corrosive influence. Hey, what the hell? As long as someone agrees with you what does it matter that you, yourself, know that you are wrong? "Fuck that" indeed. Fuck it! Fuck it all!

Fuck that. This is the internet. And there's plenty of pussyfooting without me trying to frame something I feel strongly about in neutral terms.

You say "this is the internet" as if nothing can go wrong here. But boy, is my opinion of you shot. You're right, of course, that the internet is full of pussyfooting faggots, and there's no good goddamn reason why you should be one of them when you can just as handily bring the discourse at MeFi down to the level of the partisan screeching at LGF. Go, dude! Don't pussyfoot! Be a MAN! YEAH!

Why bother to frame something you feel strongly about in neutral terms? You think about that one. Think about it in every forum your life touches, and you'll find it's a useful talent in many spheres. For one, framing an issue in neutral terms doesn't alienate anyone right away. But it's good to know that you have so little disregard for the internet, and by extension, MeFi, and us, that you can't be bothered. By your analysis here, you admit as much as that you *want* to alientate anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's one horrible use of MeFi, and plays into every right-winged accusation of lefty-groupthink we've ever suffered.

You were in a "by-any-means-necessary" mood and you got your several-hundred-mouseclicks. Bravo. How's it feel to be a spammer? You know, I'm pretty sure that most of them have pondered the ethics of what they do, and uttered the same pathetic "fuck that" you just did.
posted by scarabic at 10:58 PM on May 9, 2005

thedevildancedlightly:

If I gave the impression that I thought you were wrong to defend yourself, then I retract that now. That really wasn't my intention. I brought up that it seemed like BS to me specifically to see what your defense would be. It was more to get to the heart of the matter than to vehemently insist that it was BS.

scarabic:

ouch. I think loquacious' grandchildren will feel the sting of that one. I can easily empathize with your feelings on the matter, but I'm torn on the issue a bit. My reasoning is that I think loquacious' motivations might have been a tad more noble than that. The way I read his comment was to say, "I knew it was going to hurt my reputation here (whuffie is a form of currency from Cory Doctorow's book Down and Out In the Magic Kingdom, where one's personal reputation is one's currency.) but it's important enough to me that I'm willing to make this personal sacrifice for a cause I believe in." I still agree that it was bad form, obviously, but it seemed to me that loquacious was faced with the following choice, in his mind: Post this important thing in neutral terms (a form of dishonesty since he doesn't feel neutral about it) or say to hell with his rep and post how he really feels in an honest and forthright manner.

But I oversimplify. A fair portion of what he did was obviously for clicks and faxes, and that really is spamming. I'm just inclined to think he wasn't JUST spamming, is all. On the OTHER other hand, he's also guilty of a GYOBFW post, which is just as bad.
posted by shmegegge at 12:31 AM on May 10, 2005

If I gave the impression that I thought you were wrong to defend yourself, then I retract that now.

In hindsight, I don't think you gave that impression. I got a little too caught-up and maybe over-read what you were saying. No worries.

Agreed that scarabic's sting will be felt for generations to come. My #1 issue with the "I was willing to spam for the greater good" argument is that we all (that's 10,000+ people with accounts) have stuff that we think is Really Incredibly Important and would be willing to spam the front page for. If everybody did that only once a year then the blue would literally be nothing but spam. I'm willing to cut loq a bit more slack (as in not blame him personally) just because he is a long-time user and a generally positive part of the community, but I think it still deserves a callout to stop the practice now before it gets out of hand. Again, I think IFQs are a great way to stop overfishing, but I'm going to hold off on an ActionAlert FPP here (maybe on Kos or something).
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:12 AM on May 10, 2005

And apologies to you, schmegegge if I created any senation of hostility toward you. None was intended. You seem like a positive member of the community.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:31 AM on May 10, 2005

An FPP that includes "Here's another horse-fucking hypocrite Republican" is just as bad as "here's another whiny-ass bleeding heart Democrat."

I'm not sure those statements are exactly equivalent. Unless there are OTHER horse-fucking Republicans?

Seriously, though, I think the difference between this and say, "Here's another whiny-ass bleeding heart Democrat" is that THIS GUY ACTUALLY FUCKED A HORSE.

Well, a Mule. But still!

I mean, it's not like "Here's another fascist, sanctimonious, uncultured Republican," necessarily. It's more like, "A major, controversial political figure who, among other things, goes around deeming things abominations before God, enjoys the bedside (barnside?) company of Quickdraw McGraw."

I mean, I'd want to know if there was some sort of crazy-ass Democratic equivalent to this. If, say, Michael Moore decided to start picking off unemployed factory workers from Flint with an Uzi while wearing a Nike Track Jacket.

Or even if Michael Moore had just fucked a mule, really.

Ew.
posted by StopMakingSense at 2:03 AM on May 10, 2005

Now might be a bad time, but PartisanFilter (#1, #2, #3, #4) today seems hardly "the best of the web."

I admire your effort, but the only one who can change the direction metafilter is going is matt, and that's not something that's going to happen.

This place is left-leaning and has some politically outspoken members. Get used to it.

Very true, except for the "leaning" part. It's already fallen over.

What a ridiculous straw man. Hey look! amberglow became the bizarro version of 111.

To me that's what proves, even more than the number of conservative bashing threads (b/c some of those are deserved), how left leaning, at the very least, the most vocal members of metafilter are. Amberglow is as over the top nutso as any conservative fringe member we have at metafilter. He is 111 in a mirror. He's just a better fit here.

Eat shit, thedevildancedlightly.

Ahhh, the eloquent left.

But really, any honest person can tell the difference between a series of partisan attacks and discussing politics.

Oh really? Have you read some of the political threads on metafilter? As example, the statement I pasted right above this one.

I think what you really mean is that your problem is with furthering non-conservative political agendas on MeFi.

When non-liberal agendas are being pushed on metafilter, then we can have a problem with it. We can't have a problem with something that doesn't exist.

Which makes your premise moot.
posted by justgary at 3:04 AM on May 10, 2005

Well, I don't know if anyone else has ever made this point, but I think it's worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with Metafilter having a largely liberal user base. It has the users it has, and there's nothing anyone can really do about that. If the community as a whole is more tolerant of the left-siders, it's not a problem with liberals, but with people in general. If LittleGreenFootballs were a bastion of reasonable discourse despite being partisan, maybe you could make the case that conservatives aren't as biased. But, LGF is nothing of the kind.

Now, the idea that highly editorialized partisan posts need trimming, as I conceded to devildanced, is a good one. But that's not a problem with liberal posts, but editorial posts.

When non-liberal agendas are being pushed on metafilter, then we can have a problem with it. We can't have a problem with something that doesn't exist.


That's an awfully revisionist view of MetaFilter history.

Here you go. And those are just the ones that immediately popped into my head when I read your comment. There aren't a lot of you, and you don't post as often as the liberals, but you're here and no one's censoring you. If you want, though, here's a cross you can hang yourself on if you're really determined to adopt this martyr pose.

†
posted by shmegegge at 5:10 AM on May 10, 2005

Another callout that accomplished squat.
posted by mischief at 5:30 AM on May 10, 2005

What scarabic said. A terrible, terrible post, and it's very telling that the poster is so smug about it. But there are two kinds of ideologues in this world: those who keep some perspective and realize there are other values besides their ideology, and... the rest. I love Alexander Cockburn's writing, but I have little respect for him because he thinks anything is justified in promoting his views (many of which I agree with). He tells with pride the story of his father (also a left-wing journalist) writing a false story about an offensive in the Spanish Civil War in order to help the Republican government. (Um, for you kiddies, the Republicans were the anti-fascists in that war. The MeFi Cabal would have supported them.) To my mind, you shouldn't be a journalist if you care more about your politics than about the truth. And I have little respect for anyone who's willing and eager to piss on MeFi to benefit their favorite cause.
posted by languagehat at 6:08 AM on May 10, 2005

"in that war" is genius
posted by matteo at 6:31 AM on May 10, 2005

And I have little respect for anyone who's willing and eager to piss on MeFi to benefit their favorite cause.

But it's all about winning, languagehat! Don't you understand? Principles aren't worth anything if having them means you lose!

Decorum rhymes with santorum! Therefore it must be bad!

My opinion: left-leaning folks without scruples and who insist on a sky-is-falling framing for every issue are the reason the Republicans are in control.
posted by rocketman at 6:41 AM on May 10, 2005

What.
The.
Fuck.
Everyone?
posted by dg at 6:43 AM on May 10, 2005

Metafilter: I know the link itself sucks.
posted by mediareport at 7:03 AM on May 10, 2005

vaginal cream may be harmful for face.

THIS GUY ACTUALLY FUCKED A HORSE.

And here's where we find the hidden thread within the thread. The "vaginal cream" is Premarin, Pregnant Mares' Urine, so the woman is essentially putting horse piss on her face. She would probably be better off getting together with that farm-raised republican and finding a horse that was into golden showers. Boom! Everybody's happy.

And to anyone who would say I'm lowering the level of discourse on this thread, I can only say: Impossible.
posted by soyjoy at 7:24 AM on May 10, 2005

The rule "don't editorialize in your FPPs" is hardly a new rule.

It's hardly a new rule because it's not a rule at all. At best, it's a consensus opinion, which indeed is relatively new. (See May 2002 archives for numerous examples of editorializing.) Where the line is drawn is still pretty much undefined however.

