Ladies and gentleman, welcome MeFi's newest troll! July 29, 2005 7:59 PM Subscribe
I have to say, I like his motorcycles.
But the Cubs? And the Yankees?
posted by yhbc at 8:09 PM on July 29, 2005
But the Cubs? And the Yankees?
posted by yhbc at 8:09 PM on July 29, 2005
"President Bush is a decent man doing the best he can"
Clearly the only way to deal with this witch is to see if it weighs the same as a duck.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:09 PM on July 29, 2005
Clearly the only way to deal with this witch is to see if it weighs the same as a duck.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:09 PM on July 29, 2005
I'm just here to do my job.
It's called humility.
Well, he's funnier than bad commie...
posted by y2karl at 8:13 PM on July 29, 2005
It's called humility.
Well, he's funnier than bad commie...
posted by y2karl at 8:13 PM on July 29, 2005
Sounds like shouting is on a crusade to save us from ourselves. How christian of him.
posted by iwouldificould at 8:14 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by iwouldificould at 8:14 PM on July 29, 2005
Shouting doesn't seem to be, well, adding a lot of reasoned debate to the threads:
"Stop pretending that your silly ideas really matter. They don't."
"The usual childish BS."
"Looking at the past from the vantage point of a spoiled modern kid is an exercise in lunacy."
"Don't pay much attention to this stuff now, except to marvel at people who do pay attention to it."
"The Marxists are always singing the same tune, aren't they?"
"I know this is hard for silly kids (and Marxists) to understand."
"The things that are bothering you in your personal life have nothing to do with politics. Why don't you find out what's really bother you, and quit looking for something outside yourself to blame ... Consider your relationship with God. This might be a more fruitful way of finding your way out of anger and hatred."
posted by kyrademon at 8:15 PM on July 29, 2005
"Stop pretending that your silly ideas really matter. They don't."
"The usual childish BS."
"Looking at the past from the vantage point of a spoiled modern kid is an exercise in lunacy."
"Don't pay much attention to this stuff now, except to marvel at people who do pay attention to it."
"The Marxists are always singing the same tune, aren't they?"
"I know this is hard for silly kids (and Marxists) to understand."
"The things that are bothering you in your personal life have nothing to do with politics. Why don't you find out what's really bother you, and quit looking for something outside yourself to blame ... Consider your relationship with God. This might be a more fruitful way of finding your way out of anger and hatred."
posted by kyrademon at 8:15 PM on July 29, 2005
This is great and all, but his one "non-troll" post is pure fucking gold.
I mean, seducing your woman with magic pee? AWESOME!
posted by selfnoise at 8:17 PM on July 29, 2005
I mean, seducing your woman with magic pee? AWESOME!
posted by selfnoise at 8:17 PM on July 29, 2005
This is rich: ... I’ve begun to avoid the rants, more out of exhaustion than anything else. I even got tired of my own bloviating. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on July 29, 2005
He also links to the New YorK Times and not the Post, oddly enough.
posted by trey at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by trey at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2005
Thus, in most colleges, the requirement to take a course in U.S. history and western civilization has been dumped in favor of the required course in feminism and queer studies.
To which I can only respond
posted by gramschmidt at 8:44 PM on July 29, 2005
To which I can only respond
posted by gramschmidt at 8:44 PM on July 29, 2005
Wow, I'm inclined to make a snarky remark about him being a Cubs fan (White Sox fan in da house!), but I'm sort of struck by the fact that -- based on his multiple references to his wife who passed away last year -- appears to be an unhappy guy in his 40s or 50s instead of the teenage dumbass he comes across as. Hmm. Which doesn't make him less of a MeTroll (and one with magic pee, no less!), but it does make me inclined to feel more pity than irritation.
posted by scody at 8:45 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by scody at 8:45 PM on July 29, 2005
It's hysterical and sad that out of all the issues i mention and link to and all of Robert's statements and actions i talk about in that Roberts thread, he focuses on the one same-sex marriage sentence.
Someone has issues. Perhaps a better relationship with God would help Shouting? It might be a more fruitful way of finding his way out of anger and hatred too. ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on July 29, 2005
Someone has issues. Perhaps a better relationship with God would help Shouting? It might be a more fruitful way of finding his way out of anger and hatred too. ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on July 29, 2005
I just don't understand why he keeps moving to liberal havens. Wouldn't he feel more comfortable in Mississippi?
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:59 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:59 PM on July 29, 2005
Troll? Really? He seems to be expressing his thoughts and beliefs in an honest manner, not baiting people for the sole purpose of baiting them. Is that a troll? Do people get callouts now when others disagree with their opinions? Or when others dislike their writing style? I vehemently disagree with maybe 75% of what's written on this site. Can I start calling out matteo and Y2karl because their opinons about religion or Iraq are amusing and childish to me? This post is really pretty stupid, and pretty contrary to what I thought Metafilter was all about.
Not that I ever would, I love them both too much. Especially matteo.
posted by loquax at 8:59 PM on July 29, 2005
Not that I ever would, I love them both too much. Especially matteo.
posted by loquax at 8:59 PM on July 29, 2005
"Stop pretending that your silly ideas really matter. They don't."
Yes, that's a sparkling example of honest, non-baiting discourse.
posted by scody at 9:02 PM on July 29, 2005
Yes, that's a sparkling example of honest, non-baiting discourse.
posted by scody at 9:02 PM on July 29, 2005
Jumping in with an unsolicited recommendation that another user get a better "relationship with God" based on a selection of issues that user cares about sounds like trolling to me.
posted by aaronetc at 9:05 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by aaronetc at 9:05 PM on July 29, 2005
Are you kidding? Have you been reading the site long? Compared to some of the comments on here, that quote is sheer poetry.
I'm not saying the cited posts were fantastic by any stretch, just that they no more merit a callout than the average anti-bush snarky comment. Half of the comments here amount to "your silly ideas don't matter", just regarding a different set of silly ideas.
And compared to some of the insults slung around here, advising a better relationship with God ranks as one of the gentler recommendations I've seen.
posted by loquax at 9:07 PM on July 29, 2005
I'm not saying the cited posts were fantastic by any stretch, just that they no more merit a callout than the average anti-bush snarky comment. Half of the comments here amount to "your silly ideas don't matter", just regarding a different set of silly ideas.
And compared to some of the insults slung around here, advising a better relationship with God ranks as one of the gentler recommendations I've seen.
posted by loquax at 9:07 PM on July 29, 2005
I think, Loquax, that what might make him a troll is he is essentially name calling and telling everyone to shut-up, their opinions don't matter. Which if this was an occasional thing interspersed with something else topic related might be somewhat forgivable (annoying perhaps, but about par for a high % of mefis), but, apart from magic pee what has he contributed?
Seems a confused person despite his confidence of style.
posted by edgeways at 9:07 PM on July 29, 2005
Seems a confused person despite his confidence of style.
posted by edgeways at 9:07 PM on July 29, 2005
His posts verge on satire. Are we sure this guy is for real and not a sock puppet?
I find it odd that the only person he speaks to in any of his comments is amberglow. Could be a fluke, or he has been lurking for a while, but doesn't it generally take longer to gain those kind of bearings (i.e. who's who here, plus the overly personalized nature of his comment). That is unless amberglow is on some sort of FreeRepublic hit list or something.
posted by Quartermass at 9:11 PM on July 29, 2005
I find it odd that the only person he speaks to in any of his comments is amberglow. Could be a fluke, or he has been lurking for a while, but doesn't it generally take longer to gain those kind of bearings (i.e. who's who here, plus the overly personalized nature of his comment). That is unless amberglow is on some sort of FreeRepublic hit list or something.
posted by Quartermass at 9:11 PM on July 29, 2005
I have to disagree edgeways, he seems to be expressing his disagreement with the ideas and comments in the threads, not individual posters. I don't see any name calling either, unless you count "marxist" and "liberal" as bad names. Maybe he's a little abrasive, or whatever, but hardly deserving of a callout. This smacks a little of selective prosecution. And what exactly is this MeTa post supposed to accomplish, besides mocking him and his beliefs? Is there a call for a ban on the table yet?
posted by loquax at 9:12 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by loquax at 9:12 PM on July 29, 2005
Meet the New Quonsar!
posted by I EAT TAPES at 9:20 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by I EAT TAPES at 9:20 PM on July 29, 2005
I thought this post was just to welcome Shouting to MetaFilter, and to let him know that the tone, tenor and topic of the majority of his first few comments have been noted by the membership. Generally, first impressions are the hardest to break, but they don't have to be lasting ones. If Shouting wants to be a contributing member whose opinions and comments are welcomed and appreciated, great. However, to do that he will need to overcome the initial impression he has made.
posted by yhbc at 9:22 PM on July 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by yhbc at 9:22 PM on July 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
He doesn't seem like that big a troll -- if he is one at all. There are people way more obnoxious than him here at metafilter. If you label this dude a troll, the word looses all meaning. 111, now there was a troll. God bless that son of a bitch.
posted by chunking express at 9:22 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by chunking express at 9:22 PM on July 29, 2005
How exactly is he a troll? Other than one comment where he addresses amberglow personally, I don't see anything wrong with his comments.
Too much of a smart ass? How about compared to someone like nofundy?
And I don't see anything as offensive as Arch Stanton's cliched mississippi comment.
posted by justgary at 9:28 PM on July 29, 2005
Too much of a smart ass? How about compared to someone like nofundy?
And I don't see anything as offensive as Arch Stanton's cliched mississippi comment.
posted by justgary at 9:28 PM on July 29, 2005
You seem a bit overwrought, loquax. Nobody is calling for his banning.
He entered yellling. And then there is the whole signal to noise aspect: based on the evidence provided, his is not the brightest bulb in the MetaFilter marquee thus far.
He certainly chose an apt moniker.
posted by y2karl at 9:28 PM on July 29, 2005
He entered yellling. And then there is the whole signal to noise aspect: based on the evidence provided, his is not the brightest bulb in the MetaFilter marquee thus far.
He certainly chose an apt moniker.
posted by y2karl at 9:28 PM on July 29, 2005
If Shouting wants to be a contributing member whose opinions and comments are welcomed and appreciated, great. However, to do that he will need to overcome the initial impression he has made.
posted by yhbc
What is this, a grade school playground? He should give his honest opinions. Screw being welcomed.
posted by justgary at 9:30 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by yhbc
What is this, a grade school playground? He should give his honest opinions. Screw being welcomed.
posted by justgary at 9:30 PM on July 29, 2005
...not individual posters. I don't see any name calling either...
That's a good one, loquax. Go and read those linked comments. And making a point of telling people repeatedly (on a site devoted to the discussion of links, no less) to stop talking about the subjects of threads? That's kinda a definition of a troll.
posted by amberglow at 9:30 PM on July 29, 2005
That's a good one, loquax. Go and read those linked comments. And making a point of telling people repeatedly (on a site devoted to the discussion of links, no less) to stop talking about the subjects of threads? That's kinda a definition of a troll.
posted by amberglow at 9:30 PM on July 29, 2005
I wonder if Shouting will ever realize the fundamental irony of repeatedly posting to metafilter about how no one cares about the opinions of people posting to metafilter.
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on July 29, 2005
My theory is that this is bevets' new "on-his-meds" puppet account.
posted by mek at 9:34 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by mek at 9:34 PM on July 29, 2005
He certainly chose an apt moniker.
I think Shouting (Thomas) is just the name he does music under.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:34 PM on July 29, 2005
I think Shouting (Thomas) is just the name he does music under.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:34 PM on July 29, 2005
BTW trey, you did e-mail him about this thread, yes?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:36 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:36 PM on July 29, 2005
I just noticed that website as well, PinkStainlessTail.
I'm sorry for your loss, Shouting.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:36 PM on July 29, 2005
I'm sorry for your loss, Shouting.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:36 PM on July 29, 2005
BTW, it's never quite so easy to dismiss people completely when you put a face, and possibly a human story, to their moniker. I don't think there's any need to make this into the traditional MeFi witchhunt. Nobody here knows the guy and perhaps a gentle warning would suffice to cool him off a bit. I don't think we need a 100 comment thread dedicated to how "intellectually inferior" his postings are, do you?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:40 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:40 PM on July 29, 2005
justgary: no, it's not a fucking playground, but it is a community where people are judged, and identified, by what they say. Some people take a long time to be easily identifed as an asshole, while others can do so in their first twenty or so comments. Either way, once they are so identified, it's hard for people to break that perception.
Also, fuck you, you fucking fucker.
posted by yhbc at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2005
Also, fuck you, you fucking fucker.
posted by yhbc at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2005
Where's the name calling amberglow? I see marxist, liberal and "silly kids". I realize he got personal with you, but really, was what he said so offensive that it immediately needed to be dragged here?
He's not telling people not to discuss the subject of the threads, he's disagreeing with the opinions expressed in the threads, and disagreeing with the subject matter (from what I've read, I haven't combed through his history). Even if he were, I still don't see how that fits any definition of troll that I've ever seen.
And since when has a member needed the approval of the membership in order to participate here? He should be free to express himself well, or poorly, or any way he wants, short of being abusive or threatening, and not have to put up with this kind of mocking and clucking of tongues. Of course, by the same token, you're free to rag on him to your heart's content here, but it makes me wonder who's actually being more of a "teenage dumbass".
I'll try to be less overwrought in the future, y2karl, this post and the immediate mockery just really rubbed me the wrong way. Why couldn't the disapproval over his comments be kept in the threads themselves?
posted by loquax at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2005
He's not telling people not to discuss the subject of the threads, he's disagreeing with the opinions expressed in the threads, and disagreeing with the subject matter (from what I've read, I haven't combed through his history). Even if he were, I still don't see how that fits any definition of troll that I've ever seen.
And since when has a member needed the approval of the membership in order to participate here? He should be free to express himself well, or poorly, or any way he wants, short of being abusive or threatening, and not have to put up with this kind of mocking and clucking of tongues. Of course, by the same token, you're free to rag on him to your heart's content here, but it makes me wonder who's actually being more of a "teenage dumbass".
I'll try to be less overwrought in the future, y2karl, this post and the immediate mockery just really rubbed me the wrong way. Why couldn't the disapproval over his comments be kept in the threads themselves?
posted by loquax at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2005
Yeah, I don't see this as trolling so much as "having an opinion that the majority of people here strongly disagree with". On the other hand, if it IS trolling, and he's just making up random bullshit to get attention, then shame on you suckers (basically everyone who responded) for falling for it. I'm sure there's a net.aphorism concerning trolls & foodstuffs that would apply nicely.
posted by jonson at 9:49 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by jonson at 9:49 PM on July 29, 2005
but it is a community where people are judged, and identified, by what they say.
Reading shouting's opinions, he's going to be judged anyway. Again, if he's a troll, that's one thing. I don't see it though. If someone's worried about being judged on metafilter, it's time to step outside and get some fresh air.
posted by justgary at 9:50 PM on July 29, 2005
Reading shouting's opinions, he's going to be judged anyway. Again, if he's a troll, that's one thing. I don't see it though. If someone's worried about being judged on metafilter, it's time to step outside and get some fresh air.
posted by justgary at 9:50 PM on July 29, 2005
Why couldn't the disapproval over his comments be kept in the threads themselves?
Because the grey is more the place for such comments than in the blue ?
In theory, we discuss topics there and members here. That is how I understand it.
posted by y2karl at 9:51 PM on July 29, 2005
I don't see much point in posting about it either place, to be honest, however, loquax, so your point is taken. And, as scody noted above, if you read his blog and sift out the ranting, you see a human story.
My typing is very slow and full of typos. I just can't keep up with any conversation moving very fast.
posted by y2karl at 10:00 PM on July 29, 2005
My typing is very slow and full of typos. I just can't keep up with any conversation moving very fast.
posted by y2karl at 10:00 PM on July 29, 2005
Shouting just blows
Written after shoutings comment, and taken out of context just as his comment was.
Pick and choose I guess.
posted by justgary at 10:20 PM on July 29, 2005
Written after shoutings comment, and taken out of context just as his comment was.
Pick and choose I guess.
posted by justgary at 10:20 PM on July 29, 2005
He's knocked amberglow from the top of the contribution index, but does he have the stamina to come back day after day? Time will tell.
Personally, I hope he stays around: he's older than I am.
posted by timeistight at 10:23 PM on July 29, 2005
Personally, I hope he stays around: he's older than I am.
posted by timeistight at 10:23 PM on July 29, 2005
He's no more intentionally provocative than a good number of popular mefites are. You don't like his politics. I don't either. I think he's a dumbfuck (and I got your Wes. Civ over here, pal). But he's not a "troll". Not in either definition of the term. What Loquax and jonson and justgary have said.
Why can't some of you people recognize your hypocrisy? You get all upset when someone says some outrageous rightist political thing, but then you go for the gusto and hyperbole all the time and say things that are just as intentionally provocative to people on the right.
We have this argument over and over and over. And the reason we have this argument is that basically there's two types of people (in this regard): the sure-of-themselves and the fallibilists. If you know that your point of view (on everything!) is right, then you really can't compare how you behave to how someone who is wrong behaves. That's what the conscious or unconscious premise is. Others of us figure that we're bound to be wrong about a lot of stuff, especially highly-polarized political stuff, and so see virtue in promoting a kind of behavior that encourages truthseeking and discourages self-rationalization of bias. Key among those behaviors is questioning your own motives cynically and giving your "opponents" the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:26 PM on July 29, 2005
Why can't some of you people recognize your hypocrisy? You get all upset when someone says some outrageous rightist political thing, but then you go for the gusto and hyperbole all the time and say things that are just as intentionally provocative to people on the right.
We have this argument over and over and over. And the reason we have this argument is that basically there's two types of people (in this regard): the sure-of-themselves and the fallibilists. If you know that your point of view (on everything!) is right, then you really can't compare how you behave to how someone who is wrong behaves. That's what the conscious or unconscious premise is. Others of us figure that we're bound to be wrong about a lot of stuff, especially highly-polarized political stuff, and so see virtue in promoting a kind of behavior that encourages truthseeking and discourages self-rationalization of bias. Key among those behaviors is questioning your own motives cynically and giving your "opponents" the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:26 PM on July 29, 2005
Perhaps Shouting is unable to reorder his life since Myrna's death and his unhappiness/loneliness sours his outlook.
posted by Cranberry at 10:41 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by Cranberry at 10:41 PM on July 29, 2005
If I wanted to hear middle-aged white guys who compensate for their underperforming penises with big motorcycles whine about political correctness I'd hang out at littlegreendickwads.
Just sayin'.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 11:04 PM on July 29, 2005
Just sayin'.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 11:04 PM on July 29, 2005
I, for one, doubt Shouting will bother to read MetaTalk.
I hope he is enjoying his five dollars.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:32 PM on July 29, 2005
I hope he is enjoying his five dollars.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:32 PM on July 29, 2005
Well, he's certainly enjoying this attention. Stupid callout.
posted by mediareport at 11:59 PM on July 29, 2005
posted by mediareport at 11:59 PM on July 29, 2005
Even if he's a troll, jessamyn and mathowie have established that trollish behaviour is acceptable on MetaFilter. This fact was made very clear by their refusal to publicly admonish ParisParamus.
posted by mosch at 12:02 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by mosch at 12:02 AM on July 30, 2005
The "gays are discriminated against" motif is just foolishness. Nonsense. Isn't happening. Didn't happen in the past. It's a sin to tell a lie. Childish to pretend.
