Single-link newsfilter with MeFi comments?

June 6, 2005 5:11 AM

Dammit, orthogonality, I'm every bit as rabid a liberal as you are, but I'm calling you out. This is ridiculous. A single-link NewsFilter FPP laced with links to comments in another MeFi thread? I appreciate your agenda, but seriously, get your own blog, at least until you can pull these scraps into something more meaningful.
posted by Faint of Butt to etiquette/policy at 5:11 AM (68 comments total)

I understand that orthogonality is trying to show that the problem goes beyond the police force itself, and that perhaps it is a symptom of a society where certain segments encourage this sort of behaviour, but I believe that using callouts against fellow mefites as the basis for your FPP is just plain vindictive.
posted by furtive at 5:17 AM on June 6, 2005

MetaMetaTalk
posted by i_cola at 5:21 AM on June 6, 2005

Given the comments in the taser thread, I feel orthogonality is perfectly justified in his FPP. The issue is not dead, its vitally important and suited for just such a post.

The taser thread was far from an idea example from which to discuss police brutality. It was about a specific instance. This thread is not about a single instance. Its about attitudes towards the problem, and quoting Mefi comments are perfectly appropriate to this topic.
posted by Goofyy at 5:22 AM on June 6, 2005

Goofyy, perhaps, but Metafilter is supposed to be "best of the web" not "worst of mefi"... and as such he should have opened a thread on MetaTalk if what you say is correct.
posted by furtive at 5:31 AM on June 6, 2005

[deleted the second MeTa post on this topic, which i_cola's link used to point to]
posted by jessamyn at 5:31 AM on June 6, 2005

Goofyy : "Given the comments in the taser thread, I feel orthogonality is perfectly justified in his FPP. The issue is not dead, its vitally important and suited for just such a post. "

I'd say it's suited for just such a comment in the already active thread. The issue is not dead, so we don't need it springing side arguments across the blue. However, as you point out:

Goofyy : "This thread is not about a single instance. Its about attitudes towards the problem"

Then he should have just posted the link and let people discuss steroid use by cops. The cross-linking was unnecessary.
posted by Bugbread at 5:36 AM on June 6, 2005

]By the way, let me just express my appreciation, jessamyn, for the recent annotations on what was deleted and why. Thanks!]
posted by Bugbread at 5:39 AM on June 6, 2005

It's shaping up to be a hot one here at MeFi. I just hope my jackboots don't end up stuck in any one thread.
posted by OmieWise at 5:45 AM on June 6, 2005

Faint of Butt posted "Dammit, orthogonality, I'm every bit as rabid a liberal as you are, but I'm calling you out. This is ridiculous. A single-link NewsFilter FPP laced with links to comments in another MeFi thread? I appreciate your agenda, but seriously, get your own blog, at least until you can pull these scraps into something more meaningful."

1) The linked story is meaningful on its own; if there's evidence of increased use of steroids by cops, and that's also used to excuse police brutality, it's as legitimate a subject of discussion as any other Newsfilter thread. Certainly it's of more consequence than steroid use amongst professional baseball players, who use bats but are not licensed to use deadly force.

2) The story is as legitimate as the post on cops using tasers, also a single link Newsfilter FPP.

So it seems to me what you object to is not the link itself, but my ironically including quotes made by Mefites in the tasering story.

I didn't make those comments, I didn't sign them; I just referred to them. Beliefs have consequences, and my belief is that chuckling about or excusing "just a leetle" brutality leads to the greater brutalities evidence in the steroid post.

Calling victims of police brutality "the dregs of humanity" or using code-phrases like "certain segments of society", a painfully clear allusion to racial and ethnic divisions, only serves to dehumanize victims and blame them for their victimization andimplicitly support their brutalization.

If, as some claim, the victims of police brutality "brought it on themselves" by their actions, I think it's not to much to argue that the cheerleaders and excusers of brutality brought upon themselves the ignominy of being quoted in their own words.
posted by orthogonality at 5:49 AM on June 6, 2005

ortho, your beliefs regarding police brutality are irrelevant at the moment. For what it's worth, I agree with most of them. I'm saying that your link would have made a perfectly acceptable comment in the taser thread. For that matter, it would have been a perfectly adequate portion of an FPP, had it been backed up with other stories to support it. But when I see something that looks like a post with supporting evidence, and then discover that the affiliated links ("ironic" or otherwise) go nowhere except back to MetaFilter, my hackles get raised. That's just bad form.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:57 AM on June 6, 2005

I think it's not to much to argue that the cheerleaders and excusers of brutality brought upon themselves the ignominy of being quoted in their own words.

Has it occurred to you that there may be 'dregs of humanity' both in and out of uniform? Conflating two entirely different instances doesn't get your post off to a very good start.

