July 11, 2005

1:57 PM

Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. Yes, actually, it does. It's ok if it's a man, but not a woman? This is vicious talk and a double standard. I flagged it but nothing happened.
posted by tweak to etiquette/policy at 1:57 PM (110 comments total)

Here is the full text of the comment:

Well, not speaking for most edgy liberal mefites, but I wouldn't mind seeing Rove get raped. Repeatedly. By the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of Satan, in the fiery pits of hell. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

It ain't going to happen, though. The republicans are already busy splitting hairs and smearing both Wilson and Plame. (Liars! They had an agenda! Was she really "undercover"?)
posted by fungible at 2:05 PM EST on July 11 [!]
posted by tweak at 1:58 PM on July 11, 2005

No, no, no, it's only OK when SATAN does it!
posted by hackly_fracture at 1:59 PM on July 11, 2005

Methinks your sensibilities are a tad too delicate.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:08 PM on July 11, 2005

What C_L said.

Write this 100x on the chalkboard: Political correctness is the enemy of true progressives.
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:09 PM on July 11, 2005

...but personality politics is going to change the world.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2005

Hmm. Before I yield to the temptation to snark, please, tweak, expound upon the It's ok if it's a man, but not a woman? part.

Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just not entirely certain of your meaning there. I'm requesting more information.
posted by gramschmidt at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2005

You flagged it? NOTHING happened? That's not right, why... that's just wrong. SOMETHING should have happened.

Okay, the post may have been a bit over the top, but there are people who feel very strongly about this stuff. It's been my expierience that posts are not deleted unless they attack a specific individual (public figures don't count) or are of questionable legality.

Satan and his thorny thirty-incher is so far beyond the pale that it passes right through hyperbole into self-parody. It's harmless venting.
posted by cedar at 2:14 PM on July 11, 2005

"I flagged it, but nothing happened. So I took it to MetaTalk..."
posted by jonson at 2:15 PM on July 11, 2005

Incidentally, Satan and His Thorny Thirty Inchers is a great band name.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:17 PM on July 11, 2005

Political correctness is the enemy of true progressives.

Political correctness is a red-herring used by "conservatives" to smear "liberals" as crypto-fascists. PC hasn't had a real presence outside of college campuses in many years now. That said, the above comment could be read as black humor - that is, it's too far out to be taken seriously, or it can be read as serious, in which case it is just dumb. The comment doesn't add anything to the discussion, but serves to make Mefi look bad. Delete it. Having standards is not censorship. Requesting some modicum of respectful discourse has nothing to do with political correctness.

On preview: What C_L said
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:24 PM on July 11, 2005

This is vicious talk and a double standard.

Vicious talk is nothing new here.

To determine whether it's a double standard, one must speculate upon what the reaction would be if someone wrote that he wouldn't mind seeing Condoleezza Rice get raped. Repeatedly. By the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of Satan.

In fact, I prefer a 2x2 grid. "People who we dislike" versus "people to whom we are indifferent" on one axis, and "man" versus "woman" on the other axis.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:25 PM on July 11, 2005

Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just not entirely certain of your meaning there. I'm requesting more information.

My guess: that this post passes muster because the object of the hypothetical devil-rape is a man, and if someone were to wish hypothetical devil-rape on a woman, that wouldn't be cool.

Well, boo-f'ing-hoo. Save your outrage for instances of real double standards in the real world, not alleged double-standards concerning wished-for demon sodomy.
posted by 23skidoo at 2:28 PM on July 11, 2005

"The comment doesn't add anything to the discussion, but serves to make Mefi look bad."

If we went by this standard there really wouldn't be all that much left. I love the over-the-top psycho shit, that's why I read this site.

Look bad to who? This implies that we're trying to look good to someone... who might that be?
posted by cedar at 2:32 PM on July 11, 2005

Just because one person flags a comment doesn't mean it gets deleted. My guess is that not enough people flagged it to make Matt notice.

I personally thought the comment was in poor taste (but I not enough to flag it), but nowhere in the comment does it say that this same treatment would not be acceptable if Karl was a woman. In short: you're overreacting.
posted by Specklet at 2:32 PM on July 11, 2005

Suddenly I wish I was Karl Rove.
posted by loquacious at 2:42 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak posted "I flagged it but nothing happened."

