Join 3,415 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Crosses the line
May 13, 2005 11:51 AM   Subscribe

"And that clot is blocking your wife's cervix."

First, bait emotionally susceptible people with some easy trollery. Second, after you've drawn out some victims, call them "shallow hags" and tell them to "take [their] self-absorbed neuroses to an appropriate forum." Third, deliver the knockout blow: attack them with their own medical conditions!

All in a day's work for Mayor Curley: defeating infertile, shallow internet hags everywhere.
posted by Mid to Etiquette/Policy at 11:51 AM (149 comments total)

You know, for the most part I agree with a lot of what Mayor Curley was saying.

But, I still think that comment was way, way, way over the line.
posted by Kellydamnit at 11:54 AM on May 13, 2005


I agree that MC was boorish, but I fear that no good can come from calling him out on it. He's unlikely to change, and the resulting discussion is likely to be unpleasant.
posted by anapestic at 11:56 AM on May 13, 2005


I've never done an individual callout before, but this really bothers me. I think a fair reading of the thread is that Curley jumped in with some trolling, drew a predictable reaction, and then slammed other posters with rhetoric and personal jibes that were completely over the top compared with the rest of the conversation.

I know others have had problems with MC before, but I have not. I'm making this post as a run-of-the-mill user with no grudges or personal vendettas.

On preview: the point isn't whether you agree with what he is saying. There is a valid viewpoint that holds that reproduction is "selfish." Fine. Curley is way past simply making that point. Instead, he's baiting and attacking people.
posted by Mid at 11:56 AM on May 13, 2005


Let's not forget Mayor's insane ranting about the Afghan war in this now memory holed thread where he accues Pat Tillman of being a racist simply because he joined the army after 9/11.
posted by delmoi at 11:57 AM on May 13, 2005


Another gem:

"Most join [the military] because they are amoral"

Having had my nearly-retired father get shipped to Iraq for 8 months last year (as a doctor), and a handful of high school friends who are truly excellent people (all in informatics/technical capacity) be called to war—not one of whom actually supported the war, fwiw—I really resent hearing statements about their "morality" from someone without a clue about them or why they enlisted. I didn't bother venting in that particular thread because I was worried how vitriolic it would've come out. I like MC's comments a lot of the time, but he seems to have experiencing some bad juju in his personal life this month.
posted by dhoyt at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2005


I was incensed that whatsisface compared an inabilty to conceive to having cancer. Which starts at my second comment.

Mid your accusation of trolling for my first comment is what 75% of trolling accusations amount to here "s/he is trolling because I disagree!" I meant that sincerely, and if I had the option of switching to a health plan that wouldn't cover any in vitro attempts I would.

And I apologize for nothing. You're not guaranteed the right to have children in any sense and you can certainly live a meaningful life without them. There are some things in life that I want that I will never get; that doesn't give me the right to overreact when someone mentions them or, worse yet, claim that I am entitled to them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:35 PM on May 13, 2005


Yeah, Curley's been on a run lately. A run of being a real prick. But what are you gonna do? Sometimes in life you have to deal with unpleasant people. Try to ignore him, maybe he'll get over it.
posted by jonson at 12:35 PM on May 13, 2005


How is the first comment you linked to a troll? On a message board about IVF I might agree with you, but not here.

Some of Mayor Curleys subsequent comments could be described as "wicked over-dramatic". Heh.
posted by dodgygeezer at 12:38 PM on May 13, 2005


And I'm not going to apologize for my comments about people in the military, either. If you sign up for the US military, you are agreeing to do whatever is asked of you, including killing people to make money for US corporations and any number of awful things I can list that good people do not do.

And whether or not they had this in mind when they enlisted, those people are the killer tendrils of the greedy coporations that own the government and are therefore revolting.

And I refuse to shut up because I am unpopular. Those are my views, and I have as much right to express them as anyone else.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:40 PM on May 13, 2005


I'm in the fight there and I took a nice knock, but I went in swinging and I don't mind the knock.* He was actively a prick to others in that thread, he got venom everywhere, far out of proportion to the provocation.

Thick skin and giving as good as you get have to count around here, but I won't tell others when it's their time to take offense.

For all that, I can say with some certainty that we aren't going to get anything good out of this. (On preview: See ^) If you go in that horny to yell and insult then you're gonna get what you want no matter what. I suggest those offended go with the old put him on ignore technique, I'm going to try to sit on my hands for the rest of this thread. That MP3 blogs thread is great.


*In other words, I threw an insult directed at a side of the argument, not an individual, I can live with the result.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:42 PM on May 13, 2005


Say what you want, he's one recalcitrant character and he doesn't run away when called out. I never saw the comment comparing infertility to cancer, but had I lost someone to that type of disease I'm not sure the servers could handle the storm of biliary expletives I would unleash.
posted by docpops at 12:45 PM on May 13, 2005


As a rhetorician, Curley is top-notch. I say keep it up, you vicious SOB.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:46 PM on May 13, 2005


Look, the point isn't the merits of the underlying argument. I agree that someone should be allowed to express an unpopular view. I'm willing to let MC's first comment slide.

The point is that MC then commenced attacking people with venom and hatred entirely out of proportion to anything sent his way. All of this "unpopular views" stuff is a smokescreen. There is nothing about MC's view that required the bile MC spilled.

And the "cancer" comment that supposedly justified MC's cervix-based attack was merely someone saying: "what are you going to do next, attack cancer victims?" Nobody was saying that infertility and cancer are the same. Even if the "cancer" comment was dumb, it was not an attack on some personal characteristic of MC and was nowhere near the level of unhinged anger that MC dished out.
posted by Mid at 2:17 PM on May 13, 2005


You're not guaranteed the right to have children in any sense

Bull-Fucking-Shit. You're allowed to try, or you're allowed to adopt (for the most part). Curley, you're just being an asshole. As Mid as claimed/asked ... Why?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:56 PM on May 13, 2005


First I get dragged into meta, then rushmc, now MC mayor curley. I blame the anti-MC bias, dammit.
posted by jonmc at 6:00 PM on May 13, 2005


I think the bigger problem is this: if MC's posts had just been flagged, and deleted, than he would have come in here and posted "Why?". Is there any way to avoid pointless MeTa discussions about these comments?

MC went to far, but I agree with him. Just fuckin' adopt.
posted by graventy at 6:02 PM on May 13, 2005


I don't agree with MC's opinion but I don't have any problem with how he expressed it.
posted by mischief at 6:05 PM on May 13, 2005


What happened when he got to far??
posted by adamvasco at 6:09 PM on May 13, 2005


I can see why you would be upset at these comments. He's being a prick. dunno why he's as upset by that thread as he is, but he's definitely out of hand. But what I find weird about this is that Mefi works like this, often enough:

1. someone posts thread about... anything.
2. someone posts an opinion.
3. someone attacks that opinion.
4. opinion holder screams "Flame On!"
5. fun begins.

I mean, this isn't to say that MC is being attacked for having unpopular opinions, but rather to point out that you could have found something like this in dozens of threads that are still on the front page. In fact, when I post this comment, I'm going to go into the "world's most dangerous destinations" thread and post something inflammatory about 3rd world countries just to see who i'll get a rise out of.