He's just baiting you, amberglow, because you're one of the MeFi celebs and an outspoken gay man. I doubt that he's even really as anti-gay, anti-femenist as he claims to be; he's probably y2karl's sock puppet or something... a nom de troll for a user who wants to spout out all his repressed anti-PC perspectives. I'll just add him to my mental skip list and wish him the best.
posted by squirrel at 12:07 AM on July 30, 2005
He's just baiting you, amberglow, because you're one of the MeFi celebs and an outspoken gay man. I doubt that he's even really as anti-gay, anti-femenist as he claims to be; he's probably y2karl's sock puppet or something... a nom de troll for a user who wants to spout out all his repressed anti-PC perspectives. I'll just add him to my mental skip list and wish him the best.
posted by squirrel at 12:07 AM on July 30, 2005
All the single sentences, the double spaces for effect; it is like a Limbaugh wanna be doing web posts. I wonder what his sleep comfort number is, or if he has the finest wood flooring in his home, etc... tap tap tap... should I pause for a drama breath while reading his stuff?
My ten cents says a very angry person, shy a titulo, working harder every day to supress a latency that he would be more comfortable to realize, and gone in a month or two. I'll save the other $4.90 for later.
posted by buzzman at 12:14 AM on July 30, 2005
My ten cents says a very angry person, shy a titulo, working harder every day to supress a latency that he would be more comfortable to realize, and gone in a month or two. I'll save the other $4.90 for later.
posted by buzzman at 12:14 AM on July 30, 2005
Btw, nothing personal, y2k: I use you as an example of improbably. Also, I think buzzman is right about Shouting's latency. Who can't stand hearing about homos more than a closet poof? It may be a sin to tell a like, but the Good Book says nothing about cruising public toilets down by the pier. Let the sun shine in, Shouty!
posted by squirrel at 12:20 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by squirrel at 12:20 AM on July 30, 2005
Ah.........111 , now there was a troll......
/sepia
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:22 AM on July 30, 2005
/sepia
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:22 AM on July 30, 2005
Ethereal Bligh: Others of us figure that we're bound to be wrong about a lot of stuff, especially highly-polarized political stuff, and so see virtue in promoting a kind of behavior that encourages truthseeking and discourages self-rationalization of bias.
You have never admitted that you're wrong, ever. So it's funny that the tone of your comment suggests that in you're in the camp that often thinks they're wrong. Because you don't believe that for a second.
Why can't some of you people recognize your hypocrisy? You get all upset when someone says some outrageous rightist political thing, but then you go for the gusto and hyperbole all the time and say things that are just as intentionally provocative to people on the right.
But Ethereal Bligh is absolutely correct in that assertion. There's an ugly double-standard going on here. I think that Shouting is obnoxious and I hope that he goes away, but "he's trolling!" is a more often than not a euphemism for "I strongly disagree with him and want others to jump on him to have him censured/banned." Fucking grow up and realize that Shouting is absolutely right in one assertion-- your opinion does not matter. Nor does his. Nor does mine. We're all just Cuchalainn fighting the tide, but some of us are also jerking off while we do it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:31 AM on July 30, 2005
You have never admitted that you're wrong, ever. So it's funny that the tone of your comment suggests that in you're in the camp that often thinks they're wrong. Because you don't believe that for a second.
Why can't some of you people recognize your hypocrisy? You get all upset when someone says some outrageous rightist political thing, but then you go for the gusto and hyperbole all the time and say things that are just as intentionally provocative to people on the right.
But Ethereal Bligh is absolutely correct in that assertion. There's an ugly double-standard going on here. I think that Shouting is obnoxious and I hope that he goes away, but "he's trolling!" is a more often than not a euphemism for "I strongly disagree with him and want others to jump on him to have him censured/banned." Fucking grow up and realize that Shouting is absolutely right in one assertion-- your opinion does not matter. Nor does his. Nor does mine. We're all just Cuchalainn fighting the tide, but some of us are also jerking off while we do it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:31 AM on July 30, 2005
This was the first post I read, and I assumed the guy was just an angry (closeted) sock with a paypal account. But when I read this I knew he just wanted blog hits. You got me, asseyes. Happy?
posted by maryh at 1:34 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by maryh at 1:34 AM on July 30, 2005
FWIW, I thought his ability to cloak brazen sanctimony and willful ignorance in the garb of wizened profundity and bubblegum spirituality in the global-warming thread had a kind of accidental artistry to it.
Dunno if it needed this MeTa birth announcement or anything, but clearly there's another magnificent bastard in town.
posted by gompa at 1:54 AM on July 30, 2005
Dunno if it needed this MeTa birth announcement or anything, but clearly there's another magnificent bastard in town.
posted by gompa at 1:54 AM on July 30, 2005
Squirrel said: He's just baiting you, amberglow, because you're one of the MeFi celebs and an outspoken gay man. I doubt that he's even really as anti-gay, anti-femenist as he claims to be
Well, isn't that trolling? At least we actually believe that PP is expressing his own opinions. Shouting is simply peeing in our coffee cups. And I like my java straight.
posted by zaelic at 2:37 AM on July 30, 2005
Well, isn't that trolling? At least we actually believe that PP is expressing his own opinions. Shouting is simply peeing in our coffee cups. And I like my java straight.
posted by zaelic at 2:37 AM on July 30, 2005
Look at what all this fussing and a fighting is doing to our noble leader.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:45 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:45 AM on July 30, 2005
jessamyn and mathowie have established that trollish behaviour is acceptable on MetaFilter. This fact was made very clear by their refusal to publicly admonish ParisParamus.
You know, mathowie and jessamyn don't have to weigh in on something to make it unacceptable behavior. "Self-policing," right?
posted by grouse at 4:06 AM on July 30, 2005
You know, mathowie and jessamyn don't have to weigh in on something to make it unacceptable behavior. "Self-policing," right?
posted by grouse at 4:06 AM on July 30, 2005
But when I read this I knew he just wanted blog hits.
Yea, the trollish behavior is sort of entertaining, at first I thought that it was a parody as it's so over the top. But pimping your own blog in an unrelated thread is pretty lame.
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on July 30, 2005
Yea, the trollish behavior is sort of entertaining, at first I thought that it was a parody as it's so over the top. But pimping your own blog in an unrelated thread is pretty lame.
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on July 30, 2005
I EAT SHOUTING
posted by loquacious at 4:36 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by loquacious at 4:36 AM on July 30, 2005
maryh and octothorpe: in fairness, shouting didn't bring up his own blog until joe lisboa made fun of it in the comment immediately preceding the one you both cite, so the mention of his blog is a reply to a comment brought up by another.
1.) Judge Roberts, what's your take on a grown man who names his weblog, and I quote, 'Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars'? What, to you, does it suggest beyond a tendency to lecture others in a completely shallow yet utterly condescending manner in public fora?
posted by madamjujujive at 5:43 AM on July 30, 2005
1.) Judge Roberts, what's your take on a grown man who names his weblog, and I quote, 'Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars'? What, to you, does it suggest beyond a tendency to lecture others in a completely shallow yet utterly condescending manner in public fora?
posted by madamjujujive at 5:43 AM on July 30, 2005
madamjujujive: Ahh, I didn't scroll up to see that he was responding to another post. Nevermind.
posted by octothorpe at 5:54 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by octothorpe at 5:54 AM on July 30, 2005
I'm kind of on the fence about his putative trollishness; I'm quite convinced his opinions, however repugnant to me, are genuine, which pushes me towards the non-troll side, but the aggressive way in which he expresses them, particularly the nasty attacks on amberglow, push in the other direction. Perhaps this quote from his blog gives us a hint:
In the formative years of weblogging, you could count on liberals and conservatives to engage in comments battles that continued for days. Nowadays, it seems as though only the satire websites, like BlameBush! and Iowahawk produce those endless comment battles… and these battles are in jest. Occasionally, some dufus like howie doesn’t get the idea of satire at all, but he’s a rarity. Comment debate on the 2Blowhards site is so polite that it’s almost an embarassment. The neo-neocon site has even calmed down, now that Ho Chi Minh and I have stopped slugging it out. Have we all gotten tired of calling one another names?
As for his sad life: please, give me a fucking break. Nobody's ever inquired what made poor 111 the way he was; nobody asks what ParisParamus is suffering that makes him so difficult. We've all got our sob stories. That's completely irrelevant to whether he's behaving in a way MeFi should put up with.
posted by languagehat at 6:10 AM on July 30, 2005
In the formative years of weblogging, you could count on liberals and conservatives to engage in comments battles that continued for days. Nowadays, it seems as though only the satire websites, like BlameBush! and Iowahawk produce those endless comment battles… and these battles are in jest. Occasionally, some dufus like howie doesn’t get the idea of satire at all, but he’s a rarity. Comment debate on the 2Blowhards site is so polite that it’s almost an embarassment. The neo-neocon site has even calmed down, now that Ho Chi Minh and I have stopped slugging it out. Have we all gotten tired of calling one another names?
As for his sad life: please, give me a fucking break. Nobody's ever inquired what made poor 111 the way he was; nobody asks what ParisParamus is suffering that makes him so difficult. We've all got our sob stories. That's completely irrelevant to whether he's behaving in a way MeFi should put up with.
posted by languagehat at 6:10 AM on July 30, 2005
in fairness, shouting didn't bring up his own blog until joe lisboa made fun of it in the comment immediately preceding the one you both cite
And now, thanks to madamejujujive, we find joe lisboa's
3.) If a strict constructionist farts and it travels across state lines faster than the speed of stupid, does it violate the precedent established in Dingle v. Berry?
faster than the speed of stupid--joe was on a roll there.
posted by y2karl at 6:49 AM on July 30, 2005
And now, thanks to madamejujujive, we find joe lisboa's
3.) If a strict constructionist farts and it travels across state lines faster than the speed of stupid, does it violate the precedent established in Dingle v. Berry?
faster than the speed of stupid--joe was on a roll there.
posted by y2karl at 6:49 AM on July 30, 2005
Nobody's ever inquired what made poor 111 the way he was
I'm pretty sure that Witty's still around if you want to ask him.
I have a childish need to remind people that 111 was Witty every time the name comes up.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:59 AM on July 30, 2005
I'm pretty sure that Witty's still around if you want to ask him.
I have a childish need to remind people that 111 was Witty every time the name comes up.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:59 AM on July 30, 2005
Shouting is a troll, not because his opinions aren't genuine but because of his caustic manner of expression. And because he is a right-wing troll, he is getting a deserved call-out. Shouting: Cool it , man. You do your cause no good this way.
posted by LarryC at 7:01 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by LarryC at 7:01 AM on July 30, 2005
I know Little Green Footballs has closed registration, but you're welcome to use my account for your rhetoric of war and hate.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:03 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:03 AM on July 30, 2005
Can I start calling out matteo and Y2karl because their opinons about religion or Iraq are amusing and childish to me?
please help yourself. if you think it's "childish" to point out that sending soldiers to be slaughtered in a war declared on faked evidence, OK. is it "childish" to write that a war declared to catch those phantom wmd's doesn't make you look good? is that the childish part? I don't know, seriously.
but in a way I'm grateful for the Shoutings and the Bad Commies of the Internet -- they reveal the right wing in all its pettiness and its hatred for minorities. loquax, frankly I don't remember your comments well enough to know what you mean there. not that I particularly care. but this Shouting person thinks that gays haven't been discriminated against in the past and aren't discriminated against now. he thinks that straight males are discriminated, instead.
he brags that he likes to piss in women's coffee, for fuck's sake -- I'm glad you like the company of this kind of people. I don't, really.
I'm just sorry for the women who share your office coffe pot and for the gays who have to endure your company.
oh, I am curious about one thing, loquax: what about my posts on religion -- what's the childish part there, too ?
posted by matteo at 8:00 AM on July 30, 2005
please help yourself. if you think it's "childish" to point out that sending soldiers to be slaughtered in a war declared on faked evidence, OK. is it "childish" to write that a war declared to catch those phantom wmd's doesn't make you look good? is that the childish part? I don't know, seriously.
but in a way I'm grateful for the Shoutings and the Bad Commies of the Internet -- they reveal the right wing in all its pettiness and its hatred for minorities. loquax, frankly I don't remember your comments well enough to know what you mean there. not that I particularly care. but this Shouting person thinks that gays haven't been discriminated against in the past and aren't discriminated against now. he thinks that straight males are discriminated, instead.
he brags that he likes to piss in women's coffee, for fuck's sake -- I'm glad you like the company of this kind of people. I don't, really.
I'm just sorry for the women who share your office coffe pot and for the gays who have to endure your company.
oh, I am curious about one thing, loquax: what about my posts on religion -- what's the childish part there, too ?
posted by matteo at 8:00 AM on July 30, 2005
nobody asks what ParisParamus is suffering that makes him so difficult.
didn't he say once that a French woman stood him up at the altar or something?
posted by matteo at 8:02 AM on July 30, 2005
didn't he say once that a French woman stood him up at the altar or something?
posted by matteo at 8:02 AM on July 30, 2005
What zaelic and LarryC said. Just because he also spouts insane and completely false rightwing rhetoric doesn't exempt him from being a troll. Trolls come in all flavors.
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on July 30, 2005
Matteo, relax! I was just using you as a well know example as a prolific and respected poster whos views are well known and whos points are made aggressively and assertively. I don't like shouting's comments either, but I still don't see how it justifies a MeTa thread, unless any opinion expressed that is disagreed with by anyone deserves one. Again, what should be done? Some think he is a "troll", whatever that means anymore. Should he be banned? Amberglow?
posted by loquax at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by loquax at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2005
Mayor Curley: "You have never admitted that you're wrong, ever."
Not true. Search my comments. I admit I'm wrong quite a bit. And my point really was about being aware of and allowing that one might be wrong. I commented in only one thread on the blue yesterday, and I wrote this in one of them:
Me: "Off the top of my head, however, I can't think of any other Bill of Rights arguments that would prevent this. But I'm probably wrong."
Anyway, thank you for supporting me in my argument about the double-standard, though. I wish I had stated my abstract point more clearly.
Usually we take for granted that our opponents are wrong and then criticize their behavior while, conversely, we take for granted that our behavior is acceptable and congratulate ourselves on our rightness. If we're somewhat aware that our behavior is questionable, we dismiss the concern because, after all, we're right, aren't we?
It seems to me that in contrast to many, even when I'm certain I'm right and somone else is a cretin (as this guy seems to be), I can recognize when our behavior is similar. More importantly in my worldview is using the existence of that similarity of behavior as a hint that I, in fact, may be wrong. Both about my argument and my defense of my behavior.
Why exactly was it acceptable for me to write the very provocative things in the Reagan death-thread? Many argued it wasn't acceptable. My defense was--guess--I was right about Reagan. I've felt uneasily about my participation in that thread ever since. Not enough that I'm willing to decide (and admit) that my behavior was wrong because--guess--I feel strongly about Reagan. But I think about it every time this issue comes up.
Shouting's comments piss me off, and they are certainly written to piss me (and most others here) off. Gratuitously so--and there's a very good argument to be made that this type of behavior shouldn't be allowed. But at the same time, I know in my gut that many of us of the majority-left here on mefi write things that are just as procovative, with just as much intention to be provocative, aimed at those few here on the right with whom we disagree. And of course we do this also between ourselves on non-political matters.
Shouting's behavior is bad. But there wouldn't be a call-out against it if it weren't for his politics. And he's certainly not the first to be treated with this double-standard.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:11 AM on July 30, 2005
Not true. Search my comments. I admit I'm wrong quite a bit. And my point really was about being aware of and allowing that one might be wrong. I commented in only one thread on the blue yesterday, and I wrote this in one of them:
Me: "Off the top of my head, however, I can't think of any other Bill of Rights arguments that would prevent this. But I'm probably wrong."
Anyway, thank you for supporting me in my argument about the double-standard, though. I wish I had stated my abstract point more clearly.
Usually we take for granted that our opponents are wrong and then criticize their behavior while, conversely, we take for granted that our behavior is acceptable and congratulate ourselves on our rightness. If we're somewhat aware that our behavior is questionable, we dismiss the concern because, after all, we're right, aren't we?
It seems to me that in contrast to many, even when I'm certain I'm right and somone else is a cretin (as this guy seems to be), I can recognize when our behavior is similar. More importantly in my worldview is using the existence of that similarity of behavior as a hint that I, in fact, may be wrong. Both about my argument and my defense of my behavior.
Why exactly was it acceptable for me to write the very provocative things in the Reagan death-thread? Many argued it wasn't acceptable. My defense was--guess--I was right about Reagan. I've felt uneasily about my participation in that thread ever since. Not enough that I'm willing to decide (and admit) that my behavior was wrong because--guess--I feel strongly about Reagan. But I think about it every time this issue comes up.
Shouting's comments piss me off, and they are certainly written to piss me (and most others here) off. Gratuitously so--and there's a very good argument to be made that this type of behavior shouldn't be allowed. But at the same time, I know in my gut that many of us of the majority-left here on mefi write things that are just as procovative, with just as much intention to be provocative, aimed at those few here on the right with whom we disagree. And of course we do this also between ourselves on non-political matters.
Shouting's behavior is bad. But there wouldn't be a call-out against it if it weren't for his politics. And he's certainly not the first to be treated with this double-standard.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:11 AM on July 30, 2005
Amberglow?
A timeout is in order, and what was it? ahh--"i've sent him a million emails" (what matt said about someone else recently--funny how matt hasn't even commented here at all)
Many others get timeouts for less. Gratuitously inserting rants and personal insults and derails is not acceptable behavior--it's trolling. It's trolling when PP does it, and it's trolling here.
posted by amberglow at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2005
A timeout is in order, and what was it? ahh--"i've sent him a million emails" (what matt said about someone else recently--funny how matt hasn't even commented here at all)
Many others get timeouts for less. Gratuitously inserting rants and personal insults and derails is not acceptable behavior--it's trolling. It's trolling when PP does it, and it's trolling here.
posted by amberglow at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2005
if he's really 55 years old, and still bitching about commies and marxists, then he needs help I don't think anyone here can give him.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:46 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by mcsweetie at 9:46 AM on July 30, 2005
yet again, it's depressing how the least sign of diversity and disagreement gets shat upon by the usual suspects. oh look - there's amberglow whining that someone should be silenced because they say things he doesn't agree with.
around and around it goes. those who preach diversity and tolerance hound those who step out of line. the hypocrisy of it all would be shocking if it weren't so tediously familiar.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2005
around and around it goes. those who preach diversity and tolerance hound those who step out of line. the hypocrisy of it all would be shocking if it weren't so tediously familiar.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2005
So once again, someone who says things you disagree with in a manner you don't like gets labelled a timeout-needing troll. Please, do grow up.
As Etherial Bligh said, "Shouting's behavior is bad. But there wouldn't be a call-out against it if it weren't for his politics.
Which differ greatly from mine too, but hey, life is hard.
And he's certainly not the first to be treated with this double-standard."
And I fear he won't be the last.
Here's a nifty thought-experiment: just imagine the right-leaning Mefites increasing in numbers until they constitute the community-defining majority. Would you people want to be called "evil trolls" about which "something must be done"?
"That amberglow needs a timeout: he keeps trolling with his insistence that fags are people too. Each time we remind him that God hates fags he gets even more snappish and disrespectful, and when I told him to shut the fuck up he insulted me by not shutting up! I don't think our community should have to put up with such nasty Sodomites, do you?"
Maybe matthowie should make this a left-liberal blog from now on and kick off everybody who won't follow the party line of the "International Socialist Organization" (you know, people like me). Until that pie-in-the- sky day then I suggest y'all grow some frigging skin. And do learn to stand up for yourselves as individuals instead of running to the local Party Cell to organize a lynching, hmm?
posted by davy at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2005
As Etherial Bligh said, "Shouting's behavior is bad. But there wouldn't be a call-out against it if it weren't for his politics.
Which differ greatly from mine too, but hey, life is hard.
And he's certainly not the first to be treated with this double-standard."
And I fear he won't be the last.
Here's a nifty thought-experiment: just imagine the right-leaning Mefites increasing in numbers until they constitute the community-defining majority. Would you people want to be called "evil trolls" about which "something must be done"?
"That amberglow needs a timeout: he keeps trolling with his insistence that fags are people too. Each time we remind him that God hates fags he gets even more snappish and disrespectful, and when I told him to shut the fuck up he insulted me by not shutting up! I don't think our community should have to put up with such nasty Sodomites, do you?"