Is this reason enough for a Meta thread? Should I start a Meta thread every time I flag some comment and nothing happens? Does it apply to all flags or just the bad ones? If I flag a comment "fantastic" and it does not make to the sidebar, should I start a Meta thread? Too many questions now, should I start an AskMe thread with them?
posted by nkyad at 2:48 PM on July 11, 2005

Well, not speaking for most edgy conservative mefites, but I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary Clinton get raped. Repeatedly. By the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of Satan, in the fiery pits of hell. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Is this ok too? Because if you don't like it, you don't have a sense of humor.

Hmm. Before I yield to the temptation to snark, please, tweak, expound upon the It's ok if it's a man, but not a woman? part.

Right. Sorry. See above in bold.

Well, boo-f'ing-hoo. Save your outrage for instances of real double standards in the real world, not alleged double-standards concerning wished-for demon sodomy.

What about the internet isn't real-world? What excuse does anonymity provide to act inhumane and cruel? Sure, it will happen but that doesn't make it right.
posted by tweak at 2:52 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak, I thought the linked comment was very funny. And I wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't made this post about it. So thank you for directing me to a very good comment.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:56 PM on July 11, 2005

one must speculate upon what the reaction would be if someone wrote that he wouldn't mind seeing Condoleezza Rice get raped

because, of course, we all know how porcine white men are, historically, as much victims of oppression as, say, black women.

and we all know the terrible stats of the tens of thousands of men raped by other men.

when, on the other hand, man-on-woman rape almost never happens outside of prisons, kwantzar, right?

me, I'd happily live without rape fantasies of any kind getting posted in this site. but then, to each his own. this is the site where "rape haikus" got posted to the front page, so
posted by matteo at 3:01 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak, you are making up the double standard!

I think those that would find the original comment amusing would also find your bolded paralell amusing. Likewise someone who was offended by the idea of Rove getting raped would find your bolded comment equlally offensive.

No one is saying that the comment is okay because Rove is a man. Folks either think it's funny or not.
posted by Specklet at 3:04 PM on July 11, 2005

Tweak, I think "Hillary's Satanic Thorny Fuck" would be absolutely hysterical. I just hope she does anal. The only thing I would ask for is a P2P link to the video of Hillary doing the Lord of Darkness... oh wait, she's been boffing Satan for decades, or so I hear on the blogs.

Does anyone think Bill and Hill actually get nekkid... in the same room at the same time?
posted by cedar at 3:04 PM on July 11, 2005

It's ok if it's a man, but not a woman?

who said anything about a man or a woman? we're talking frog here, dude. strike up some sousa and bring on the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of satan!
posted by quonsar at 3:08 PM on July 11, 2005

What about the internet isn't real-world?

That people are not physically interacting with other people. It's not like a woman and a man doing the same job, but one of them getting paid less. It's not like a Dominican dude and a Irish woman walking into a jewelry store, and only one of them getting followed. It's not like a woman teacher having sex with a student, compared to a male teacher having sex with a student.

It's just words on a screen, and totally hyperbolic words at that. If people want to think that it's real-world, well, I can't really stop them. But it sure ain't real-important.
posted by 23skidoo at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak: Butt-rape is a very funny topic on the internets. If you don’t believe me, just look at any thread on Fark that deals with the subject of a man being incarcerated. Hilarious! LOL! Spit-my-soft drink-all-over-the-monitor funny! (/sarcasm)

I am sympathetic with tweak’s call for civil discourse. Why can’t we disagree with Rove’s ideas and actions, as I vigorously and adamantly do, without having to visualize him bent over by the prince of darkness?
posted by found missing at 3:14 PM on July 11, 2005

23skidoo: you are the one living in the fantasy world if you think words online have no impact on the real world or are unimportant.

I don't think I need to even link to Fred Phelps or the various nutcases who actually... well hell, you probably think that stuff is ok too, right?

I don't see that much of a difference.. Your sex analogy doesn't make any sense to me.

There is a fine line between political satire and obscene rhetoric, and I think it was crossed. I did not read the comment under discussion as a work of fiction. It was not operating under any such sophistic cover. I read it as violent and mean thing to say.
posted by tweak at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2005

posted by mystyk at 3:19 PM on July 11, 2005

*Shrugs*

I just think it's an unnecessary comment. I wouldn't have flagged it myself (in fact, I doubt I'd ever flag anything,) but when asked my opinion I'd say delete it and move on. Many of the above posters are saying the comment isn't that important, so why not just clip it?