Defending the actions of one officer in one instance is hardly a blanket defense of police brutality. I happen to agree with your take on the recent (Tweedy) incident while totally disagreeing with you on the taser thing. Unfortunately, because of the way you crafted the post you have made it difficult to distinguish between the two.
posted by cedar at 6:01 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality : "Beliefs have consequences, and my belief is that chuckling about or excusing 'just a leetle' brutality leads to the greater brutalities evidence in the steroid post."

And the consequence of that belief is people taking what you say less seriously, and people who agree with you calling you out in MeTa.

orthogonality : "If, as some claim, the victims of police brutality 'brought it on themselves' by their actions, I think it's not to much to argue that the cheerleaders and excusers of brutality brought upon themselves the ignominy of being quoted in their own words."

If, as some claim, some people are handled roughly but within acceptable parameters by the police due to their own actions, why do you think it's not too much to argue that you should cast ignominy on them by quoting their own words about a totally different situation?
posted by Bugbread at 6:17 AM on June 6, 2005

Ortho: It sounds as though you picked quotes from other users you disagreed with and then sought to humiliate them by contradicting them on the front page. I've been around here a long time and have not seen anyone do that. It's a dick move and you shouldn't be defending it.

If you were secure enough in your opinions, you'd have just posted the Times Dispatch article by itself, although frankly, that wouldn't have made a great post either.

While we're at it, the "STFU Lib'ruls!" ceased to be funny, interesting or helpful a long time ago.

Just post some good links. The crowd will still like you.
posted by dhoyt at 6:21 AM on June 6, 2005

It's a dick move and you shouldn't be defending it.

Agreed. But orthogonality has long since proved he doesn't give a damn what anybody else thinks. He knows he's right and that's all that matters.
posted by languagehat at 6:38 AM on June 6, 2005

What [many people] said. You're using an FPP to call out people you don't feel like you walloped hard enough in the first thread. That's shit behavior. It's talk radio behavior, not MeFi.
posted by argybarg at 6:55 AM on June 6, 2005

I like pancakes.
posted by loquacious at 6:59 AM on June 6, 2005

The other thread is still open, no? Why do we need another post about police brutality?

I don't mind NewsFilter, but "IssueI'mPissedOffAboutThisWeekFilter" makes for crappy reading material.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:11 AM on June 6, 2005

What dhoyt said.
posted by MLIS at 7:17 AM on June 6, 2005

FoB said:
>But when I see something that looks like a post with supporting evidence, and then discover that the affiliated links ("ironic" or otherwise) go nowhere except back to MetaFilter, my hackles get raised. That's just bad form.

That's a bit strange. I think ortho's method is perfectly fine. It's a little bankrupt to have a site where everyone continually comments about external factors, ideas or sites with no self-analysis. After all, it's supposed to be a community weblog.

I had no idea about this stuff: the post it referred to with the "affiliated links." I missed it and I'm glad orthogonality had the persistence to point out some of those comments. This place suffers from neo-liberal sterility, sometimes.
posted by gsb at 7:20 AM on June 6, 2005

So let me get this straight. According to ortho, Goofyy, and gsb, making posts in order to score points against other users is a legitimate use of the front page. Lovely.
posted by casu marzu at 7:28 AM on June 6, 2005

gsb : "This place suffers from neo-liberal sterility, sometimes."

What does that mean?
posted by Bugbread at 7:28 AM on June 6, 2005

My rather decaffeinated and uncomplicated view is: at best, it's padding. At worst, it's a post created merely for te purpose of reframing some other people's comments to the advantage of ortho's point of view. That is, indeed, weird and uncommon, and perhaps bastardly.
posted by scarabic at 7:29 AM on June 6, 2005

bugbread: I think he meant to say something like "impotence," not sterility, but what it means is that gsb's got nothin' and is firing cheap shots.
posted by scarabic at 7:31 AM on June 6, 2005

No, actually I meant sterility:

3. A lack of excitement, liveliness, or interest: asepticism, blandness, colorlessness, drabness, dreariness, dryness, dullness, flatness, flavorlessness, insipidity, insipidness, jejuneness, lifelessness, sterileness, stodginess, vapidity, vapidness, weariness. See excite/bore/interest.

And of course, when I wrote neo-liberal I was in a flip-flop condition. You see, right there, I could have written relativistic, "can't we all just get along", consensus, "red-blue state" or just plain old "information bomb".

And I did say "sometimes." Now that could be a lot, or very little. In my case, and I haven't done an extensive survey, I would say about 20% falls into this category -- that's front page posts. And about 50% of the comments usually fall this way, too. Ask.MeFi has a much better average.