Maybe matthowie should make this a left-liberal blog from now on and kick off everybody who won't follow the party line of the "International Socialist Organization" (you know, people like me). Until that pie-in-the- sky day then I suggest y'all grow some frigging skin. And do learn to stand up for yourselves as individuals instead of running to the local Party Cell to organize a lynching, hmm?
posted by davy at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2005
It's strange that someone would pay $5 just to, essentially, tell people to fuck off.
posted by cmonkey at 10:06 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by cmonkey at 10:06 AM on July 30, 2005
Not really--people have done stupider things to say something stupid.
posted by y2karl at 10:16 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by y2karl at 10:16 AM on July 30, 2005
It's strange that someone would pay $5 just to, essentially, tell people to fuck off.
Think of MeFi as a sporting event. People pay hundreds of dollars to scream at the top of their lungs, gesturing, posturing, and otherwise acting like an idiot just to watch a game.
Five dollars is a pittance compared to that, and being able to provoke people into hissy fits is much more fun, because your screaming has much more impact here. Quite frankly, I think many people in this community make this place a haven for trolls, since it's next to impossible for anyone to actually ignore noise. (Just think what it would be like if people stayed on topic, instead of one upping each other with their ass-patting grandstanding).
Just imagine paying five bucks and going into every gay marriage thread saying, "Haha, God hates fags." Within hours you'd have a thread dedicated to you, with a hundred members up in arms about the sheer outrage they're experiencing (like they've never heard it in real life). You'd be an instant celebrity and have more fame than most regular posters here. In fact, we could dedicate future threads to you as well, since we "didn't get what we wanted". Eventually, we'd make more noise than the "troll", with monthly MeTa threads about how this place is just so sucky with this one person, even though most of the noise is coming from the bloody whiners who can't ignore anything and must have everything their way. Wait, we don't have to imagine that; it's right here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:21 AM on July 30, 2005
Think of MeFi as a sporting event. People pay hundreds of dollars to scream at the top of their lungs, gesturing, posturing, and otherwise acting like an idiot just to watch a game.
Five dollars is a pittance compared to that, and being able to provoke people into hissy fits is much more fun, because your screaming has much more impact here. Quite frankly, I think many people in this community make this place a haven for trolls, since it's next to impossible for anyone to actually ignore noise. (Just think what it would be like if people stayed on topic, instead of one upping each other with their ass-patting grandstanding).
Just imagine paying five bucks and going into every gay marriage thread saying, "Haha, God hates fags." Within hours you'd have a thread dedicated to you, with a hundred members up in arms about the sheer outrage they're experiencing (like they've never heard it in real life). You'd be an instant celebrity and have more fame than most regular posters here. In fact, we could dedicate future threads to you as well, since we "didn't get what we wanted". Eventually, we'd make more noise than the "troll", with monthly MeTa threads about how this place is just so sucky with this one person, even though most of the noise is coming from the bloody whiners who can't ignore anything and must have everything their way. Wait, we don't have to imagine that; it's right here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:21 AM on July 30, 2005
Shouting is a troll, not because his opinions aren't genuine but because of his caustic manner of expression. And because he is a right-wing troll, he is getting a deserved call-out. Shouting: Cool it , man. You do your cause no good this way.
What the hell? Because he's a right wing troll? There are trolls on both sides. If a "caustic manner of expression" equals troll then metafilter is troll city.
And I'd take amberglow more seriously if just once he'd point out anyone on the left being a troll, but he never does. Always on the right. Someone need a time out? Call for someone to be banned? Right, right.
posted by justgary at 10:22 AM on July 30, 2005
What the hell? Because he's a right wing troll? There are trolls on both sides. If a "caustic manner of expression" equals troll then metafilter is troll city.
And I'd take amberglow more seriously if just once he'd point out anyone on the left being a troll, but he never does. Always on the right. Someone need a time out? Call for someone to be banned? Right, right.
posted by justgary at 10:22 AM on July 30, 2005
I was under the impression that the issue at hand was raising the level of discourse. This is the same issue Jon Stewart was addressing in his Crossfire appearance. Consider the following Shouting comment:
The second expresses interest in the issue at hand and offers to aid the community in coming to a more well-informed, clear-headed conclusion. This, I think, is what separates someone like dios from someone like Shouting. dios's views may not be shared by everyone in a thread, but he often speaks from a genuinely interested (or at least genuinely interested in having a discussion) and reasonably respectful point of view, and he admits it when he's misunderstood something. I am sure someone will find some dios comments I've missed that demonstrate otherwise, but that's my impression. I could be wrong.
Shouting, however, like Bevets, is just a script. A troll.
That being said, of course, the best way to combat a troll is to ignore it. If no one takes his bait, he has no power.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:31 AM on July 30, 2005
Liberals are never quite so ridiculous as when they engage in their martyrdom fantasies.There's a large difference between that and the following:
The usual childish BS.
Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rand can't quite amass the reality that the Soviet Union is dead, their socialist religion has been renounced and they are completely irrelevant.
The Marxist God is dead folks! What a lost-in-the-past-group are the commenters on this thread. And the really hilarious part is that they think they are on the bleeding edge.
Get a brain. Time for the left to retire to the monastery in an attempt to come up with something that resembles an idea. Other than the boring old Marxist hatred of the U.S. and the ever popular teenage attempt to shock the parents.
Come on dinosaurs. Haven't you got anything better than another round of 60s nostalgia? You're not shocking. You're boring, and bereft of anything resembling an idea.
posted by Shouting at 8:19 AM PST on July 29 [!]
I sense that the majority of the people here who are addressing insert issue at hand are slightly misinformed about the issue at hand. I happen to have some more accurate information, with sources and citations, and I offer it here in the interest of clarification. By all means, if, after having read my information and subsequent argument, someone notices something that I have gotten wrong, let me know. I will think about what you've said and process it, and I will either explain why you're wrong or I will adjust my own position. Here is my information: [insert info here]The first is just shouting. Yelling. Ranting. It offers nothing by way of discourse because it has zero information content. If you were to tell me the political leanings and blogging or elsewhere-posting history of this person in advance, I could have composed the first rant myself.
The second expresses interest in the issue at hand and offers to aid the community in coming to a more well-informed, clear-headed conclusion. This, I think, is what separates someone like dios from someone like Shouting. dios's views may not be shared by everyone in a thread, but he often speaks from a genuinely interested (or at least genuinely interested in having a discussion) and reasonably respectful point of view, and he admits it when he's misunderstood something. I am sure someone will find some dios comments I've missed that demonstrate otherwise, but that's my impression. I could be wrong.
Shouting, however, like Bevets, is just a script. A troll.
That being said, of course, the best way to combat a troll is to ignore it. If no one takes his bait, he has no power.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:31 AM on July 30, 2005
Guys, he's an asshole, not a troll. And no, that's not just because I disagree with his politics. I disagree with Kwantsar pretty regularly, but we manage to be respectful about it.
And, frankly, being an asshole is accepted on this site. Sorry to you non-assholes out there, but there's a pretty clear tolerance of shit like this.
Does that mean it's good? No. Does that mean that something should be done? Well, it's Matt's party. I think Shouting's a bit of a douche, but I'm fine with flagging his posts when they're noise and not worrying about it.
(Oh, and guys, a troll is when someone posts views that are exaggerated in order to get a response. If he was a liberal posting this, then he'd be a troll. He's not, so he's just an asshole.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on July 30, 2005
And, frankly, being an asshole is accepted on this site. Sorry to you non-assholes out there, but there's a pretty clear tolerance of shit like this.
Does that mean it's good? No. Does that mean that something should be done? Well, it's Matt's party. I think Shouting's a bit of a douche, but I'm fine with flagging his posts when they're noise and not worrying about it.
(Oh, and guys, a troll is when someone posts views that are exaggerated in order to get a response. If he was a liberal posting this, then he'd be a troll. He's not, so he's just an asshole.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on July 30, 2005
Fine. Substitute the word "troll" with the word "asshole". The arguments against assholism are still valid.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:40 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by gramschmidt at 10:40 AM on July 30, 2005
Not all of us Cubs fans are like that. Really. I promise. : )
posted by SisterHavana at 10:42 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by SisterHavana at 10:42 AM on July 30, 2005
Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rand can't quite amass the reality...
Ted Rand--wasn't he amassed to Ayn Rall at some point ?
posted by y2karl at 10:42 AM on July 30, 2005
Ted Rand--wasn't he amassed to Ayn Rall at some point ?
posted by y2karl at 10:42 AM on July 30, 2005
jonson hit it on the head hours ago Yeah, I don't see this as trolling so much as "having an opinion that the majority of people here strongly disagree with".
Expressing any opinion that can be characterized as at all right wing will get you labeled as a troll double quick in the MeFi community.
posted by TurdBlossom at 10:51 AM on July 30, 2005
Expressing any opinion that can be characterized as at all right wing will get you labeled as a troll double quick in the MeFi community.
posted by TurdBlossom at 10:51 AM on July 30, 2005
jonson hit nothing on the head. OTOH, gramschmidt pretty much got right to the heart of it.
Spouting empty slogans and offering no additional information isn't "expressing an opinion", it's an attempt oo inflame. If that isn't trolling, what is?
posted by psmealey at 10:54 AM on July 30, 2005
Spouting empty slogans and offering no additional information isn't "expressing an opinion", it's an attempt oo inflame. If that isn't trolling, what is?
posted by psmealey at 10:54 AM on July 30, 2005
You know there is this undertone of glee in this thread. Oooh, a new one! I certainly feel it. Not because I'm going to particularly enjoy the two or three months of constant dogpiling this guy's going to suffer, but I think with this one there's a good chance he'll flame out spectacularly afterwards and that is really the true entertainment value of Newsfilter.
What I think people should do is cut down on the total number of Newsfilter posts - no, stay with me here, people! - and in this way you can concentrate your fire on the new guy, thus bringing the moment of sweet, sweet burnout all the closer. Right now, honestly, the volume of retorts - kinda dispersed. I can see the guy hanging around for a year or so at this rate. You don't want that, do you?
posted by furiousthought at 10:57 AM on July 30, 2005
What I think people should do is cut down on the total number of Newsfilter posts - no, stay with me here, people! - and in this way you can concentrate your fire on the new guy, thus bringing the moment of sweet, sweet burnout all the closer. Right now, honestly, the volume of retorts - kinda dispersed. I can see the guy hanging around for a year or so at this rate. You don't want that, do you?
posted by furiousthought at 10:57 AM on July 30, 2005
Me: And because he is a right-wing troll, he is getting a deserved call-out.
Apparently my point was poorly expressed, for which I apologize. What I meant was that Shouting is being a jerk and deserves a call out, but the call out is only happening because Shouting is a right wing jerk. If he were a lefty jerk he would get a free pass here.
posted by LarryC at 11:03 AM on July 30, 2005
Apparently my point was poorly expressed, for which I apologize. What I meant was that Shouting is being a jerk and deserves a call out, but the call out is only happening because Shouting is a right wing jerk. If he were a lefty jerk he would get a free pass here.
posted by LarryC at 11:03 AM on July 30, 2005
Shouting lives in the woods and eats aborted fetuses he steals from the local clinic. Beware.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:27 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:27 AM on July 30, 2005
I was under the impression that the issue at hand was raising the level of discourse.
Exactly.
And nice job, andrew and justgary. With role models like you (and Paris of course), Shouting will feel absolutely right at home.
posted by amberglow at 11:28 AM on July 30, 2005
Exactly.
And nice job, andrew and justgary. With role models like you (and Paris of course), Shouting will feel absolutely right at home.
posted by amberglow at 11:28 AM on July 30, 2005
I was ready to give some benfit of a doubt to Shouting - until I read the his comment in the BBC Science Series thread - The Sky At Night
posted by ericb at 11:33 AM on July 30, 2005
"Twice within the last month, Muslim terrorists have bombed the subways in London.WTF? Clearly trollish behavior and an attempt to derail a thread!
You might want to read about the many radical Islamic mosques within the U.K. that openly promote terrorism.
You can agree or disagree with immigration policies, but to describe attempts to limit immigration as "racist" reveals a political agenda on your part that has little to do with reality. In fact, I suspect that you've slandered this man.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the internet is this ability to slander people anonimously. I'd urge you to exercise restraint."
posted by ericb at 11:33 AM on July 30, 2005
I really miss aaron, unclefes, and MidasMulligan.
I'm also disappointed that MattD or other MeFiCons (and there is a difference between a conservative and a right winger) haven't smacked this guy down as an embarassment.
posted by jonmc at 11:37 AM on July 30, 2005
I'm also disappointed that MattD or other MeFiCons (and there is a difference between a conservative and a right winger) haven't smacked this guy down as an embarassment.
posted by jonmc at 11:37 AM on July 30, 2005
It's not "clearly" anything to me. There are real people who believe this shit. The US is full of them. To believe that someone would have to be some kind of crafty saboteur bent on derailing MeFi in order to post these comments is naive, navel-gazing folly. He's a ditto-head conservative, and he's posting what he thinks on MeFi. That doesn't make him a troll.
posted by scarabic at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by scarabic at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2005
Perhaps "troll" is like "terrorist", neither are sufficiently defined so as everyone can come to the situation agreeing on the facts. A subjective term. In my mind stridency and ridiculing = troll, other people think that it is just being an asshole and even others avoid the issue by saying he is being picked on because he is not liberal enough.
Shouting at one another over the definition of troll.
posted by edgeways at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2005
Shouting at one another over the definition of troll.
posted by edgeways at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2005
And anyway he's not the one who brought up race in the thread. In fact, his first comment there was quite on-topic and innocuous.
My point: you beat these people fair and square, by out-arguing them in discussions point for point and sentence for sentence. Not by dragging them into MeTa and calling them trolls.
This kind of callout plays into the hands of those who say MeFi is all left-swerving groupthink and intolerant of deviance.
posted by scarabic at 11:43 AM on July 30, 2005
My point: you beat these people fair and square, by out-arguing them in discussions point for point and sentence for sentence. Not by dragging them into MeTa and calling them trolls.
This kind of callout plays into the hands of those who say MeFi is all left-swerving groupthink and intolerant of deviance.
posted by scarabic at 11:43 AM on July 30, 2005
I think it's pretty universal that a "troll" says things to get a reaction, not necessarily because s/he believes them. Not just any provocateur is a troll. They have to be doing it for the sheer fun of it, they have to be uninvested in the conversation themselves.
posted by scarabic at 11:45 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by scarabic at 11:45 AM on July 30, 2005
And nice job, andrew and justgary. With role models like you (and Paris of course), Shouting will feel absolutely right at home.
One of these three is not like the others.
Seriously, andrew cooke? What did he ever do to you?
posted by Kwantsar at 11:45 AM on July 30, 2005
One of these three is not like the others.
Seriously, andrew cooke? What did he ever do to you?
posted by Kwantsar at 11:45 AM on July 30, 2005
And nice job, andrew and justgary. With role models like you (and Paris of course), Shouting will feel absolutely right at home.
Again amberglow, if you held the same standards for everyone on mefi and not those you conclude are on the right, you might have a point. As is, you don't.
I'm not supporting him. I'm simply saying he doesn't deserve to be banned. If you'd open your eyes, there are many on your "side" who agree.
posted by justgary at 11:48 AM on July 30, 2005
Again amberglow, if you held the same standards for everyone on mefi and not those you conclude are on the right, you might have a point. As is, you don't.
I'm not supporting him. I'm simply saying he doesn't deserve to be banned. If you'd open your eyes, there are many on your "side" who agree.
posted by justgary at 11:48 AM on July 30, 2005
OH come on! Troll or no, that's great stuff. Gays have never been discriminated against? He's either as nutty as squirrel shit or he is pretending to be, either way it's fun for the whole family!
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
haven't smacked this guy down as an embarassment.
It's not a matter of whether or not he's an embarassment (to whom, I'm not sure), it's a matter of whether or not people with viewpoints like his (and writing styles like his) have the "right" to post on metafilter. Clearly some people feel that they don't, and that Shouting should be at least temporarily banned. To tell you the truth, I'm all for raising the discourse level, but if we're going to do it this way, then we should immediately establish a MeFi discourse committee, made up of representatives from all possible political, ethnic, religious, gender and body size groups. This committee will then have the power to strike any comments or members seen as lowering the discourse. I think I can name about 100 posters who will immediately lose posting rights, and within a month, MeFi will be a very pleasant discussion board of about 15-20 members.
posted by loquax at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
It's not a matter of whether or not he's an embarassment (to whom, I'm not sure), it's a matter of whether or not people with viewpoints like his (and writing styles like his) have the "right" to post on metafilter. Clearly some people feel that they don't, and that Shouting should be at least temporarily banned. To tell you the truth, I'm all for raising the discourse level, but if we're going to do it this way, then we should immediately establish a MeFi discourse committee, made up of representatives from all possible political, ethnic, religious, gender and body size groups. This committee will then have the power to strike any comments or members seen as lowering the discourse. I think I can name about 100 posters who will immediately lose posting rights, and within a month, MeFi will be a very pleasant discussion board of about 15-20 members.
posted by loquax at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
Let's put it this way ... "troll" or "not-troll" ... the thread is a discussion about a television science series in the UK and its host.
In a minor biographical aside, meehawl states in the thread:
posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
In a minor biographical aside, meehawl states in the thread:
"Whatever about his flirtation with racist politics, Moore is perhaps the coolest monocled TV personality in the world. And then there's the famous fly swallowing incident where, given his narrow time slot and determination to speak as quickly as possible..."Shouting picks up on this one aside in an obvious attempt (at least to me) to derail a discussion about a television science series to one focused on immigration policy in the UK. WTF?
posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on July 30, 2005
It's not a matter of whether or not he's an embarassment (to whom, I'm not sure),
To sensible conservatives. When a fellow liberal acts like a dick, it makes me embarassed to be on the same side with them. I imagine the same would go on the other side of the fence. And for the record, I don't think he should be banned, but I'm not terribly impressed by his comments, either.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on July 30, 2005
To sensible conservatives. When a fellow liberal acts like a dick, it makes me embarassed to be on the same side with them. I imagine the same would go on the other side of the fence. And for the record, I don't think he should be banned, but I'm not terribly impressed by his comments, either.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on July 30, 2005
What loquax said. The same standards for both sides. That's not too much to ask.
posted by justgary at 11:57 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by justgary at 11:57 AM on July 30, 2005
I don't advocate banning him, but at least respect the fundamental discourse underway. I'm all for conversations meandering, but it's rather disrespectful to attempt to disrupt the conversation in this manner.
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on July 30, 2005
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on July 30, 2005
Frankly, I think it's fair to challenge meehawl's assertion that Moore's politics were racist. Maybe the response was a little overboard, given the thread, but the first derail came from meehawl. How many times has PP "made an aside" in a thread by giving his opinion of Kerry, or France, or whatever, and then seen roughly 2000 others "derail" it by making recommendations about what he should do with his sexual organs? Are we not supposed to challenge other member's statements anymore?
jonmc - I don't see things in the context of sides. I don't think that Shouting is on my "team" because we may share *some* political beliefs. There's no need for anyone to come out and disavow him, any more than you or anyone on the "left" needs to disavow Stalin or Castro or Fold_and_Mutilate. Members comments should stand on their own. Obviously, Shouting's aren't standing up very well, but I just think his arguments should be attacked in the threads, rather than be scrutinized and judged in this kind of a forum.
posted by loquax at 12:03 PM on July 30, 2005
jonmc - I don't see things in the context of sides. I don't think that Shouting is on my "team" because we may share *some* political beliefs. There's no need for anyone to come out and disavow him, any more than you or anyone on the "left" needs to disavow Stalin or Castro or Fold_and_Mutilate. Members comments should stand on their own. Obviously, Shouting's aren't standing up very well, but I just think his arguments should be attacked in the threads, rather than be scrutinized and judged in this kind of a forum.
posted by loquax at 12:03 PM on July 30, 2005
Again amberglow, if you held the same standards for everyone on mefi and not those you conclude are on the right, you might have a point
he wouldn't be a hyprocite either. but some things are just too difficult to imagine.
let me make an attempt at simplifying this for you, amberglow:
if you value diversity and difference for itself then you accept everything and try to win the argument. anything else is just picking what you like - we should tolerate gays not because tolerance itself is good, but because you think gays are acceptable.
isn't it absolutely, mind-fuckingly obvious which is the better route? why do you always focus on the short term goal rather than the long term vision? can't you see how much damage you're doing to your own position by your intolerant, short-sighted calls for censorship at every opportunity?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:04 PM on July 30, 2005
he wouldn't be a hyprocite either. but some things are just too difficult to imagine.
let me make an attempt at simplifying this for you, amberglow:
if you value diversity and difference for itself then you accept everything and try to win the argument. anything else is just picking what you like - we should tolerate gays not because tolerance itself is good, but because you think gays are acceptable.
isn't it absolutely, mind-fuckingly obvious which is the better route? why do you always focus on the short term goal rather than the long term vision? can't you see how much damage you're doing to your own position by your intolerant, short-sighted calls for censorship at every opportunity?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:04 PM on July 30, 2005
Seriously, andrew cooke? What did he ever do to you?