Now, you're obviously free to callout who you want when you want, but this just seems to me like a regular old MeFi chicken fight over a sensitive topic. People argue, and often they just flip out when they do. Especially on the internet. I think calling him out in the thread, like you did, would have been enough. This kind of public shaming seems a little much to me, though. But hey, it's not that sensitive an issue to me. Maybe I'm wrong.
posted by shmegegge at 6:23 PM on May 13, 2005


I have very little problem with either the comments linked to, or the opinions expressed in them. Calling people 'shallow hags' is assholery, of course, but that just makes Mayor Curley look foolish, and little more.

I haven't noticed other examples of recent bad behaviour from MC that others allude to.

Boorish, as anapestic said, but at least articulate and intelligent, as Kwantsar said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 PM on May 13, 2005


"And I apologize for nothing."

Ban him. Seriously. He needs a good banning for a bit. He's self-congratulatory about his combativeness, he's absolutely sure that his personal attacks are justified in the grand scheme of things. I hate to say it (no I don't, I'm just using that expression for no particular reason), but that's the terminal stage of needs-to-be-banned illness.

I think Mid should be listened to. I am not on MC's side in the underlying issue, but I think I can be unbiased enough to detect when someone is taking far too much pleasure in being deliberately and quite personally hurtful (on a sensitive issue) to someone because "they deserve it". The comment he responded to may have been provocative (it was), but it wasn't personally hateful. There is a difference; and if there's anything certain standards of behavior should enforce, it's that that difference exists.

Let's be clear that I don't think anyone is suggesting that the real offense was merely saying that having IVF was selfish. Curley, later, said far worse that was intended to be specifically hurtful of a specific person. That's when he went way over the line. The IVF comment was quite insensitive. But we're often insensitive here. A certain amount of insensitivity, even explicit hostility, is tolerated in the context of someone believing (as Curley does) that the underlying point in contention is quite serious enough to warrant it. But Curley went beyond that. And there's a pattern here. And he's absolutely unrepentent. Bad combination.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:27 PM on May 13, 2005


Mayor Curley, have you apologised to docgonzo?
posted by jikel_morten at 6:31 PM on May 13, 2005


1) "I don't like IVF and don't think it should be covered by insurance."
2) "I will misrepresent what someone else said about cancer, insult you by incorrectly hypothesizing why you want to have children, and suggest to people that they shouldn't complain about anything unless it's guaranteed in the Constitution."
3) "Your inability to concieve is your own damn fault."

The first statement is fine. The second and third are just insults.
posted by 23skidoo at 6:39 PM on May 13, 2005


The third isn't an insult, it's a guess. One's inability to concieve may or may not be because of their actions, unless you think one's genetic makeup is their own doing. Regardless, I agree with MC that the ability to have a child is merely a right, not a guarantee. Forcing others to pay for your experiments is unfair.

As to his language, well, clearly he was pissed off, and I think it hurt his chances of getting his point across. But banning him? Come on.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:56 PM on May 13, 2005


Mayor Curley wrote " And I refuse to shut up because I am unpopular. Those are my views, and I have as much right to express them as anyone else."

I think it's hilarious when people on privately-run message boards make this argument.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:02 PM on May 13, 2005


Civil_Disobedient: 23skidoo was paraphrasing. #3 refers to the gem in the post title.

IMHO, that comment is so over the top that I don't know what to say. The "thick and self-absorbed" part was pretty strong stuff, but then he goes nuclear by personally insulting someone's wife based on their medical condition? WTF?

I guess this hits close to home, since my wife an I have been through this. I don't know if banning is in order, but he should at least apologize for being a prick.
posted by phatboy at 7:20 PM on May 13, 2005


>> Those are my views, and I have as much right to express
>> them as anyone else."
>
> I think it's hilarious when people on privately-run message
> boards make this argument.

Well, he has exactly as much right as I do, which is zero since I got my account for free. Of course my thousands of sockpuppet accounts each paid five bucks a pop and feel differently.
posted by jfuller at 7:30 PM on May 13, 2005


I usually really enjoy MC's little act. But there is no place for that comment... and his nonsensical persecution complex on display in this thread, along with his lack of capacity to grasp why it was inappropriate, don't do him any better.

Attention Mayor: The point is not that your views are unpopular. It's that you used personal outrage about extremely personal matters for the sole purpose of being a dick. Your views were already known. Stop pretending that you are taking grief for stating an unpopular opinion.

Plus, FWIW, you are deliberately misrepresenting the cancer comment that you claim, inexplicably, led to your animal rage. According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, infertility affects about 6.1 million people in the U.S., equivalent to ten percent of the reproductive age population. You've probably just insulted 10% of Americans. Mabye you'd like to insult cancer patients next.

The point was not that cancer = infertility; it was that you were mocking the same number of people who suffer from a medical condition. Not that it would have excused your behavior anyway.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:30 PM on May 13, 2005


Mayor Curly consistently impresses me with his insight. I look forward to his comments as much as I enjoy quonsar's irreverent humour or Amberglow's wisdom. I doubt anyone will ever bat .400 again, let alone 1.000, so get off his back and enjoy the view from the top of the bell.
posted by furtive at 7:33 PM on May 13, 2005


I agree that Mayor Curley's behaviour is out of line and would also like to see him apologize - not for his opinions, but for the way he insulted and misrepresented those who disagreed with him.
posted by orange swan at 7:33 PM on May 13, 2005


"he should at least apologize for being a prick"

Don't hold your breath waiting for it.
posted by mischief at 7:35 PM on May 13, 2005


You know, for the most part I agree with a lot of what Mayor Curley was saying.

But, I still think that comment was way, way, way over the line.


Nailed in one.

Except there's nothing wrong with being over the line, particularly.

Hey wait a second, what line?

THERE'S A LINE?

I'm sorry, but going "over the line" on tone isn't some kind of hangable offense around here. If anything, it simply tarnishes your reputation as a reasonable person and casts your opinions as hateful. I know this first hand.

So what is this callout about, again?
posted by scarabic at 7:40 PM on May 13, 2005


Mayor Curley is the funniest person writing here.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:44 PM on May 13, 2005


Sometimes I still laugh uncontrollable when thinking about this imagery.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:46 PM on May 13, 2005


"prevent it from practicing its raging onanism in public"

A veritable wordsmith, he is. ;-P
posted by mischief at 7:55 PM on May 13, 2005


And I refuse to shut up because I am unpopular.

You're not unpopular, so please quit looking for someone to put that third nail in. Hell, you crack me up more often than not and I'd wager I'm not alone in that.

And you're perfectly entitled to express whatever views you might have. But to act like whatever thoughts are firing off in the synapses of your brain are so sacrosanct that it justifies acting like a prick is ridiculously self-centered.
posted by Cyrano at 7:59 PM on May 13, 2005


Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

Well, of course--when on your high horse, it's a matter of principle and you know you are absolutely right and totally justified in saying whatever mean or silly thing that comes in your head. Seeing the other side, seeing one's faults or where one erred, comes, if it does at all, upon reflection, and who searches their soul when they have blood in their eyes and are under attack ? Even when it seems deserved, who wants to apologize upon another's pompous demand ? No one.
posted by y2karl at 8:05 PM on May 13, 2005


Well, certainly never you, that's for sure ;-)
posted by jonson at 8:25 PM on May 13, 2005


zing!
posted by furtive at 8:33 PM on May 13, 2005


I like pancakes.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:47 PM on May 13, 2005


Well, certainly never you, that's for sure ;-)

No, after you, Pierre...