Hey, that's pretty good, compared to /. or even the burgundy horror of MoFi.

note: i will not provide examples because I have never found a cup big enough to piss in, EVER.
posted by gsb at 7:56 AM on June 6, 2005

That's why they should've used a taser! Taser breadcrumb pancake mudflap taser!
posted by fungible at 8:10 AM on June 6, 2005

gsb : "A lack of excitement, liveliness, or interest: asepticism, blandness, colorlessness, drabness, dreariness, dryness, dullness, flatness, flavorlessness, insipidity, insipidness, jejuneness, lifelessness, sterileness, stodginess, vapidity, vapidness, weariness. See excite/bore/interest."

You're just looking in the wrong place. The drama is all in the grey.

Besides which, as you point out:

gsb : "I missed it and I'm glad orthogonality had the persistence to point out some of those comments."

So if pointing out those quotes provides interest and combats sterility, but all those quotes were just in a thread that you missed, isn't the problem not that Mefi is sterile but that you aren't reading the interesting stuff?
posted by Bugbread at 8:13 AM on June 6, 2005

cedar writes "Defending the actions of one officer in one instance is hardly a blanket defense of police brutality.... Unfortunately, because of the way you crafted the post you have made it difficult to distinguish between the two."


But cedar, that's exactly the point. The comments I quoted did not just defend the tasering based on the facts of that incident. I was careful not to pick comments that only addressed the tasering, because if I had, you'd be right, that wouldn't have been fair.

But the comments I quoted went much further: both posited the existence of a class of people ("the dregs of humanity", "a certain segment of society") that deserves police brutality, blaming the victims as a class for their own brutalization.

The one comment even claimed that such brutality was a salubrious and instructive form of extra-judicial punishment :

Life has consequences. Are you people seriously saying that you support not having anyone reinforce those consequences? Holy shit, that's why kids these days are stumps. They never learn what consequences are. I'd say something along the lines of "fucking liberal idiots", but that's the kind of thing that gets people labeled as a jackbooted thug around here...

The other comment merely indulged in a little dialect racism while reminding us that poor people have "dingy" apartments:

and all of a sudden, some lady steps outta her dingy apartment, with 3 kids in tow (Of course), angry that the Po-leece shouldn't have hurt that po' boy's arm when they were putting on his cuffs. She starts screamin' racism, etc etc.

Again, I made a point not to link to comments that just argued about the specifics of the tasering case, because, you're right, doing that would have been unfair. I didn't even link to mere general defenses of police brutality: I linked to general defenses that assumed the existence of a class of people it's ok for the police to beat up.


dhoyt writes "Ortho: It sounds as though you picked quotes from other users you disagreed with and then sought to humiliate them by contradicting them on the front page. I've been around here a long time and have not seen anyone do that. It's a dick move and you shouldn't be defending it"

How'd I contradict them or humiliate by quoting their own words? It can only be humiliation if in fact they no longer agree with what they so proudly wrote.

As I explained above, those comments didn't just excuse the tasering, but made much larger claims.

"While we're at it, the 'STFU Lib'ruls!' ceased to be funny, interesting or helpful a long time ago. Just post some good links. The crowd will still like you."

dhoyt, you vitiate your claim by using the occasion to harp on your general disagreements with me, and by the condensation of "[t]he crowd will still like you".


argybarg writes "You're using an FPP to call out people you don't feel like you walloped hard enough in the first thread."

I didn't address (or wallop) their comments at all in the first thread, as you'd have seen if you'd taken the time to look at my posting history. They made comments that applied to police brutality in general, and I just referenced those opinions in another post about (more extreme) police brutality.



casu marzu writes "So let me get this straight. According to ortho, Goofyy, and gsb, making posts in order to score points against other users is a legitimate use of the front page. Lovely."

It's not about scoring points. It's about walking the walk. The comments I referenced talked some big talk about how police brutality was a-ok (and as I point out above, for one commenter, even a good teaching moment). If the people making the comments really believe the talk they talked, then there's no humiliation or point-scoring to be had: in that case, all I've done is to give their opinions a greater airing. But they have to be willing to walk the walk.

But if (as you and dhoyt imply) suddenly their big talk about head bustin' doesn't look so nice when cops actually bust heads, then it's instructive both for the original posters and for readers. Lots of people on metafilter like to make universal claims about how such-and-such isn't a such bad thing; I just want to point out that by their very nature, universal claims apply universally. But those universal claims may not look so bright and shiny when the claim is actually taken seriously and applied to other situations.

One of the quoted comments told us, in defending police brutality, that "Life has consequences. Are you people seriously saying that you support not having anyone reinforce those consequences?" I ask the same question of those here who have complained about my post: are you seriously saying that you object to pointing out the consequences of the commenter's universal claim? If his claim were to be made universal law, would it not justify Officer's Tweedy's skull cracking?