I still want the band T-shirt, though.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:23 PM on July 11, 2005

I don't recommend censoring it, but I do agree that it was in bad taste.
posted by ori at 3:24 PM on July 11, 2005

I did not read the comment under discussion as a work of fiction.

So you really think that Satan has a thorny thirty incher?
posted by Specklet at 3:33 PM on July 11, 2005

My analogies were to show that when real people interact with each other, there are real consequences, and those are the double standards that we should be worried about, not that no one took offense to suggested homosexual satan-rape, but hypothetically, people probably would have taken offense to suggested heterosexual satan-rape.

If I'm living in a fantasy world, then what will be the consequence of someone suggesting that a person get raped by the Prince of Darkness in the afterlife?
posted by 23skidoo at 3:34 PM on July 11, 2005

Why can’t we disagree with Rove’s ideas and actions, as I vigorously and adamantly do, without having to visualize him bent over by the prince of darkness?

Because then it's even less mildly amusing than this puerile comment was, it's just kinda upsetting and sad.

Look, I was raised progressive enough I still can't say "bitch". So believe me, rape jokes are totally beyond the pale. Yet I think this callout is pushing it - for one thing, your Hillary Clinton version strikes me as no more or less offensive: both are just kinda unimaginative hyperbole and posturing I'm pretty used to ignoring on teh intrawebs.

Besides, I couldnt take the comment seriously because I happen to know satan has three male organs, of varying length, and none are covered with thorns. One has open sores, one has razors, and one has those wierd barbs that kitties have. All leave terrible rashes.
posted by freebird at 3:34 PM on July 11, 2005

I think this is incredibly insensitive to all the women out there who have been raped by Satan and his thorn-covered thirty-inch cock, and they are all owed an apology.

Any women raped by Satan and his thorn-covered thirty-inch cock want to step up and back me up on this?

Anyone?
posted by sourwookie at 3:37 PM on July 11, 2005

aww poor widdle tweak's all offended.
posted by xmutex at 3:38 PM on July 11, 2005

because, of course, we all know how porcine white men are, historically, as much victims of oppression as, say, black women.

and we all know the terrible stats of the tens of thousands of men raped by other men.

when, on the other hand, man-on-woman rape almost never happens outside of prisons, kwantzar, right?

You've confused me. Is it your point that rape jokes are less disgusting when the their victim-subjects are not members of an oppressed group?
posted by Kwantsar at 3:39 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak: "You are the one living in the fantasy world if you think words online have no impact on the real world or are unimportant.

This is really quite a stretch. Of course words online can have an impact in the real world... can the words your so tweaked about have any impact? Probably not, since it's an obscure (or at least was, until you decided to draw attention to it) comment buried amongst tens of thousands similar ones.

I'm thinking it's unlikely Satan is going to see this, whip out his thorny wang and punk Rove. Any fallen angel knows that once you start ass raping minions it's all over. There is no incitement here. There is nothing here except the fact you, the all important you, are offended. Get over it. I expect anyone who would get so cranked up over a silly weblog comment spends a great deal of time upset and why anyone else should care is beyond me.

"Obscene rhetoric"?

Guess you know it when you see it, huh?

As far as Fred Phelps goes, of course it's okay. I'm a free speech absolutist and as far as I'm concerned Phelps and his ilk can babble on as much as they want. Just more grist for the mocking mill. The more these people talk the more they reveal themselves. Some smart guy once said something about an informed populace...
posted by cedar at 3:39 PM on July 11, 2005

Metafilter would be a haven of great conversation were it not for the dark influence of food additive related racist hate-bile and users invoking the thorny one-metre penis of satan. This place gets worse.
posted by fire&wings at 3:40 PM on July 11, 2005

I did not read the comment under discussion as a work of fiction.


Oh wait, are you one of those people who think there really is a Satan (apparently with thorns on his junk) out there who actually sodomizes portly political advisers? (Coz I wish I could believe it too.)
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:42 PM on July 11, 2005

She's got a thorny 30-incher, I bet.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2005

Maybe if we all believed it would come true? Like Tinkerbell! But with more thorny cock!
posted by freebird at 3:44 PM on July 11, 2005

Anyone here read this? Richard Nixon gets it like fungible wants Rove got, although not by Satan but by Uncle Sam.