Kwanstar, read this comment and tell me that amberglow doesn't hold grudges.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:20 PM on July 30, 2005
Kwanstar, read this comment and tell me that amberglow doesn't hold grudges.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:20 PM on July 30, 2005
i read on the internet that amberglow is actually more of a topazglow which is totally different. i am not sure what this means for the future of metafilter but i must say, thanks for the killer game of crisco twister.
. . .
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:38 PM on July 30, 2005
. . .
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:38 PM on July 30, 2005
And I don't see anything as offensive as Arch Stanton's cliched mississippi comment.
Yeah. Nothing's more offensive than slagging on places you don't like.
posted by trondant at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2005
Yeah. Nothing's more offensive than slagging on places you don't like.
posted by trondant at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2005
Yeah. Nothing's more offensive than slagging on places you don't like.
Yes trondant, I've been all over the world and the U.S. and I have never been anywhere I've hated more than southern california. I mean, I can't even begin to tell you how much I would despise living there. If that opinion offends you, I don't care. You probably wouldn't agree with me on the best hamburger in the U.S. either. I don't care about that either. I probably also hate a few musicians you like.
If you can't tell the difference between that and someone making a remark that basically plays on a stereotype of mississippi, then I don't know what to tell you.
But if you feel better now that you got that off your chest, I'm happy for you.
posted by justgary at 12:59 PM on July 30, 2005
Yes trondant, I've been all over the world and the U.S. and I have never been anywhere I've hated more than southern california. I mean, I can't even begin to tell you how much I would despise living there. If that opinion offends you, I don't care. You probably wouldn't agree with me on the best hamburger in the U.S. either. I don't care about that either. I probably also hate a few musicians you like.
If you can't tell the difference between that and someone making a remark that basically plays on a stereotype of mississippi, then I don't know what to tell you.
But if you feel better now that you got that off your chest, I'm happy for you.
posted by justgary at 12:59 PM on July 30, 2005
loquax, a "discourse committee"? With all due respect, that's a stupid idea. For one thing it just spreads the "Ban him!" tyranny deeper and wider, and for another it opens up an option for factional struggles among your politburo. And anyway, who will decide who's on the Committee?
Yes to what andrew cooke said.
posted by davy at 1:07 PM on July 30, 2005
Yes to what andrew cooke said.
posted by davy at 1:07 PM on July 30, 2005
Again amberglow, if you held the same standards for everyone on mefi and not those you conclude are on the right, you might have a point. As is, you don't.
I hold the same standards for all people who act civilly, without personally insulting or attacking. Try it sometime. It's incredibly helpful on a site devoted to discussion. There have been conservatives here who were able to do that. Shouting is not one of them. The fact that you and andrew feel the need to turn this into an attack on me is not conducive either. I didn't start this thread, but i'm the one personally insulted by this troll. The fact that you felt you needed to as well here speaks volumes.
posted by amberglow at 1:08 PM on July 30, 2005
I hold the same standards for all people who act civilly, without personally insulting or attacking. Try it sometime. It's incredibly helpful on a site devoted to discussion. There have been conservatives here who were able to do that. Shouting is not one of them. The fact that you and andrew feel the need to turn this into an attack on me is not conducive either. I didn't start this thread, but i'm the one personally insulted by this troll. The fact that you felt you needed to as well here speaks volumes.
posted by amberglow at 1:08 PM on July 30, 2005
loquax, a "discourse committee"? With all due respect, that's a stupid idea.
I was very much kidding.
posted by loquax at 1:13 PM on July 30, 2005
I was very much kidding.
posted by loquax at 1:13 PM on July 30, 2005
The fact that you and andrew feel the need to turn this into an attack on me is not conducive either.
I haven't attacked you in this thread amberglow. I simply disagree with you, and feel you have double standards. I could point to a thousand 'caustic' comments by others that you let slide, day after day.
But attacked you? I disagree with you.
posted by justgary at 1:14 PM on July 30, 2005
I haven't attacked you in this thread amberglow. I simply disagree with you, and feel you have double standards. I could point to a thousand 'caustic' comments by others that you let slide, day after day.
But attacked you? I disagree with you.
posted by justgary at 1:14 PM on July 30, 2005
Geez, you guys are throw this great party for Shouting and he doesn't even show up? I've got dibs on his piece of cake. (He's not trolling, he's not an asshole, he disagrees with you and he's not terribly good at expressing that)
posted by cyphill at 1:40 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by cyphill at 1:40 PM on July 30, 2005
Clearly some people feel that they don't, and that Shouting should be at least temporarily banned.
no, it's a lie, demonstrably so.
you're the one who keeps mentioning banning, over and over, even if people (like karl and others) explain to you that we are not discussing a ban for this person.
keep fondling that straw man, though, loquax.
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2005
no, it's a lie, demonstrably so.
you're the one who keeps mentioning banning, over and over, even if people (like karl and others) explain to you that we are not discussing a ban for this person.
keep fondling that straw man, though, loquax.
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2005
As the author of this post, I feel I should say that I never once mentioned the word "ban" -- loquax was the first to do so.
posted by trey at 1:49 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by trey at 1:49 PM on July 30, 2005
Amberglow: A timeout is in order...
I've mostly been referring to banning in terms of the suppression of other's opinions, not specifically with respect to Shouting. I realize very few people are suggesting he be banned, temporarily or otherwise, But I must confess, I'm a little confused at what this thread is supposed to accomplish (other than public mockery and humiliation) if it's not an attempt to censure Shouting.
posted by loquax at 1:59 PM on July 30, 2005
I've mostly been referring to banning in terms of the suppression of other's opinions, not specifically with respect to Shouting. I realize very few people are suggesting he be banned, temporarily or otherwise, But I must confess, I'm a little confused at what this thread is supposed to accomplish (other than public mockery and humiliation) if it's not an attempt to censure Shouting.
posted by loquax at 1:59 PM on July 30, 2005
No, you just said "look everyone, a troll!"
posted by justgary at 1:54 PM PST on July 30 [!]
Precisely. If someone is acting in a manner which at least some users seem to agree is troll-ish, does it not deserve to be called out?
posted by trey at 2:02 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by justgary at 1:54 PM PST on July 30 [!]
Precisely. If someone is acting in a manner which at least some users seem to agree is troll-ish, does it not deserve to be called out?
posted by trey at 2:02 PM on July 30, 2005
But what did you hope to accomplish? Surely you had something in mind. My point was you didn't say ban him, you really didn't say anything. Time out? Maybe matt email him? I have no idea.
posted by justgary at 2:04 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by justgary at 2:04 PM on July 30, 2005
And I don't mean that in a snarky way trey. I'm really curious what you hoped to happen.
posted by justgary at 2:06 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by justgary at 2:06 PM on July 30, 2005
I've worked out the most annoying thing about Shouting - he says that no-one's opinion matters, while simultaneously aggrandising his own text with double-line spaces every few words, like a muckspreading gutter tabloid editorial.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:22 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:22 PM on July 30, 2005
justgary: Honestly, I just wanted to call attention to the fact that someone had obviously joined up with the (it seems to me) intent of trolling. I didn't have a specific "course of action" in mind -- in fact, I'm not even sure that action is warranted. However, MeTa exists for discussing things that are happening on MeFi, and I felt that this new member's contributions merited discussion.
I don't advocate banning him or instituting a "time out." If he is indeed a troll then he probably is glad for the attention. If, by chance, he is not, then perhaps he will see this thread and realize that his style of discourse isn't making the best first impression with the community. It's easy to a join a community without knowing its norms and mores.
posted by trey at 2:25 PM on July 30, 2005
I don't advocate banning him or instituting a "time out." If he is indeed a troll then he probably is glad for the attention. If, by chance, he is not, then perhaps he will see this thread and realize that his style of discourse isn't making the best first impression with the community. It's easy to a join a community without knowing its norms and mores.
posted by trey at 2:25 PM on July 30, 2005
Shouting's right. Too much opinion on the web, not enough meat.
posted by barjo at 2:27 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by barjo at 2:27 PM on July 30, 2005
Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars is a great name for a weblog.
Probably the best one out there.
My question for Judge Roberts:
Name your favorite Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars.
Awwww, he wants people to come to his wittle website! He's just a wonery lil guy.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:28 PM on July 30, 2005
Probably the best one out there.
My question for Judge Roberts:
Name your favorite Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars.
Awwww, he wants people to come to his wittle website! He's just a wonery lil guy.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:28 PM on July 30, 2005
Shout is over-the-top but he would not have been called out if he had been over-the-top with a liberal slant. This call out exhibits MeFi's typical anti-conservative bias.
posted by Carbolic at 2:31 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Carbolic at 2:31 PM on July 30, 2005
VP_Admin got called out for his over-the-top liberal slant quite recently. He left.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2005
If, by chance, he is not, then perhaps he will see this thread and realize that his style of discourse isn't making the best first impression with the community. It's easy to a join a community without knowing its norms and mores.
We need a MeTa signal.
posted by justgary at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2005
We need a MeTa signal.
posted by justgary at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2005
me: "loquax, a 'discourse committee'? With all due respect, that's a stupid idea."
loquax: "I was very much kidding."
I'm very much relieved. It's too bad that in the context of this thread the humor wasn't conspicuous.
posted by davy at 2:42 PM on July 30, 2005
loquax: "I was very much kidding."
I'm very much relieved. It's too bad that in the context of this thread the humor wasn't conspicuous.
posted by davy at 2:42 PM on July 30, 2005
We've got a morning talk show host where I live who is sort of a centrist Lush Rumball, paired up with an rightwing airhead bimbo. He was once famously quoted: "I'd rather be hated by thousands than liked by hundreds."
So, last time around, this jerk runs against our incumbent mayor (who is such an embarassment the local paper gets letters from Alabama saying how sorry they are we have such a fool of a mayor.) The talk show host got creamed at the polls.
Any parallels to the Shouting situation are purely coincidental.
posted by warbaby at 3:01 PM on July 30, 2005
So, last time around, this jerk runs against our incumbent mayor (who is such an embarassment the local paper gets letters from Alabama saying how sorry they are we have such a fool of a mayor.) The talk show host got creamed at the polls.
Any parallels to the Shouting situation are purely coincidental.
posted by warbaby at 3:01 PM on July 30, 2005
Well, folks, I guess the gauntlet has been laid down: when a social liberal makes a dumbass statement like "gays have never been discriminated against," take issue with it.
It certain is not fair that only the social conservatives are picked on for dropping such horseshit into threads.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on July 30, 2005
It certain is not fair that only the social conservatives are picked on for dropping such horseshit into threads.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on July 30, 2005
perhaps he will see this thread
Again, it is proper etiquette for you to e-mail someone when you post a meta callout thread where they are the subject. Have you? There shouldn't be any "perhaps" about this...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:13 PM on July 30, 2005
Again, it is proper etiquette for you to e-mail someone when you post a meta callout thread where they are the subject. Have you? There shouldn't be any "perhaps" about this...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:13 PM on July 30, 2005
Troll is a pretty strong accusation to seriously make and it's hard to see that some sort of disciplinary action wasn't implied. Loquax shouldn't have assumed banning and used that as central to his argument, but then matteo pretty did the same thing but interpreting Loquax's intent in the worst possible way (that "he's fondling his straw man"). There's a lesson there.
It's best not to point fingers at any specific person. If there's hypocrisy by some, I don't think it's willfull hypocrisy, at least not by most of them. Inevitably, they feel very strongly about the issues at hand and fighting the enemy is the τέλος of public discourse. Those motives and reasoning are comprehensible and defensible. Even so, it seems to me that those motives, reasoning, and behavior are the first thing most of us tend to criticize in our enemies. Why do we do so? Because we intuitively sense that their zeal implies they are unreasonable and possibly irrational.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:29 PM on July 30, 2005
It's best not to point fingers at any specific person. If there's hypocrisy by some, I don't think it's willfull hypocrisy, at least not by most of them. Inevitably, they feel very strongly about the issues at hand and fighting the enemy is the τέλος of public discourse. Those motives and reasoning are comprehensible and defensible. Even so, it seems to me that those motives, reasoning, and behavior are the first thing most of us tend to criticize in our enemies. Why do we do so? Because we intuitively sense that their zeal implies they are unreasonable and possibly irrational.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:29 PM on July 30, 2005
"pretty did the same thing but interpreting"—I make more of these errors these days and it's weird. But for by?? Eliding words is more understandable, but it's happening more often. Spooky.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2005
Gotta love the new unicode feature!
τέλος = "end" (for those who don't read Ancient Greek.
posted by ericb at 3:58 PM on July 30, 2005
τέλος = "end" (for those who don't read Ancient Greek.
posted by ericb at 3:58 PM on July 30, 2005
)
Actually, I'm a Southerner myself. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Taking umbrage at the notion that someone suggests Mississippi is more conservative than NYC really suggests to me that both you and your diaper are full of shit.
posted by trondant at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2005
Actually, I'm a Southerner myself. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Taking umbrage at the notion that someone suggests Mississippi is more conservative than NYC really suggests to me that both you and your diaper are full of shit.
posted by trondant at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2005
I meant it in the Aristotelian sense, usually translated into English as that for the sake of which. Raison d'être would have worked, too, but it's longer. There's not a good English word to get that meaning across. Those familiar with this usage of τέλος use it a lot because it's handy. Most people probably think I'm using it to be pretentious, but among my friends we use the word regularly and, anyway, I'll use good but unfamiliar words in intelligent company in the hopes of propogating them. In the web era, it's so easy to look something up.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:19 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:19 PM on July 30, 2005
but among my friends we use the word regularly
"Yo, τέλος, you goin' to the τέλος tonight?"
"τέλος, dude!"
"Well, τέλος how it went!"
posted by languagehat at 4:46 PM on July 30, 2005
"Yo, τέλος, you goin' to the τέλος tonight?"
"τέλος, dude!"
"Well, τέλος how it went!"
posted by languagehat at 4:46 PM on July 30, 2005
Ethereal Bligh has fully dissolved into self-parody.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:06 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:06 PM on July 30, 2005
The arguments against assholism are still valid.
We've recently seen that while jessamyn is happy to edit posts for content, delete posts she thinks are annoying and publicly call users out for saying things like "America sucks more every day", she is not willing to apply those same standards to users like ParisParamus, justgary, or Shouting.
It's fairly obvious that the admins of this site are unwilling to publicy admonish right-wingers who are obnoxious, abusive, and destructive to the community. Maybe they're afraid to be accused of political bias, I don't know... but being a complete asshole and a right-winger is quite clearly acceptabe on MeFi.
posted by mosch at 5:10 PM on July 30, 2005
We've recently seen that while jessamyn is happy to edit posts for content, delete posts she thinks are annoying and publicly call users out for saying things like "America sucks more every day", she is not willing to apply those same standards to users like ParisParamus, justgary, or Shouting.
It's fairly obvious that the admins of this site are unwilling to publicy admonish right-wingers who are obnoxious, abusive, and destructive to the community. Maybe they're afraid to be accused of political bias, I don't know... but being a complete asshole and a right-winger is quite clearly acceptabe on MeFi.
posted by mosch at 5:10 PM on July 30, 2005
LarryC : "What I meant was that Shouting is being a jerk and deserves a call out, but the call out is only happening because Shouting is a right wing jerk. If he were a lefty jerk he would get a free pass here."
Bingo. Shouting isn't a troll (he appears to actually believe what he's saying), but he is an asshole. There are also plenty of assholes on the left. He got called out because he's on the right (not exclusively because of that; being right-wing is necessary but not sufficient for a callout), while others don't because they're on the left. That isn't to say that he shouldn't have been called out, but it would be nice to have left-wing assholes called out as well (I actually feel worse when people I agree with are assholes than when people I disagree are, unlike quite a few folks here).
posted by Bugbread at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2005
Bingo. Shouting isn't a troll (he appears to actually believe what he's saying), but he is an asshole. There are also plenty of assholes on the left. He got called out because he's on the right (not exclusively because of that; being right-wing is necessary but not sufficient for a callout), while others don't because they're on the left. That isn't to say that he shouldn't have been called out, but it would be nice to have left-wing assholes called out as well (I actually feel worse when people I agree with are assholes than when people I disagree are, unlike quite a few folks here).
posted by Bugbread at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2005
I actually feel worse when people I agree with are assholes than when people I disagree are, unlike quite a few folks here
[ahem]
posted by jonmc at 6:13 PM on July 30, 2005
[ahem]
posted by jonmc at 6:13 PM on July 30, 2005
In a minor biographical aside, meehawl states ...
Shouting picks up on this one aside in an obvious attempt (at least to me) to derail a discussion
Oh, I hear what you're saying, ericb. I just don't agree. You're very clearly willing to cast meehawl's statement one way, and Shouting's another. One is a minor aside, the other is an obvious derail. Those are your opinions. But Shouting didn't bring it up, he seemed perfectly on board with the thread at first. meehawl says that the subject of the thread dabbles in racist politcs. Shouting didn't agree. You didn't agree with shouting, and here we are. But there's no blatant sabotage of the thread going on. Just seems that wherever this dude goes, he embarasses himself with the bigotry of his opinions.
Sucks to be him, but no foul.
posted by scarabic at 6:46 PM on July 30, 2005
Shouting picks up on this one aside in an obvious attempt (at least to me) to derail a discussion
Oh, I hear what you're saying, ericb. I just don't agree. You're very clearly willing to cast meehawl's statement one way, and Shouting's another. One is a minor aside, the other is an obvious derail. Those are your opinions. But Shouting didn't bring it up, he seemed perfectly on board with the thread at first. meehawl says that the subject of the thread dabbles in racist politcs. Shouting didn't agree. You didn't agree with shouting, and here we are. But there's no blatant sabotage of the thread going on. Just seems that wherever this dude goes, he embarasses himself with the bigotry of his opinions.
Sucks to be him, but no foul.
posted by scarabic at 6:46 PM on July 30, 2005
We've recently seen that while jessamyn is happy to edit posts for content, delete posts she thinks are annoying and publicly call users out for saying things like "America sucks more every day" she is not willing to apply those same standards to users like ParisParamus, justgary, or Shouting.