Back in the day, I made a hot and heavy MetaTalk post about something jfuller said that rubbed me the wrong way. It's so easy to read things into what other people say and think the worst of them. I decided later on, that I made a bad call, and, in a comment in another thread, regretted ever bringing it up. And then I got a nice email from him about it. I feel bad when I think I have wronged someone. Most people do eventually, I think. But it's hard to get to that point when people are gunning for you. That's why I don't like callouts and pile ons. They bring out the worst in people. They never make things better. People change but never under demand.
posted by y2karl at 9:27 PM on May 13, 2005


No, after you, Pierre...

touche... it's nice to know that "I know you are but what am I" never goes out of style.
posted by jonson at 9:48 PM on May 13, 2005


Specifically I want to discourage people on my insurance plan.

Wait a minute, dickhead, people who are on your insurance plan are also paying premiums, just like you. Therefore they are totally entitled to a treatment that they need. Unless, as appears to be the case, that interferes with your supply of happy pills.
posted by c13 at 10:00 PM on May 13, 2005


People change but never under demand.

Well, certainly never you, that's for sure ;-)

Don't play innocent about how insurance groups work, c13. If certain people extracting huge sums for non-threatening causes everyone pays more for basic, life-sustaining health care.
posted by scarabic at 10:05 PM on May 13, 2005


I made the comment wondering if MC was going to insult cancer patients. I haven't had cancer, but I am infertile. And I have had several family members die of cancer. My train of thought...
Cancer is a disease that in many cases doesn't have a preventable cause. Genetics and luck may cause cancer. The individual with cancer drew a bad hand and may have to suffer the medical and psychological consequences.
Substitute cancer in the above paragraph with infertility and you still have an accurate situation.
To deny an infertile couple or individual the right to have children through IFV may not be any different than denying a cancer patient the best medicine available. In most cases, IVF is the best option to have a child.
I wouldn't compare infertility and cancer and wasn't trying to make the comparison in my first post. I was wondering if MC really would make an insensitive remark about cancer. I would hope not.
posted by tayknight at 10:05 PM on May 13, 2005


And I do feel that I've been trolled :) My Bad.
posted by tayknight at 10:06 PM on May 13, 2005


the right to have children

There's that phrase again.
posted by scarabic at 10:08 PM on May 13, 2005


The individual with cancer drew a bad hand and may have to suffer the medical and psychological consequences.
Substitute cancer in the above paragraph with infertility and you still have an accurate situation.


Uh, tayknight, don't know if this has dawned on you in the ensuing couple of minutes, but the big, blindingly obvious difference is that infertility is not life threatening.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:12 PM on May 13, 2005


Don't play innocent about how insurance groups work, c13.

I don't. But the fact is that medicine is not just about treating life-threatening illnesses. Some people are treated for acne, some of obeicity, some for complications due to smoking. Doing laser surgery to improve one's eyesight would probably also not fall under that category. Such things may not cost as much because the field is more advanced and such, but there are a lot more of them done than infertility treatments. Just because it may not seem important to MC, does not mean it is or should be for someone else. That, incidently, is why decisions about what constitutes a "legitimate" need are made by doctors and policymakes, not assholes like him.
posted by c13 at 10:20 PM on May 13, 2005


but the big, blindingly obvious difference is that infertility is not life threatening

Sure, I realize that. And it is a great point. But the fact that infertility is hardly ever life threatening (the hormones a woman takes may, in rare cases, be life-threatning) doesn't negate it's emotional or physical impact, especially on the woman. If the original thread had somehow been a discussion of any other disease that would not have made MC's comments any less offensive.

Having said all this, if I have offended anyone I'll be happy to talk offline so I can offer my sincere apology. My email's in my profile.
posted by tayknight at 10:23 PM on May 13, 2005


SHOCK TWIST ENDING SPOILER:




Mayor Curley is a test tube baby.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:25 PM on May 13, 2005


The whole argument is like talking about taxes. I may think that widening an interstate that goes through my city is stupid and useless, or that buliding yet another neutron source at Oak Ridge is a waste of money. But I don't get to decide what my taxes are used for. And if I go around bitching about how I'm not gonna spend my money on this or that, I'd be thought of as an idiot. MC's position is not at all different.
posted by c13 at 10:28 PM on May 13, 2005


From his comments, I discern that Mayor Curley is just bitter because his weak, malformed sperm is unsuitable for in vitro.

That's my opinion, and I stand by it! I have as much right as anyone to talk about Mayor Curley's sperm!

(Just kidding, MC - but you get the point...)
posted by taz at 10:32 PM on May 13, 2005


Metafilter: blocking your wife's cervix

I, for one, support Mayor Curley. All of us are assholes, he's just more efficient.

As for the less fertile being comparable to cancer patients, I'd liken them much more to zombies.

Instead of being cursed to eternally hunger for brains, the focus of their bloodlust is the most painfully concieved broodspawn imaginable. With as much pain as IVF involves, they've got to by crazy.

I wonder whether mothers who undergo IVF have a higher rate of post-partum depression?
posted by blasdelf at 10:57 PM on May 13, 2005


Civil_Disobedient never implied that the non-life-threatening aspect of infertility totally negated any emotional impact it might have.

The point, yet again, is that simply because something has an emotional impact, you don't equate it with cancer. And I think there is room in a discussion about health care costs for concerns about extremely expensive non-essential treatments driving up costs for everyone. Are we supposed to start paying for our neighbors Viagra, too, because they're emotionally impacted by their dick issues? Is a limpy now comparable to cancer?

I'm not offended by your opinion. I just find it shallow and thoughtless.

But I don't get to decide what my taxes are used for.


Wow. Not with that attitude you don't. But generally yes, you do have the ability to affect this by voting, writing to your overlords in the governent, etc. You have zero power over your health plan's coverage policy. Not even the power to choose a new one, if it's provided via work.
posted by scarabic at 11:01 PM on May 13, 2005


Well, you can also try to change the way the health care is financed in this country and vote and all. But you get my point, don't you.
posted by c13 at 11:08 PM on May 13, 2005


MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, but I love MayorCurley.
posted by greasy_skillet at 11:31 PM on May 13, 2005


I hate callouts because the girls all leave when the blood sports begin. And I like girls.

MC is a wonderfully cantankerous rhetoritician who makes me laugh out loud, but he was wrong here. He knows it and so does everyone else. Imagine you were at a bar and said that? Play bad but play fair MC. Leave your play buddy's wife's reproductive system out of your acid barb offerings.
posted by peacay at 11:38 PM on May 13, 2005


MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, but I love MayorCurley.
posted by greasy_skillet at 11:31 PM PST on May 13 [!]


MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, and I love MayorCurley.
posted by blasdelf at 11:39 PM on May 13, 2005


Imagine you were at a bar and said that?

Well, if I was saying it to some cantankerously pompus wanna-be breeder, I think my friends would laugh, the poor soul would fuck off, and we'd probably talk about it for years to come.

You're right - it's not nearly as fun on MeFi.
posted by scarabic at 11:46 PM on May 13, 2005


Jesus, scarabic: "...cantankerously pompus wanna-be breeder". Right there you blew a tight cluster of 9mm holes in your "mostly a nice person, tolerant of different points of view, averse to epithets, reasonable fellow" image I've long had of you. Or are you going to plead ignorance that the term "breeder"—especially framed within an insult by someone with an obvious childfree-friendly point of view—is itself an insult? To defend it by claiming that it is merely "accurate"?