Pretty angry book, right there.
posted by hackly_fracture at 3:51 PM on July 11, 2005

I just heard from Karl Rove's mother and she's very upset.

Seriously, this wasn't even a personal attack - and just WAIT until you have to endure one of those - you haven't even began to scratch the surface of offended, there young grasshopper.
posted by lilboo at 3:52 PM on July 11, 2005

1- He would probably enjoy it
2- He's been doing it to all of us for the past 5 years.

It's only fair.
posted by NewBornHippy at 3:57 PM on July 11, 2005

The comment was pretty tasteless and tweak is right - if the comment had been made regarding a woman, the hue and cry would have been awful to behold. This is a double standard that is endemic through society, so there should be no surprises about it existing on the Intarweb as well. Sorry, tweak, but you will just have to learn to deal with this one.
posted by dg at 3:57 PM on July 11, 2005

Funny how if we had just wished him dead it'd be all gender-neutral.
posted by hackly_fracture at 4:00 PM on July 11, 2005

What about hyperbolic metaphor don't you understand? I thought your call-out was over the top, but when you asserted that there is some fault in those who read a comment about Satan as being fiction, well then, I thought it was inane.
posted by OmieWise at 4:03 PM on July 11, 2005

if the comment had been made regarding a woman, the hue and cry would have been awful to behold.

If Satan were a woman, I'm not so sure she'd have a 30-inch thorny cock.
posted by scody at 4:04 PM on July 11, 2005

if the comment had been made regarding a woman, the hue and cry would have been awful to behold.

And the out-of-control PC doesn't stop there! A comment suggesting that Karl Rove should be lynched would probably pass muster, but the same thing said about Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice might make some people uncomfortable. What is it with these irrational PC liberals and their double standards?
posted by transona5 at 4:04 PM on July 11, 2005

So you really think that Satan has a thorny thirty incher?

And he keeps going around the dating sites claiming he's got forty. You wish, Lord of Darkness!

Man, if we can't have a good flameout, a silly callout is the next best thing.
posted by languagehat at 4:04 PM on July 11, 2005

tweak, thanks for the clarification.

Yes, the comment certainly was in bad taste. That was the point.

This is discourse.

Fighting ideological indignation and resisting the temptation to take personal, moral offense at the speakings or writings of others requires the recognition that society is best served when anyone can say whatever they want, whenever they want. Speech is not action. It's a difficult idea to internalize for some people, but having your feelings hurt is not an actionable offense.

Embrace the fact that people will say things with which you strongly disagree. Recognize that by so doing, you are ensuring that you will have the ability to say unpopular things in the future.

cedar pretty much has it.
posted by gramschmidt at 4:07 PM on July 11, 2005

Me so horny. - luv m
posted by mischief at 4:08 PM on July 11, 2005

I question the assumption that a double standard is always bad.

Unless someone else does it to me.
posted by freebird at 4:09 PM on July 11, 2005

Yes, the comment certainly was in bad taste. That was the point.

In light of last week's condemnation of PP for making comments that were in bad taste in support of what he thinks are important ideals, this cavalier attitude toward offensiveness seems quite a contrast.

So far people have admitted that the comment about Satan's member was in poor taste and added nothing other than a visual blight, but nobody is calling for a ban they same way they did just a couple of days ago. I agree that there is a difference in the number of times that the commentor has posted tasteless material that only adds noise, but the difference in response is still prominent.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:11 PM on July 11, 2005

oh you're one to talk about prominent! I'm still sore!
posted by freebird at 4:13 PM on July 11, 2005

If Satan were a woman, I'm not so sure she'd have a 30-inch thorny cock.

but she would be wearing a HOT4QUONSAR tee.
posted by quonsar at 4:18 PM on July 11, 2005

oh you're one to talk about prominent! I'm still sore!

Touche. I never said it wasn't a funny/scary mental image.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:19 PM on July 11, 2005

*looks at chest* Uh oh.
posted by Specklet at 4:23 PM on July 11, 2005

...if the comment had been made regarding a woman, the hue and cry would have been awful to behold

I will categorically call bullshit on that.