So, yeah, I thought twice about the mule-fucker. To be honest, the chance to put "this mule, it vibrates" in the title is what clinched it for me. But, really, I was careful to call Horsley "interesting" which is the nicest thing I could say about him ("Right-wing hypocrite," I think, is pretty much a statement of fact), so I understand the need to be gentle in our care and feeding of the front-page.

I agree with loquacious, however, that this journalistic creed for objectivity in posts is pretty disingenous. Personally I'd call it annoying. Many of jenleigh's posts are in this vein of advocating a clear political -- or in her case bloodwhoring -- position while trying to come off as a gentle presentation of facts. Every time I read one of those threads I feel icky like I've just let the used car salesman talk me into a blowjob in the back seat of a '78 Dodge Dart.

Just registering my opinion that one or two a day is probably acceptable

But I've never felt a callout of jenleigh is in order because I have some weird hangup about car salesmen. So what I'm curious about, thedevildancedlightly, is what you hoped to accomplish by this thread. If one or two of such posts are acceptable but three or four is wildly partisan schreeching, how are we supposed to coordinate who gets to post what "PartisanFilter" today? And does the left have to share our quota with the right? Perhaps you'd like to be gatekeeper?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:36 AM on May 10, 2005

Apologies to loquacious' grandchildren (and him, if I overdid it) but I just can't equivocate over the issue of whether it's cool to post rabid political action alerts to the front page. Imagine this practice in the hands of 5,000 newbs.

The post still stands, the precedent is set.
posted by scarabic at 8:19 AM on May 10, 2005

It's just sad that out of the four called out posts, none are actually partisan in any meaningful manner. #1 is a bad post for other reasons layed out by scarabic, but there is no party line being pushed. But, as expected, people used this non-opportunity to cry about Mefi's left bias (see justgary's post). So that's what this post is really about: a cheap trick to dismiss a wide swath of political opinions by stamping them with an empty label. Perhaps I'm misreading devil's intent, but probably not. In the future, for all you who want to cry 'PoliticsFilter' try focusing on a single post and why it's bad instead of trying to get in a few shots against that infamous nightmare monster, Mefi's "left-leaning bias."
posted by nixerman at 8:29 AM on May 10, 2005

thanx If I Had An Anus...just found the tom waites post of jenleigh and they're still wurkin'. And thx jenleigh :- )
posted by peacay at 9:01 AM on May 10, 2005

i'm with nixerman.

and this: Amberglow is as over the top nutso as any conservative fringe member we have at metafilter. He is 111 in a mirror. He's just a better fit here.
is just hysterical. I'm so touched by your insults, justgary--really--
It's very 111 of you (and PP too). Are you my mirror image, or just over the top nutso also?

The day you guys call out a jenleigh post is the day you objectively are worried about PartisanFilter.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 AM on May 10, 2005

Imagine this practice in the hands of 5,000 newbs.

No imagination required.
posted by timeistight at 9:17 AM on May 10, 2005

The day you guys call out a jenleigh post is the day you objectively are worried about PartisanFilter.

Equating jenleigh's posts to mule fucking then, are you?
posted by Cyrano at 9:38 AM on May 10, 2005

nope--equating them to what's called partisanfilter by some around here.
posted by amberglow at 9:46 AM on May 10, 2005

Do they have mules in Crawford?
posted by bardic at 9:57 AM on May 10, 2005

Hi.


I've rec'd plenty of flack in a short period of time over the posts I've chosen to make, and I'm not so naive to wonder why. But I don't think any of the FPPs have been shrill or obnoxious or particularly editorialized when compared to so many others, and I certainly don't think they've encouraged an echo-chamber climate. I've tried to post about matters which aren't being discussed at MeFi, whether or not I agree with them.

I cannot say the same about many other political posts posted here daily.

Love or hate what I post, I'm trying to hold the FPP-presentation itself to a certain standard of civility so the discussion is not derailed by it—yet it's often derailed anyway.
posted by jenleigh at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2005

I should add: I do regret not providing better sources in some cases, or phrasing things clumsily, but blame that mostly on time constraints and being swamped at my job. I should learn to compose more posts from home.
posted by jenleigh at 10:03 AM on May 10, 2005

Many of jenleigh's posts are in this vein of advocating a clear political -- or in her case bloodwhoring ....

This is the whole problem in a nutshell.

Though I doubt I would agree with jenleigh on the color of the sky (her blue would be my azure... nuance, and all) her posts are well formed, coherent and generally provide facts to support her points. The 'bloodwhoring' thing is exactly what people are complaining about when they talk about the level of discourse on MeFi.

Myself, I'll trade you nineteen Steve@Linwood's or ninety-seven PP's for a single jenleigh.
posted by cedar at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2005

Eh. I'd rather have 20 jenleigh posts than one dios post. Not everyone I disagree with is equal.
(And while I tend to find Amberglow sanctimonious and obnoxious in comments, the FPPs are much better than, say PPs).
And justgary, perhaps since it's been three years since you posted anything to the front page, you've forgotten what makes something good...
posted by klangklangston at 10:30 AM on May 10, 2005

I agree that jenleigh is an asset to MeFi. The word "bloodwhoring" was over the top. My point was that I personally feel transparency is of utmost importance, and to deride posts for for being partisan is misguided. In the process of making it, I stepped all over some of the other 13 values and I apologize for that.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:58 AM on May 10, 2005

This is my next FPP, but it seemed appropriate given the trajectory of this thread, so I'll include it here first:

The New York Times admits bias.

Despite denying the allegation for years, in an internal investigation, the New York Times admits that it is biased and intolerant. Investigation panel suggests that there should be a more concerted effort to respect the large number of people with different values.

Wouldn't it be great if Metafilter could do the same?
posted by dios at 11:02 AM on May 10, 2005

Equating jenleigh's posts to mule fucking

only if the mule is a Muslim
;)
posted by matteo at 11:13 AM on May 10, 2005

oh, and by the way, I agree that jenleigh is an asset to this community.
posted by matteo at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2005

Who here rejects the notion that MetaFilter's userbase (and thus it's content) tilts to the left? It's the intolerance thing about which you righties are way off base. Do you honestly believe your values are not tolerated here? They will be challenged, gruffly at times, but they will not be unfairly moderated....unlike any right-leaning MeFi-like place you can name.

And how would posting that Times link be quantitatively different than the mule-fucker link anyway?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:19 AM on May 10, 2005

I should add: I do regret not providing better sources in some cases, or phrasing things clumsily, but blame that mostly on time constraints and being swamped at my job....

What, no Afghan Police Academy II, then ?
posted by y2karl at 11:25 AM on May 10, 2005

And how would posting that Times link be quantitatively different than the mule-fucker link anyway?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:19 AM PST on May 10

I'm not going to even waste my time speaking with you if you are going to be that willfully disingenuous. Feel free to do the same to me.
posted by dios at 11:30 AM on May 10, 2005

What, no Afghan Police Academy II, then ?

Sorry?
posted by jenleigh at 11:31 AM on May 10, 2005

I'm cutting of my own hand now.
posted by Mid at 11:33 AM on May 10, 2005

off
posted by Mid at 11:33 AM on May 10, 2005

Muslims do that to thieves, you know
posted by matteo at 11:36 AM on May 10, 2005

The 'bloodwhoring' thing is exactly what people are complaining about when they talk about the level of discourse on MeFi.

Exactly. And jenleigh has been admirably civil despite all provocation. I'm glad so many people are willing to defend her despite her un-MeFi stances. Maybe there's hope for this place after all.

Sorry?

I didn't get that either.
posted by languagehat at 11:38 AM on May 10, 2005

Wouldn't it be great if Metafilter could do the same?

Case in point of the single oft-most repeated strawman that invites and deserves derision, if there was ever one.

GodDios, you're under the deluded impression you're somehow being oppressed when someone points out the cracks in your ideology.

Let's be clear: No one is deleting or modifying your posts for being right of center. Everything you write is your responsibility and yours alone. Don't blame others for your inability to put together a coherent argument.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:11 PM on May 10, 2005

*derides dios and his strawman*
posted by matteo at 12:18 PM on May 10, 2005

oh, and by the way, I agree that jenleigh is an asset to this community.

...says the 'tolerant' fellow who has baited & ridiculed jenleigh since Day One.

and, btw, jenleigh, thanks for alerting us of what's going on in LGF and InstaPundit, since you've lifted this fine fpp from their quality pages -- waiting eagerly for you to whine about somebody here linking to Kos. I mean, that'd be partisan. heh.

I'm cool with the fact that jenleigh likes to shit on Islam -- G-d knows if around we all have our favorite targets to defecate on. what's much, much lamer is her insistence that no, she doesn't despise Islam -- I mean, most of us are at least sincere in defining our point of views. bah.

anyway, good luck to you and ParisParamus in converting to Christianity (or, say, Judaism) those 1.3 billion savages you keep posting, and trolling, about

f she admitted her bias against the turbanheaded hordes who mistreat women and worship the wrong God, like poor pitiful KabulParamus does, she would get a little more respect from those who disagree wirth her.

but please, go on attacking Islam (a religion I am not sure you have properly studied and researched, and an area of the world I am not sure you have visited since you keep painting them with a very wide, uninformed brush) and feel good about yourself pretending to mask your anti-muslim bias with concern about women.