Look, folks: some people hold procreation to be well-nigh sacred. Not only is this (or something like it) the majority viewpoint, it's ancient and probably inherent. So it's not nutty, just as theism isn't nutty. Other people hold procreation to be selfish and inappropriate for an overpopulated planet—enough so that its morality is essentially reversed. This is a minority viewpoint, but it's a reasoned viewpoint. It's not nutty, either. Just as atheism isn't nutty. As for human procreative or anticreative points of view, one (or both!) may be wrong. But if either side feels free to casually throw around slurs because of their moral righteousness, they oughtn't be surprised, or plead innocence, when folks that otherwise they're quite friendly with and similarly-minded suddenly start getting their feelings badly hurt and become pissed-off. Because unlike many other controversial issues, this one cuts across a great many ideological lines.

The other thread is the place to discuss the merits of one side of the argument or the other, and I'll do so there.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:50 AM on May 14, 2005


scarabic:...we'd probably talk about it for years to come.
Heh. Yeah, in the context of the protagonist's new dental work.
posted by peacay at 1:06 AM on May 14, 2005


Instead, he's baiting and attacking people.

So what's changed? Seriously, that IS mayorcurley. Talk about the south, or the war, or any random topic and he will do his best to shock.

This callout just gives him the attention he lacks in his life and craves on mefi while allowing him to play the victim ("I don't care if I'm unpopular").
posted by justgary at 1:33 AM on May 14, 2005


Does everyone hate civility so much?
Do you talk to friends, neighbors, even strangers face-to-face like this?

I'm floored.
posted by Bugbread at 2:09 AM on May 14, 2005


I do, bugbread. Last week I told my boss to fuck off because she had a problem with me rolling in at 9:30 in the morning.

I was all "Bitch, I have a right to come in when I want to, and don't you tell me otherwise. Don't be stepping on my game!"

Her response was predictable for an establishment goon. Anybody looking for a copy editor/videographer? I work for cheap, yo.
posted by rocketman at 3:08 AM on May 14, 2005


Rocketman wins.
posted by ninthart at 4:20 AM on May 14, 2005


Well, at least he has been put on a pedestal.
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:40 AM on May 14, 2005


MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, but I love MayorCurley.

MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, and I love MayorCurley.



MayorCurley is a tremendous asshole, therefore I love Mayor Curley.

no, seriously, the problem is quite simple. there are plenty of users here with a taste for the vitriolic comment who nonetheless have to take less MetaShit than the Mayor does -- I think it's because the Mayor refuses to be politely silent (as some other more diplomatic users do) on the real issues that fuck people's shit up here on MeFi -- the role of diet and one's personal choices in one's being overweight, IVF and a few others.

and by the way, what's with the "Mayor, you have to apologize" shit? God knows I read tons of offensive content here on a daily basis, if I asked people to apologize for it I'd waste even more here than I already do.


Does everyone hate civility so much?

the "why do you hate civility so much" looks like a great meme to replace "why do you hate America so much"'s dead horse
posted by matteo at 6:11 AM on May 14, 2005


"So it's not nutty, just as theism isn't nutty."

Shot yourself in the foot with that one, EB.
Are self-inflicted wounds covered by your insurance? ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:24 AM on May 14, 2005


I agree with bugbread, et al. MC's last post crossed that invisible line that I thought we held here: that vicious personal attacks without provocation aren't acceptable, and that reasonable discussion is always the goal (if not the norm). Seems to me that MC crossed that line, took a dump, and is now giving us the finger, daring us to call him on it.
posted by papercake at 6:58 AM on May 14, 2005


ethereal bligh: Look, folks: some people hold procreation to be well-nigh sacred. Not only is this (or something like it) the majority viewpoint, it's ancient and probably inherent.

You're on record as having some sort of odd reverence for spooge already, so it's only natural that you're going to get wound up about a medical procedure that involves formalized handling of it:

One of my hobby-horses is the cultural redefinition of semen from something "nasty" to something joyful...

sincere thanks to everyone who had something nice to say or just refused a pitchfork and a torch.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:15 AM on May 14, 2005


You go, Curley. Your opinions on both the idiot who was so ineffably stupid to compare infertility to cancer (Yeah? Wanna swap your wife's infertility for a big, fat, inoperable tumour then? Thought not.) AND the idiots who can't see that joining the military inevitably involves signing away a good part of your own moral volition, were bang on. And those are opinions which need to be put strongly and often, to counteract the default idiot-hand-wringing-apologetic mode which seems to be de rigeur these days; especially in regard to the paid government killers and war crime enablers... oh, I'm sorry, "armed forces".

Curley's comments were like a shot in the arm after reading too many of these endless, endless MetaTalk whines and bitches and pathetic playground call-outs. Jesus Christ on a Segway, I don't know why I do this to myself. MetaTalk is 90% whining and now I'm doing it too, goddamit. This shit is infectious.
posted by Decani at 7:24 AM on May 14, 2005


If you removed all the Mayor Curleyesque comments from MeFi it would be just plain dull. I believe some of us need to grow a thicker skin. No wait, if that happened I wouldn't have experienced the 10 minutes of top notch entertainment I just got reading thru this thread. Carry on...
posted by Carbolic at 8:07 AM on May 14, 2005


he got venom everywhere, far out of proportion to the provocation.

Bullshit. He got venom exactly proportional to the provocation, which is exactly what he expected and wanted. And bullshit to you, too, matteo: MC doesn't get this kind of MetaShit except when he deserves it, which he does a lot lately. Furthermore, you're not really defending him, you're defending your own right to be an asshole when you feel like it. The difference between you guys and others who blow up on a regular basis is that with you it's not a sudden outburst of rage based on getting up on the wrong side of the bed or whatever, it's clearly cold-blooded and deliberate. "I dislike that person's views, therefore they are not worthy of my respect, therefore I will kick them in the nuts and enjoy their pitiful laments—and I will also enjoy the predictable whining from others and possible callout in MeTa, because I know I am right!" I like both you guys most of the time, but I despise that attitude. I don't go as far as EB—I wouldn't want MC banned—but I think Matt should deliver some stern warnings of the type he used to give quonsar. (Of course, for all I know, he already has.)
posted by languagehat at 8:11 AM on May 14, 2005


I don't think being an unapologetic asshole is grounds for banning. EB's writing style often is more annoying because it takes longer to scroll past. When MC rolls up everyone that joins the military into one big target to fling feces at, it's simplistic, callous, counter-productive, and just plan wrong, but I can mercifully scroll past quickly.

I don't particularly care for such crass commentary in the middle of a conversation. In the "privacy" on one's blog it's fitting, but here some find it distracting. Since some don't, it seems the burden is on those that do to ignore it as best they can. A small price to pay.

The closest I came to wanted someone banned was after reading a comment now deleted, but preserved here. When you disagree with people and simply write "burn them all" I think you need to sit in the corner for a while at least.
posted by john at 8:19 AM on May 14, 2005


I, personally, prefer the let-it-all-out asshole to the smug, condescending know-it-all kind. But I'm weird that way.
posted by mr.marx at 8:22 AM on May 14, 2005


MetaTalk: 90% whining

(thanks Decani)
posted by furtive at 8:33 AM on May 14, 2005


Mayor Curley does it so I don't have to. I have to side with Decani. The Mayor often gives voice to my own unspoken thoughts, and he's more than willing to take the flack coming for it, and not whining about it as so many around here do. Whatever you thought of his provocations on the IVF thread, for me at least, they ended up making the thread very thought-provoking and I came to consider the issue from a couple of perspectives that I hadn't previously considered. I guess it sucks that feelings were hurt along the way, but MeFi is a contact sport.
posted by psmealey at 8:40 AM on May 14, 2005


Just for reference, I don't disagree with the central concepts Mayor Curley is expressing, just the manner of expression. And I don't support banning. I'm just surprised greatly by the outpouring of support.