This mischaracterizes most of what I do around here. When people seem to be shitting on the site as a pattern, I try to email them directly as a first approach. It may not be the public chastisement that everyone is angling for [why does admonishment need to be public if the bad behavior stops?], but I've emailed with a lot of people to ask/tell them to chill out, on all sides of the political spectrum and I'm pretty sure mathowie has as well. I agree with scarabic [and others] about Shouting. Jerk? Probably. Troll? Not as I understand the term.
posted by jessamyn at 7:02 PM on July 30, 2005
This mischaracterizes most of what I do around here. When people seem to be shitting on the site as a pattern, I try to email them directly as a first approach. It may not be the public chastisement that everyone is angling for [why does admonishment need to be public if the bad behavior stops?], but I've emailed with a lot of people to ask/tell them to chill out, on all sides of the political spectrum and I'm pretty sure mathowie has as well. I agree with scarabic [and others] about Shouting. Jerk? Probably. Troll? Not as I understand the term.
posted by jessamyn at 7:02 PM on July 30, 2005
public admonishment would let others know that it's not acceptable behavior.
posted by amberglow at 8:01 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:01 PM on July 30, 2005
Just seems that wherever this dude goes, he embarasses himself with the bigotry of his opinions. Sucks to be him, but no foul.
scarabic - point taken.
posted by ericb at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2005
scarabic - point taken.
posted by ericb at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2005
Shouting is absolutely right in one assertion--your opinion does not matter...
You're wrong, Major. I've had my mind changed here countless times by people expressing their opinions.
Also, I don't know if Shouting qualifies as a troll, exactly, but it does no harm to occasionally bring this topic out and let people weigh in. Those who don't want to don't have to. It's not like we're ever going to decide once and for all what is cool and what isn't, but moaning about the discussion as if it's something that each user must carry on his back is tiresome. It's not like getting cornered by your housemate into discussing dish-washing policy; these discussions are purely voluntary and easily avoidable.
To come full-circle about the worth of people's opinions, I'm still deciding what a troll is and isn't; reading the opinions of other users is helpful to that end.
posted by squirrel at 8:38 PM on July 30, 2005
You're wrong, Major. I've had my mind changed here countless times by people expressing their opinions.
Also, I don't know if Shouting qualifies as a troll, exactly, but it does no harm to occasionally bring this topic out and let people weigh in. Those who don't want to don't have to. It's not like we're ever going to decide once and for all what is cool and what isn't, but moaning about the discussion as if it's something that each user must carry on his back is tiresome. It's not like getting cornered by your housemate into discussing dish-washing policy; these discussions are purely voluntary and easily avoidable.
To come full-circle about the worth of people's opinions, I'm still deciding what a troll is and isn't; reading the opinions of other users is helpful to that end.
posted by squirrel at 8:38 PM on July 30, 2005
"Ethereal Bligh has fully dissolved into self-parody."
Fuck, and I didn't even know self-parody was a solvent. Gotta read those instructions on the label more often.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:50 PM on July 30, 2005
Fuck, and I didn't even know self-parody was a solvent. Gotta read those instructions on the label more often.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:50 PM on July 30, 2005
I always wear gloves. Even when self-parodisizing myself.
posted by Balisong at 9:16 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Balisong at 9:16 PM on July 30, 2005
it does no harm to occasionally bring this topic out and let people weigh in
Certainly not. I'm reminded of the recent NAMBLA thread, which, for me, brought up a similar point: that while we may disagree with what someone has to say, we should defend their right to say it. People will cluck their tongues and say "come on now" and tell me I'm defending worthless content, but in fact what I'm most concerned about is having something resembling freedom, tolerance, and no content-based censorship on MeFi. Where to draw the line between offensive contributions and site abuse is a tough one, but we can't just go about deleting so-called offensive contributions willy-nilly without becoming what our most strident critics accuse us of being.
posted by scarabic at 10:09 PM on July 30, 2005
Certainly not. I'm reminded of the recent NAMBLA thread, which, for me, brought up a similar point: that while we may disagree with what someone has to say, we should defend their right to say it. People will cluck their tongues and say "come on now" and tell me I'm defending worthless content, but in fact what I'm most concerned about is having something resembling freedom, tolerance, and no content-based censorship on MeFi. Where to draw the line between offensive contributions and site abuse is a tough one, but we can't just go about deleting so-called offensive contributions willy-nilly without becoming what our most strident critics accuse us of being.
posted by scarabic at 10:09 PM on July 30, 2005
Since I got so much amusement from this thread, I thought I'd actually read Shouting's comments (most of them anyway). IMHO, he is a half-troll (Eric the half a troll). Roughly half of his comments seem designed to try and create "controversy" (read "you're wrong, poopoo head"). The other half, not so much. This comment is probably the best indicator of what Shouting thinks the web is for - if someone flames you, they must really care.
To me, the most surprising thing of all is how much trouble people have (myself included - I'm self aware enough for that) in not feeding the trolls. I will, however, try and improve on that. If we all do, we all benefit.
Banning is not the end of trolls, public admonishment is better, but letting them starve is the only way to end them for good. In this respect, email is useful. Can I suggest that if your thoughts are that a comment is a troll, that the response be emailed to them directly, and the troll ignored in the thread itself. Is this unworkable? (Of course, if there is no email in the user page, completely ignoring the comment, or flagging it (is there a "troll" flag?) would be the alternative).
What!? "Poopoo" isn't in the spelling dictionary - I'm shocked, shocked, I say
posted by birdsquared at 10:24 PM on July 30, 2005
To me, the most surprising thing of all is how much trouble people have (myself included - I'm self aware enough for that) in not feeding the trolls. I will, however, try and improve on that. If we all do, we all benefit.
Banning is not the end of trolls, public admonishment is better, but letting them starve is the only way to end them for good. In this respect, email is useful. Can I suggest that if your thoughts are that a comment is a troll, that the response be emailed to them directly, and the troll ignored in the thread itself. Is this unworkable? (Of course, if there is no email in the user page, completely ignoring the comment, or flagging it (is there a "troll" flag?) would be the alternative).
What!? "Poopoo" isn't in the spelling dictionary - I'm shocked, shocked, I say
posted by birdsquared at 10:24 PM on July 30, 2005
"no content-based censorship"
It's worth pointing out that, as a goal, this is unachievable but is nevertheless good policy. A better way of putting it would be to encourage a consensual understanding of the criteria for censorship that 99% of the community can agree upon. That criteria will still in some sense be content-based and biased, but it would be a bias we could live with. Even though we're arguing about this, I do think that there's very broad agreement among mefites that most conventional US political opinions per se should not be censored.
That being the case, then we must look at two things: 1) whether, if we replace the terms of the disputed statement with neutrals, the presentation of the point of view violates some community norm; and/or 2) whether the content is so outside of the community norm that it is an unnacceptable expression.
The NAMBLA thread, and the rape haiku thread, and others, have all grappled with where an idea or, more likely, the advocacy of an idea crosses that line. There are a tiny handful of absolutists with regard to "all ideas are acceptable to be advocated", but even then I'm suspicious of that stance. So it's almost certain that there's some ideas that 99% of everyone here won't tolerate being advocated. However, it seems to me that no idea which has more than two-digit representation among the demographic pool from which mefites are drawn could be arguably off-limits. That will include everything, really, that most typical right-wingers believe. I don't think censorship of that content is defensible in this community given our standards.
That leaves presentation, and, again, Shouting's presentation is no more caustic, provocative, and unproductive as a huge number of left-wing comments that go unprotested.
That doesn't mean that anyone can't say "he's wrong!" or even, at an individual level "shut up!"; it just means that you can't argue that we as a community are, or should be, saying to Shouting "shut up".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:28 PM on July 30, 2005
It's worth pointing out that, as a goal, this is unachievable but is nevertheless good policy. A better way of putting it would be to encourage a consensual understanding of the criteria for censorship that 99% of the community can agree upon. That criteria will still in some sense be content-based and biased, but it would be a bias we could live with. Even though we're arguing about this, I do think that there's very broad agreement among mefites that most conventional US political opinions per se should not be censored.
That being the case, then we must look at two things: 1) whether, if we replace the terms of the disputed statement with neutrals, the presentation of the point of view violates some community norm; and/or 2) whether the content is so outside of the community norm that it is an unnacceptable expression.
The NAMBLA thread, and the rape haiku thread, and others, have all grappled with where an idea or, more likely, the advocacy of an idea crosses that line. There are a tiny handful of absolutists with regard to "all ideas are acceptable to be advocated", but even then I'm suspicious of that stance. So it's almost certain that there's some ideas that 99% of everyone here won't tolerate being advocated. However, it seems to me that no idea which has more than two-digit representation among the demographic pool from which mefites are drawn could be arguably off-limits. That will include everything, really, that most typical right-wingers believe. I don't think censorship of that content is defensible in this community given our standards.
That leaves presentation, and, again, Shouting's presentation is no more caustic, provocative, and unproductive as a huge number of left-wing comments that go unprotested.
That doesn't mean that anyone can't say "he's wrong!" or even, at an individual level "shut up!"; it just means that you can't argue that we as a community are, or should be, saying to Shouting "shut up".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:28 PM on July 30, 2005
And, by the way, I wrote "most conventional US political opinions" not out of US-centricism, just out of a neutral assessment of the demographics. I'd love for that demographic to change, widening without question what is considered acceptable political speech.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 PM on July 30, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 PM on July 30, 2005
that while we may disagree with what someone has to say, we should defend their right to say it
dude, metafilter doesn't do that.
posted by puke & cry at 11:54 PM on July 30, 2005
dude, metafilter doesn't do that.
posted by puke & cry at 11:54 PM on July 30, 2005
MetaFilter does do that inasmuch as its moderators allow. I know your point, p&c and it's true that individual users may not generally defend the rights of others' free speech, but MetaFilter, as a site, defends that right by allowing the speech to exist on its servers.
To rephrase, MetaFilter is as free-speech as Matt and Jess allow it to be (which is pretty darned free, but not without glitches); this shouldn't be confused with the intolerance of some users.
posted by squirrel at 12:21 AM on July 31, 2005
To rephrase, MetaFilter is as free-speech as Matt and Jess allow it to be (which is pretty darned free, but not without glitches); this shouldn't be confused with the intolerance of some users.
posted by squirrel at 12:21 AM on July 31, 2005
Taking umbrage at the notion that someone suggests Mississippi is more conservative than NYC really suggests to me that both you and your diaper are full of shit.
posted by trondant
You know, I think it's really cute how you took the opportunity to bring this topic up in a random thread trondant . And as I said before, if you feel better now, great.
I thought of pretending to care, but I simply can't. If you have further problems with me, feel free to email me (it's in my profile). I'll then explain further to you how much southern california sucks. It'll be a blast.
posted by justgary at 12:55 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by trondant
You know, I think it's really cute how you took the opportunity to bring this topic up in a random thread trondant . And as I said before, if you feel better now, great.
I thought of pretending to care, but I simply can't. If you have further problems with me, feel free to email me (it's in my profile). I'll then explain further to you how much southern california sucks. It'll be a blast.
posted by justgary at 12:55 AM on July 31, 2005
2) whether the content is so outside of the community norm that it is an unnacceptable expression.
I pretty much agree, Keith. How we establish #2, above, is the dangerous part. I personally have yet to see anything rendered in text which is so beyond my moral ken that I must cry out for its deletion - in fact, I generally believe that deleting such deviant content, or links to it, is counterproductive. MeFi isn't a plate we're going to eat off of, and I'm always confounded by those who want to keep it clean. It's an intellectual environment. As such, I think it needs to be as free as possible if it's going to be valuable.
On any given occasion there's always some twit who takes it upon himself alone to delcare that 99% of the membership considers "x" out of bounds. It's those people who really bug me. Put it to an actual survey and you'll never get as close to unanimity as that on anything.
posted by scarabic at 12:59 AM on July 31, 2005
I pretty much agree, Keith. How we establish #2, above, is the dangerous part. I personally have yet to see anything rendered in text which is so beyond my moral ken that I must cry out for its deletion - in fact, I generally believe that deleting such deviant content, or links to it, is counterproductive. MeFi isn't a plate we're going to eat off of, and I'm always confounded by those who want to keep it clean. It's an intellectual environment. As such, I think it needs to be as free as possible if it's going to be valuable.
On any given occasion there's always some twit who takes it upon himself alone to delcare that 99% of the membership considers "x" out of bounds. It's those people who really bug me. Put it to an actual survey and you'll never get as close to unanimity as that on anything.
posted by scarabic at 12:59 AM on July 31, 2005
On any given occasion there's always some twit who takes it upon himself alone to delcare that 99% of the membership considers "x" out of bounds. It's those people who really bug me.
Charles, LGF
(Sorry, now I probably summoned another hate fest from them)
posted by Balisong at 1:12 AM on July 31, 2005
Charles, LGF
(Sorry, now I probably summoned another hate fest from them)
posted by Balisong at 1:12 AM on July 31, 2005
(Yeah, Balisong, I think I heard someone blow into a conch shell and a thousand keyboard generals crack their carpal-tunneled knuckles in readiness)
posted by squirrel at 1:23 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by squirrel at 1:23 AM on July 31, 2005
squirrel: metafilter is a self-policing community. The metafilter community does not allow the right of anyone to say anything. Metafilter does not in fact, "do that inasmuch as its moderators allow." The "moderators" do not stop 'anyone' from saying 'anything'. The moderators are rather reationary and 'hand's-off'. The community reacts and thus it is/is not allowed.
I would also point to scarabics words: I'm reminded of the recent NAMBLA thread, which, for me, brought up a similar point: that while we may disagree with what someone has to say, we should defend their right to say it. (emph mine)
should, yes. Does, no.
posted by puke & cry at 1:32 AM on July 31, 2005
I would also point to scarabics words: I'm reminded of the recent NAMBLA thread, which, for me, brought up a similar point: that while we may disagree with what someone has to say, we should defend their right to say it. (emph mine)
should, yes. Does, no.
posted by puke & cry at 1:32 AM on July 31, 2005
"How we establish #2, above, is the dangerous part."
As I said, there's only a couple of workable solutions.
One is to just be so expansive in determining what is allowable that it's almost impossible that we'd find any significant number of mefites who would advocate that idea. You could say that then that makes that standard meaningless, but I would disagree. If we can all agree on drawing the line at sincerely advocating baby-rape, for example, then even if that particular case is unlikely to be realized we have some collective sense of what our community values are and how we decide where we draw our lines.
The other is just give (or acknowledge that) someone else the authority to make censorship decisions on whatever criteria they favor in a "my way, or the highway" sort of sense. At this time, we sort of have a hybrid of both standards.
Given what I say above, it seems to me that all evidence strongly indicates that however we evaluate what that standard is as a practical matter, we find that historically the standard has been very, very heavily tilted away from the direction of censorship. So I just can't see any way that we can say that someone like Shouting should be authoritatively silenced because his views are unacceptable. And, for my part, if I take his statements and other people's--some mefites on the left--statements and replace the terms with simple variables so we're left only with presentation, it becomes obvious that Shouting's behavior is not great, but it's nothing that terribly exceptional, either.
So I'm forced to conclude that this outcry against him is content-based. And that may or may not be defensible, depending upon what the person calling Shouting out implies, or explicitly states, what the collective response to Shouting should be. Here in this thread, it's implicit, I think, and very unclear--but in my opinion the term troll implies a collective, authoritative response (not just simply urging people to tell Shouting to stop it, or just bringing Shouting's behavior to attention).
In the future it might be very helpful when calling out an individual to be specific in what sense one is calling someone out. Saying that Shouting is a troll very much loads the dice if trey is presenting this for community evaluation; better would have been a more neutral presentation of Shouting's post with a "what do you guys think" slant rather than that is making a case for the prosecution.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:36 AM on July 31, 2005
As I said, there's only a couple of workable solutions.
One is to just be so expansive in determining what is allowable that it's almost impossible that we'd find any significant number of mefites who would advocate that idea. You could say that then that makes that standard meaningless, but I would disagree. If we can all agree on drawing the line at sincerely advocating baby-rape, for example, then even if that particular case is unlikely to be realized we have some collective sense of what our community values are and how we decide where we draw our lines.
The other is just give (or acknowledge that) someone else the authority to make censorship decisions on whatever criteria they favor in a "my way, or the highway" sort of sense. At this time, we sort of have a hybrid of both standards.
Given what I say above, it seems to me that all evidence strongly indicates that however we evaluate what that standard is as a practical matter, we find that historically the standard has been very, very heavily tilted away from the direction of censorship. So I just can't see any way that we can say that someone like Shouting should be authoritatively silenced because his views are unacceptable. And, for my part, if I take his statements and other people's--some mefites on the left--statements and replace the terms with simple variables so we're left only with presentation, it becomes obvious that Shouting's behavior is not great, but it's nothing that terribly exceptional, either.
So I'm forced to conclude that this outcry against him is content-based. And that may or may not be defensible, depending upon what the person calling Shouting out implies, or explicitly states, what the collective response to Shouting should be. Here in this thread, it's implicit, I think, and very unclear--but in my opinion the term troll implies a collective, authoritative response (not just simply urging people to tell Shouting to stop it, or just bringing Shouting's behavior to attention).
In the future it might be very helpful when calling out an individual to be specific in what sense one is calling someone out. Saying that Shouting is a troll very much loads the dice if trey is presenting this for community evaluation; better would have been a more neutral presentation of Shouting's post with a "what do you guys think" slant rather than that is making a case for the prosecution.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:36 AM on July 31, 2005
The "moderators" do not stop 'anyone' from saying 'anything'.
As a point of fact, they do. And there's no reason to put quote marks around moderators, because everyone agrees that that's what they are. But this is beside my point, anyway. I wasn't saying that the moderators were stopping free speech, I was pointing out that the physical reality of the site enabled a lot of speech. I made this observation to distinguish the MetaFilter community--the collective users--and the physical site that makes their collective MeFi voice possible.
I don't want to go on too much about this, because I have a feeling that we believe the same things essentially, but are just visualizing or explaining them differently.
posted by squirrel at 3:46 AM on July 31, 2005
As a point of fact, they do. And there's no reason to put quote marks around moderators, because everyone agrees that that's what they are. But this is beside my point, anyway. I wasn't saying that the moderators were stopping free speech, I was pointing out that the physical reality of the site enabled a lot of speech. I made this observation to distinguish the MetaFilter community--the collective users--and the physical site that makes their collective MeFi voice possible.
I don't want to go on too much about this, because I have a feeling that we believe the same things essentially, but are just visualizing or explaining them differently.
posted by squirrel at 3:46 AM on July 31, 2005
I hear what you're saying, ericb. I just don't agree. You're very clearly willing to cast meehawl's statement one way, and Shouting's another. One is a minor aside, the other is an obvious derail. Those are your opinions. But Shouting didn't bring it up, he seemed perfectly on board with the thread at first. meehawl says that the subject of the thread dabbles in racist politcs. Shouting didn't agree. You didn't agree with shouting, and here we are. But there's no blatant sabotage of the thread going on. Just seems that wherever this dude goes, he embarasses himself with the bigotry of his opinions.
Sucks to be him, but no foul.
posted by scarabic at 6:46 PM PST on July 30 [!]
Every day my respect for Scarabic's prickly comments grow.
posted by sic at 6:26 AM on July 31, 2005
Sucks to be him, but no foul.
posted by scarabic at 6:46 PM PST on July 30 [!]
Every day my respect for Scarabic's prickly comments grow.
posted by sic at 6:26 AM on July 31, 2005
Just seems that wherever this dude goes, he embarasses himself with the bigotry of his opinions.
That is the best thumbnail thus far. Except the embarrassment doesn't quite stop there.
It's like somebody's dad just joined. The reaction: a mass cringe reflex. Oh, jeez, is that dumb or what ? Oh, the humiliation !
posted by y2karl at 8:05 AM on July 31, 2005
That is the best thumbnail thus far. Except the embarrassment doesn't quite stop there.
It's like somebody's dad just joined. The reaction: a mass cringe reflex. Oh, jeez, is that dumb or what ? Oh, the humiliation !
posted by y2karl at 8:05 AM on July 31, 2005
For instance, a major conservative weblog was under persistent terrorist attack yesterday by some idiot who keep posting pornographic trackbacks to her site.
What passes for terrorism these days boggles the mind. By his definition anything that is intentionally offensive would constitute an act of terrorism.
/me flips Shouting the bird.