As long as dhoyt and languagehat are enjoying pointing out what a dick I am for having the stunning audacity to take commenters' claims in their comments at their word, you may as well complain about this comment of mine, where I merely repeated some other commenter's thoughts about government torture. Again, it was a case of my applying the same universal claim to an only slightly different situation.


Or is it the general consensus of MetaFilter that, "hey it's just teh intarwebs" and our comments have no consequence or applicability beyond the thread it's posted to, and therefore should never be referred to evar again? If so, you may want to take a look at this thread.
posted by orthogonality at 8:15 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality : "But the comments I quoted went much further: both posited the existence of a class of people ('the dregs of humanity', 'a certain segment of society') that deserves police brutality, blaming the victims as a class for their own brutalization."

So you wrote an entire FPP as a counter to two Mefi users?
posted by Bugbread at 8:23 AM on June 6, 2005

You'd have been better off bitching about the people and their attitudes in MeTa rather than dropping a fat one in the blue ortho, that's what it's here for. Nothing stopped you from posting what you had in the existing thread, the only reason I can see you doing otherwise was scoring points and at the end of the day what does that gain anyone?
posted by longbaugh at 8:24 AM on June 6, 2005

When I first saw the taser jockey post it already had about 200 comments - indicating shit flung aplenty. I really didn't want to see it, so I chose to avoid the comment section. Othogonality's new FPP flings that shit onto the front page where it's impossible to ignore. Dated, flung shit doesn't belong on the front page. Really, really bad form.
posted by klarck at 8:25 AM on June 6, 2005

the taser topic already had 300-something comments, most of which i assume went unread by most people.

if ortho had put this link and his points and whatnot in that thread, it probably would have gone unread as well, because the topic is also 2 days old or so.

though i don't agree with what he did, calling out all those people just to contradict them and calling it FPP-worthy, his posting of the article wasn't entirely uncalled for.
posted by Ziggy Zaga at 8:26 AM on June 6, 2005

...or using code-phrases like "certain segments of society", a painfully clear allusion to racial and ethnic divisions...

Whoa.

First of all, what I wrote was: "I understand that orthogonality is trying to show that the problem goes beyond the police force itself, and that perhaps it is a symptom of a society where certain segments encourage this sort of behaviour,..."

Secondly, if what I wrote was a code phrase for racial and ethnic divisions then it's news to me. If anything I was alluding to those who preach the "you get what you deserve" way of life such as certain religions, people who believe the law is absolute or those that have a "you shouldn't have been there to begin with" sort of mentality.

It might have been a mistake on your part, but you twisted my words so that it appeared I was speaking against the victims rather than against those who supported the heinous police brutality.

But all of this is a great big digression from the point which I remain firm on, callouts on a FPP is just plain bad etiquette, and you know better.
posted by furtive at 8:28 AM on June 6, 2005

ortho, that was an eloquent explanation and in retrospect, I find myself agreeing with the bulk of it.

However, is the front page really the best place for that type of post -- it's always been my understanding that when it comes to front page posts the *links* should take precedence over editorial spin and any discussion is better reserved for the comments.

Maybe a better way of posting would have been to let the link stand on it's on and do your meta meta linking deal inside discussion area. As it stands now the post gives me the impression that you were trying to pre-emptively moderate the discussion.

Regardless of the content that's quite a mouthful for the front page.
posted by cedar at 8:33 AM on June 6, 2005

bugbread said:

>So if pointing out those quotes provides interest and combats sterility, but all those quotes were just in a thread that you missed, isn't the problem not that Mefi is sterile but that you aren't reading the interesting stuff?

I have no idea if this true or no. I try clicking through on every link, but with the usual suspects I don't bother. In this case it's the strength of the comments that piqued my interest, and the way orthogonality handled it.

Sure, it's messy. That's great. Pointing out those comments as reasonable examples of a viewpoint few would acknowledge, in the context of the article about the police brutality, is nicely done. It did not look like point scoring to me, it just held up a community example and makes things a bit more spicy.
posted by gsb at 8:35 AM on June 6, 2005

bugbread writes "So you wrote an entire FPP as a counter to two Mefi users?"

Oh for god's sake, bugbread, scroll up, where I said that I thought it a good FPP in its own right. Certainly there have been posts on both steroid use (among baseball players) and posts on cop brutality before. Whatever else, my FPP was at least as relevant as those.

Given that the article discussed the possibility of a larger problem of police (ab)use of steroids (as distinct from steroids being used as a sort of "insanity defense" for police brutality) it stands on its own as an FPP and justifies not posting it as a comment to the tasering post.