Vidal's unsavory, shrill opinions don't exactly get as much publicity as the (obviously unshrill amd well-documented) opinions of intellectual giants (and best-selling authors) like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. hence I guess you're safe from Vidal's nefarious influence. to pretend otherwise would make you... a drama queen perhaps?

this Totten guy is a shill for a Republican AstroTurfing operation. even worse, he has an alarming fetish -- that I suspect you share, jen -- for old drunken Orwell-wannabes with no one left to talk to except star-struck warbloggers.

Your revisionist 'inclusive' pose regarding jenleigh's contributions to MeFi is a steaming pile of hypocrisy. In order to not sound like a total douchebag, suddenly she's 'an asset to the community'? You could care less about a diversity of opinions around here. You want self-congratulation, and a platform that will let you spout overgeneralized bullshit with impunity.
posted by dhoyt at 12:33 PM on May 10, 2005

This is like West Side Story with nerds...
posted by bardic at 12:44 PM on May 10, 2005

Is now a bad time to bring up the fact that matteo and dios are actually the same person?
posted by casu marzu at 12:45 PM on May 10, 2005

Hi James!
posted by dhoyt at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2005

By-and-large directed to Nixerman.

I've been away for 12 hours and look where the thread goes. Anyway, the fact that MeFi leans left is fine. It's fantastic and entirely besides the point. If people start posting LGF Action Alerts then you'll find me here complaining about them. The fact that I personally didn't call out jenleigh's prior posts just means that I either wasn't on MeTa in time or didn't read MeFi that day, or just didn't see that post.

As a result of MeFi's left-leaning tendencies there are more left-leaning posts to bitch about. It's just the nature of having more liberal members that there will be more posts that lean left than right. But that doens't mean that the callout has anything to do with the politics. Again, next time somebody posts an LGF action alert I'll be right here with you on MeTa calling that out. Or if somebody posts "Here's another whiny-ass bleeding heart Democrat doing something stupid" since that's a horrible frame for a debate. We just don't get a lot of those types of posts around here.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:24 PM on May 10, 2005

We just don't get a lot of those types of posts around here.

Here's an good opportunity to back that statement up.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2005

Here's an good opportunity to back that statement up.

Wow, seems like a shitty post, but I got to it 12 hours late and the derail inside the thread makes calling it out to MeTa pretty worthless. I'm not convinced that PETA is a right/left issue since I know plenty of hardcore lefties who think PETA is whack. I think PETA represents themselves and not many other people.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:50 PM on May 10, 2005

Metafilter: In hindsight I should have posted this under a different account.
[source]
posted by Termite at 1:52 PM on May 10, 2005

Muslims don't like dogs, schyler, they consider them unclean animals -- jenleigh will point that out in a future post, I guess
;)

And so on.


Fucking idiot.
posted by dhoyt at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2005

To the tune of Rawhide:

Grinding, grinding, grinding,
keep them axes grinding,
grinding grinding, grinding,
DHOYT!
posted by y2karl at 2:03 PM on May 10, 2005

Muslims don't like dogs, schyler, they consider them unclean animals

W00t! That's more dog stew left over for me, then!
posted by casu marzu at 2:09 PM on May 10, 2005

This thread sucks. Also, Dios is an ass.
posted by delmoi at 2:16 PM on May 10, 2005

Termite, don't be a sniveling weasel. Wrong species.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2005

What, no Afghan Police Academy II, then ?

You and matteo are going to need new wardrobes what with all the pants-soiling jenleigh causes you both. Uppity women sure are trouble.


Grinding, grinding, grinding,
keep them axes grinding,
grinding grinding, grinding,
DHOYT!


Certainly no axes of your own being ground here. What's it like to be fifty-five going on fifteen?
posted by dhoyt at 2:19 PM on May 10, 2005

Okay, maybe time to close this thread down... cleanup, aisle 97!
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:20 PM on May 10, 2005

Termite, don't be a sniveling weasel. Wrong species.
posted by AlexReynolds

Don't worry about it. I just thought this would make a good tagline.
posted by Termite at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2005

Wouldn't it be great if Metafilter could do the same?

oh, all right! here goes: whole lotta lefties up in this.

you: one, the anti-american left: zero!
posted by mcsweetie at 3:09 PM on May 10, 2005

Does something have to be capital-R "Republican" or capital-D "Democrat" in order to be considered partisan? I'd characterize any heavy political editorializing as such. Maybe I'm mis-using the word. But in that case, it's not as much partisanship that's the problem.
posted by scarabic at 3:22 PM on May 10, 2005

Just for the record, MeFi doesn't have a liberal/left bias at all. Nor are most politics threads empty shouting of party talking points. For the most part, people making political arguments on MeFi manage to put together coherent, well-reasoned arguments. You might say right wing viewpoints are under represented here, but this is a far cry from MeFi being a part of the well-oiled Democratic machine nor are most of these posts, and many others, just preaching to the choir. People lament that MeFi is bad for discussing politics but this is just not true. Most political FPPs are good-faith attempts to engender open discussion. (There's definitely the occasional stinker but it's far more rare than others suggest.) That's the litmus test in this case: all of these posts, except the first, are honest attempts to start an open discussion. So the use of the word 'partisan' in this callout is just wrong.

As for trolls like dios, they are only after one thing--shutting up opposing viewpoints--and invoking the spectre of bias is their latest, favorite tool-du-jour. Unable to respond to reasoned debate, they want to undermine the credibility of their opponent by suggesting he's a shill. It's a cowardly and dishonest move but not unexpected.

And leave jenleigh alone. Her FPP history is pretty much flawless.
posted by nixerman at 3:58 PM on May 10, 2005

Nor are most politics threads empty shouting of party talking points

Fully agreed. Recently there have been a lot of very well put-together threads.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:01 PM on May 10, 2005

Fucking idiot.
posted by dhoyt at 1:57 PM PST on May 10 [!]

Uppity women sure are trouble.

what, I'm not "greasy Eurotrash" today like you said that other time?
hmm, I'm disappointed.
you know dhoyt, your crush on me and karl is almost flattering -- I can send naked pictures of me and karl that you can hang over your bunk, dhoyt.

as I said, jenleigh (even if I'll never agree with her "Islam suxx" crusade) is clearly an asset to this community. unlike you.

you can now resume your tantrum.
posted by matteo at 4:07 PM on May 10, 2005

Just for the record, MeFi doesn't have a liberal/left bias at all. Nor are most politics threads empty shouting of party talking points.
Just missing common sense. Actually, you can learn a lot by the posters in these “place your party affiliation here” threads. As the large contributors in them will point out the bs or wrongs. Not an always, yet I will say for me there is an appreciation for them since they open a wider view. Especially looking at the Party’s supporters showing the Party’s downsides.

Since we are talking about political parties, why is it no one says they f-ed an elephant but a Republican will say he f-ed a donkey?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:52 PM on May 10, 2005

In order to not sound like a total douchebag,

like you do, you mean?

see dhoyt, I can imagine your pain since I decided to completely ignore you (yeah, precisely after your "Italians mistreat women" racist tantrum). then, to still be able to attack me in your usual cowardly fashion, you decided to appoint yourself as jen's defense attorney -- when in fact she is capable to defend herself much better than you'll ever be able to. and defend her positions she does, here on MeFi and by e-mail.
I disagree with her, forcefully, and that's cool. she is also free to disagree with me as forcefully, even more.
unlike you, she is civil in her dissent. and a grownup. and she never makes up wild, outlandish claims against her opponents like you do (I mean, karl's a woman-hater now, too? wtf? aren't you ashamed dhoyt? still beating your wife?)

the only way you can still stalk me around this place and satisfy your strange hate against me (hate I wear as a badge of honor, by the way) is acting like somebody else's thuggish bodyguard. feel free to.
posted by matteo at 4:56 PM on May 10, 2005

even if I'll never agree with her "Islam suxx" crusade

Let's be adult here, matteo.

What I post is no more of an "Islam suxx" crusade than is what amberglow posts a "Republicans/Christians/Gay Marriage Laws suck" crusade, or is what skallas posts a "Christianity suxx" crusade, or is what acrobat posts a "Bush suxx" crusade, or is what y2karl posts a "US Military suxx" crusade, or is what troutfishing posts a "US Voting Policy suxx" crusade. I can't help but notice you are nowhere to be found when those users might otherwise be called out for their biases, hobbyhorses, axe-grinding, or whatever you wish to call it.

We've been over this again and again and you cannot seem to be civil or decent when you and I disagree. I've tried emailing you to avoid these pissing matches, and you don't respond. I've tried explaining that I, like everyone else here, have interests and biases and concerns that emerge in what I choose to post, and that they're not always going to be popular. You respond with sarcasm & insults.

I'm glad you think some of us who are more conservative than you are "assets" to the community. It's confusing why you treat your "assets" like something you scraped off the bottom of your shoe.

Karl & matteo: I've copped to being unfair & contentious when I first joined the site. Neither of you ever seem to relent with the insults & sarcasm, and have copped to nothing. And for reasons I'll never understand, you get a free pass from so many here (minus dhoyt, it would seem). If you're so confident in your opinions, why do you stoop to insults & sarcasm the moment they are challenged?
posted by jenleigh at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2005

jenleigh, matteo, dhoyt, y2karl: let's all link arms and sing "Why Can't We Be Freinds".