(and I agree with what y2karl just said).
posted by furtive at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2005
What passes for terrorism these days boggles the mind. By his definition anything that is intentionally offensive would constitute an act of terrorism.
/me flips Shouting the bird.
(and I agree with what y2karl just said).
posted by furtive at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2005
It's not opinions that are inflammatory or of a certain flavor of politics--It's the attacks and insults while proferring those opinions and statements. I'm sorry so many don't see how it hurts the site, and all attempts at discussion here. Which is why some of us know he's a troll. Repeated, sweeping dismissals of members' comments and their value while commenting yourself is not an honest tactic. At all.
posted by amberglow at 9:20 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:20 AM on July 31, 2005
Bah, let's not be so diplomatic about it. His level of rhetoric is of the lowbrow variety that belongs on Fark, not Metafilter.
posted by furtive at 9:23 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by furtive at 9:23 AM on July 31, 2005
Thanks for the compliment.
It's a testiment to the power of my writing and what I have to say.
If you didn't fear that you had no counter to what I have to say, you wouldn't be resorting to the ridicule.
Thanks for the compliment.
Won't deter me a bit.
posted by Shouting at 9:25 AM on July 31, 2005
It's a testiment to the power of my writing and what I have to say.
If you didn't fear that you had no counter to what I have to say, you wouldn't be resorting to the ridicule.
Thanks for the compliment.
Won't deter me a bit.
posted by Shouting at 9:25 AM on July 31, 2005
A lot of shouting's comments are only loosely connected to the topic of the thread.
Take this thread on some Sikh tourists getting hassled by police. He starts there and in two paragraphs gets to how police handle domestic violence calls. It could be argued that there is a connection but the weird part of his short posting history is that no matter where he starts from he frequently ends up demonstrating his bigotry in a way that likely to upset people.
He's entitled to his opinions and he's entitled to express them but he's a troll and he's rude. For example,
maggiemaggie
People who are afraid to even list their place of residence on this site should stay away from lecturing those who are not.
Where do you live? Peoria?
posted by Shouting at 9:01 AM PST on July 31 [!]
This is not about his politics. How many people, liberal, conservative, or whatever can you find that will insist that there has never been discrimination against gays? That's not a political position. If shouting argued that we should discriminate against gays because we must follow god's will or to preserve the family, that would be a political position. Saying that discrimination just doesn't exist is so ridiculous that the only way I can read it is as rhetoric designed to start an argument.
I don't think he should be banned but he's a troll and should be ignored.
posted by rdr at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2005
Take this thread on some Sikh tourists getting hassled by police. He starts there and in two paragraphs gets to how police handle domestic violence calls. It could be argued that there is a connection but the weird part of his short posting history is that no matter where he starts from he frequently ends up demonstrating his bigotry in a way that likely to upset people.
He's entitled to his opinions and he's entitled to express them but he's a troll and he's rude. For example,
maggiemaggie
People who are afraid to even list their place of residence on this site should stay away from lecturing those who are not.
Where do you live? Peoria?
posted by Shouting at 9:01 AM PST on July 31 [!]
This is not about his politics. How many people, liberal, conservative, or whatever can you find that will insist that there has never been discrimination against gays? That's not a political position. If shouting argued that we should discriminate against gays because we must follow god's will or to preserve the family, that would be a political position. Saying that discrimination just doesn't exist is so ridiculous that the only way I can read it is as rhetoric designed to start an argument.
I don't think he should be banned but he's a troll and should be ignored.
posted by rdr at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2005
I'm with birdsquared: This comment is probably the best indicator of what Shouting thinks the web is for...
posted by ericb at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2005
"I've noticed that flame wars are dying out in the comments, too.Personally, I think he sees MeFi as fertile ground for merely stirring-up shit.
Peace in our time? Or just exhaustion.
I remember the good old days. Somebody would scream at you that you were Stalinist scum within two comments.
The steam seems to be running out of the blogosphere.
Tell me it isn't true."
posted by Shouting at 8:22 AM EST on July 29 [!]
posted by ericb at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2005
trolling for sure, and out for hits to his website too
posted by amberglow at 9:52 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:52 AM on July 31, 2005
and what eric said--that's the reason he's here. Why give him the satisfaction?
posted by amberglow at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2005
Y'know, much the same way I can view "only the marked-best answers" on AskMe, I'd like an option to view MeFi "without Shouting."
posted by Jon-o at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by Jon-o at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2005
The guy is an idiot savant. As dumb as dirt, but with the unique talent for getting intelligent people all riled up over nothing.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2005
I'm pretty sure that I'm operating within the boundaries of courtesy and respect within this site. I'm not so sure about a number of my respondents.
When the proprietor of this site finds fault with what I have to say, I'll consider it. The rest of you might want to consider that you are just guests here too.
posted by Shouting at 12:59 PM EST on July 31 [!]
posted by trey at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2005
When the proprietor of this site finds fault with what I have to say, I'll consider it. The rest of you might want to consider that you are just guests here too.
posted by Shouting at 12:59 PM EST on July 31 [!]
posted by trey at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2005
"Also, interestingly, the number of visitors to my weblog increased over the past few days by 400 hits a day."
posted by Shouting at 12:47 PM EST on July 31
Yeah - he's loving the attention. I'm not sure he's here for reasoned discourse, as much as he is here seeking a flame war - which he misses so much.
posted by ericb at 10:04 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by Shouting at 12:47 PM EST on July 31
Yeah - he's loving the attention. I'm not sure he's here for reasoned discourse, as much as he is here seeking a flame war - which he misses so much.
posted by ericb at 10:04 AM on July 31, 2005
I agree with you rdr; it's hard to argue that this one is just stating his opinions, he also seems to have a need for acrimony -- isn't this the definition of a troll? Trolls, or whatever you want to call it, are very needy, without constant attention they lose interest. So your best option is to just ignore him until he starts making arguments that are worthy of a reply. If he's incapable of that he will surely fade away into oblivion as so many have before.
On preview: what ericb and amber said.
John O, you can
posted by sic at 10:05 AM on July 31, 2005
On preview: what ericb and amber said.
John O, you can
posted by sic at 10:05 AM on July 31, 2005
Also, I'll bet that Shouting is well on his way to being at the receiving ends of a few "faps."
posted by Jon-o at 10:08 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by Jon-o at 10:08 AM on July 31, 2005
Oh my...his retort to someone taking issue with what he said:
posted by ericb at 10:22 AM on July 31, 2005
"I have a bachelor's degree is Russian history, literature, language and culture from the University of Illinois, as well as a bachelor's degree in English literature. I'm pretty well read in the classic literature.Touche. He's got us there!
In addition, I have a B.A. in music.
I have an M.A. in multimedia from New York University.
I've taught at several universities, including English literature, and now, in design and programming.
What's your resume?"
posted by Shouting at 12:51 PM EST on July 31
posted by ericb at 10:22 AM on July 31, 2005
I'm not sure that installing BandInABox gives you a BA in Music...
posted by benzo8 at 10:24 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by benzo8 at 10:24 AM on July 31, 2005
You folks are certainly doing a great job of driving me into silence.
You are only bringing more and more attention to the things I have not say. (sic)
You've increased the impact of what I've said by a thousand times.
Listen to the man.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:25 AM on July 31, 2005
I'll say this for him, he has mastered the use of the line break tag.
Seriously, though, on further thought, I kind of look at him as the right wing Stewart Smalley.
posted by psmealey at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2005
Seriously, though, on further thought, I kind of look at him as the right wing Stewart Smalley.
posted by psmealey at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2005
FWIW: it’s admited that its inflamatory posts are mainly to get more hits on its website, so it’s not only a troll, but a link-whore at that.
Leave it alone, it’ll go away.
111, now that was a troll.
posted by signal at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2005
Leave it alone, it’ll go away.
111, now that was a troll.
posted by signal at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2005
Spouting credentials does nothing to legitimise rash, abusive rhetoric.
He sure doesn't post like he he has a worldly, encompasing view of the subjects. He just likes to hear himself shout.
Actually, he could have done that on his own blog. He likes seing people squirm around after he shouts something unpopular at everyone, then sits in wait for a response. In that way, he is a troll.
posted by Balisong at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2005
He sure doesn't post like he he has a worldly, encompasing view of the subjects. He just likes to hear himself shout.
Actually, he could have done that on his own blog. He likes seing people squirm around after he shouts something unpopular at everyone, then sits in wait for a response. In that way, he is a troll.
posted by Balisong at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2005
This mischaracterizes most of what I do around here. When people seem to be shitting on the site as a pattern, I try to email them directly as a first approach.
In the situation I explicitly mentioned (America sucks more every day), your first action was to publicly state that you were deleting several of his posts and note that he had something up his butt. This is not the procedure you just described.
It may not be the public chastisement that everyone is angling for [why does admonishment need to be public if the bad behavior stops?]
If it stops, it does not. But some users have extremely long track records of trollish and abusive posts with no sign of relent, and there's no public indication that anything is being done to put on the brakes.
Shouting. Jerk? Probably. Troll? Not as I understand the term.
Have you actually read his posts? He's pretty much the exact character I would've come up with if you said "what persona would you take on, if your goal was to troll a left-centrist website without getting banned on the first day."
posted by mosch at 10:54 AM on July 31, 2005
In the situation I explicitly mentioned (America sucks more every day), your first action was to publicly state that you were deleting several of his posts and note that he had something up his butt. This is not the procedure you just described.
It may not be the public chastisement that everyone is angling for [why does admonishment need to be public if the bad behavior stops?]
If it stops, it does not. But some users have extremely long track records of trollish and abusive posts with no sign of relent, and there's no public indication that anything is being done to put on the brakes.
Shouting. Jerk? Probably. Troll? Not as I understand the term.
Have you actually read his posts? He's pretty much the exact character I would've come up with if you said "what persona would you take on, if your goal was to troll a left-centrist website without getting banned on the first day."
posted by mosch at 10:54 AM on July 31, 2005
You know, mathowie and jessamyn don't have to weigh in on something to make it unacceptable behavior. "Self-policing," right?
I'm pretty sure the community can't delete posts.
posted by mosch at 10:55 AM on July 31, 2005
I'm pretty sure the community can't delete posts.
posted by mosch at 10:55 AM on July 31, 2005
I, for one, am offneded by someone who does not understand the distinction between sentences and paragraphs. :)
Look, he posts strange, inflammatory, and frequently off-topic things to promote his weblog. If you notice in the threads where someone explicitly calls him on being off topic or simply ignores him, he stops contributing to the thread.
You know, I'd feel that I'd "earned" promoting my weblog if I put up a bunch of well received FPPs to MeFi. This guy is just trying to do so by defecating on thread after thread in the hopes of getting attention.
posted by deanc at 11:00 AM on July 31, 2005
Look, he posts strange, inflammatory, and frequently off-topic things to promote his weblog. If you notice in the threads where someone explicitly calls him on being off topic or simply ignores him, he stops contributing to the thread.
You know, I'd feel that I'd "earned" promoting my weblog if I put up a bunch of well received FPPs to MeFi. This guy is just trying to do so by defecating on thread after thread in the hopes of getting attention.
posted by deanc at 11:00 AM on July 31, 2005
All we can give is verbal (written) warnings. We can't give tickets, dole out punishment, edit posts, etc.
That seems to be one of the major reasons for metatalk. Verbal warnings for inapropriate behavior.
posted by Balisong at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2005
That seems to be one of the major reasons for metatalk. Verbal warnings for inapropriate behavior.
posted by Balisong at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2005
Even davy thinks that Shouting is an unthinking one-note right-wing asshole.
An honest question, is ALL content acceptable here, so long as it's not repetitive and doesn't contain profanity?
posted by mosch at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2005
An honest question, is ALL content acceptable here, so long as it's not repetitive and doesn't contain profanity?
posted by mosch at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2005
I have a bachelor's degree is Russian history, literature, language and culture from the University of Illinois
Суки драные, бляди сраные,
Но не может без вас народ.
(Hi, clav!)
posted by languagehat at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2005
Суки драные, бляди сраные,
Но не может без вас народ.
(Hi, clav!)
posted by languagehat at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2005
Wow. That's a broad bachelor's degree. Not that I'm in any position to make fun of it. In all honesty, my first thought was to be a little skeptical and then I rebelled against that skepticism. You don't have to be particularly articulate or civil to have a BA in Russian (although that sure would be the stereotype, wouldn't it?) or music. And especially your political opinions need not be very sophisticated. If he'd talk about Tolstoy or Bach, though, he'd be a lot more interesting guy (to me, anyway).
I've only been basing my judgment on what was linked here. Maybe some other stuff of his is more trollish. Again, though, that's not that rare on metafilter. Maybe he should be given a timeout, though, for excessive use of the cr/lf key.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2005
I've only been basing my judgment on what was linked here. Maybe some other stuff of his is more trollish. Again, though, that's not that rare on metafilter. Maybe he should be given a timeout, though, for excessive use of the cr/lf key.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2005
and the continual promotion of his blog, if this is a fair assessment, rubs me very much the wrong way
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2005
Look, he posts strange, inflammatory, and frequently off-topic things to promote his weblog.
Isn't that really the point? By counterexample, if someone were to hijack every MeFi political thread with ravings (relevant or not to the thread in question) about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance, or his sitting in the classroom for 8 minutes, or make claims about the GOP attacking the poor and lining the pockets of big business, while at the same time, sporadically pimping his/her personal website, that person would likely be banned or at least given a timeout in pretty short order.
It's pretty ironic that, even though people are complaining loudly about him now, Shouting will ultimately get a pass precisely because his non-sequitir rants are right-wing. His defenders attack his detractors with the predictable, he's not a troll, you are just saying that because you disagree with him bullshit, and we're left to ponder that while another asshole gets to shit on the site with impunity.
posted by psmealey at 11:44 AM on July 31, 2005
Isn't that really the point? By counterexample, if someone were to hijack every MeFi political thread with ravings (relevant or not to the thread in question) about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance, or his sitting in the classroom for 8 minutes, or make claims about the GOP attacking the poor and lining the pockets of big business, while at the same time, sporadically pimping his/her personal website, that person would likely be banned or at least given a timeout in pretty short order.
It's pretty ironic that, even though people are complaining loudly about him now, Shouting will ultimately get a pass precisely because his non-sequitir rants are right-wing. His defenders attack his detractors with the predictable, he's not a troll, you are just saying that because you disagree with him bullshit, and we're left to ponder that while another asshole gets to shit on the site with impunity.
posted by psmealey at 11:44 AM on July 31, 2005
if someone were to hijack every MeFi political thread with ravings (relevant or not to the thread in question) about Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance, or his sitting in the classroom for 8 minutes, or make claims about the GOP attacking the poor and lining the pockets of big business, while at the same time, sporadically pimping his/her personal website, that person would likely be banned or at least given a timeout in pretty short order.
All that is acceptable, EXCEPT the pimping for your own blog.
Pointing out the truth is one thing, I don't care if I don't agree with a viewpoint. Let it stand. It's when it dives into personal attacks, or self shilling, that I say there is a problem.
posted by Balisong at 11:49 AM on July 31, 2005
All that is acceptable, EXCEPT the pimping for your own blog.
Pointing out the truth is one thing, I don't care if I don't agree with a viewpoint. Let it stand. It's when it dives into personal attacks, or self shilling, that I say there is a problem.
posted by Balisong at 11:49 AM on July 31, 2005
Wow, it's great to be the subject of such adulation!
Keep it up, kids!
posted by Shouting at 12:10 PM on July 31, 2005
Keep it up, kids!
posted by Shouting at 12:10 PM on July 31, 2005
And, by the way, at the rate you folks are glorifying me, I will receive 2000 hits on my site above the normal rate.
Who's dumb here?
posted by Shouting at 12:11 PM on July 31, 2005
Who's dumb here?
posted by Shouting at 12:11 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting, since you are so intent on putting forth your point of view, I cannot wait for you to start illuminating all of us with your own Front Page Posts. I'm sure they will be gems of intelectual discourse.
posted by Balisong at 12:13 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Balisong at 12:13 PM on July 31, 2005
It's painfully obvious that it's nothing at all to do with Shouting's point of view, and everything to do with blog-whoring. This is tantamount to self-linkage, surely?
posted by benzo8 at 12:19 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by benzo8 at 12:19 PM on July 31, 2005
(By "it's", I meant Shoutings reason for being here...)
posted by benzo8 at 12:20 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by benzo8 at 12:20 PM on July 31, 2005
It begins to look that way. Matt or jess should warn him that this attitude is very much in opposition to the community ethos.
Shouting: saying "I win because now you guys are looking at my blog" will not make you welcome here--not just with many of the rest of us, but probably not with the site owner and his own helping-hand, either (but I'm not speaking for them, and could not). That's just not what we're all about. If you want to debate your viewpoint, fine. Saying you're really just being provocative to drive hits to your blog is tantamount to admitting that you're a variety of troll and will get you banned. Honestly arguing your point of view and otherwise being in line with the community's ethos of behavior will not, even if your political views are very much in opposition to the dominant opinion here.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:25 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting: saying "I win because now you guys are looking at my blog" will not make you welcome here--not just with many of the rest of us, but probably not with the site owner and his own helping-hand, either (but I'm not speaking for them, and could not). That's just not what we're all about. If you want to debate your viewpoint, fine. Saying you're really just being provocative to drive hits to your blog is tantamount to admitting that you're a variety of troll and will get you banned. Honestly arguing your point of view and otherwise being in line with the community's ethos of behavior will not, even if your political views are very much in opposition to the dominant opinion here.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:25 PM on July 31, 2005
It's like playing with children. Whose next?
My points of view are precisely what I meant to state.
I'll explain why you are driving so many people to my site. The junior high school ridicule clique that you've organized here certainly does deter people who disagree with you from posting. I haven't witnessed such juvenile piling on since fights in the sandbox. A truly witless, childish bunch you are.
The piling on and the juvenile behavior is, I guarantee you, deterring many thoughtful people from commenting and participating. That of course, is the intent of the very un-liberal "liberals" on this blog. In fact, I seriously doubt that you juveniles even know what a liberal is. You've effectively defined it as "anything that displeases me."
So, all the folks who would like to participate, and are being driven away by the junior high school clique behavior and coming to my site to satisfy their curiousity. And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens.
I had hoped for a higher level of discourse here. Most of it has been childish tripe, in particular this thread.
But, I thank you again for bringing so much attention to my ideas.
I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are. Which isn't saying much.
Keep it up. I hope this thread goes on for years. I'll contribute regularly to it.
So, once again, tell me who's stupid?
posted by Shouting at 12:29 PM on July 31, 2005
My points of view are precisely what I meant to state.
I'll explain why you are driving so many people to my site. The junior high school ridicule clique that you've organized here certainly does deter people who disagree with you from posting. I haven't witnessed such juvenile piling on since fights in the sandbox. A truly witless, childish bunch you are.
The piling on and the juvenile behavior is, I guarantee you, deterring many thoughtful people from commenting and participating. That of course, is the intent of the very un-liberal "liberals" on this blog. In fact, I seriously doubt that you juveniles even know what a liberal is. You've effectively defined it as "anything that displeases me."
So, all the folks who would like to participate, and are being driven away by the junior high school clique behavior and coming to my site to satisfy their curiousity. And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens.
I had hoped for a higher level of discourse here. Most of it has been childish tripe, in particular this thread.
But, I thank you again for bringing so much attention to my ideas.
I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are. Which isn't saying much.
Keep it up. I hope this thread goes on for years. I'll contribute regularly to it.
So, once again, tell me who's stupid?
posted by Shouting at 12:29 PM on July 31, 2005
Every one of his posts makes it clearer that his goal is to get attention for himself, not to contribute anything to this site. People like that devalue the site, and everyone should try a little harder to ignore such people when they behave foolishly. It's often difficult to fight the impulse to correct egregiously flawed arguments, but when the proponent has no intention of participating in reasoned discourse and only wishes to cause dischord, we all should recognize that and immediately move on.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:31 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 12:31 PM on July 31, 2005
I'll explain why you are driving so many people to my site.