I guess the way it rubs me is similar to the hypothetical: We have a lot of people who dislike Christians, and we have a few devout Christians. Mayor Curley's comment strikes me in the same vein as someone saying to a Christian whose wife had passed away, "Good riddance, I'm glad she's dead." Disliking Christianity, in that case, isn't the problem. It's the personal attack whose only intent is to emotionally hurt the target (which I consider far different from the frequent, annoying, but not nearly as severe personal attacks whose only intent is to piss off).

Decani writes "And those are opinions which need to be put strongly and often, to counteract the default idiot-hand-wringing-apologetic mode which seems to be de rigeur these days"

Much in the same way that killing random white people is necessary to counteract the random killing of black people?
Or more like the way that an injection of oxygen into the bloodstream is necessary to counteract oxygen deprivation?
Perhaps the way you should shoot people with iron deficiencies?

Things being bad in one way doesn't mean you have to bad in the opposite way to "balance things out".

psmealey writes "I guess it sucks that feelings were hurt along the way, but MeFi is a contact sport."

And that there is the shame. One would hope with people as generally intelligent as MeFi that MeFi would be civil dialogue of people with various and often opposing views, not a combat scenario where injuring the opponent is just as important as making your point.
posted by Bugbread at 8:51 AM on May 14, 2005


*BANALITY!*

FINISH HIM!

sorry. not directed at anyone in particular.
posted by loquacious at 9:10 AM on May 14, 2005


One would hope with people as generally intelligent as MeFi that MeFi would be civil dialogue of people with various and often opposing views...

I do think that's generally the case, and that's generally how I try to comport myself. That said, I do have an appreciation for the occasional throwdown or combat scenario, as you put it. The diversity of means with which people express themselves here keeps the place vital. I think if everyone engaged only in civilized debate in the collegial manner of tweed jacketed, pipe smoking Ivy League professors, this place would become awful dull. By the same token, if everyone were to employ MC's style, it would be intolerable. I think the that key is just the right amount of both approaches.
posted by psmealey at 9:12 AM on May 14, 2005


LOL @ burn them all
posted by exlotuseater at 9:49 AM on May 14, 2005


I admit it can be taken at an "over-the-top" humorous level, but where it was placed in the thread it didn't seem funny at the time.

Certainly, the lack of tone of some texts means you can insert something and my own mood when first reading it wasn't jovial.
posted by john at 10:18 AM on May 14, 2005


Well said languagehat. Those are my thoughts exactly.
posted by caddis at 10:24 AM on May 14, 2005


john: I understand. I try to refrain from saying things like that in general. At least on MeFi. (I'm still laughing a little though.)
posted by exlotuseater at 10:45 AM on May 14, 2005


There's not law or regulation against just being an asshole. That being said, if one chooses that path one must then not be surprised to then be called an asshole, or to not be taken seriously, in future discussions.
posted by clevershark at 10:57 AM on May 14, 2005


EB - it's possible to have kids without being a "breeder."
And it's possible to be a breeder without being a pompous one.
And it's possible to be a pompous breeder but keep your mouth shut.
Failing all that, yeah, I think a few well-aimed darts are called for, just as they are with any other sort of pompous fool.

How does this make me anti-child, again?
posted by scarabic at 11:12 AM on May 14, 2005


nice person, tolerant of different points of view, averse to epithets, reasonable fellow

I've never been any of these things, so feel free to imagine them all again at your leisure ;)
posted by scarabic at 11:13 AM on May 14, 2005


You're not guaranteed the right to have children in any sense and you can certainly live a meaningful life without them. There are some things in life that I want that I will never get; that doesn't give me the right to overreact when someone mentions them or, worse yet, claim that I am entitled to them.

Like, say, sex, happiness, good health, or a decent diet. But, yes, if you can't ever have happiness, don't fret over it, it's only one thing in life.
posted by wackybrit at 11:24 AM on May 14, 2005


So, bugbread, now you are equivocating some harsh language with shooting black people. Haven't you learned anything from these threads? ;-P
posted by mischief at 1:36 PM on May 14, 2005


MC: I called you out for cruely attacking someone in a deliberately hurtful and personal manner and completely out of proportion to anything else in the thread. That callout stands. You have nowhere attempted to defend your "shallow hags" comment or your truly hateful "cervix" comment--and, frankly, you can't. You can laugh along about your brilliant "rhetoric" with people who haven't read the thread, but it's clear that you can't even face what you wrote.

So, congratulations on being a first-rate internet bully. How's that working out for you in real life, I wonder.
posted by Mid at 2:55 PM on May 14, 2005


bugbread writes:
"psmealey writes "I guess it sucks that feelings were hurt along the way, but MeFi is a contact sport."

And that there is the shame. One would hope with people as generally intelligent as MeFi that MeFi would be civil dialogue of people with various and often opposing views, not a combat scenario where injuring the opponent is just as important as making your point."


Perhaps Metafilter can, should, and does have the capacity to contain both full-contact and civil debate. There have been some potentially flammable threads - to an absurd degree - that turned out to be polite, articulate discussion of the topic at hand. There have been many threads where a seemingly innocuous topic blew up into a verbal warzone. We're all of us still reading and posting here, clearly, so one can reasonably assume that there is some measure of acceptance of these facts between all parties involved in this site in general and this thread in particular.

This has all been fairly recent realization on my part, so feel free to delve through my posting history and pick out a few thousand examples of hypocrisy, but one of the things that continues to amaze me is people insisting that the site is intended for anything. It isn't. Matt may try to rudder us in one direction or the other, but he's every bit as held hostage by the community as each individual is held hostage by him. There is, therefore, no express intent to Metafilter. The site is what we collectively make of it, and that appears to be a mixed bag of conversations that run across a broad spectrum in terms of tone, tolerance, intelligence, and ideological flexibility. The whole category of threads of which this one is an example therefore seems rather unproductive to me, and would even if we didn't have the capacity to simply flag it and move on.
posted by Ryvar at 3:27 PM on May 14, 2005


"You have nowhere attempted to defend your "shallow hags" comment or your truly hateful "cervix" comment"

Why should he? What's the matter, someone not playing by your rules? Poor baby. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:46 PM on May 14, 2005



posted by mr.marx at 4:03 PM on May 14, 2005


mischief writes "So, bugbread, now you are equivocating some harsh language with shooting black people."

No, just providing that as an easy to understand example. Somehow my habit of providing extreme examples for simplicity's sake gets misinterpreted quite a bit. ("Saying I have a mild distaste for Michael Mann movies is like saying Jews have a mild distaste for Hitler." "WTF, you're comparing Michael Mann to Hitler?!") I should probably come up with a better way of making examples.

Ryvar writes " Perhaps Metafilter can, should, and does have the capacity to contain both full-contact and civil debate. There have been some potentially flammable threads - to an absurd degree - that turned out to be polite, articulate discussion of the topic at hand. There have been many threads where a seemingly innocuous topic blew up into a verbal warzone."