Failing that, we can all crack a beer and sing "Yakety Yak."
posted by jonmc at 5:01 PM on May 10, 2005

I swear, it's like devildanced and I never even posted that whole series of comments about the nature of this argument.

Has no one noticed that it's been made perfectly clear that devildanced was commenting on the excessive editorializing (which he originally saw as PARTISAN editorializing, but still editorializing) and not on the fact that they're liberal?

Also, to anyone who thinks he should have called out the Peta thread, do it yourself. He can't post for another week.

And lastly, to all the republicans/conservatives: Metafilter is liberal and we argue, but you still have as much of a voice here as anyone else. It's not liberal here by design, but by demographic. Get over it. No one's going to affect a massive shift in userbase with whiny martyr complexes, and if someone miraculously did it's not like mathowie or jessamyn would put a stop to it.
posted by shmegegge at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2005

jenleigh: not to nit-pick, but matteo and y2karl in particular get heat from everybody. They're both Johnny Human Torch screaming Flame On! every time they post.

It's just that in political threads things fracture along party lines, often enough. Check other threads, especially MeTa, and you'll find a whole week straight of y2karl gangbangs and EtherealBligh-matteo shit-fests and all kinds of nonsense.
posted by shmegegge at 5:07 PM on May 10, 2005

jenleigh: my advice to you is to just stick round and wear them down with relentless charm. It worked for me.
posted by jonmc at 5:08 PM on May 10, 2005

"'Italians mistreat women' racist tantrum"

Italians are a race? Oh, hell, nothing's a fucking "race" so why am I quibbling?

Yet, well, it's worth noting that the reason that "racism" is an accusation is because polite people claim to believe that ascribing such character traits to a "race" is invalid and thus necessarily bigoted. In contrast, the idea of "ethnicity", which the use of "Italian" surely includes, involves the idea of cultural characteristics which very easily might include misogyny. The ancient Greeks were misogynist. Is that a "racist" assertion? Finally, it's amusing to note that the assertion "Italians mistreat women" must be true...unless all Italians are far better behaved than all other human beings. Possible, but unlikely.

Anyway, this thread is a very good example of why so many people think so many mefites are fuckwits. Scarabic and languagehat are very nearly lone voices in the wilderness.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2005

Check other threads, especially MeTa, and you'll find a whole week straight of y2karl gangbangs and EtherealBligh-matteo shit-fests

Wow, I wonder what the premium subscribers get! Maybe some hot quonsar-on-fish action?
posted by casu marzu at 5:25 PM on May 10, 2005

Here's a revelation for your ass, folks: nobody, and no subgroup or demographic has a monopoly on the truth. And that holds true here on mefi as well. Just about every prolific, opinionated poster has posting some remarkably insightful and truthful stuff, and they've also posted stuff that could charitably be called fulla shit. Myself included.

If you read with that assumption in the back of your mind, you'll find a lot less bile rising in your throat. Beer helps too.
posted by jonmc at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2005

y2karl posts a "US Military suxx"

no, they're more "torture suxx", "torture as official US policy suxx", "fake, politicized intelligence leading to war suxx" -- it's telling you don't see the difference. does karl hate America, then? let us not kid ourselves. being against torture is not exactly bias. well, it wasn't until 9-11 at least. it used to be decency, not bias.

anyway jen, you haven't been here long enough to realize that I seldom agree with many of the users that I find interesting -- clavdivs, Faze, foldy. thomcatspike, whom I have had the honor to meet in person and I am proud to consider a friend is definitely more to the right than I am. and so forth.

also, jen, the fact that you think that karl and I are somehow immune to criticism around here -- you're either kidding or you don't read the site much. as shmegegge points out, we take a lot of verbal beatings, karl and I, especially karl. again I suggest you try to grow a marginally thicker Internet skin, it helps around here if you have forceful political opinions.

anyway jen, I call things as I see them. and I'll disagree with you again, often probably.
but be sure that unlike your thuggish self-appointed bodyguard (he defends you just to take a few cheap potshots at me, trust me on that) I'll never call you "a fucking idiot" or a "douchebag" like he does with his perceived enemies. and I'll never stoop so low as to use or imply ethnic slurs against you -- that's dhoyt, the cheap ways of a very cheap man.

you find my dissent vitriolic? say it. you already do that, thank goodness. flag my comments (I never flag your stuff, by the way). we're all guests here, after all. growing a thicker skin would help, though.

but you're a clearly smart person who brings ideas to the site, that's why I consider you an asset. if you agreed with me I'd probably find that boring. and as you can see, I essentially never post about Iraq or about electoral US politics on the front page -- I have so many things I find more interesting.


and jon, stay away from the beer.

____

on preview, almost falling asleep in the middle of EB's first paragraph:

jon, let's have a beer
posted by matteo at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2005

EB: I'm not sure, because I never read the thread the comment originated in, but I'm fairly positive that the "Italians mistreat women" comment wasn't as innocently said as you're implying. Unfortunately context is everything, but I can't imagine a context where one innocently says "Italians mistreat their women" without meaning it to say "Italians routinely and habitually mistreat their women because that's how italians are." I suspect that you're being willfully ignorant of the possiblity (probability?) of dhoyt badmouthing italians with inaccurate and offensive stereotypes because of your feelings about matteo. I sincerely doubt that he meant the comment to mean that, like everyone, some italians mistreat their women because all types of people do so.
posted by shmegegge at 5:41 PM on May 10, 2005

*passes matteo PBR from tonight's 12-pack*

matteo, as long as we're giving advice here...

A lot of the time you're on target with what you're saying, but you have a tendency to seize on people who disagree with you strongly (dhoyt, EB, asparagirl, and now jenleigh..all of whom are fundamentally decent people, IMHO), and relentlessly badger and pick on them. It's a weird kind of cruel streak.I doubt you intend it that way, but that's how it comes out. It's important to remember that while some of the issues we argue about here are life-and-death, our arguments here aren't.

I'm in no position to preach, I realize that I have voluminous faults as a MeFite and as human being like anyone else, but (if I may toot my own horn) several people who've previously considered me evil incarnate have become congenial co-posters. I must be doing something right.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on May 10, 2005

again I suggest you try to grow a marginally thicker Internet skin, it helps around here if you have forceful political opinions.

When someone insults you, and you call them on it repeatedly, and their response is: "Don't be so sensitive!", it really really strikes one as cruel & self-absorbed. I'm not asking you to agree with me politically. I'm asking you why you go for the cheapshots, insults & sarcasm when you could be providing links & information. I've been lurking here for years and never once have I seen you apologize, for anything, to anyone.

I ask again: why? Why do you never admit that this is off-putting? Why do you wait til users like dhoyt flip their lid and then feign innocence? It consistently ruin chances of a civil conversation around here, and reminds me of gradeschool kids knocking each other in the mud to be popular. You're already popular around here, so the need to be so condescending is a mystery. I know you do it, you know you do it--

Why? is all I'm asking.


you have a tendency to seize on people who disagree with you strongly (dhoyt, EB, asparagirl, and now jenleigh..all of whom are fundamentally decent people, IMHO), and relentlessly badger and pick on them. It's a weird kind of cruel streak.I doubt you intend it that way, but that's how it comes out.

I agree with you jon, up until the part where you "doubt he intends it that way".
posted by jenleigh at 5:58 PM on May 10, 2005

It's that appealing to people's better nature's thing, jen. I gotta practice what I preach.
posted by jonmc at 6:01 PM on May 10, 2005

I must be doing something right.

it must be the beer that makes you think so, jon.
;)

point taken, but keep in mind that one of the problems of Internet communication is the tone -- you cannot exactly convey that in writing (especially when writing in a foreign language you don't master particularly well). and I can't possibly put smiley faces after 75% of my harsher comments, that'd look dumb.

the lines between irony (however harsh) and sarcasm and insult and hateful speech are of course always there, but it's all probably more blurred in writing, and in another language. I certainly have HUGE problems with a lot of people's political opinions here -- as they're free to do with mine -- but with the exception of dhoyt (and for the reasons I already mentioned, the always perceptive shmegegge again has a point) I seriously appreciate the input of all the people you mentioned, jon.

it's the 111s and paleocons and others like them that I have a problem with. you may think I pick on people -- I simply engage them, however harshly. I'm not throwing "fuck you" tantrums around.

it's also funny that you mention Asparagirl: G-d knows I find most of her positions on the Middle East truly appalling, but she is clearly a very smart person who cares (and a lover and a scholar of that sublime American art that never ceases to enchant me, the musical). and I quite often read her own blog -- I disagree with it, of course, forcefully, but I appreciate her work. again, if you think I pick on people too much, you may very well be right -- we all have different standards of how much rhetorical force is acceptable in a political discussion, after all, and I admit I have a different threshold there from many other users. but if you think I do it out of a mean streak, you're wrong. thankfully, that'd never give me any pleasure, frankly.

______

on preview:

Why do you never admit that this is off-putting?

because you never asked. here: I admit it's off-putting.
cool?
I don't hang around here to make friends or penpals, jen. I do it because:

1- I can practice a language I never had the chance to learn well (unlucky you, if my English were better I'd hang around here much less. you're free to send coupons for Berlitz classes)

2- there's people who put good links in this site, and I read interesting stuff, and sometimes I learn a few things.


when you could be providing links & information.

you don't really read me much, do you? not a problem, better for you not to. but don't claim you read me if it's not true. I've been flamed for more than four years, but "you provide no links & info" is a funny argument, and quite a new one.