I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, and hey, if people want to call me a dick, they're entitled to their opinions, and hell, bugbread, I agree with your reasoning more often than not, but please please, at least read my responses.
posted by orthogonality at 8:36 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality--"As long as dhoyt and languagehat are enjoying pointing out what a dick I am for having the stunning audacity to take commenters' claims in their comments at their word"

I don't think the criticism is directed at you holding the commenters accountable. It seems more specifically pitched to the issue of making an FPP out of that accountability. There does seem to be an ontological difference between FPPs and inter-thread comments.

On preview-cedar
posted by OmieWise at 8:37 AM on June 6, 2005

Ok, sorry, not making an FPP out of it, but including it as a substantial part of the FPP. (I meant that all along, I was just using shorthand. I understand the rationale for linking to the article on its own.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:39 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality : "Oh for god's sake, bugbread, scroll up, where I said that I thought it a good FPP in its own right."

You're right. I misphrased. I should have said, "So you composed the entire FPP as a counter to two Mefi users?"

I think your FPP was fine in its own right as well. My issue was with the framing/composition (for example, I think it would have been fine to link those two quotes in a "More Inside"). I did read your responses, but I phrased my sentence poorly. Sorry.

On preview - OmieWise made the same mistake. We're like brothers, we are! (Er, or siblings...or distant cousings...or something)
posted by Bugbread at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2005

furtive writes "... if what I wrote was a code phrase for racial and ethnic divisions then it's news to me. If anything I was alluding to those who preach the 'you get what you deserve' way of life such as certain religions, people who believe the law is absolute or those that have a 'you shouldn't have been there to begin with' sort of mentality. It might have been a mistake on your part, but you twisted my words so that it appeared I was speaking against the victims rather than against those who supported the heinous police brutality."


Eh, it wasn't your words I was referring to, so it was neither a mistake or a twisting of them.

The "certain segments of society" I was quoting was from this post, where it came right after some dialect racism:

reminds me of an episode of COPS,where some idiot is breaking the law, and they get apprehended by the police...the guy tries to run but is stopped and cuffed, all the while continuing to try to get away - and all of a sudden, some lady steps outta her dingy apartment, with 3 kids in tow (Of course), angry that the Po-leece shouldn't have hurt that po' boy's arm when they were putting on his cuffs. She starts screamin' racism, etc etc.

Ok, how does that remind me of the clip above? It just goes to show that a certain segment of society thinks they can defy any and all authority, and they seek to blame those people who (for the most part) try to serve and PROTECT.

cedar writes "ortho, that was an eloquent explanation and in retrospect, I find myself agreeing with the bulk of it. However, is the front page really the best place for that type of post -- it's always been my understanding that when it comes to front page posts the *links* should take precedence over editorial spin and any discussion is better reserved for the comments."

Yes, maybe you're right. Again, as I've now stated several times, I think the link stands on its own.

But I also think it's useful to examine the consequences of declaring that "certain segments of society" are the "dregs of humanity" because I think that sort of thinking is one of the mainsprings behind police brutality. I'm not sure that making the FPP in a vacuum, without linking it to the to sort of thinking that leads to that kind of action -- I'm not sure that that would have been honest

Like it or not, as bizarre as it seems, to some degree or another, it's people like us, people like those who post on MetaFilter, who are, if not opinion leaders, certainly opinion moderators. I don't know if that's an effect of "the blogosphere" or whatever, but what we write on MetaFilter does resonate, does echo, just a bit.

And so when we write apologia for, justification of, police brutality, well, other people read that and some of them repeat it and believe it. And we, collectively, however indirectly, we add fuel to, we give cover to, we make possible, more police brutality. Just by what we write, think, say to our friends and family, by the total moral climate we contribute to.

We are the people, and when we write that some people are the "dregs of society" and deserve brutality, we help to make that so. We are culpable. We give assent with our silence and justification with our words or our indifference to others' words, and so it is our boot that cracks the skulls of the victims.

And so I don't know that it's honest to pretend that we are not morally implicated, to pretend that our comments are just mere words on a web site. Posting just the link to the story without linking to the comments would have been easier, and "nicer", but I don't know that it would have been as honest.
posted by orthogonality at 9:03 AM on June 6, 2005

Orthogonality, that all makes some sense, but you're missing what you're being taken to task for (er, well, by some of us at least), which is using those quotes in the FPP itself. Putting them in a "More Inside" would have gotten you less flak (some, sure, of course, but less).
posted by Bugbread at 9:13 AM on June 6, 2005

Ortho: It's clear very few people think it was a good idea to "call out" other users via FPP. That is the main beef. Why not listen to them and learn from the comments rather than compose oodles of paragraphs in your own defense? Who here really believe it's good form to point specifically to other users in an FPP and seek to contradict (or "shame") them?