I'll admit, I went to your site to see if it would be enlightening, but only found it borring and lame. Cry me a river, indeed.
posted by Balisong at 12:32 PM on July 31, 2005
I'll admit, I went to your site to see if it would be enlightening, but only found it borring and lame. Cry me a river, indeed.
posted by Balisong at 12:32 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting writes "So, once again, tell me who's stupid?"
The person who thinks that Blog Hits are more important than civility, good neighbourness and intelligence...
posted by benzo8 at 12:35 PM on July 31, 2005
The person who thinks that Blog Hits are more important than civility, good neighbourness and intelligence...
posted by benzo8 at 12:35 PM on July 31, 2005
Balisong writes ">"I'll admit, I went to your site to see if it would be enlightening, but only found it borring and lame. Cry me a river, indeed."
I went to listen to the music. Man, that was a mistake...
posted by benzo8 at 12:39 PM on July 31, 2005
I went to listen to the music. Man, that was a mistake...
posted by benzo8 at 12:39 PM on July 31, 2005
Here's my theory.
Trey (the originator of this thread) is a Karl Rove operative. He began this thread to see just how thoroughly he could discredit the Democratic Party.
It's succeeding, isn't it?
posted by Shouting at 12:40 PM on July 31, 2005
Trey (the originator of this thread) is a Karl Rove operative. He began this thread to see just how thoroughly he could discredit the Democratic Party.
It's succeeding, isn't it?
posted by Shouting at 12:40 PM on July 31, 2005
C'mon children, let's get cruel.
Yes, let's see how vicious and childish you can get.
Anybody else?
posted by Shouting at 12:43 PM on July 31, 2005
Yes, let's see how vicious and childish you can get.
Anybody else?
posted by Shouting at 12:43 PM on July 31, 2005
I went to listen to the music. Man, that was a mistake...
Wow, you weren't kidding. It reminds me of Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy's character's from Best In Show, when they would sing those awful cheesy songs about dogs. Except they were much funnier.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:44 PM on July 31, 2005
Wow, you weren't kidding. It reminds me of Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy's character's from Best In Show, when they would sing those awful cheesy songs about dogs. Except they were much funnier.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:44 PM on July 31, 2005
Er, characters.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2005
Who will be the first to post a vicious, racist remark about my deceased wife?
That's about the only question now, isn't it?
C'mon vicious children. Show us you worst.
posted by Shouting at 12:47 PM on July 31, 2005
That's about the only question now, isn't it?
C'mon vicious children. Show us you worst.
posted by Shouting at 12:47 PM on July 31, 2005
We discourage name calling here...
Perhaps you would be better recieved here, they even allow name calling and unbridled passionately hate filled responces to current events.
posted by Balisong at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2005
Perhaps you would be better recieved here, they even allow name calling and unbridled passionately hate filled responces to current events.
posted by Balisong at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2005
Hahaha, this is getting pretty entertaining. Now it's like that one South Park where the kids meet Mel Gibson and he's all insane and he keeps trying to get them to torture him. What'll he come up with next? We'll find out after this commercial break.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2005
Who will be the first to post a vicious [...] remark about my deceased wife?
You clearly haven't been to the Blue in the last few minutes...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2005
You clearly haven't been to the Blue in the last few minutes...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2005
Who will be the first to post a vicious, racist remark about my deceased wife?
You seriously have some serious issues. Find help.
posted by Balisong at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2005
You seriously have some serious issues. Find help.
posted by Balisong at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2005
Er, Matt, Jessamyn? Hasn't this gone on far enough? Do we really need another person with personal problems go nuts here?
posted by sic at 12:53 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by sic at 12:53 PM on July 31, 2005
Why would anyone post a vicious, racist remark about your deceased wife? Why would expect anyone to? I'm not accustomed to praying for people, but know that you (and your wife) will be in my thoughts.
posted by boo_radley at 12:56 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by boo_radley at 12:56 PM on July 31, 2005
It's like playing with children. Whose next?
[...]
I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are.
I think it's pretty clear to the readers that your keen insight and dexterous prose put your opponents to shame, and that they now look on you with newfound wonder. (I'm certainly wilting with pleasure under your manly onslaught of words.)
But there are just so many of them. I admire your fortitude. A lesser man might despair of Cuchulain's noble task against the sea of chickenshit poltroons.
posted by cytherea at 1:04 PM on July 31, 2005
[...]
I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are.
I think it's pretty clear to the readers that your keen insight and dexterous prose put your opponents to shame, and that they now look on you with newfound wonder. (I'm certainly wilting with pleasure under your manly onslaught of words.)
But there are just so many of them. I admire your fortitude. A lesser man might despair of Cuchulain's noble task against the sea of chickenshit poltroons.
posted by cytherea at 1:04 PM on July 31, 2005
Langaugehat posted:
Суки драные, бляди сраные,
Но не может без вас народ.
Shouting, could we get a translation of that? I know I'd like to know what it means.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:13 PM on July 31, 2005
Суки драные, бляди сраные,
Но не может без вас народ.
Shouting, could we get a translation of that? I know I'd like to know what it means.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:13 PM on July 31, 2005
According to Babelfish, it means" Boughs torn, blyadi sranye, but cannot without you people."
posted by Balisong at 1:16 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Balisong at 1:16 PM on July 31, 2005
"Who will be the first to post a vicious, racist remark about my deceased wife?"
It's like some kids threw rocks at you and now you're yelling at some invisible people on the subway.
But please continue, it's the most entertaining melt-down I've seen in awhile.
posted by 2sheets at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2005
It's like some kids threw rocks at you and now you're yelling at some invisible people on the subway.
But please continue, it's the most entertaining melt-down I've seen in awhile.
posted by 2sheets at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2005
C'mon children.
You will utterly disgrace yourselves, yet.
You're not far from it. Keep going.
posted by Shouting at 1:30 PM on July 31, 2005
You will utterly disgrace yourselves, yet.
You're not far from it. Keep going.
posted by Shouting at 1:30 PM on July 31, 2005
And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens.
Comedy gold. Pass the popcorn; you think it's too early for a beer?
posted by mygothlaundry at 1:32 PM on July 31, 2005
Comedy gold. Pass the popcorn; you think it's too early for a beer?
posted by mygothlaundry at 1:32 PM on July 31, 2005
ach, this whole thread makes me feel sad. I don't like shouting's viewpoint and I don't care for his abrasive style. But I must say that I am not fond of these mean-spirited periodic pile-ons and public pillories and don't find them worthy of the site. I don't have high expectations for noobs - they may not know the site culture or customs and we should try to point those out. Doesn't seem like there was much of an attempt here, it looks like there were almost 200 posts made before anyone alerted shouting that he was being discussed (and I fault myself for that, too.) Any potential for any understanding or tolerance was probably shot by that point.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:32 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 1:32 PM on July 31, 2005
The pack of dogs behavior exhibit here is shameful.
But it is what the left has become.
Keep going kiddies. I'm still waiting for one of you to display the predatory evil within you fully.
posted by Shouting at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2005
But it is what the left has become.
Keep going kiddies. I'm still waiting for one of you to display the predatory evil within you fully.
posted by Shouting at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2005
You get what you give.
posted by amberglow at 1:36 PM on July 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by amberglow at 1:36 PM on July 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
don't like shouting's viewpoint and I don't care for his abrasive style. But I must say that I am not fond of these mean-spirited periodic pile-ons and public pillories and don't find them worthy of the site.
Hm. Your concerns are well-founded. Besides, there are far more civilized, traditional ways of dealing with his ilk (via languagehat). However, absent any enforcement mechanism, public "naming-and-shaming," such as this, will have to suffice.
posted by deanc at 1:38 PM on July 31, 2005
Hm. Your concerns are well-founded. Besides, there are far more civilized, traditional ways of dealing with his ilk (via languagehat). However, absent any enforcement mechanism, public "naming-and-shaming," such as this, will have to suffice.
posted by deanc at 1:38 PM on July 31, 2005
"Keep going kiddies. I'm still waiting for one of you to display the predatory evil within you fully."
Um ... OK. I'll give it a shot, if it would make you happy.
Um ...
I ... eat babies? Is that good? Or, did you want it to be an attack on you?
You eat babies?
I'm not sure what this is achieving, here.
posted by kyrademon at 1:39 PM on July 31, 2005
Um ... OK. I'll give it a shot, if it would make you happy.
Um ...
I ... eat babies? Is that good? Or, did you want it to be an attack on you?
You eat babies?
I'm not sure what this is achieving, here.
posted by kyrademon at 1:39 PM on July 31, 2005
Yes, ambergold, you are what the left has become.
Cruelty, evil and sadism reside within you.
And, you thought it was only Republicans?
posted by Shouting at 1:40 PM on July 31, 2005
Cruelty, evil and sadism reside within you.
And, you thought it was only Republicans?
posted by Shouting at 1:40 PM on July 31, 2005
I've done my work here.
Time for you children to go home and reflect on what you've learned here.
You're still working on the level of a pack of sadistic children in the schoolyard.
Continue to disgrace yourself with the bloodlust. Have fun. Try continuing, now, to believe that that evil only resides in the people who disagree with you.
posted by Shouting at 1:43 PM on July 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
Time for you children to go home and reflect on what you've learned here.
You're still working on the level of a pack of sadistic children in the schoolyard.
Continue to disgrace yourself with the bloodlust. Have fun. Try continuing, now, to believe that that evil only resides in the people who disagree with you.
posted by Shouting at 1:43 PM on July 31, 2005 [1 favorite]
*looks up from the pile of dead baby entrails dripping from my mouth*
See ya, Shouting!
posted by Balisong at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
See ya, Shouting!
posted by Balisong at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
where are loquax, andrew cooke and justgary now, when their pet dumbass needs them most?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Hat Maui at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
Fuck it. Ban the motherfucker and let him spend another five dollars.
posted by stet at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by stet at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
Yes, ambergold, you are what the left has become.
Cruelty, evil and sadism reside within you.
Uh...try not...do or do not...there is no try?
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
Cruelty, evil and sadism reside within you.
Uh...try not...do or do not...there is no try?
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting : Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon! Strike me down with all your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
Sorry, Shouting, try as you might, you're no Ian McDiarmid.
Though, damn, beaten to it by horswithnoname.
posted by deanc at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2005
Sorry, Shouting, try as you might, you're no Ian McDiarmid.
Though, damn, beaten to it by horswithnoname.
posted by deanc at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2005
Comedy gold. Pass the popcorn; you think it's too early for a beer?
Cocktail time! Gin & tonics here. Cheers.
/Sitting back enjoying the meltdown.
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2005
Cocktail time! Gin & tonics here. Cheers.
/Sitting back enjoying the meltdown.
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2005
Where do the “cruelty, evil and sadism” and “bloodlust” come from? Why the oblique menace in insisting people post their location? The begging for psychological violence?
I think we’ve stumbled on a seriously disturbed psyche here, and should probably leave it alone unless we want to be responsible for some bad shit happening IRL.
posted by signal at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2005
I think we’ve stumbled on a seriously disturbed psyche here, and should probably leave it alone unless we want to be responsible for some bad shit happening IRL.
posted by signal at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2005
I've done my work here.
Well, you're not getting your allowance until you clean up your mess:
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:51 PM on July 31, 2005
Well, you're not getting your allowance until you clean up your mess:
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:51 PM on July 31, 2005
Well, this didn't turn out well at all. Shouting is quite clearly a disturbed and malicious idiot, but he's not the only person at fault here. trey, next time you call someone out--and I agree that Shouting deserved to be called out--consider being a bit less judgemental. There needs to be a difference between "self-policing" and attempts to maintain the level of discourse and the justice of the mob.
posted by nixerman at 1:52 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by nixerman at 1:52 PM on July 31, 2005
I think we’ve stumbled on a seriously disturbed psyche here
In a more serious mode, I agree with signal. This troll shows some pretty classic sociopathic symptoms, and it's either a really good act (a la Rush Limbauhg) or creepy. Pretty clear case for banning, if anyone is taking a vote.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
In a more serious mode, I agree with signal. This troll shows some pretty classic sociopathic symptoms, and it's either a really good act (a la Rush Limbauhg) or creepy. Pretty clear case for banning, if anyone is taking a vote.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
MetaFilter: The Predatory Evil Within and Making Republicans Out of Democrats by The Dozens.
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
Your gimmick is lame, Shouting.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:53 PM on July 31, 2005
"The pack of dogs TIME CUBE STUPID UNEDUCATED EDUCATORS exhibit here 4 SIDED CUBE WORLD shameful kiddies TIME CUBE IS ONLY TRUTH left become EDUCATED DUMMIES predatory waiting what is left EVIL EDUCATORS FAIL TO REALIZE IMPORTANCE OF TIME CUBE CUBICAL NATURE FULLY display"
Dude, you're a kook. A geniune cheese and nut log. I write this to you as pretty nutty weirdo myself. Go make some art or something. People will probably buy it.
At the risk of taking the bait and feeding the troll:
The right feels "persecuted" because the left keeps attacking their malformed ideas with logic, reason, and even sometimes compassion. The right reacts as though it was attacked, stripped naked and forced into a concentration camp, even though all the left keeps trying to do is engage them in a real debate along the lines of "What in the true name of Jesus Christ do you think you're doing or supporting here?! What parts of "thou shalt not kill" and "judge not least ye be judged" did you completely fail to grasp in Bible class? Why do you advocate so much violence and hatred?".
And yet, the right accuses the left of hatred because we dare question them, and we dare ask them to question themselves and their own motives.
"And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens."
That's hilarious. Who said I was a Democrat? I'm much worse. I believe in onotological anarchy and The Tong. I'm so far outside of your radar and scope of onotological possibilities I'm like unto a living God.
There's no government like no government.
posted by loquacious at 1:54 PM on July 31, 2005
Dude, you're a kook. A geniune cheese and nut log. I write this to you as pretty nutty weirdo myself. Go make some art or something. People will probably buy it.
At the risk of taking the bait and feeding the troll:
The right feels "persecuted" because the left keeps attacking their malformed ideas with logic, reason, and even sometimes compassion. The right reacts as though it was attacked, stripped naked and forced into a concentration camp, even though all the left keeps trying to do is engage them in a real debate along the lines of "What in the true name of Jesus Christ do you think you're doing or supporting here?! What parts of "thou shalt not kill" and "judge not least ye be judged" did you completely fail to grasp in Bible class? Why do you advocate so much violence and hatred?".
And yet, the right accuses the left of hatred because we dare question them, and we dare ask them to question themselves and their own motives.
"And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens."
That's hilarious. Who said I was a Democrat? I'm much worse. I believe in onotological anarchy and The Tong. I'm so far outside of your radar and scope of onotological possibilities I'm like unto a living God.
There's no government like no government.
posted by loquacious at 1:54 PM on July 31, 2005
where are loquax, andrew cooke and justgary now, when their pet dumbass needs them most?
posted by Hat Maui
Right here Hat Maui.
I stand by my comments (and my opinion on metafilter in general) when they were made. Obviously, I have no way of predicting future behavior, or a meltdown in metatalk.
If you do, my hat's off to you. Although since you've decided to put your two cents in after 200 comments, I'd say you're the equivalent of a monday morning quarterback.
posted by justgary at 1:58 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Hat Maui
Right here Hat Maui.
I stand by my comments (and my opinion on metafilter in general) when they were made. Obviously, I have no way of predicting future behavior, or a meltdown in metatalk.
If you do, my hat's off to you. Although since you've decided to put your two cents in after 200 comments, I'd say you're the equivalent of a monday morning quarterback.
posted by justgary at 1:58 PM on July 31, 2005
And so it grows. Pass it along, Balisong.
posted by loquacious at 2:01 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by loquacious at 2:01 PM on July 31, 2005
I bet even Dios, P.P. or Steve@ couldn't defend this kind of blowout.
posted by Balisong at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Balisong at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2005
This sort of thing is why I'm becoming so very, very tired of the internets.
Shouting's initial comment in this thread is an absolute throwaway: basically it says I don't care about the assertions of the article that this whole post is about, because in "this arena" (who should be allowed to raise children, I guess) facts don't matter - policy is - and should be - driven by religious beliefs. In fact, forget basically - that is exactly what he says.
My response to this would be, I respectfully disagree. Further, the article clearly demonstrates a relevant example of the administration implying that their opinions are driven by research, and then dodging the issue of what particular research they might be referring to when called on for specifics, so the premise of the response is flawed.
A better response would probably be no response, just forge ahead with discussing the actual assertions of the article.
Look what happens instead. There is a familiar chorus of "troll" call-outs. Pretty soon Shouting is talking about how people fear him, how his presence on Mefi is bumping his personal web page statistics, sharing his curriculum vitae, making the inevitable references to "junior high," and threatening a very MacArthur promise that he shall return. I don't doubt it.
Watching this progression it's not very hard to form an opinion on what Shouting's core motivation is: he likes attention. I don't know if that qualifies as trolling but whatever he's up to he seems to be a lot better at it than his "opponents." Hell, I'm contributing to it right now - though at least in the proper forum for it.
I don't care about Shouting in particular. There are fellows like him in any forum. My problem is that the number of people willing to give attention to him is turning threads into train wrecks on a regular basis. When I stopped counting (well after Shouting had left the thread) 69 percent of the comments in this thread were driven by Shouting's comments. That's ridiculous: no wonder he has such a high opinion of himself. And as a result, for the most part the topic of the posting is lost in the noise.
Has this site lost the ability to gracefully deal with the basic and inevitable realities of self-centered posting? Maybe it never had it and it just seems more tragic now that I can actually participate, except I seldom want to. Lately I don't even want to look at the comments at anything with a remotely partisan nature, because I just know I'll come out of the experience with a few less brain cells intact. I'm starting to think that if Mefi doesn't evolve some better principles of moderation it is going to turn into something quite pointless by virtue of the massive influx of five-spot johnnies like myself. Can self-policing really work on this scale? 'Cause lately, it ain't.
posted by nanojath at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting's initial comment in this thread is an absolute throwaway: basically it says I don't care about the assertions of the article that this whole post is about, because in "this arena" (who should be allowed to raise children, I guess) facts don't matter - policy is - and should be - driven by religious beliefs. In fact, forget basically - that is exactly what he says.
My response to this would be, I respectfully disagree. Further, the article clearly demonstrates a relevant example of the administration implying that their opinions are driven by research, and then dodging the issue of what particular research they might be referring to when called on for specifics, so the premise of the response is flawed.
A better response would probably be no response, just forge ahead with discussing the actual assertions of the article.
Look what happens instead. There is a familiar chorus of "troll" call-outs. Pretty soon Shouting is talking about how people fear him, how his presence on Mefi is bumping his personal web page statistics, sharing his curriculum vitae, making the inevitable references to "junior high," and threatening a very MacArthur promise that he shall return. I don't doubt it.
Watching this progression it's not very hard to form an opinion on what Shouting's core motivation is: he likes attention. I don't know if that qualifies as trolling but whatever he's up to he seems to be a lot better at it than his "opponents." Hell, I'm contributing to it right now - though at least in the proper forum for it.
I don't care about Shouting in particular. There are fellows like him in any forum. My problem is that the number of people willing to give attention to him is turning threads into train wrecks on a regular basis. When I stopped counting (well after Shouting had left the thread) 69 percent of the comments in this thread were driven by Shouting's comments. That's ridiculous: no wonder he has such a high opinion of himself. And as a result, for the most part the topic of the posting is lost in the noise.
Has this site lost the ability to gracefully deal with the basic and inevitable realities of self-centered posting? Maybe it never had it and it just seems more tragic now that I can actually participate, except I seldom want to. Lately I don't even want to look at the comments at anything with a remotely partisan nature, because I just know I'll come out of the experience with a few less brain cells intact. I'm starting to think that if Mefi doesn't evolve some better principles of moderation it is going to turn into something quite pointless by virtue of the massive influx of five-spot johnnies like myself. Can self-policing really work on this scale? 'Cause lately, it ain't.
posted by nanojath at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2005
Now it's like that one South Park where the kids meet Mel Gibson and he's all insane....