I've been lurking here for years

and you still have the chutzpah to say that karl and I never get attacked? come on...


Why do you wait til users like dhoyt flip

ah, blame the victim. jeez. talk about never admitting you're wrong, right?
posted by matteo at 6:10 PM on May 10, 2005

-- but with the exception of dhoyt (and for the reasons I already mentioned, the always perceptive shmegegge again has a point) I seriously appreciate the input of all the people you mentioned, jon....but if you think I do it out of a mean streak, you're wrong. thankfully, that'd never give me any pleasure, frankly.

You say that, and I believe you, but that dosen't come across to them. Something to think about. And name calling (remember "likudgirl," and "kkkrlsson?") isn't exactly the best way of showing respect and appreciation. I'm not saying that the aforementioned users don't have their own posting problems that they have to deal with, I'm just sayin'.
posted by jonmc at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2005

come on, "Likudgirl" is harmless. the Likud is a political party, jon. would you think GOPgirl is offensive, too? she's often cheerleading for a party, as I have told her many times. Likudgirl is harmless. GazaParamus is harmless, too.

juvenile? yes. but we're supposed to have a sense of humor around here. I accuse myself of North Korean sympathies all the time, after all, and I'm not exactly that communistic in reality (a bit less).

krlssson's case is different -- since he's prone to visualize violent fantasies of dismemberment that have myself as lead actor, and he's not kidding when he does that, I admit I am a little biased against the man.

pssssst jenleigh... krrrlson never said he was sorry! bad bad bad!
*wink*
posted by matteo at 6:25 PM on May 10, 2005

come on, "Likudgirl" is harmless

you'd think it is, but did you ever consider that saying stuff like that might be why people lose their temper with you?

This is not meant as an attack, paesan, just constructive criticism. And jenleigh, whatever you might think ofher opinions, is remarkably articulate and civil and deserves to be treated in kind.

So, from one northern Italian to another: I've taken my share of criticism here and tried to adjust my style somewhat. Nobody's asking you to stop being you, merely to take others into account. This is not an argument you have to win with me, just something I figured you should hear.
posted by jonmc at 6:33 PM on May 10, 2005

we're all guests here, after all. growing a thicker skin would help, though.


ROFLM Fuckin' AO

You have howled and cried and stamped your feet ever since the infamous-only-to-you "Eurotrash" comment, and now you're telling someone else to get a thicker skin? Total. Douchebag. Look in the mirror.

Since you keep mentioning how English is not your primary language, let me define unctuous for you as it is commonly used in the vernacular: smarmy, smug, insincere. You are so self-absorbed, as jenleigh pointed out, that you think it's an Italian "racist" slur like greaseball. How persecuted you are.

And perhaps you're deliberately misremembering, but "Eurotrash" was in mimicking response to dash_slot's "kicks back with popcorn, laughs at dozy Yanks" comment. Funny how he knew I was jiving, and chose to ignore it. For you to convert that into "H@te CrimE!!" puts you on par with with the preening antagonist from The Thread Which Will Not Be Mentioned. Hint: it involves drama queens.

but if you think I do it out of a mean streak, you're wrong. thankfully, that'd never give me any pleasure, frankly.

You're not fooling anyone, you unctuous douche.
posted by dhoyt at 6:44 PM on May 10, 2005

you'd think it is, but did you ever consider that saying stuff like that might be why people lose their temper with you?

so, next time you start one of your (admittedly charming) punk rocker skits, if I call you "RamoneBoy" you're somehow authorized to kick my ass? it's weird.
LikudGirl/GOPGirl/etc is simply not offensive, jon.

This is not meant as an attack

I don't take it as one, not yours at least.
but Northerners don't call each other paesan, it's a Southern thing. we won't give you that EU passport you have a right to, if you make mistakes like that.

________

oh, dhoyt. let's reread that nice comment of yours:

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.

be proud, dhoyt.
you even baited a female user whom I have met in real life to come out and defend me from your vile attack.
you don't know anything about me. your "visits" to Italy apparently allow you to spew ignorant, offensive stereotypes about an entire nation whose language you obviously don't speak and whose history you obviously don't know.


You're not fooling anyone, you unctuous douche

do you really think I care about your slurs? of a nobody on the Internet I'll fortunately never meet? you're (ignorant) pixels on a screen, don't flatter yourself.
posted by matteo at 6:57 PM on May 10, 2005

oh, jenleigh: be proud of your defender.
posted by matteo at 6:59 PM on May 10, 2005

dhoyt: just to spread the advice around evenly here, you may want to let go of some old grudges, it just makes things personal when they don't have to be.

but Northerners don't call each other paesan, it's a Southern thing.

Once you emigrate, it's an Italian-American thing. I've had Sicilian-Americans refer to me as "paisan" once they find out my moms from the old country, even though nonna regularly curses Garibaldi's name. But, when I go to Vermont for their 60th anniversary later this month, after some grappa, it's all good.
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on May 10, 2005

so, next time you start one of your (admittedly charming) punk rocker skits, if I call you "RamoneBoy" you're somehow authorized to kick my ass? it's weird.
LikudGirl/GOPGirl/etc is simply not offensive, jon.

not offensive, exactly, but it is oversimplifying, and it smacks of grade-school playground taunting a little too much for my taste.

And if you still see me as "RamoneBoy," you obviously missed the thread where I tore someone a new asshole for being too doctrinaire about being "punk."
posted by jonmc at 7:12 PM on May 10, 2005

matteo: I think an important thing to take away from what jonmc's saying is that it's not always up to you to decide whether what you've said is offensive. A person can't really be wrong for feeling offended. Yes, it might be in their best interest to grow a thicker skin in certain instances (I'm not commenting on jenleigh. I'm speaking purely in hypotheticals, here.) and remaining sensitive might cause others to avoid them, and such. However, if they're offended then the person who offended either tries to acknowledge what they did and adjust their behavior out of respect for the other person's feelings, or they just don't give a shit. What often bothers people is that making comments like that consistently despite repeated reactions against it, and never acknowledging that it's valid to be offended by it... well, it seems like you don't give a shit what anyone around here feels. And that dones't just offend the person you're talking to. That offends the community. So, if you don't care enough to check your behavior on occasion and be more civil to people who might be more sensitive, then don't be surprised when people get pissed off at you and are sick of your comments.

If you DO care, then jonmc's advice is excellent and well worth considering before posting further.

jonmc: you know, I was convinced this whole time that you were 100% irish. in fact, when you said you were italian, I said "he's bullshitting. look at his handle!" Then I remembered that my handle is yiddish and I'm half Italian. PAESAN!!!
posted by shmegegge at 7:26 PM on May 10, 2005

Would you consider "fascist vermin" offensive?
posted by Krrrlson at 7:30 PM on May 10, 2005

che se dice, bubeleh. If me and pips ever spawn, the babymc's will be Irish-Italian-FrenchCanadian-LithuanianJewish. My sister recently had a baby with her Lebanese husband. That kid's gonna be great at blowing things up.

schmegegge's on the right track here, matteo, it wouldn't bother people so much if you were just going after over-the-top posters like Paris. But dhoyt, jenleigh, and asparagirl are articulate and civil (in dhoyt's case until you push him too far), so it's far less warranted.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 PM on May 10, 2005

Would you consider "fascist vermin" offensive?

no, it's a factual statement when it comes from people's opinions. I'm not making up wild slanderous shit about people's private lives or ignorant fantasies re national customs. it's a political comment and therefore valid.
what about wishing in graphic terms for other people's deaths, krrlson? is that offensive?

and anyway I hope your dog is better.
posted by matteo at 7:35 PM on May 10, 2005

dhoyt's case until you push him too far

yeah, it's clearly my fault. I liked his classy informed comments about me abusing women in real life like Italians do, by the way. he's such a gentleman.
still beating your girlfriend, jon?
posted by matteo at 7:38 PM on May 10, 2005

only on alternate days, and she gets to beat me the other days.

to just about everyone else on this site, dhoyt's been a civil even congenial mefite. Now, I'm not saying that makes him blameless for the conflict between you two, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you to examine your part in it.
posted by jonmc at 7:42 PM on May 10, 2005

Best fight in weeks. Keep it up, guys.

But, seriously, I agree with jonmc, and I don't even know y'all's post histories that well. Saying something that you know will pick a fight may not be morally "wrong", but it's stupid. Calling a big drunk cowboy "hey, hick redneck sisterfucker!" doesn't make it right for him to punch you, but it does make you an idiot for saying it knowing that it's going to get you punched.
posted by Bugbread at 7:43 PM on May 10, 2005

yes it does, but what if you're much bigger than the cowboy?
posted by matteo at 7:47 PM on May 10, 2005

no, it's a factual statement when it comes from people's opinions.

Especially the "vermin" part, right?

what about wishing in graphic terms for other people's deaths, krrlson? is that offensive?

Since we've been over this multiple times, and only for the record: saying "only your own death from a suicide bomb could convince you" does not amount to wishing for someone's death, graphic terms or not.