I say so because a few times in the past, I have taken note of MeTa "oh i'm so shocked at the mefi double standard" canard and deliberately set about to see if it were true.

Turns out it isn't: in threads where I have intentionally posted offensive remarks analogous to the ones that started MeTa callouts, absolutely no one was phased by it.

There is no double standard, except those held by people who think there is a terrible double standard.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:27 PM on July 11, 2005

Oh Specklet, you devil...
posted by OmieWise at 4:27 PM on July 11, 2005

First today it was racism, now sexism. What's going to make the trifecta?

People are being very sensitive today, perhaps it's still the London bombing thing.

OR, perhaps, it's just clever reverse trolling!
posted by snsranch at 4:29 PM on July 11, 2005

tddl: PP posted in a live thread where our UK members were currently dealing with the possibility that their loved ones had just been blown to smithereens in a terrorist attack.

That is one far fucking cry from a hyperbolic fantasy in which a public figure reknown for his evil machinations is subjected to a wholly imaginary, ne'er to happen punishment for his misdeeds.

If you can't see the difference... hell, I can't believe for a moment that you can't see the difference.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:30 PM on July 11, 2005

Actually, Q, I think I've seen a picture of Marlene Dietrich wearing exactly that shirt!
posted by scody at 4:30 PM on July 11, 2005

Metafilter would be a haven of great conversation were it not for the dark influence of food additive related racist hate-bile and users invoking the thorny one-metre penis of satan.

30 in is only 76.2 cm. I'm tired of all the hyperbole.
posted by grouse at 4:30 PM on July 11, 2005

Actually, I was under the impression that, since it is considered grounds for calling in the Dept. of Homefried Security and dragging you off to Gitmo or WalMart if you openly expressed a wish for the death of a highly-placed government official, that using the imagery of the Devil and his member-as-long-as-my-inseam was a less obvious, yet raunchily humorous way of declaring a desire for the person in question to a)Die b)Go to Hell and c)Experience Endless Suffering. Personally, I would have gone for the "I hope Karl Rove spends eternity locked in a room with the 9/11 terrorists" myself (Of course, considering that they are currently in Hell suffering the disappointment of not getting their 72 virgins, I suspect the effect on Mr. Rove would be quite similar).
posted by wendell at 4:35 PM on July 11, 2005

thedevildancedlightly writes "In light of last week's condemnation of PP for making comments that were in bad taste in support of what he thinks are important ideals, this cavalier attitude toward offensiveness seems quite a contrast. "

I'm not sure this is true. I only dropped into the PP thread toward the beginning (and even then I said I thought he shouldn't be banned), but the nature of the offensiveness seemed much different. First, the comments in the London bombing thread were decried because they went against the nature of the thread, essentially turning what was a thread of contemplation, some kind of mourning and coming to terms with the bombings into something politically charged and insensitive to the pain of others. Second, most of the other comments I read about PP were about his offensiveness directed toward other members, not toward treasonous purveyors of lies that have lead to American deaths. (Ok, obviously I've got a position on Rove, but even without the rhetoric on my part, aiming an over-the-top insult at Rove is different from addressing it to someone on this site.)
posted by OmieWise at 4:35 PM on July 11, 2005

this thread is bouncing between funny and important a little too quickly for me.

i think that on this one we can just revert to the "i know it when i see it" defense, y'all. the example modifications of the original comment here do stray into the disturbing, but those aren't the original comment. whoever said that the original moved into self-parody nailed it. it's just ridiculous. so chill.
posted by spiderwire at 4:36 PM on July 11, 2005

If you can't see the difference... hell, I can't believe for a moment that you can't see the difference.

I recognize the difference in degree, don't worry, but the substance is the same. The comment was tasteless and pointless. It probably wasn't worth a MeTa, but it didn't add anything to the discussion either.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:37 PM on July 11, 2005

anime / hentai is to blame. and rock music.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:12 PM on July 11, 2005

and flouride in the water.
posted by jonmc at 5:16 PM on July 11, 2005

First today it was racism, now sexism. What's going to make the trifecta?