I think the conclusion is clear. Shouting is Tom Cruise.
posted by gleuschk at 2:07 PM on July 31, 2005
I think the conclusion is clear. Shouting is Tom Cruise.
posted by gleuschk at 2:07 PM on July 31, 2005
I don't think he's a troll. he's just really dumb and stubborn.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by mcsweetie at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2005
I dunno, nanojath, I've found the same problems you have, but for the last 4 or so years (I remember finding most partisan threads pretty much unreadable since around 9/11, and only returned to occasionally reading them following the great Newsfilter Crackdown early this year (I believe)). So while I agree with most of your conclusions, I disagree with pretty much all the phrases like "lately", "now", "becoming", and the like.
posted by Bugbread at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2005
Damn you Mathowie for making a site that is so popular that we statisticly get some vocal fringe wacko elements!
posted by Balisong at 2:11 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Balisong at 2:11 PM on July 31, 2005
nanojath, I don't think you can really blame the others in the thread. It's quite difficult to carry on a civil conversation when someone is shitting in the center of the room. Particularly with PP and Shouting's modus operandi of striking early and getting one of the initial comments in the thread. Yes it'd be great if everybody would just ignore them but it's not clear to me that they should be ignored. But ideally people who trash threads would get a firm email from mathowie and a time out. Unfortunately, neither of these are going to happen. I suspect the solution will end up looking being something like a Greasemonkey killfile that just removes certain person's comments from the threads.
posted by nixerman at 2:15 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by nixerman at 2:15 PM on July 31, 2005
Nanojath, I hear you. I admit I've been guilty of it a couple of times myself when someone says something particularly outlandish, but in general I just watch in frustrated astonishment when 30 people feel compelled to say the same thing over and over and over to a poster that has said something ludicrous. I don't mind additional information and points of view being brought to bear on a subject, even if it's a lot of posters arguing with one, but I hate the repetitive "you're wrong" posts.
I think there are a couple of possible impulses going on in that, one of them a bad reason and one of them a possibly good reason. The bad reason is that some people think that maybe if they could just say it in exactly the right way, they would convince the other poster of their arguments. I think it's a bad reason because, quite frankly, it's unlikely to happen - if it's been said and wasn't convincing the first time, it won't be convincing the tenth time. The possibly not-bad reason is to demonstrate to the other poster that there is a wide body of disagreement to their position; only a couple of contrary posts might tacitly imply that there is some unspoken agreement (the "Silent Majority" argument.) I still think it's a bad idea, though, just because ... it's boring. It doesn't add anything to the thread.
I do want to say I have nothing in particular against a lot of people arguing with one. It happens. I just wish people who did so put more effort into adding more to the discussion, and including more in their posts to get things back on track if it's a tangent.
posted by kyrademon at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2005
I think there are a couple of possible impulses going on in that, one of them a bad reason and one of them a possibly good reason. The bad reason is that some people think that maybe if they could just say it in exactly the right way, they would convince the other poster of their arguments. I think it's a bad reason because, quite frankly, it's unlikely to happen - if it's been said and wasn't convincing the first time, it won't be convincing the tenth time. The possibly not-bad reason is to demonstrate to the other poster that there is a wide body of disagreement to their position; only a couple of contrary posts might tacitly imply that there is some unspoken agreement (the "Silent Majority" argument.) I still think it's a bad idea, though, just because ... it's boring. It doesn't add anything to the thread.
I do want to say I have nothing in particular against a lot of people arguing with one. It happens. I just wish people who did so put more effort into adding more to the discussion, and including more in their posts to get things back on track if it's a tangent.
posted by kyrademon at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2005
a Greasemonkey killfile that just removes certain person's comments from the threads.
They HAVE that? I would totally use that. As long as I don't have to download or install anything.
posted by Balisong at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2005
They HAVE that? I would totally use that. As long as I don't have to download or install anything.
posted by Balisong at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2005
"Cruelty, evil and sadism reside within you."
I've seen pictures of amberglow, and he's not that big. Cruelty and evil, evil and sadism, cruelty and sadism, sure. But all three? No fucking way.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:19 PM on July 31, 2005
I've seen pictures of amberglow, and he's not that big. Cruelty and evil, evil and sadism, cruelty and sadism, sure. But all three? No fucking way.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:19 PM on July 31, 2005
AAAAAA++++++++++++ A CREDIT METAFILTER!!! WOULD DEFINATELY WATCH DERANGED MIDDLE-AGED MAN THROWING ROCKS AND SHOUTING AT BEMUSED PASSERSBY AGAIN!!! ++++++++ THX!!!!
Actually, this whole episode has been (and continues to be) nothing other than thoroughly excruciating and purposeless. For many reasons. Please stop, everyone.
posted by nylon at 2:19 PM on July 31, 2005
Actually, this whole episode has been (and continues to be) nothing other than thoroughly excruciating and purposeless. For many reasons. Please stop, everyone.
posted by nylon at 2:19 PM on July 31, 2005
Actually, this whole episode has been (and continues to be) nothing other than thoroughly excruciating and purposeless. For many reasons. Please stop, everyone.
I actually think this is really hilarious, and I hope that Shouting keeps it up. It may not be the best meltdown in Metafilter history, but it's damn amusing.
posted by cmonkey at 2:24 PM on July 31, 2005
I actually think this is really hilarious, and I hope that Shouting keeps it up. It may not be the best meltdown in Metafilter history, but it's damn amusing.
posted by cmonkey at 2:24 PM on July 31, 2005
Well, I started feeling guilty about vicariously enjoying the pile on so I did a statistical analysis (okay, a very loose statistical analysis) of this thread to see if it really qualified as a pile on. I got bored about halfway through, but this is what I got, in order of popularity:
5 comments questioning his motives.
10 disparaging comments about him & his blog
13 comments disagreeing with the callout
17 jokes, injokes & comments on the entertainment value of trolls and flameouts.
20 comments about the nature of MeTa, the nature of callouts and the definition of the word troll.
21 comments calling Shouting out on his trollish behavior, agreeing with the callout, or commenting directly on his comments.
31 comments directed specifically towards another Mefite & not particularly about this callout.
So I don't think Shouting is really bleeding too hard from the pitchfork & torch wounds.
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2005
5 comments questioning his motives.
10 disparaging comments about him & his blog
13 comments disagreeing with the callout
17 jokes, injokes & comments on the entertainment value of trolls and flameouts.
20 comments about the nature of MeTa, the nature of callouts and the definition of the word troll.
21 comments calling Shouting out on his trollish behavior, agreeing with the callout, or commenting directly on his comments.
31 comments directed specifically towards another Mefite & not particularly about this callout.
So I don't think Shouting is really bleeding too hard from the pitchfork & torch wounds.
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2005
where are loquax, andrew cooke and justgary now, when their pet dumbass needs them most?
What do you want us to say, hat maui? He's mocking you and you're mocking him. Congratulations, mission accomplished I guess. This thread did wonders to improve the discourse, as predicted. Thank god this "friendly warning" or whatever it was supposed to be got through to him.
posted by loquax at 2:27 PM on July 31, 2005
What do you want us to say, hat maui? He's mocking you and you're mocking him. Congratulations, mission accomplished I guess. This thread did wonders to improve the discourse, as predicted. Thank god this "friendly warning" or whatever it was supposed to be got through to him.
posted by loquax at 2:27 PM on July 31, 2005
Cruelty and evil, evil and sadism, cruelty and sadism, sure. But all three? No fucking way.
maybe, but I'm 6'4'
can they reside within me at least?
posted by matteo at 2:28 PM on July 31, 2005
maybe, but I'm 6'4'
can they reside within me at least?
posted by matteo at 2:28 PM on July 31, 2005
Oops, I left off the 9 sympathetic comments.
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:31 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by mygothlaundry at 2:31 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting : "A truly witless, childish bunch you are."
And, as has been pointed out several times by several folks, the only difference between some members and yourself (up until the late-thread meltdown and Star Wars imitation, and setting aside the "driving traffic" issue) is political ideology. That is, you are just as witless and childish as some of us, the difference being political orientation.
Shouting : "The junior high school ridicule clique that you've organized here certainly does deter people who disagree with you from posting."
Very possibly true.
Shouting : "That of course, is the intent of the very un-liberal 'liberals' on this blog."
True. The un-liberal liberals on here are trying to quash disagreement. And us liberal liberals are trying to foster an atmosphere that accepts people who disagree with us. But you aren't making things any easier by emulating the worst folks on here. Take the high road, and we may actually get some decent discussion. Take the low road, as you are, and all that happens is that Mefi becomes even more resistant to alternative viewpoints (remember, getting a new crazy liberal doesn't make as much of an impact, because they are offset by a bunch of new noncrazy liberals. A new crazy conservative makes a huge impact because, as you may have noticed, we don't exactly have a truckload of new noncrazy conservatives).
Shouting : "And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens."
I'm interested to know the foundation of that guarantee. And what do I get if it's untrue? And how could it be verified?
Shouting : "But, I thank you again for bringing so much attention to my ideas."
You haven't exactly put forth amazingly unusual ideas. People already know your ideas, just as people already know most of the ideas of the liberals on the site. I seriously doubt a lot of attention has been brought to them that wouldn't have otherwise.
Shouting : "I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are."
Er, on which grounds? I wasn't even aware that you and I were in competition, and if you're referring to the entire site: you've read MetaTalk before. We can't agree with ourselves on the importance of semicolons, let alone gather everyone together to determine the terms of competition with you, let alone the victory conditions.
And what does "tougher" mean in this context anyway? Are you thinking people's fingers will get worn out from typing, but yours won't?
Shouting : "So, once again, tell me who's stupid?"
This guy who used to work at my company, but he got fired for incompetence.
Shouting : "Who will be the first to post a vicious, racist remark about my deceased wife?
"That's about the only question now, isn't it?"
Dude! If only I knew it was so simple! The answer is: "Probably quonsar". There, your final question has been answered.
Shouting : "But it is what the left has become."
Nah. Human nature. People have always been like this, left, right, and middle.
posted by Bugbread at 2:48 PM on July 31, 2005
And, as has been pointed out several times by several folks, the only difference between some members and yourself (up until the late-thread meltdown and Star Wars imitation, and setting aside the "driving traffic" issue) is political ideology. That is, you are just as witless and childish as some of us, the difference being political orientation.
Shouting : "The junior high school ridicule clique that you've organized here certainly does deter people who disagree with you from posting."
Very possibly true.
Shouting : "That of course, is the intent of the very un-liberal 'liberals' on this blog."
True. The un-liberal liberals on here are trying to quash disagreement. And us liberal liberals are trying to foster an atmosphere that accepts people who disagree with us. But you aren't making things any easier by emulating the worst folks on here. Take the high road, and we may actually get some decent discussion. Take the low road, as you are, and all that happens is that Mefi becomes even more resistant to alternative viewpoints (remember, getting a new crazy liberal doesn't make as much of an impact, because they are offset by a bunch of new noncrazy liberals. A new crazy conservative makes a huge impact because, as you may have noticed, we don't exactly have a truckload of new noncrazy conservatives).
Shouting : "And, I guarantee you, the behavior you are displaying here is making Republicans out of Democrats by the dozens."
I'm interested to know the foundation of that guarantee. And what do I get if it's untrue? And how could it be verified?
Shouting : "But, I thank you again for bringing so much attention to my ideas."
You haven't exactly put forth amazingly unusual ideas. People already know your ideas, just as people already know most of the ideas of the liberals on the site. I seriously doubt a lot of attention has been brought to them that wouldn't have otherwise.
Shouting : "I'll defeat you. I'm tougher, smarter and more determined than you are."
Er, on which grounds? I wasn't even aware that you and I were in competition, and if you're referring to the entire site: you've read MetaTalk before. We can't agree with ourselves on the importance of semicolons, let alone gather everyone together to determine the terms of competition with you, let alone the victory conditions.
And what does "tougher" mean in this context anyway? Are you thinking people's fingers will get worn out from typing, but yours won't?
Shouting : "So, once again, tell me who's stupid?"
This guy who used to work at my company, but he got fired for incompetence.
Shouting : "Who will be the first to post a vicious, racist remark about my deceased wife?
"That's about the only question now, isn't it?"
Dude! If only I knew it was so simple! The answer is: "Probably quonsar". There, your final question has been answered.
Shouting : "But it is what the left has become."
Nah. Human nature. People have always been like this, left, right, and middle.
posted by Bugbread at 2:48 PM on July 31, 2005
Balisong : "They HAVE that? I would totally use that. As long as I don't have to download or install anything."
Yeah, it exists. You have to download/install the Greasemonkey extension for Firefox, and then a script, but that isn't so hard, and some scripts have already been made that you can download (basically, you install greasemonkey, then pull up a script onscreen, and click "Install User Script" in Tools to install that script. The script points at a separate text file, where you can put the names of people whose posts you want killed).
If you're actually interested, let me know, and I can trawl the archives and see if I can find a link to a script.
posted by Bugbread at 2:53 PM on July 31, 2005
Yeah, it exists. You have to download/install the Greasemonkey extension for Firefox, and then a script, but that isn't so hard, and some scripts have already been made that you can download (basically, you install greasemonkey, then pull up a script onscreen, and click "Install User Script" in Tools to install that script. The script points at a separate text file, where you can put the names of people whose posts you want killed).
If you're actually interested, let me know, and I can trawl the archives and see if I can find a link to a script.
posted by Bugbread at 2:53 PM on July 31, 2005
He's being trollish now, and those who claimed he had trollish impulses are being proved right. But the comments linked to in this callout were not essentially trollish and I stand by my assertion that attention came quickly to Shouting's behavior because of his politics.
And of course he's right about wolfpacks and cliques and stuff. But, um, what community isn't that way? Particularly, I'd be interested in Shouting pointing me in the direction of a conservative-dominant community that wouldn't show pack behavior against a provocative liberal.
It seems to me that the principles involved in those of us defending Shouting are important and worth asserting (and safeguarding) even if he has turned out to be a very bad poster child for them.
It's too easy to read his comments here and with a self-congratulatory smirk think, "the typical conservative, huh?" But we should keep in mind that anyone that is persistent about arguing a provocative minority viewpoint somewhere is self-selecting. They're self-selecting for believing themselves to be martyrs (or generally brave warriors), they're self-selecting for perversely enjoying the abuse they receive, they're self-selecting for a strong inclination to verbal combat instead of discourse. Most of these things are attributes we, right or left, attribute to the most annoying of our ideological enemies and we will find those things in those people willing to walk into our cocktail party and fart. You and I both know that there are similar annoying left-wing people that hang out on right-wing sites and do exactly the same things.
So the problem here, and I believe this point has been made before but not in this thread, that simply by the way people are and the way things work there's going to be an correlation between conservatives who hang out at mefi and trollish behavior. Such correlations are the very stuff that irrational discrimination is made of--we should fight our natural tendency, taught by our experience, to shoot first and ask questions about it later. Maybe 80% of young black men that run from cops really are guilty of something. So? That 20% also have good reason to run given that for most cops purposes, 80% might as well be 100%.
It's easy for us here to see "provocative conservative" and yell "troll" because, as it happens, it's more often the case than it would otherwise be simply due to circumstance. But as soon as we state taking cognitive shortcuts about these things, then we begin to violate the principles I think most of us here support.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2005
And of course he's right about wolfpacks and cliques and stuff. But, um, what community isn't that way? Particularly, I'd be interested in Shouting pointing me in the direction of a conservative-dominant community that wouldn't show pack behavior against a provocative liberal.
It seems to me that the principles involved in those of us defending Shouting are important and worth asserting (and safeguarding) even if he has turned out to be a very bad poster child for them.
It's too easy to read his comments here and with a self-congratulatory smirk think, "the typical conservative, huh?" But we should keep in mind that anyone that is persistent about arguing a provocative minority viewpoint somewhere is self-selecting. They're self-selecting for believing themselves to be martyrs (or generally brave warriors), they're self-selecting for perversely enjoying the abuse they receive, they're self-selecting for a strong inclination to verbal combat instead of discourse. Most of these things are attributes we, right or left, attribute to the most annoying of our ideological enemies and we will find those things in those people willing to walk into our cocktail party and fart. You and I both know that there are similar annoying left-wing people that hang out on right-wing sites and do exactly the same things.
So the problem here, and I believe this point has been made before but not in this thread, that simply by the way people are and the way things work there's going to be an correlation between conservatives who hang out at mefi and trollish behavior. Such correlations are the very stuff that irrational discrimination is made of--we should fight our natural tendency, taught by our experience, to shoot first and ask questions about it later. Maybe 80% of young black men that run from cops really are guilty of something. So? That 20% also have good reason to run given that for most cops purposes, 80% might as well be 100%.
It's easy for us here to see "provocative conservative" and yell "troll" because, as it happens, it's more often the case than it would otherwise be simply due to circumstance. But as soon as we state taking cognitive shortcuts about these things, then we begin to violate the principles I think most of us here support.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:54 PM on July 31, 2005
God, I love me some Bugbread. You're awesome, man.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2005
Damn, all that potential for burning wreckage, and the guy goes and buggers off early.
Ah, well, there's always tomorrow.
My dollar says he flames out by 6PM, Monday.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2005
Ah, well, there's always tomorrow.
My dollar says he flames out by 6PM, Monday.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2005
about my praise of Bugbread: except that perhaps he's sometimes a bit tone-deaf to irony
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:57 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:57 PM on July 31, 2005
Keep it going morons.
Traffic to my site just keeps increasing.
I will allow sane comments posts. I'll delete the truly vicious and obscene ones.
posted by Shouting at 3:03 PM on July 31, 2005
Traffic to my site just keeps increasing.
I will allow sane comments posts. I'll delete the truly vicious and obscene ones.
posted by Shouting at 3:03 PM on July 31, 2005
Jesus Christ on a bee.
sane comments posts
what does that even mean?
posted by hototogisu at 3:09 PM on July 31, 2005
sane comments posts
what does that even mean?
posted by hototogisu at 3:09 PM on July 31, 2005
Mefites have been posting vicious and obscene comments on your site?
Like what?
posted by kyrademon at 3:09 PM on July 31, 2005
Like what?
posted by kyrademon at 3:09 PM on July 31, 2005
I linked to the greasemonkey kill file thing in an earlier comment if anyone is really interested.
posted by sic at 3:11 PM on July 31, 2005
posted by sic at 3:11 PM on July 31, 2005
Shouting, when I first saw your posts, I was of the opinion that you simply held beliefs that differed from most, and people calling you a troll were way off base. A troll is someone that says things knowingly to provoke others, and you seemed to be someone that believed what you were saying.
Now, however, my opinion of your behavior has changed. Since you noticed everyone here, you seem to be taunting everyone here, and calling other users out in your metafilter comments.
MetaFilter comments are supposed to stick to the subject matter -- the post and discussion that follows. Stick to the issues and links, don't focus on personalities or start fights with specific others.
Shouting, I'd suggest you take a breather and post comments that are on topic and about the topic. And to everyone else, I'd ask you to do the same. There's no reason to mock or provoke other users on the site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:13 PM on July 31, 2005
Now, however, my opinion of your behavior has changed. Since you noticed everyone here, you seem to be taunting everyone here, and calling other users out in your metafilter comments.
MetaFilter comments are supposed to stick to the subject matter -- the post and discussion that follows. Stick to the issues and links, don't focus on personalities or start fights with specific others.
Shouting, I'd suggest you take a breather and post comments that are on topic and about the topic. And to everyone else, I'd ask you to do the same. There's no reason to mock or provoke other users on the site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:13 PM on July 31, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by y2karl at 8:09 PM on July 29, 2005