I'm not even clear on why stories about cops with personal & steroid problems beating perps must be tied to stories about cops who tased a woman who wasn't complying them. The point-making (and point-scoring) seems a bit artificial.

Putting them in a "More Inside" would have gotten you less flak (some, sure, of course, but less).

Good point.
posted by jenleigh at 9:17 AM on June 6, 2005

bugbread writes "[o]rthogonality, that all makes some sense, but you're missing what you're being taken to task for..., which is using those quotes in the FPP itself."

Ok, bugbread, explain to me the substantive difference that would have made. (Really, I'm seriously asking for your opinion because I do respect it, and find that even when I occasionally disagree with your points, I find them well-made. And contra languagehat, I don't always believe I'm right ;) .)
posted by orthogonality at 9:19 AM on June 6, 2005

If his claim were to be made universal law, would it not justify Officer's Tweedy's skull cracking?

I must've missed the part where Tweedy said "step out of the vehicle, or I'm going to stomp you into a coma."

Because that's what it would take to make the incidents even remotely equivalent.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:19 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality : "Ok, bugbread, explain to me the substantive difference that would have made."

I can only provide a very weak explanation (VERY weak), which is an explanation from personal position: I wouldn't be opposing the thread (or, if so, far less, especially given your follow-up explanation), and, apparently, OmieWise wouldn't have either. It's hard to say why, exactly, except that an FPP is generally taken as being an independent entity, not a response to another FPP (though PoliFilter can sometimes break that rule-of-thumb). If said FPP happens to address an issue being discussed in another thread, more the better, but by putting links to the other thread in the FPP itself, it makes the FPP stop being taken as an independent entity and start being taken as a rebuttal.

Which means, all in all, "I don't know what substantive difference it would have made, but it would have made one."

I'm reminded of an old Garrison Keiler bit (yeah, yeah) where he's talking about how Norweigan farmer folks can't make positive statements; it's always phrased in the negative. Then this one farmer gets married, and has the absolute best, most orgasmic, mind-blowing night of his life. His new wife asks how it was, and he answers, "I've had worse". When she looks at him with tears of anger in her eyes, he emphasizes, "No, seriously, I've had a lot worse!"

Sure, it's not saying anything bad, but it comes across that way, and it's hard to explain (ok, the Norwegian farmer example isn't so hard to explain, but you get my drift). In the same way, putting the quotes in an MI as opposed to the main post is in a certain way the same thing, but it "feels" somehow different.
posted by Bugbread at 9:33 AM on June 6, 2005

orthogonality writes "Ok, bugbread, explain to me the substantive difference that would have made. (Really, I'm seriously asking for your opinion because I do respect it, and find that even when I occasionally disagree with your points, I find them well-made. And contra languagehat, I don't always believe I'm right ;) .)"

I'm not bugbread, but we may be related...I think the difference is in the rhetorical impact, and rhetoric is substantive as your parsing of dialect racism makes clear. As the post stands, you appear to be making your disagreement with the tazer posters the subject of the FPP. You've (successfully, I think) defended your intent, but having those links in the FPP seems to suggest that what is most pertinent to you is the politics of the disagreement.

Now, that may be, in fact, what is most pertinent to you, but by putting the links to comments inside you allow the FPP to stand on its own merits, users to decide whether or not to follow your reasoning, and you avoid the appearance of point-scoring and public shaming.

On preview-Dammit bugbread, half a world apart and we keep meeting like this.
posted by OmieWise at 9:35 AM on June 6, 2005

explain to me the substantive difference that would have made.

It's general practice (though a few members regularly violate it) to keep personal commentary out of FPPs. This is to avoid the thread being about the poster's commentary instead of the primary links.

It's pretty clear from this thread that your links to MetaFilter comments distracted from your main link. You could have avoided that distraction by including those links in the substantial "more inside" you already planned. Your point is still made, since you've got your message in right away inside the thread.
posted by me3dia at 9:41 AM on June 6, 2005

bugbread writes "If said FPP happens to address an issue being discussed in another thread, more the better, but by putting links to the other thread in the FPP itself, it makes the FPP stop being taken as an independent entity and start being taken as a rebuttal."

OmieWise writes "by putting the links to comments inside you allow the FPP to stand on its own merits, users to decide whether or not to follow your reasoning, and you avoid the appearance of point-scoring and public shaming."

me3dia writes "It's pretty clear from this thread that your links to MetaFilter comments distracted from your main link"

Ok, good points all. I think (especially seeing as how no one is discussing the steroids in the thread) that you're right, as far as the effectiveness of the FPP.
posted by orthogonality at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2005

Note to self: learn conciseness from me3dia.
posted by Bugbread at 9:55 AM on June 6, 2005

Wow--a callout turns into a civilized, thoughtful discussion of what makes a good FPP and how this one could have been better. And the person who was called out responds with reason and a willingness to listen. Congratulations to all, especially Ortho.
posted by LarryC at 9:55 AM on June 6, 2005

LarryC writes "Congratulations to all, especially Ortho."

Larry, if you don't like it you can just...oh, wait, you're right. Sorry.
posted by OmieWise at 10:32 AM on June 6, 2005

Concur with LarryC. And Apologies to ortho for misunderstanding of his motives. And kudos to him for getting the (nuanced) complaint that was being made. And just in general to everyone to listening to the other side and understanding. I like that kind of MeTa thread.

Of course, I also like the MeTa threads where one party is so stubborn and aggrieved that they devolve into massive pile-ons, because they're so funny.
posted by casu marzu at 11:22 AM on June 6, 2005

We need more FPP's on sideburn length guides.
Everyone stays happy, even if they don't like it.
It's really hard to work yourself into a vibrating huff over sideburn length guides.
posted by Balisong at 11:37 AM on June 6, 2005

Balisong : "We need more FPP's on sideburn length guides.
"Everyone stays happy, even if they don't like it."

Nah, jonmc would start talking about how he liked 'em bushy, and then we'd have a big ole pileup.

(jonmc, that was not a snark, just a regular ole joke)
posted by Bugbread at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2005

I'd also like to apologize to ortho; I was clearly wrong about his lack of interest in other people's opinions. Besides which, how can I maintain a satisfying animus against someone who can say:

And contra languagehat, I don't always believe I'm right ;)

You knew a little Latin thrown in would win me over, damn you!

For what it's worth, I agree that your main link was a good one and was objecting to your tactic of associating it with callouts (and was going to say "what would the front page be like if everybody did that?"), but now that you've agreed... well, I guess there's nothing to do but talk about sideburns. Say, what's wrong with burnsides, anyway?
posted by languagehat at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2005

languagehat writes "Say, what's wrong with burnsides, anyway?"

Not a thing.
posted by OmieWise at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2005

It's not about scoring points.

These points - who tallies them up, and are they redeemable for anything?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:11 PM on June 6, 2005

Kirth Gerson writes "These points - who tallies them up, and are they redeemable for anything?"

Green green.
posted by orthogonality at 1:29 PM on June 6, 2005

So, you could use some of these points you're collecting and buy more posts per week? You fiend!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:36 PM on June 6, 2005

Six Perfect Sideburns in Five Minutes!
posted by LarryC at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2005

Ok, good points all. I think (especially seeing as how no one is discussing the steroids in the thread) that you're right, as far as the effectiveness of the FPP.

Well, there's also the fact that you publicly shamed 2 members on the front page out of an overblown sense of social accountability.

Here are some things that I think bear remembering:

1. Your post is not as good as the tazer post, because it's a link to a news article where the other was a link to an incredibly disturbing video of police brutality. There are thousands of other police brutality articles one could link to to make a point, but people don't because just posting any old police brutality article is the very definition of newsfilter, as much as I despise that term. It frankly wasn't the brutality, but the fact that it was so blatant and that it was done on video which we could watch that made that post fpp worthy.

2. There are a couple of rules on this site that have never really been all that flexible. One of the chiefest among these is that you don't carry arguments or discussions from one thread into another by making a new fpp for it. If you want to claim that those comments weren't the point of the fpp, then you're left with what has been rightfully called a poor fpp made completely abominable by including member comments in it. If you want to say that they actually WERE the point, then it's not just a poor fpp, but an inconsiderate and shameful abuse of posting privileges. No matter how accountable you think those people should be for their opinions, it's not your job to enforce that accountability and no one thinks it should be.

3. Whether it was the "main point" of the fpp or not, one of the tasks you sought to accomplish in your fpp was to call out those users for making those comments. If you think people should be held accountable for their actions on the site, it's called a MeTa callout. Imagine if Faint Of Butt had, instead of creating this gray thread, found another link to an article about police brutality then posted it on the blue with editorializing about your fpp in it. There are very few things you could say that MeFi and its related sites don't have a place for you to say it. In this instance that place was MeTa, and you refused. Bad form.

What I'm trying to get through, here, is that the quality of your fpp is, in fact, the least of the problems with your fpp. When people mention that it's a poor fpp, or a single link newsfilter, it's not because that's their main concern. They're bringing it up because the thin substance of the fpp would seem to indicate that the reason for the post was the comment links, as though the article was tacked on to disguise a callout. See, if the problem everybody had was that the fpp wasn't very substantive, then the solution would be "leave the comment links in, but make it a fuller fpp." No one wants that. They want fpps that don't link to user comments. And it's not because the user comments detract from an otherwise fine fpp. It has almost nothing to do with fpp quality other than the fact that the entire front page is now sullied with an uncalled for and inappropriate callout that is also an abuse of posting privileges.