Onanism, baby. And you're soaking in it.
posted by caitlinb at 5:22 PM on July 11, 2005

No, tddl, the substance isn't the same. This statement was stupid, but I don't think it was an intentional derail of the thread not was it meant to be intentionally offensive. This kind of idiocy can be safely ignored. It's ok for people to be stupid since, well, people are stupid. In small doses this stuff is just noise. It's a problem, but so is grown men wearing kid's watches--and you can't really do anything about either.
posted by nixerman at 5:33 PM on July 11, 2005

Onanism, baby. And you're soaking in it.

Great. Now we're doing bukkake. There goes the neighborhood.
posted by jonmc at 5:34 PM on July 11, 2005

Onanism with a thorn-covered thirty-inch cock is just no fun. Believe me.
posted by OmieWise at 5:35 PM on July 11, 2005

First today it was racism, now sexism. What's going to make the trifecta?

Onanism, baby. And you're soaking in it.
posted by caitlinb at 5:22 PM PST on July 11 [!]

Oh, you're asking for it!!!!

FOOD FIGHT!!!!!!
posted by snsranch at 5:37 PM on July 11, 2005

you gotta wear kid gloves in this thread.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:39 PM on July 11, 2005

Fancy that, I had another great grilled cheese sandwich tonight.
posted by sciurus at 5:45 PM on July 11, 2005

posted by matteo at 6:31 PM on July 11, 2005

First today it was racism, now sexism. What's going to make the trifecta?
I forget, what's the third leg of the trifecta? Ageism? Sizeism? Speciesism? Heteronormativism? There are so many things for people to get upset about anymore that I can't keep them straight.
posted by darukaru at 6:42 PM on July 11, 2005

Karl Rove is so dirty. And he likes that.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:48 PM on July 11, 2005

matteoism. And that is a cute pic of you matteo.
posted by snsranch at 7:40 PM on July 11, 2005

Somebody want to point tweak at the Rude Pundit, so I can watch his head explode?

The comment in question was funny. Would have been equally funny if 'Rove' were replaced by 'Hilary' or 'Howard Dean' or 'stavrosthewonderchicken', in my humble.

But I don't actually believe in invisible monsters like satan or god, so the comedy factor is perhaps higher for me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:41 PM on July 11, 2005

Me so horny. - luv m

I think you mean 'me so thorny', don't you?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:53 PM on July 11, 2005

Good one, stwc!
posted by mischief at 8:56 PM on July 11, 2005

Sensibility test: I wouldn't mind seeing amberglow get raped. Repeatedly. By the boil-covered thirty-inch cock of AlexReynolds, in the fiery pits of hell. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Discuss.
posted by Necker at 5:22 AM on July 12, 2005

If true, Alex should go see a doctor about those boils.
posted by sciurus at 5:51 AM on July 12, 2005

Why in the hell are you saying that? About two people among us who would never, ever say something like original statement?

What point is that proving?

Can you really not see the difference between "fuck these murdering freaks who are waging a made-up war and sending my kid to die in order to line their pockets" , and "fuck amberglow and AlexReynolds for complaining too loudly about the murdering freaks... blah, blah."?
posted by taz at 6:16 AM on July 12, 2005

Actually, Necker, it does, because it doesn't seem like a joke, but like an actual expression of hatred toward two members here. I see a difference.
posted by OmieWise at 7:00 AM on July 12, 2005

I wouldn't mind seeing amberglow get raped. Repeatedly. By the boil-covered thirty-inch cock of AlexReynolds, in the fiery pits of hell. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Hell, no. I'd pay to see that!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:07 AM on July 12, 2005

Ooooooh, Necker so naughty! Boy, you sure did make the point that... that... um... ahem. Moving on...


Folks,

It's pretty simple.

It's not "ok if it's a man, but not a woman."

It's ok because it's KARL ROVE.
posted by soyjoy at 7:26 AM on July 12, 2005

tweak, grow some thicker skin. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would be so offended by something so over-the-top outrageous that they'd take the time to flag the comment, wait around for no response, and still be incensed enough about it to post here.

I did not read the comment under discussion as a work of fiction. It was not operating under any such sophistic cover. I read it as violent and mean thing to say.

Wait, are we talking about Rove outing Valerie Plame, now?

alleged double-standards concerning wished-for demon sodomy

Nothing to add, I just love that phrase.
posted by mkultra at 7:36 AM on July 12, 2005

It's ok if it's a man, but not a woman?