True, but I suppose I've morally separated war types. Most of the verbal warzone threads have been the equivalent of oldschool conventional war: Shooting the enemy with snark, invective, profanity. This attack is more like guerilla war: shooting someone's kid to hurt them emotionally.

Ryvar writes "one of the things that continues to amaze me is people insisting that the site is intended for anything. It isn't. Matt may try to rudder us in one direction or the other, but he's every bit as held hostage by the community as each individual is held hostage by him. There is, therefore, no express intent to Metafilter. The site is what we collectively make of it, and that appears to be a mixed bag of conversations that run across a broad spectrum in terms of tone, tolerance, intelligence, and ideological flexibility."

I dunno. "Matt may try to rudder us in one direction or the other" seems like the very definition of "having express intent". Reality may not match that intent, but the intent is indeed there. That aside, true, like all of reality, it is what it is. I'm certainly not arguing that MeFi "should" be civil in some absolute divine way. I'm just disappointed that it isn't.
posted by Bugbread at 4:52 PM on May 14, 2005


Much in the same way that killing random white people is necessary to counteract the random killing of black people?
Or more like the way that an injection of oxygen into the bloodstream is necessary to counteract oxygen deprivation?
Perhaps the way you should shoot people with iron deficiencies?


Perhaps you, sir, should consider the possibility that if fallacies were farts you would have the capability of rendering unconscious any living creature within a radius of 500 metres.
posted by Decani at 4:59 PM on May 14, 2005


cf Buckaroo Banzai re: "You don't have to be mean..."
posted by warbaby at 5:56 PM on May 14, 2005


bugbread writes:
"I dunno. "Matt may try to rudder us in one direction or the other" seems like the very definition of "having express intent". Reality may not match that intent, but the intent is indeed there."

Matt and a large fraction of the community have been at odds over numerous issues - newsfilter, electionfilter, overt moderation of MeTa, etc. We still have newsfilter, the onslaught of electionfilter posts did not stop until after the event (mutual consent on the part of everybody but thomcatspike), and the moderation of MeTa has diminished with some strange exceptions. Matt can delete individual posts and comments and the community can ignore his actions. There have been times - particularly during the election - when the same story was posted over and over until he stopped deleting it. Probably this was more due to people not seeing the first three or four postings but the principle nevertheless applies.

Likewise, Matt can ban1 people who act out, but should Matt himself act out in his role as moderator the community can in turn 'ban' him by evaporating and reforming elsewhere. In both cases Matt's exercise of his power can be nullified. As such ultimate authority is vested in the community rather than Matt, and it is therefore the community that determines the intent of the site - or would do so if the community were not an directionless abstract nearly incapable of forming intent. It is precisely because the ultimate authority of this site is largely unable to form intent that it can be stated that there is no explicit2 intent for the site. QED.
1 Technically, banning is impossible on any web forum accepting new users due to the prevalence of proxies and the like, but in general being banned is enough of a impediment to make most people desist.
2 Because all users joined the site in a state that bears significant resemblance to the current one, in can be argued that there is some implicit intent for the site, namely finding interesting items on the Internet or news and discussing or at least highlighting them.
posted by Ryvar at 6:17 PM on May 14, 2005


That callout stands.

This callout will not stand, man.

You have nowhere attempted to defend your "shallow hags" comment or your truly hateful "cervix" comment --and, frankly, you can't.

You're right. Literally nothing I could write is going to convince you that the comments were defensible. So why try?

So, congratulations on being a first-rate internet bully. How's that working out for you in real life, I wonder.

I feel hollow. Exactly how the after-school special or your mother or whatever told you that bullies feel. And it's actually me, the mean bully, who is hurting the most.

I'm kidding actually. I spent the day flying kites and barbecueing with old friends and my smart, pretty fiancee and I think I'll sleep pretty well tonight.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:54 PM on May 14, 2005


I spent the day flying kites and barbecueing with old friends and my smart, pretty fiancee and I think I'll sleep pretty well tonight.

And thus our thread ends with a song:

With tuppence for paper and strings,
you can have your own set of wings.
With your feet on the ground,
you're a bird in flight!
With your fist holding tight,
to the string of your kite!

Let's go fly a kite!
Up to the highest height!
Let's go fly a kite,
And send it soar-ing.
Up through the atmosphere!
Up where the air is clear!
Oh, let's go fly a kite!

When you send it flying up there,
all at once you're lighter than air!
You can dance on the breeze,
over 'ouses and trees!
With your fist 'olding tight,
to the string your kite!

Let's go fly a kite!
Up to the highest height!
Let's go fly a kite,
And send it soar-ing!
Up through the atmosphere!
Up where the air is clear!
Oh, let's go fly a kite!

posted by Ryvar at 7:13 PM on May 14, 2005


I'm kidding actually. I spent the day flying kites and barbecueing with old friends and my smart, pretty fiancee and I think I'll sleep pretty well tonight.

That's because you are happily using the anonymity of the internet to act like a jerk, and reap non of the social consequences. You may feel like your position was defensible, and it's certainly a matter for debate, but the way you expressed yourself was just out and out rude, and you were called on it.
posted by jb at 7:18 PM on May 14, 2005


"...and you were called on it."

... and he doesn't give fuck one. So, now what are you going to do? heheh
posted by mischief at 7:53 PM on May 14, 2005


1. MetaTalk
2. ????????
3. Self-policing!!!
posted by boaz at 8:01 PM on May 14, 2005


Mayor - Go Fly a Kite
posted by adamvasco at 8:03 PM on May 14, 2005


mischief, don't ever believe those who would say that you picked an inappropriate nickname.
posted by peacay at 8:51 PM on May 14, 2005

SHOCK TWIST ENDING SPOILER:

Mayor Curley is a test tube baby.
PST, you were thisclose to the perfect post. You should have said:
Mayor Curley is Louise Joy Brown!!!
posted by pardonyou? at 9:03 PM on May 14, 2005


So, people complain that you made a personal attack that they found offensive... and you respond that you're not afraid to advance unpopular views even when people come after you with pitchforks and torches... and that your girlfriend is pretty.

Got it. This is like trying to reason with Tom DeLay.

Mayor, for what it's worth (I suspect less than nothing), I lost spades of respect for you over this one... and I thought the Shop Vac tirade was in bounds. The "you-won't-believe-what-I'll-say-this-time!" act stops being funny when you target a poster's medical condition, or that of a spouse.
posted by ibmcginty at 10:19 PM on May 14, 2005


wow, the attractive fiance card. That's embarassing, having to point out that not only do you have a girlfriend, but she's attractive...
posted by jonson at 10:50 PM on May 14, 2005


Jesus Christ on a Segway

I LOL'd.
posted by soyjoy at 10:54 PM on May 14, 2005


I spent the day flying kites and barbecueing with old friends and my smart, pretty fiancee
posted by kindall at 12:38 AM on May 15, 2005


my smart, pretty fiancee

WAH! I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND IN CANADA! SHE'S, LIKE, A MODEL AND REALLY SMART! YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!

You know Curley, you're internet super tough guy persona would be more convincing if you didn't go sniveling to Metatalk when someone googled, and then mildly insulted you.

For those of you defending him, (and themselves...good call languagehat,) do you have any conception of what Metafilter would be like if we all acted like this? I bet you don't, but maybe you should think (if you're capable) about what the consequences would be like if we all gave up on even a modicum of civility.
posted by Snyder at 3:36 AM on May 15, 2005


So, people complain that you made a personal attack that they found offensive and you respond that ... your girlfriend is pretty.