My dog is indeed better, thanks.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:15 PM on May 10, 2005

All of you are driving me to drink. I hope you are satisfied.
posted by jonmc at 8:29 PM on May 10, 2005

Just don't try to drive back yourself.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:34 PM on May 10, 2005

For you to convert that into "H@te CrimE!!" puts you on par with with the preening antagonist from The Thread Which Will Not Be Mentioned. Hint: it involves drama queens.

I was perfectly civil in my "burning man" thread. Many agreed with my position. The person who posted the image recanted. I did not participate in Witty's pathetic attempt at a witchhunt, although I could have.

The only reason it turned into a trainwreck was because of people just like you, dhoyt, who felt like dragging it out for two subsequent threads just for the sheer fun of it.

Some advice: Whatever coin you were given for trashing me in the drama queen thread has long been spent. So every time you bring up that thread, just keep in mind you are a major part of the problem.

Consider this an in-thread call-out and take it under advisement. I'm not going to validate your trolling any longer, other than to quote your continued prodding as examples of such.

SeizeTheDay, if you want an answer why my username continues to cause so much "trouble", you'll find a lot of it has to do with the sad, pathetic soul quoted above.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:53 PM on May 10, 2005

must credit quonsar
posted by Krrrlson at 8:56 PM on May 10, 2005

yes it does, but what if you're much bigger than the cowboy?

Then you're simply a bully.
posted by beth at 9:09 PM on May 10, 2005

I am pretty sure that this is The Thread Which Will Not Be Mentioned.
posted by LarryC at 9:20 PM on May 10, 2005

I was perfectly civil in my "burning man" thread. Many agreed with my position.

Which doesn't make it right. And that wasn't The Thread in Question.

Some advice: Whatever coin you were given for trashing me in the drama queen thread has long been spent.

I never trashed you, dingus. You trashed yourself by being so comically stubborn.

The only reason it turned into a trainwreck was because of people just like you, dhoyt, who felt like dragging it out for two subsequent threads just for the sheer fun of it.

I didn't contribute to that thread. But coming from someone who converted an apology into to an 800-comment embarassment, that's pretty rich.

SeizeTheDay, if you want an answer why my username continues to cause so much "trouble", you'll find a lot of it has to do with the sad, pathetic soul quoted above.

No, it's because your preening comments assure us, daily, what a self-absorbed clown you are. Stop blaming everyone else for your reputation.
posted by dhoyt at 9:28 PM on May 10, 2005

But you and others like you keep mentioning it.

So don't be all surprised and stuff when people get all hot and bothered when I call out really stupid behavior, like posting a picture of a dying, bleeding man on fire in an unrelated thread.

Keep trolling, LarryC, it makes you look like a champ, really.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:28 PM on May 10, 2005

yes it does, but what if you're much bigger than the cowboy?
Then you better hope you can run faster than him.
posted by dg at 9:31 PM on May 10, 2005

I think everyone can agree that we're all a bunch of fuckin' wankers. So, for tonight, slowly and gently fuck the fuck off.

Then tomorrow continue as usual.
posted by graventy at 9:48 PM on May 10, 2005

Which doesn't make it right. And that wasn't The Thread in Question.

So if a number of people agree with me, including the offending poster, it makes me wrong. Sounds like the kind of conclusion you'd come to, dhoyt. Yep, that's about right.

And, yes, that thread is the very reason why you're trolling now. Stop being shamelessly dishonest.

I never trashed you, dingus. You trashed yourself by being so comically stubborn.

Yet you keep bringing it up. Who's being stubborn again? Just admit you're trolling or move on.

I didn't contribute to that thread. But coming from someone who converted an apology into to an 800-comment embarassment, that's pretty rich.

Well, your apology was half-hearted at best. You've more or less admitted so in subsequent posts. Again you're being dishonest, as much as when you claimed you never knew digaman before the drama queen thread started.

Stop blaming everyone else for your reputation.

How about you stop being so fucking arrogant by dropping your habit of speaking for everyone else?

I'm not blaming everyone else. I apologized to everyone for asking you to air your apology. I am blaming you and people like you, and rightly so, for dragging out the pile-on time and again when you happen not to like something I post.

I'm not going anywhere, kiddo. So just pat yourself on the back and move on.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:55 PM on May 10, 2005

/Gets popcorn, pulls up a chair to watch the fireworks.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:13 AM on May 11, 2005

you know, it all reads a whole lot more civil if you change the font size to 10. sort of like a whispered argument.
posted by dhruva at 1:30 AM on May 11, 2005

/Gets anti-depressants, slumps into chair and starts sobbing uncontrollably
posted by dodgygeezer at 1:47 AM on May 11, 2005

Cool, another AlexReynolds thread!!
posted by Bugbread at 3:28 AM on May 11, 2005

aren't all threads eventually about AlexReynolds? It's like a Godwin corollary: the longer a thread goes on the probability they will become about AlexReynolds reaches 1.
posted by Dagobert at 4:55 AM on May 11, 2005

So, AlexReynolds is the new Miguel?
posted by yhbc at 5:54 AM on May 11, 2005

For the love of God, let it die.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 AM on May 11, 2005

Keep trolling, LarryC, it makes you look like a champ, really.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:28 PM PST on May 10

Huh? Larry provided a link to a referenced thread. How is that trolling?

I guess in your world, it is broken down into simple blocks: "agrees with me" or "troll."
posted by dios at 7:41 AM on May 11, 2005

it's a political comment and therefore valid.
posted by matteo at 7:35 PM PST on May 10

What a neat little system you have structured for yourself. Posit that everything that is political is valid, then be a redundant asshole but excuse it because its political. Interesting theory. I should tell teh NeoCons about it at our next meeting. I'm sure it can be used effectively in world conquest.
posted by dios at 7:46 AM on May 11, 2005

By the way, matteoBot, does your "everything political is valid" theory mean that ABU GHRAIB, a.k.a. the most evilest and importantest thing evar, is valid? After all, Ms. Lyndie could argue that it was political! And according to matteoBot, everything that is political is valid.

Someone should notify the Lyndie defense team!
posted by dios at 8:00 AM on May 11, 2005

Dios, wtf are you smoking this morning? Political comments are not the same thing as torture.
posted by beth at 8:03 AM on May 11, 2005

Sorry jonmc. You tried.
posted by Cyrano at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2005

Thai sticks.
posted by dios at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2005

Dios, you continually, regularly express a pattern of unprovoked, smug condescension towards the rest of the participants of this site. You've shown that you have little to add to this discussion.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:07 AM on May 11, 2005

He's just a chain-yanker.
posted by beth at 8:16 AM on May 11, 2005

Alex,
The link for "express" is completely substantive and added to the discussion.
The link for "towards" is a comment that people don't like Negroponte because he is black.
How in bumfuck did you get that those two comments were "smug condescensions"? I guess you trying to add more in for.... dramatic.... effect.

As for the rest, I stand by my comments. What? Am I not allowed to disagree with your comments? By disagreeing it makes me condescending?

And "unprovoked?" Who are you to say what is provoked or not. I think everyone of my comments is valid.

For what its worth: I will admit to a degree of condescension to some of the posters here including you because I think you are pathetically petty and partisan---you go to stupid lengths to try to score cheap political points.
posted by dios at 8:31 AM on May 11, 2005

because I think you are pathetically petty and partisan---you go to stupid lengths to try to score cheap political points.

Pot, meet kettle. Have a ball.
posted by jonmc at 8:32 AM on May 11, 2005

This was supposed to be added on:

.... But I really like and am entertained by 99% of the posters here. I wouldn't presume to be condescending to them. Just the partisan jokes. Like you.
posted by dios at 8:33 AM on May 11, 2005

(And I asked myself, what oh what could make this thread even shittier? Why, dios of course.)
posted by bardic at 9:04 AM on May 11, 2005

[T]his thread is a very good example of why so many people think so many mefites are fuckwits. Scarabic and languagehat are very nearly lone voices in the wilderness. - Ethereal Bligh

Yes. But I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of users that have elected to stay out of the ridiculous infighting entirely. By not wasting energy on this, many people are demonstrating their non-fuckwit status.
posted by raedyn at 9:51 AM on May 11, 2005

The link for "towards" is a comment that people don't like Negroponte because he is black.

Par for the dios course.
posted by y2karl at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2005

y2karl beat me to it.
posted by terrapin at 10:01 AM on May 11, 2005

The link for "express" is completely substantive and added to the discussion.

So said dios: "My guess is that very few doctors refuse treatment. Unless you believe that all doctors are closet racists and homophobes who are just itching at the chance to hate on those people."

All I'll say is that you should give some thought to apologizing and fixing your attitude problem, because after I did it, I found this site was much more fun.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:02 AM on May 11, 2005

Suprise, y2karl doesn't get a joke! I guess when you spend every waking moment obsessing over (to the point of seemingly yearning for) the possibility for military mistakes and failure, then your sense of humor wouldn't register a "joke" like saying that Negroponte is black.

jonmc, touche. I'm may not be too different (and I don't really pretend to be), but there is a slight difference as to emphasis. I'm more reactionary against a partisan position (the disgustingly melodramatic must-make-everything-look-bad/evil leftism of this site) then am I an advocate of a partisan position. I think you see the shrill absurdity of much of the partisanship on this website, but you are a better person than I in that you try to stay above it. I just attack it with its own medicine.

fixing your attitude problem, because after I did it
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:02 AM PST on May 11

Haha. Thanks. I needed a laugh. When did you "fix" your attitude and behavior? Like one minute before that comment? Such a drama queen.
posted by dios at 11:25 AM on May 11, 2005

Wow, an entire conversation between AlexReynolds and his puppet account dios.
posted by casu marzu at 11:29 AM on May 11, 2005

Why are you alls pussyfooting around? I want to see blood on the floor
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on May 11, 2005

jonmc, touche....