Actually, Necker, it does, because it doesn't seem like a joke, but like an actual expression of hatred toward two members here. I see a difference.

Double standards don't seem to be a problem here. Anal penetration is one of the mainstays of the articulate, insightful commentary at Metafilter. I just hope it hasn't lost its shock value.
posted by klarck at 7:41 AM on July 12, 2005

Hey... I was just tossing the "idea" out there to see how it would go over, that's all.
posted by Necker at 8:06 AM on July 12, 2005

my butt hurts.
posted by quonsar at 8:07 AM on July 12, 2005

my butt hurts.

Are there hoofprints in the mattress and a buck on the nightstand?
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on July 12, 2005

Are there hoofprints in the mattress and a buck on the nightstand?

Satan never pays for it.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:22 AM on July 12, 2005

Satan never pays for it.

He pays a little, but only so he can get a reciept and write it off as a business expense.
posted by jonmc at 9:28 AM on July 12, 2005

Write it off? You mean even Satan has to answer to the IRS? Somehow I'm not surprised...
posted by languagehat at 10:36 AM on July 12, 2005

I've been around Metafilter long enough to know that even the merest *hint* of offence towards women normally gets a callout in Meta ("Boyzone! Misogynists!") - I didn't find the "thorny devil dick rape" comment offensive in anyway (not really that funny either as it was just rather dull to my tastes), but I do see a double-standard, which I find annoying.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 11:02 AM on July 12, 2005

Write it off? You mean even Satan has to answer to the IRS? Somehow I'm not surprised...
posted by languagehat at 10:36 AM PST on July 12

Satan doesn't have to report to the IRS. He's not American, so the IRS has not authority over him. And what's more, US courts have no jurisdiction over him if he refuses to pay.

It's clear Satan is not American. My best guess is that Satan is Arab. Or French.

/plays to his stereotype
posted by dios at 11:16 AM on July 12, 2005

You fools. Satan was born in Slovakia and plays in Buffalo.
posted by COBRA! at 12:04 PM on July 12, 2005

Has anyone read this?
posted by deborah at 12:05 PM on July 12, 2005

That is an imposter COBRA!. He'd play for New Jersey if he was legit.
posted by sciurus at 12:23 PM on July 12, 2005

Better link for COBRA!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:26 PM on July 12, 2005

Haha, that rules.
posted by sciurus at 1:32 PM on July 12, 2005

I've been around Metafilter long enough to know that even the merest *hint* of offence towards women normally gets a callout in Meta ("Boyzone! Misogynists!")

Are you kidding me? If I called out every misogynist comment on this site, I'd do nothing else.

Since this particular comment was a hypothetical situation, I see nothing wrong with it. It's not like the devil is actually going to rape Rove. I feel the same about the proposed Condi Rice reversal. It's not real.
posted by agregoli at 2:28 PM on July 12, 2005

I propose that flagging makes a loud "Boing" sound so that tweak will know something happened next time.
posted by fenriq at 2:52 PM on July 12, 2005

If I called out every misogynist comment on this site, I'd do nothing else.

Then I guess Metafilter is full of misogynists in your view.........proving my point.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 3:05 PM on July 12, 2005

It was actually supposed to read "but I wouldn't mind seeing Rove get raped. Repeatedly. By the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of Santa."
posted by five fresh fish at 3:56 PM on July 12, 2005

You're a liar, fff. Santa's 30-incher is covered in jingle-bells, not thorns.
posted by jonmc at 3:57 PM on July 12, 2005

"but I wouldn't mind seeing Rove get raped. Repeatedly. By the thorn-covered thirty-inch cock of Santa."
Now that, I would pay to see!

Of course, we may be tallking about different Roves.
posted by dg at 4:01 PM on July 12, 2005

thedevildancedlightly : "I recognize the difference in degree, don't worry, but the substance is the same."

My wife giving my hand a squeeze and Mike Tyson grinding my knuckles into powder are the same in substance but different in degrees. That doesn't mean that they are functionally equivalent. Degree is important.

nixerman : "It's a problem, but so is grown men wearing kid's watches"

(Stop talking about me)

And, for the record, I believe the third part of the "sexism racism" trifecta is "homophobia".
posted by bugbread at 2:50 AM on July 13, 2005