It seems to me that these are points you've danced around in your replies. The closest I've found to an adequate response is that you think that holding posters accountable is equatable to holding officers accountable, and that you thought it was your duty to hold those users accountable on the front page of all places. I sincerely hope that everyone's comments on here have given you some idea of just how wrong that is. I'm frankly floored that the post hasn't been deleted, yet. I'm assuming that #1 hasn't seen it, yet.
posted by shmegegge at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2005

I'm frankly floored that the post hasn't been deleted, yet. I'm assuming that #1 hasn't seen it, yet.

That seems unlikely since he posted to the front page of the gray forty minutes or so after this one.
posted by cedar at 2:39 PM on June 6, 2005

shmegegge: orthogonality wrote:
"But the comments I quoted went much further: both posited the existence of a class of people ("the dregs of humanity", "a certain segment of society") that deserves police brutality, blaming the victims as a class for their own brutalization."

which impliedly likely adopts what furtive described as:
"I understand that orthogonality is trying to show that the problem goes beyond the police force itself, and that perhaps it is a symptom of a society where certain segments encourage this sort of behaviour"

which since it is merely an implication, could properly be categorized as "dancing around", so although the brunt of orthogonality's justifications address the propriety of his meta-commenting, not the reasoning behind it, it seems a little uncalled for to ask (impliedly) for the post to be deleted. After all, how else should newcomers learn the "inflexible rules" that aren't posted anywhere, but by reading MeTa where such rules are debated, and having the posts there on MeFi to refer to. After all, is it really SO horrible to have some posts exist on the front that don't exemplify all that is sought after by/from MeFites?

and couldn't resist: You meant condescension, right?
ortho wrote:by the condensation of "[t]he crowd will still like you".
posted by birdsquared at 9:02 PM on June 6, 2005

While I concur with the general consensus about the form of the FPP--such would certainly be a bad precedent--I have to admit that I was genuinely disturbed by the acceptance, endorsement even, of the use of torture to enforce compliance (or possibly to punish) by authority figures.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who was so bothered by such a sizable reaction, and that the topic was addressed, if not in the most genteel manner.

So, cheers on your intention, orthongonality.
posted by cytherea at 9:29 PM on June 6, 2005

birdsquared writes " and couldn't resist: You meant condescension, right?
ortho wrote:by the condensation of '[t]he crowd will still like you'."

Yes, thanks.
posted by orthogonality at 10:29 PM on June 6, 2005

shmegegge writes "Well, there's also the fact that you publicly shamed 2 members on the front page out of an overblown sense of social accountability. "


shmegegge, explain to me how the members were "shamed" by being quoted.
posted by orthogonality at 11:16 PM on June 6, 2005

Not to speak for shmegegge, but you saw the quotes, and felt that they should be showcased for both their obvious contextual meaning, and for whatever additional meaning you attributed to them. It is obvious that you feel that both the contextual and attributed meanings are reprehensible. Why else would you draw attention to them on the front page unless you were meaning to display their shamefulness?

Suffice it to say, I think it was, in the final analysis, a bad front page post.

shmegegge, while I disagree with you about the nature of the tazer incident (namely, I think it was not police brutality, or, at the very least, the initial use of it wasn't,) I applaud your your ability to not let agreement with a posters general point interfere with a valid criticism of a front page post. I hope that I can be as clear-headed in my posts.
posted by Snyder at 3:43 AM on June 7, 2005

snyder basically nailed it: you drew public attention to the comments of those posters so that they would feel accountable for expressing their opinions. If this is a matter of how we each define the word "shame," then use whatever word matches in your own head, instead. The point is that you're dragging your distaste for what they said into the front page of the blue. Not only would the original thread have been the more appropriate place for disagreement with them, but we also have MetaTalk for a reason.

It seems to me that you've decided to dance around the rest of my post by addressing this single issue off-handedly. That's up to you, I guess, but so long as you're doing so I'm going to call you on it.

snyder: thank you. If I'm being clear-headed here, then I honestly hope I can remain so in the rest of my posts, as well.
posted by shmegegge at 12:18 PM on June 7, 2005

Hmm. After reading a post from orthogonality today, it appears that his accusations of "dialect racism" are rather hypocritical. This is another problem with these kinds of front page posts. By drawing excessive attention to the quoted posts, the front page posts become less about the links, and more about the poster, the quotes, and the posters opinions. By holding up certain posts to heavy scrutiny, the poster invites heavy scrutiny towards himself. unfortunately for orthogonality, the same criticisms he applies to to others can be applied to him.
posted by Snyder at 3:53 PM on June 7, 2005