Well, I've cut you more slack than most (since I like having conservatives around, for variety, if nothing else) and you're starting to get on my nerves, even.


but you are a better person than I in that you try to stay above it

since when? I dive in to the fray as much as anyone and so should you, just don't be unneccesarily obnoxious and combative if you can help it.
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2005

...then your sense of humor wouldn't register a "joke" like saying that Negroponte is black.

Online, sometime's it's hard to tell between a joke, a "joke", a lame "joke" and just plain lame.
posted by y2karl at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2005

Speaking of jokes, karl, no one seems to know what this means:

What, no Afghan Police Academy II, then ?
posted by y2karl at 11:25 AM PST on May 10 [!]

I asked twice about it, as did languagehat. No response.

Try again--what is the "joke"?
posted by jenleigh at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2005

Actually, jenleigh, I gotta think that falls under the category lame "joke".
posted by graventy at 12:11 PM on May 11, 2005

jenleigh--when you get real shit thrown at you, what will you do? I made a mild joke at your expense regarding your rah rah post about the Afghan Military Academy. Compared to what has been said about people directly--in this thread alone--a mild tweak about a cheerleading post with the first link being a U.S. Army press release is microscopically small potatoes. You have no problem with dios sliming people herein or elsewhere but the mildest sarcasm has you squalling with indignation. Grow some skin. If something that mild sets you off, you are truly a Joan Q. Sensitive. It wasn't worth mentioning it in the first place, emailing me about it or bringing it up again. In my opinion.
posted by y2karl at 12:26 PM on May 11, 2005

I never said I was offended karl. I can't be offended by something I don't totally understand. How does "Afghan Police Academy II" even qualify as a joke or tweak, mild or otherwise? It's a contextual thing. I never said it was a dig, I asked what the "joke" was supposed to have been. And it still makes no sense. Nor does "rah rah" post. Posting about something one finds positive is "cheerleading"? Don't be so cynical.

You have no problem with dios sliming people herein or elsewhere

Strawman.

Dios hasn't spoken a word to me, and if he's "sliming" people around here, they should respond accordingly. You are who addressed me, thus I emailed you to find out what your comment meant. If you'd emailed back, there'd be no need to discuss it here.

"Afghan Police Academy II"?
posted by jenleigh at 12:36 PM on May 11, 2005

To clarify--you had just written a comment allowing as to how some of your links have not been the best--an assessment with which I agree in general and wholeheartedly in regards to that post in particular.
posted by y2karl at 12:41 PM on May 11, 2005

As long as we're all using this thread to get things off our chests and settle old matters, I'd just like to say: I want my rubber suit back. You know who you are.
posted by yhbc at 12:47 PM on May 11, 2005

I want my hand back.
posted by Mid at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2005

Give me a couple days, commish. It takes time to steam clean the salami scent away.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2005

*spits out popcorn*

Hey, how old is this popcorn? Gross.

*makes new bowl of popcorn*
posted by schyler523 at 1:09 PM on May 11, 2005

To clarify--you had just written a comment allowing as to how some of your links have not been the best--an assessment with which I agree in general and wholeheartedly in regards to that post in particular.

Well thanks for sharing your critiques, karl. But generally when someone is acknowledging their own faults, it's not helpful to swoop in just to cryptically register your "wholehearted agreement" via a joke unless there is some kind of vendetta behind it. You've campaigned against the "cheapshots" of so many other users over the years—I'm surprised you'd still feel the need to make others look silly by making yourself look "funny".
posted by jenleigh at 1:10 PM on May 11, 2005

I did not negatively describe your person in any way or attribute any base motive to you--those are the sort of cheapshots I have railed against in the past. I tweaked you about what I saw as a cheerleading post. Mild snark does not equal character assassination. Upon the mildest of comments, jenleigh--the mildest of comments--you spend this much time waxing indignant.
posted by y2karl at 1:38 PM on May 11, 2005

jenleigh, it is pretty ridiculous. The post is an senseless, slight dig that nobody would've even acknowledged if you hadn't harped on here.

Let. It. Go.
posted by nixerman at 2:01 PM on May 11, 2005

See, there was this movie called Police Academy and then (later, I reckon), there was this movie called Police Academy 2, and maybe it wasn't the funniest joke in the world, but I think most of us got it, except that you didn't get it because you wanted to insist on being insulted, so you asked, repeatedly, for an explanation that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, and then you acted all snippy about the (unnecessary) explanation when you finally got it. So, you took a molehill and made a mountain and in the process you created great offense where y2k was just quipping.

AKA what nixerman said.
posted by anapestic at 2:20 PM on May 11, 2005

Just for reference, I didn't get it. Now I do.

But there's got to be better drama to be had than arguing about Police Academy jokes. Y'all are going to lose your audience at this rate. C'mon, get angry, the butter is almost ready for my popcorn.
posted by Bugbread at 2:32 PM on May 11, 2005

I think most of us got it, except that you didn't get it because you wanted to insist on being insulted, so you asked, repeatedly, for an explanation that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place

Jesus, you people. Save your "most of us" unless Matt makes us all take a lie-detector test about it and publishes the results. I didn't get it, and I think I'm reasonably intelligent. Furthermore, I defy you to show where she acted "insulted" or, in y2karl's equally ridiculous words, "waxing indignant." She asked to have the remark explained; I seconded the question. Now that it's explained, it seems pretty pointless, but rather than just admit that, people pile on jenleigh even though she's done nothing but ask for information. You people. Jesus.
posted by languagehat at 2:32 PM on May 11, 2005

See, there was this movie called Police Academy and then (later, I reckon), there was this movie called Police Academy 2,

Okay. Thank you, that is the information I was looking for. Sorry I'm not familiar with that movie—or most movies to be honest—but I guess it makes karl's comment clearer. Since I haven't seen the picture, and thus was confused about the context, I can't say where karl's comment falls in the spectrum of joke-"joke"-a lame "joke"-and just plain lame.

Karl and I—I had thought—cleared up our disagreements via email long ago, which is why the comment seemed to come even moreso out of the clear blue sky. If he had something critical to say about the "cheerleading" links I post, I'd have preferred he just come out and said it.

And thanks to LH for summing up the rest of it.
posted by jenleigh at 2:42 PM on May 11, 2005

Save your "most of us" unless Matt makes us all take a lie-detector test about it and publishes the results. I didn't get it, and I think I'm reasonably intelligent.

Save your indignation. The fact that a few people didn't get it doesn't mean that most people didn't. You and jenleigh (and bugbread, even) hardly make up a majority. And if she wasn't insulted, then why didn't she just let it go?

Nobody's insulting your intelligence, but I still believe that a majority of users have at least a passing acquaintance with the Steve Guttenberg oeuvre.
posted by anapestic at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2005

And if she wasn't insulted, then why didn't she just let it go?

Not to speak for her, but I presume for the same reason I seconded her question: curiosity. Don't you have any? And my "indignation" wasn't about people getting or not getting the lame joke, it was about the fact that people are so willing to pile on someone as pleasant as jenleigh, simply because her politics differ from theirs. I could give a rat's ass about the Steve Guttenberg oeuvre.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on May 11, 2005

posted by quonsar at 2:53 PM on May 11, 2005

You'll have to forgive anapestic. His arrogant, cynical, fact-of-the-matter attitude has been quite consistent here in MeTa for the past few months, which I find a bit surprising. You have a low user number and lots of experience here, anapestic, we get it. But try not to generalize "the rest of us" without being able to back up the statement with more than your hot air.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:54 PM on May 11, 2005

I am aware of the Police Academy movies, but I didn't get y2karl's orginal comment either, because I wasn't aware of jenleigh's posts that he was alluding to.

I don't think anyone can safely speak for 'most' MeFites, though I regularly see people claiming to, most often in big pile up ridiculous threads where most MeFites don't bother/studiously avoid positing an opinion at all.
posted by raedyn at 3:05 PM on May 11, 2005

I can't believe that after 200 comments, no one has flamed out in this thread in a flurry of histrionics, crying, false identities, requests for cash, or egregious abuse of the img tag.

Come on people! Get to it!
posted by casu marzu at 3:07 PM on May 11, 2005

Speaking of pile-ons, I hear John Bolton is into that sort of thing. ;)
posted by schyler523 at 3:08 PM on May 11, 2005

Nobody's insulting your intelligence, but I still believe that a majority of users have at least a passing acquaintance with the Steve Guttenberg oeuvre.

I don't go to movies and I don't have a TV. I know about the whole Steve Guttenbirg ouevre as I do about Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt's marital troubles: by osmosis. Over the years I see a couple of Letterman shows and from that I make a joke more people got than not. Jeez, Louise--and I thought I led a cloistered life....
posted by y2karl at 3:08 PM on May 11, 2005

I could give a rat's ass about the Steve Guttenberg oeuvre

The Stonecutters are going to very disappointed.
posted by jonmc at 3:10 PM on May 11, 2005

I knew the Police Academy movies, but I didn't put the two together. And I'm glad jenleigh asked, because I was curious as well.

Besides, as long as we're being all foundationless: The fact that a few people got it doesn't mean that most people did.
posted by Bugbread at 3:15 PM on May 11, 2005

Metafilter: The fact that a few people got it doesn't mean that most people did.
posted by schyler523 at 3:18 PM on May 11, 2005

at least its not michael bolton.
posted by y2karl at 3:27 PM on May 11, 2005

What, is it already freshly man-buttered popcorn and gimpsuit time again?

Just a sec, I need fresh dwarves. And chickens. No, I have too many pants-fish - please take some. Your rubber pants aren't nearly tight enough. No spanking until later, damnit. And stop grabbing me there, I'm already chafing.

Is Jonmc properly liquored up yet? Oh? He never dried up? Excellent. OIL THE DWARVES!

MetaFilter: Like West Side Story with Nerds.
posted by loquacious at 4:07 PM on May 11, 2005

Just for casu marzu:



*steals schyler523's popcorn*
posted by deborah at 4:20 PM on May 11, 2005

again, loquacious? The bite marks on my butt havent healed from last time, and I'm all out of corncobs.
posted by jonmc at 4:25 PM on May 11, 2005

*steals schyler523's popcorn*

I don't want to tell you where that "butter" came from.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:29 PM on May 11, 2005

What part of "man-buttered popcorn" isn't explicit nor descriptive enough?

*hands jonmc a pair of chainmail underoos and a bushel of fresh ears of corn*
posted by loquacious at 4:34 PM on May 11, 2005

There's no context for it, that's the problem.

no context
posted by Bugbread at 4:36 PM on May 11, 2005

oooh. Look everybody, I'm a viking!
posted by jonmc at 4:36 PM on May 11, 2005

*steals schyler523's popcorn*

I don't want to tell you where that "butter" came from.

I guess i shouldn't tell you about the nutritional yeast then.
posted by schyler523 at 4:44 PM on May 11, 2005

Popcorn makes me fart
posted by adamvasco at 4:48 PM on May 11, 2005

I like the guy who makes funny noises with his mouth.
posted by Snyder at 5:50 PM on May 11, 2005

I don't want my rubber suit back any more. You all can keep it.
posted by yhbc at 6:00 PM on May 11, 2005

You sure, man? We could just hose it out. Or we could return it filled with popcorn. Or dwarves. Or mix it up. Your choice.
posted by loquacious at 6:30 PM on May 11, 2005

Now that we've had the comedic interlude, it's time to return to the hysterics and accusations.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:49 PM on May 11, 2005

Sez You!

*sprays EB with seltzer, then pelts him with cream pie*
posted by jonmc at 7:03 PM on May 11, 2005

at least its not michael bolton.

what the fuck is that supposed to mean??

better?
posted by mr.marx at 7:03 PM on May 11, 2005

To sum up:

jenleigh: I regret some of my links weren't better.
karl: (veiled insult)
jenleigh: I don't know what that means.
karl: Grow a thicker skin, war-cheerleader!
jenleigh: I just didn't whether or not to be offended because I didn't understand the context.
karl: Geez, you're sheltered!


Nice work.
posted by dhoyt at 7:04 PM on May 11, 2005

and that recap was necessary why, dhoyt?
posted by amberglow at 7:23 PM on May 11, 2005

The protein is good for you. Right?


Right?!
posted by deborah at 7:53 PM on May 11, 2005

Not if it leads to a protein spill :)
posted by dhruva at 8:11 PM on May 11, 2005

This is a fuckin radge thread by the way ah'm tryin tae git ma heid roond it but ah'm still fuckin scoobied likes , ah think thit that reynolds gadge likes cunts tae gie um it tight likes ken whit ah mean ? Like yin ay they sado masochist cunts likes , Ah cannae git the picture ay um postin wi nipple clamps oan oot ma heid.
The rest ay thum ur just maddoes likes.
Stoap choryin ma jokes karl ya radge.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:49 AM on May 12, 2005

Who let Irvine Welsh in the room?
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:10 AM on May 12, 2005

Irvine Welsh? I thought it was Groundskeeper Willie.
posted by jonmc at 6:33 AM on May 12, 2005

Stoap choryin ma jokes karl ya radge.

But it's the universal solvent of non sequiturs!

To sum up:

jenleigh: I regret some of my links weren't better.
karl: extremely obscure mild quip in agreement...

*blah, blah, woof, woof* back and forth

dunctuousdouchebagfuckingidiothoyt: "H@te CrimE!!"
posted by y2karl at 6:35 AM on May 12, 2005

Next time, I call dibs on the woof, woof part.
posted by Mid at 6:52 AM on May 12, 2005

Who let Irvine Welsh in the room?

Hee hee. This thread hasn't got much of a pulse left now. Only you can save it, Alex. You have a gift for this sort of thing. Breathe some life into it before the feeding tube gets pulled out.
posted by Termite at 7:39 AM on May 12, 2005

Uh oh, a feeding tube reference. Careful, dios might accuse us all of singing and dancing when this thread finally dies.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:45 AM on May 12, 2005

Well, it's way past prayin' for this thread.
posted by Termite at 7:46 AM on May 12, 2005

Soon it will finally (mercifully!) scroll off the front page and hopefully then it will be ignored. That the best we can hope for this thread now.
posted by raedyn at 8:35 AM on May 12, 2005

We'll always have Ah cannae git the picture ay um postin wi nipple clamps oan oot ma heid.

That's two keepers in two days from sgt. serenity. Now there's a member who's an asset to this place.
posted by y2karl at 8:54 AM on May 12, 2005

Metafilter: This is a fuckin radge thread by the way ah'm tryin tae git ma heid roond it but ah'm still fuckin scoobied likes ...
posted by amberglow at 9:03 AM on May 12, 2005

Wow, now that that's all settled... We won't see any more of these, right?
posted by klangklangston at 9:18 AM on May 12, 2005

Only you can save it, Alex.
posted by Termite at 7:39 AM PST on May 12

He can't do that. He is too busy making an embarrassment of the front page.
posted by dios at 10:12 AM on May 12, 2005

Well, this one is off the front MeTa page now, how much longer can it hold out? We're at 241 comments...
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:17 AM on May 12, 2005

Seems to be dead.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:58 PM on May 12, 2005

Clearly we aren't going to make any records here.
posted by raedyn at 3:07 PM on May 12, 2005

We'll never get to 250...
posted by languagehat at 5:14 PM on May 12, 2005

This was the best thread ever. I mean, with matteo and jonmc coming in, (AFTER devildanced and I had our frothing pit fight, of course) the party started coalescing. Once AR came in, there was that moment at the party where the dude who always winds up with a lampshade on his head went for his first drink of the night, and everyone kind of held their breath. But then DIOS came in, and everyone was like "Someone get the mashed potatoes, 'cause it's gonna be that kind of party." Jenleigh and y2karl looked, at first, like they might be the cops showing up to bust things up, BUT THEN NO!!! THEY BROUGHT TWISTER! Oh man, I'm gonna remember this night forever once I stop being so hungover.
posted by shmegegge at 5:27 PM on May 12, 2005

Just doing my part to keep the dream alive.

Oh, and get this! I'm wearing... pants made entirely of fish. Living fish.
posted by loquacious at 7:55 PM on May 12, 2005

247!
posted by shmegegge at 10:51 PM on May 12, 2005

"Oh, and get this! I'm wearing... pants made entirely of fish. Living fish."

Groovy, man.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:53 AM on May 13, 2005

Come on, somebody. It can be anything. A tagline. A period. A gratuitous swipe at shmegegge. Whatever it is, it'll get us to 250 and we can all go home.
posted by soyjoy at 8:03 AM on May 13, 2005

Soyjoy, this whole comments-for-the-sake-of-increasing-the-comment-count is just plain stupid and juvenile and I refuse to condone or support it in any way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:20 AM on May 13, 2005

For soyjoy:



1)
MetaFilter: A Passing Acquaintance with the Steve Guttenberg Oeuvre is a Litmus Test for Intelligence

2)
.

3)
My gynecologist was kind enough to prescribe antibiotics to stop the discharge of shmegegge from my anapestic.
posted by jenleigh at 8:27 AM on May 13, 2005

Well, thank God for that. I'm pretty sure that shmegegge and I haven't even been properly introduced.
posted by anapestic at 9:29 AM on May 13, 2005

We'll never make it to 300.
posted by soyjoy at 10:31 AM on May 13, 2005

No? Not even if I take off my pants?

Hey! Where are you going?
posted by loquacious at 10:44 AM on May 13, 2005

If you're taking off your pants, I'm staying to see where this goes...
posted by raedyn at 11:31 AM on May 13, 2005

We'll never make it to 300.

Stop being dr*matic.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:17 PM on May 13, 2005

Stop being dr*matic.

Some things never change.

And, yes, I'm trying for the last comment. So eat me! Is anybody still paying attention?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:12 PM on May 15, 2005

No one's paid attention for years.
posted by anapestic at 12:19 PM on May 16, 2005

apparently, it was going nowhere.
*hangs head, shuffles off to sulk in the corner*
posted by raedyn at 2:17 PM on May 16, 2005

260
posted by shmegegge at 9:24 PM on May 16, 2005

261
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:43 PM on May 18, 2005

CCLXII
posted by anapestic at 11:06 AM on May 19, 2005