The response was (and you know this, but you want to paint me as shallow) directed as Mid's "you're a bully, how's that working out for you" comment. I was willing to humor him/her and be the bully. But then I had to remind him that the bully is only necessarily hurting on the inside in movies with Billy Zabka in them.

WAH! I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND IN CANADA! SHE'S, LIKE, A MODEL AND REALLY SMART! YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!

The Onion is the worst place to borrow from-- everyone reads it and no one thinks it'S funny anymore. If you'll steal from there, I'm guessing that YOU HAVE A GIRLFRIEND ON THE INTERNET! SHE IS CALLED THE HUN'S YELLOW PAGES AND YOU ARE AFRAID TO TELL YOUR MOM THAT YOU ARE TOGETHER.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:00 AM on May 15, 2005


You misunderstood Snyder. I think his comment was meant to point out that you're borrowing from the Onion - and not in a clever, ironic way.
posted by klarck at 5:15 AM on May 15, 2005


Mayor, when your most enthusiastic defender (aside from yourself) is mischief, I think it's time for agonizing reappraisal.

And bugbread, trying to argue with mischief is a mug's game. Look at his username. Think about what it means. Then go back and read his history of comments if you really need convincing.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 AM on May 15, 2005


Mayor, please keep pissing all these people off.

Mayor isn't really a bully imho. He's just a guy who types things that piss a bunch of people on an internet message board off. Do I agree with everything Mayor says? No. Do I enjoy each and every one of his comments, hell yes! Mayor is merely a more straight forward EB or Orthogonality. He doesn't need to write long ass paragraphs to say what he wants to say. You might consider it rude and insensitive but considering the amount of shit I read on here that is written in the same spirit as Mayor Curley writes, I can't help but laugh at all of you for getting upset by it.

You all need to seriously get over yourselves. But you know, if you did, then I wouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy threads like these.
posted by Stynxno at 7:30 AM on May 15, 2005


What is the frigging point of starting a whole MetaTalk talk thread because you don't like something that somebody you don't like posted a comment you don't like in the Blue? And just a comment stating an opinion, not a personal attack on anyone or anything legally actionable? Are you trying to show us your Inner Bully is politically correct?
posted by davy at 8:35 AM on May 15, 2005


Mayor, when your most enthusiastic defender (aside from yourself) is mischief, I think it's time for agonizing reappraisal.


Yes languagehat, whatever you say languagehat. I keep forgetting we've all morally obligated ourselves to live our lives by your recommendations just by coming to Metafilter.
posted by davy at 8:38 AM on May 15, 2005


I don't notice you keeping your opinions humbly to yourself, paisan.
posted by languagehat at 8:46 AM on May 15, 2005


You might consider it rude and insensitive but considering the amount of shit I read on here that is written in the same spirit as Mayor Curley writes, I can't help but laugh at all of you for getting upset by it.

Praise be to Matt for creating Metatalk, so that shitstorms like this one don't ruin the rest of Metafilter.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:04 AM on May 15, 2005


"Do I enjoy each and every one of his comments, hell yes! [...] Mayor is merely a more straightforward EB or Orthogonality. He doesn't need to write long ass paragraphs to say what he wants to say."

Synxno, go fuck yourself in the ass, twice, with a gutting knife.(1)

Is that to the point enough for you? It's what I'm really saying when I write my ginormous comments. (I can't speak for Orthogonality, but I'd wager it's something similar.) I've not been as courageous as Mayor Curley, but his example and your praise has emboldened me.

Anyway, try to keep this correct interpretation(2) in mind if I lose my nerve and write any more long-winded comments.

1  I'm rude because you deserve it.
2  "Synxno, go fuck yourself in the ass, twice, with a gutting knife"—in case you need reminding.

posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:55 AM on May 15, 2005


All of your mothers wear army boots.
posted by darukaru at 9:59 AM on May 15, 2005


"You're on record as having some sort of odd reverence for spooge already, so it's only natural that you're going to get wound up about a medical procedure that involves formalized handling of it"

That's almost completely a non sequitur. You're really this stupid? You hit yourself in the head with a mallet and play word-association and call it a rebuttal? Whatever. Mayor Curley, go fuck yourself, twice, with a gutting knife.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:01 AM on May 15, 2005


too many words.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:08 AM on May 15, 2005


That's almost completely a non sequitur. You're really this stupid?

I'm getting confused-- you're conducting a PR campaign for cum, but I'm stupid? Are you sure that's right?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:08 AM on May 15, 2005


Yep.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:13 PM on May 15, 2005


a PR campaign for cum

the sheer horror of bukkake movies made EB's work moot
posted by matteo at 12:18 PM on May 15, 2005


The response was (and you know this, but you want to paint me as shallow) directed as Mid's "you're a bully ...

My point was not that you are shallow-- I don't believe that to be true, or relevant-- but that despite your series of posts in this thread, you have given no explanation as to why it is OK to mock a person's medical condition. Sorry that this point was not more plain. It still stands.

I guess your thought process is, when someone expresses a view you disagree with, regardless of how it is expressed, any insult is fair game to make your point. I am a pretty big fan of being obnoxious myself, but not about other people's medical conditions, or those of their spouses. I think that many people feel this way; hence this thread.

That you have offered no justification other than that you were "incensed" that someone pointed out that infertility affects a sizeable proportion of the population-- but did not compare it to cancer except as the two are both medical conditions-- makes me think that even you may realize that you took this one too far. I hope so, because most of your contributions are enjoyable.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:45 PM on May 15, 2005


I spent the day flying kites and barbecueing with old friends and my smart, pretty fiancee

lets hope it lasts mate.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:05 PM on May 15, 2005


me: I'm getting confused-- you're conducting a PR campaign for cum, but I'm stupid? Are you sure that's right?

Ethereal Bligh: Yep.

So you're at least getting kickbacks from the Semen Advisory Board or Concerned Citizens for Spunk, right?
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:21 PM on May 15, 2005


Semen Advisory Board or Concerned Citizens for Spunk, right?

I'm guessing they'd be called Semen Proponents Urging Release Together (SPURT). Just don't ask about their secret handshake.
posted by boaz at 6:37 PM on May 15, 2005


Ethereal Bligh: it's S T Y N X N O. If you want to play with the big boys, at least learn to copy and paste their usernames.
posted by Stynxno at 8:57 PM on May 15, 2005


Why is it that every time EB deigns to get down into the pit and let fly one of his weak, shrill insults - all of which sound like an aristocrat responding to their first personal criticism in a decade - I can almost hear him stamping his foot?
posted by Ryvar at 8:57 PM on May 15, 2005


*listens*

Hey, I can hear it too!
posted by dg at 9:00 PM on May 15, 2005


*stamps his foot*
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:40 PM on May 15, 2005


*snickers at the spooge dripping from the sole of EB's shoe*
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 10:13 PM on May 15, 2005


XQUZYPHYR: But then how will we sleep pretty well tonight with our smart, pretty fiances?

I suggest you draw one.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:16 AM on May 16, 2005


Mayor Curley is a pretty huge piece of shit, I guess, but who cares?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:18 AM on May 16, 2005


Jay-zeus. One of the few times EB actually gets to a point without going on a journey via Planet Windbag and he has to add footnotes! HAHAHAHAHA!

Look, just remember kids, this is the internet. You all suck.
(Just make sure you spit into Mr Bligh's collecting bottle afterwards. He'd hate for you to waste it...)
posted by i_cola at 10:37 AM on May 16, 2005


For those of you defending him, (and themselves...good call languagehat,) do you have any conception of what Metafilter would be like if we all acted like this? I bet you don't, but maybe you should think (if you're capable) about what the consequences would be like if we all gave up on even a modicum of civility.

OK, OK, lemme think about that for a minute....

*Thinking*... oh my...*thinking*... oh baby....*still thinking, hard*....ohhhhh BABY!....*thinking ever so hard now*..... AAAAAAAHHHHOOOOOWWWWW.

Oh dear. I just came.
posted by Decani at 12:19 PM on May 16, 2005


Here's the one problem with self-policing:

Every once in a while, you get the asshole who doesn't care what the rest of the community thinks or what effect he has on that community. It's those occasions that merit action from #1, I guess. I mean, the thread Mid called out, to my mind, was a flamewar that started with whoever's RESPONSE to Mayor Curley's initial comment. But Curley's behavior in this MeTa thread has just been stupid and destructive. I don't know if it's ban worthy or not. I don't know if matthowie believes in making examples of bad members or not. But jesus, if there were a thread that truly illustrated everything a miserable member of a community would be, it'd be Mayor Curley in this thread. What's so exasperating is that it has now reached the point where self-policing has exhausted itself. One wonders if letting it stand as such, by now, equates to encouraging such behavior.
posted by shmegegge at 7:57 PM on May 16, 2005


But Curley's behavior in this MeTa thread has just been stupid and destructive.

Do you mean the part where I delineated my position or the part where I gave back to the nerds labeling me a bully? Or the part where I traded barbs with the windbag and the talentless cartoonist?

Every once in a while, you get the asshole who doesn't care what the rest of the community thinks or what effect he has on that community.

And every once in a while you get an uptight prig who thinks that he defines community standards even when a bunch of people have already stated opinions contrary to his. I think the asshole is the guy who wants to dictate what's acceptable when he doesn't own the joint.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:46 AM on May 17, 2005


Give it a rest, MC. Nobody's dictating anything -- we just want you to maybe refrain from attacking people on the basis of their spouse's medical conditions. If you can't manage that simple act of humanity, it's OK. We know it's tough to be the roughest, toughest internet bully around.

And don't kid yourself that you "delinated [a] position" here. Nowhere in the comments above have you (or anyone else) explained how your "cervix" comment was anything other than a dirty punch.
posted by Mid at 6:39 AM on May 17, 2005


And don't kid yourself that you "delinated [a] position" here

My position is that it's stupid for me to try and justify anything to you. You already said my actions were indefensible. That suggests pretty strongly that your mind is made up. And I've already said that it's a waste of time to try.

So now I've made clear my position twice. I suspect you'll probably chide me for not attempting again before we're both bored enough to stop checking this. Get it through your head: you've said my position in indefensible, so I won't try to defend it to you. I've said I'm not apologizing, so you're not getting an apology. Stop acting like a stuck autistic person.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:04 PM on May 17, 2005


I'm bored enough. Also, where did I ask you for an apology?

And the issue isn't whether you can defend your comments to me, it's whether you can defend them at all. With respect to your "cervix" comment, I agree that you can't defend it at all. I think you know that too. Unless you fundamentally believe that there is no such thing as an unfair hit (and I don't hear you saying that), then I think you have to agree that someone's spouse's medical condition is out of bounds.

But, whatever. Obviously Matt does not think much of this whole thing, and you are not giving an inch (which, frankly, I think makes you look more unreasonable, not more trenchant or whatever you are going for), so I'm happy to hang it up here.
posted by Mid at 12:25 PM on May 17, 2005


I'm all for Curley's freedom of speech, even if he is sometimes an asshole. Maybe Metafilter needs a killfile feature so those who don't like to read someone -- like him, me, languagehat and/or Bligh -- can skip right over the objectionable content.

And by the way, I too am against in-vitro fertilization and fertility drugs: adopt one of the thousands of parent-needing kids that are already here. If there's a shortage of "same race" babies in your area there are older kids in need, and/or you could choose one of a different hue than you. It especially galls me when "pro-lifers" insist on "trying for our own" at a cost roughly equal to college tuition. Not everybody gets to reproduce, nor should they; the freaking planet's overloaded anyway.
posted by davy at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2005


Hey, davy -- how many kids have you adopted, and what hues are they?
posted by Mid at 2:00 PM on May 17, 2005


I'm all for Curley's freedom of speech, even if he is sometimes an asshole.

Me too. I thought I should mention that, because I've been coming down on his assholery fairly hard lately. I will defend to the death his right to be an asshole, but having seen his better side, I was hoping he could be convinced to give the assholery a rest.

And I too find it hard to understand why people are so desperate to propagate their "own" genes. But then I find it hard to understand why people want "purebred" pets, too. Vanity, thy name is humanity.

Is it time to break out the party hats and ice cream yet?
posted by languagehat at 3:11 PM on May 17, 2005


Oh noes! Curley is being ganged up on! He's the martyr, here!

Who'd have thunk that acting like a dickhead would get people to tell you you're being a dickhead?

And I refuse to shut up because I am unpopular. Those are my views, and I have as much right to express them as anyone else.

The problem with this statement is that no one is criticizing you because you're unpopular or asking you to shut up for that reason. Your popularity isn't an issue, and it's debatable whether you even count as unpopular. Statements like this aren't defending your position. They're just adopting a martyr pose that isn't merited.

You're on record as having some sort of odd reverence for spooge already, so it's only natural that you're going to get wound up about a medical procedure that involves formalized handling of it:

One of my hobby-horses is the cultural redefinition of semen from something "nasty" to something joyful...

sincere thanks to everyone who had something nice to say or just refused a pitchfork and a torch.


So here you go history-diving to provide an ad hominem attack on EB that is not only irrelevant, but poorly thought out. THEN you adopt that martyr pose again, claiming that you're being mobbed with that inaccurate pitchfork and torch image. See, you're acting like an asshole, and you're getting people who are pissed off at you for it. You deserve it, therefore.

When someone in the other thread disagreed with you and took offense at your attitude (which wasn't merited for that first comment, imo) you then flamed out in a way that was totally uncalled for. THAT'S why people are objecting to your behavior. Your response has been to continue flaming out in this thread. What this demonstrates is that you honestly don't have any regard for the community. So go fuck yourself with your defensive posture. The next time you don't want people telling you what an asshole you are, then just don't be an asshole in the first place. "Giving out what you're getting" is not a justification, it's a lame excuse.

I'm not dictating anything. I'm expressing the same thing a number of other people here have expressed, and I'm publicly wondering what #1 thinks of all this, since it's clear that no amount of self-policing will ever inspire you to behave with respect and decorum around here. You're an asshole.
posted by shmegegge at 4:32 PM on May 17, 2005


I'm sneaking back in here for the record and my own piece of mind. I objected to the tone that the mayor took, especially down the line, but I had no right to complain about it, as I went in attacking. I still think that was rough handling and not necessary on his part, but I should have bit my tongue and not said anything in this thread. Selah.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:16 AM on May 18, 2005


« Older For some reason, I'm not getti...  |  MetaTawk: Wasn't there to be a... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments