I flagged it. posted by loquax at 6:18 PM on August 23, 2005
you troll; you get threats. For all the insults and trash Paris throws around continually, he shouldn't expect anything better. In fact, i'm sure he desires responses like that. posted by amberglow at 6:22 PM on August 23, 2005
There is such a thing as the high road. It probably doesn't involve contract beatings. posted by loquax at 6:24 PM on August 23, 2005
Yeah and for $500 bucks? What a cheap skate. Just say'n. C'mon. You were all thinking it. posted by tkchrist at 6:24 PM on August 23, 2005
Wait - to whom do I have to pay the $500 to whack Paris, again? posted by yhbc at 6:29 PM on August 23, 2005
There are many people here who I wish would simply disappear. I'm sure we all have a list; some short, others a little longer. But for the sake of civility, I would think that keeping (idle) threats to ourselves would be appropriate.
But, but...like the threat made against George W just a few days ago, I think this comment should be allowed to stay, if only to have ample evidence that the original poster is, in fact, a rude lunatic. posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:30 PM on August 23, 2005
Could i just take the money and say i beat the crap out of him?
(and yes, the post is way out of line, IMO). I'm suprised it hasn't been deleted. posted by delmoi at 6:30 PM on August 23, 2005
I think this comment should be allowed to stay,
I agreed with you about the Bush comment, but this is something targeted at another user. Needless to say, people should be free to express their views without fearing for their lives. Not that I believe fff was actually serious (I think), but it crosses the line to target other users. posted by loquax at 6:35 PM on August 23, 2005
I think the point was that it crosses the line to target other people. posted by cytherea at 6:36 PM on August 23, 2005
No need to punish anybody. I think the entire post created like an irony sigularity which collapsed and sucked both Paris and FFF down into a sub-reality with it. posted by tkchrist at 6:37 PM on August 23, 2005
people should be free to express their views without fearing for their lives
If I had a dime for every time some guy on USENET threatened to kill me I'd posted by tkchrist at 6:38 PM on August 23, 2005
I agree, he's a cheapskate -- 500 bucks? wtf? posted by matteo at 6:39 PM on August 23, 2005
Where are the ban-lovers now? Holy cow; if ever it was called for... posted by found missing at 6:40 PM on August 23, 2005
and I also wonder, is PayPal OK? posted by matteo at 6:43 PM on August 23, 2005
The ironic part is that just a little while ago fff was yelling at anybody who responded to Paris for being big bait-taking dummies. posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:45 PM on August 23, 2005
See what I did. I made a joke about being killed and... aw... nobody cares... nevermind.
What the hell am I on today? Forgive me.
Ok. Seriously. I think FFF was way over the top. But it's kind of pussy thing to actually announce you'd pay somebody ELSE to beat up a guy. Generally that pretty much excludes it from ever happening. Never the less. It was really fucked up.
But to ban the guy? Can't we just make him apologize and kiss and make up or something? posted by tkchrist at 6:47 PM on August 23, 2005
I think a comment like that merits banning. posted by eustacescrubb at 6:47 PM on August 23, 2005
Not a banning, no way, but um, heated comments like that have warranted a cooling off period in the past. posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:48 PM on August 23, 2005
Banning, not! Time out? That is Matt's call (ignore my rash comment in the blue). This sort of thing is a little out of character for FFF. It still isn't right and an apology is probably due. posted by caddis at 6:51 PM on August 23, 2005
Ok. Ban it is. That seems just and fair.
Question. Does this "banning" hurt and can somebody video tape it for me.
It is also ever so much a shame that one can not be sure of getting away with offering $500 to see a specific user banned. posted by matteo at 6:56 PM on August 23, 2005
Ok. Give me $500 and you'll never hear from me again. I promise. posted by tkchrist at 6:58 PM on August 23, 2005
Hmmm. I thought this was a liberal place. Is this a small version of a WMD hunt? posted by buzzman at 6:58 PM on August 23, 2005
FFF is making an ironic statement about the idea that it's okay for Pat Robertson to call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. It doesn't deserve banning, and I'm sure that he doesn't mean it.
He's just making a statement--hamfisted as it is--about the nature of people calling for the harm of other people. posted by interrobang at 7:00 PM on August 23, 2005
"FFF is making an ironic statement about the idea that it's okay for Pat Robertson to call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. It doesn't deserve banning, and I'm sure that he doesn't mean it."
No, in his petty little paranoid world, he was referring to ME. posted by ParisParamus at 7:03 PM on August 23, 2005
There is also the political fall out of banning the Prime Minister of Canada. Which I'm pretty sure is FFF. He does speak for Canada. posted by tkchrist at 7:03 PM on August 23, 2005
The first statement - probably just what you describe.
The second statement - oh so wrong. posted by caddis at 7:04 PM on August 23, 2005
FFF is the Sirhan Sirhan of Metafilter.... posted by ParisParamus at 7:06 PM on August 23, 2005
Is there a way of reading which of one's comments have been flagged? I've never figured that out. posted by ParisParamus at 7:07 PM on August 23, 2005
He's just making a statement--hamfisted as it is--about the nature of people calling for the harm of other people.
If so, it was poorly-crafted, and an apology to PP is in order. posted by eustacescrubb at 7:08 PM on August 23, 2005
No, in his petty little paranoid world, he was referring to ME.
We're always referring to you. Don't let them know I told you. posted by cytherea at 7:09 PM on August 23, 2005
FFF is the Sirhan Sirhan of Metafilter..
so it's Sirhan vs Yigal Amir then? posted by matteo at 7:12 PM on August 23, 2005
Is there a way of reading which of one's comments have been flagged? I've never figured that out.
All of 'em, PP. Trust me. I follow you around flagging every single comment you make. FFF paid me $500 to do it.
I do find it amusing that people who thought it was ok to implore someone to murder the pre$ident a few days ago consider the offense graver when someone posts an obviously rhetorical "threat" against a . . . fellow MeFite. Consistency is for small minds.
And it was Shaw and not Churchill, whatever thread that was in. posted by realcountrymusic at 7:13 PM on August 23, 2005
I agree, he should just put the $500 in his pocket, and kick Paris's ass himself.
This ain't no union! posted by Balisong at 7:14 PM on August 23, 2005
Starring in The Bell Tolls for Whom is Referred. posted by cytherea at 7:15 PM on August 23, 2005
Robertson calls for a political assassination.
Paris says that he'd be okay with it:
Not the best of ideas, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it happened.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:00 PM CST on August 22 [!]
Five fresh fish was parodying Paris's approbation of political killings. Distasteful and crude, but I'm still sure that he didn't mean it. posted by interrobang at 7:16 PM on August 23, 2005
Is there a way of reading which of one's comments have been flagged? I've never figured that out.
No, there isn't. The flag queue is internal and unless we check, even we don't know whose comments have been flagged until we click through and read them. posted by jessamyn at 7:18 PM on August 23, 2005
Matteo, saying I wouldn't shed a tear of certain people were off'd doesn't make me an assasin. posted by ParisParamus at 7:18 PM on August 23, 2005
Your inability to spell "assassin" makes me shed a little tear, Paris. posted by interrobang at 7:20 PM on August 23, 2005
No, but condoning assassination (or torture, or other bad stuff), makes others less willing to give a shit if it happens to you. posted by Balisong at 7:20 PM on August 23, 2005
interrobang :"FFF is making an ironic statement about the idea that it's okay for Pat Robertson to call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez."
ParisParamus :"No, in his petty little paranoid world, he was referring to ME."
I'm unaware of whether FFF's world view is petty or paranoid, but your use of the word "no" is incorrect. FFF is making an ironic statement about the idea that it's okay for Pat Robertson to call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. You are one of the people with that idea. Hence, the ironic statement is directed at you. So both you and interrobang are in agreement.
ParisParamus :"Matteo, saying I wouldn't shed a tear of certain people were off'd doesn't make me an assasin."
Saying you wish you could pay people to beat up other people, but you can't, so you won't, doesn't make one an assassin either. I think we can safely conclude that neither PP or FFF is an assassin.
Still, I think it was way out of line. There had to have been a better way of making the point than that. posted by bugbread at 7:24 PM on August 23, 2005
violence begets violence - threats beget threats.... lets paris and robertson rot in their cesspools of hate. posted by specialk420 at 7:28 PM on August 23, 2005
I seem to recall someone (angry modem?) calling for people to punch members at a meetup (specifically Wendell) in the face. No banning took place or cooling off. In fact, I don't think Matt even bothered to weigh in on that one. posted by dobbs at 7:30 PM on August 23, 2005
Probation at the least. Even I mange not to threaten people when I post, and I act like a total jackass half the time.
Though, if threatening people is determined to be kosher, I might as well let it all hang out. posted by Snyder at 7:32 PM on August 23, 2005
this is just lame
get over it, FFF posted by scarabic at 7:33 PM on August 23, 2005
of course, what dobbs said.
and at least we have a tagline:
MetaFilter: There had to have been a better way of making the point than that. posted by matteo at 7:34 PM on August 23, 2005
dobbs...I seem to recall it too, vaugely...hmm, maybe probation is a little too harsh then. I mean, if it's no big deal, then it's no big deal, neh? It depends on how that whole thing was resovled, don't it? posted by Snyder at 7:35 PM on August 23, 2005
I seem to recall someone (angry modem?) calling for people to punch members at a meetup (specifically Wendell) in the face.
Wendell? Are you kidding me? Whatever for? Wendell is just sort of mellow and witty. Why would anyone get mad at Wendell? posted by caddis at 7:37 PM on August 23, 2005
FFF is very angry. It's hard to imagine being that angry in Canada; it's so nice up there... posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 PM on August 23, 2005
Probably the name, the accent, and the public school uniform. posted by cytherea at 7:39 PM on August 23, 2005
Not the best of ideas, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it happened.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:00 PM CST on August 22 [!]
Five fresh fish was parodying Paris's approbation of political killings. Distasteful and crude, but I'm still sure that he didn't mean it.
posted by interrobang at 7:16 PM PST on August 23 [!]
Really, how over-blown can this be? Obvious parody mixed with mild intimidation and sarcasm doesn't a true threat make. This is just a misunderstanding. Move along kids, the fight is over. posted by snsranch at 7:40 PM on August 23, 2005
OK, If Paris wears the LGF shirt to the fight, I'll do it for free. posted by Balisong at 7:42 PM on August 23, 2005
You said that irony was the shackles of youth, uh-huh.
See, that was an ironic REM reference.
And that was sarcasm in the guise of an earnest description of the lyrical reference.
And that was a further ironic statement parodying the notion that earnestness can ever possibly be achieved in contemporary society.
Since everyone is claiming irony, is it possible that Pat Robertson was being ironic, too? In fact, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that The 700 Club is really a grand performance art / media installation project of the MIT Media Lab.
Ubiquitous misuse of "irony" makes the baby Sophocles cry. posted by gramschmidt at 8:17 PM on August 23, 2005
Metafilter: A further ironic statement parodying the notion that earnestness can ever possibly be achieved in contemporary society.
Do not ban him. A warning, possibly a timeout, is all that is called for. posted by voltairemodern at 8:28 PM on August 23, 2005
you troll; you get threats. For all the insults and trash Paris throws around continually, he shouldn't expect anything better.
How did I know amberglow would sidestep condemning any threat directed at Paris, no matter how abhorrent?
Amber, you'd be whinnying about Hate Crimes if the situation were reversed. Or blaming the soldiers for tossing candy to children. You also perceived you and JGreyNemo were on "the same Side" recently and nobly defended that threat ("he's not advocating assassination") in the weaseliest fashion as well.
I guess Paris being on the Wrong Side earns him threats of violence without reprisal. posted by dhoyt at 8:43 PM on August 23, 2005
I guess Paris being on the Wrong Side earns him threats of violence without reprisal.
Paris is not being threatened, his worldview is being parodied. Amberglow has nothing to do with this. posted by interrobang at 8:48 PM on August 23, 2005
Matteo, if I had $500 to pay someone to keep other mefites from making the tagline jokes that I want to make. You post would be smoked. Because if I could, I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to be the only guy who makes metafilter tagline jokes.
Wow, this was meta of me.
OMG, I just made it even more meta.
Repeat, ad nauseam.
(Oh, and I don't think it's ban-able; we need some extremists on both sides for this stuff to have even a chance of being entertaining.) posted by oddman at 8:49 PM on August 23, 2005
Heh. I love watching MeFites make physical threats. As if there's a single can of genuine whoop-ass in this House of Geek. We're such a bunch of sissies we have to fantasize about being able to pay someone to beat each other up. posted by scarabic at 9:31 PM on August 23, 2005
There are a lot of people here, myself included, who have at various points deserved a solid fist (and in a few cases brick) to the face for things they've posted.
And admit it - we've all fantasized about tracking down that one special fucker, garroting him while watching his smug fucking face turn purple as he tries to gasp out one last troll and then dumping his body in a tub of lye. Admit it - you've thought about, maybe you were even unable to surpress a little grin at the thought, and then you felt ashamed. Or not. posted by Ryvar at 9:32 PM on August 23, 2005
First of all: I disagree with five_fresh_fish as often and dislike him as much as I do ParisParamus. However, I don't think fishy's blurt merits banning either: he did not actually offer any bucks to bash PP, he did not threaten to do him any harm himself, and anyway I thought wishing harm to Paris was required for membership in the Metaheathers. So I've defended Mr. Paramus' right to Free (albeit senseless) Speech in the past, and now I must extend that defense to his enemy.
Furthermore I doubt Paris feels threatened by it -- at least I hope he's not that wussy.
(Oh poor Metafilter. It'd be awful quiet around here if people only said wise things.)
And Ryvar, speak for yourself while you're fucking yourself. With a chainsaw, as roughly as you please. posted by davy at 9:36 PM on August 23, 2005
This witch-hunt banning thing on every other metatalk thread, did I need to read Lord of the Flies to understand it? posted by hackly_fracture at 9:40 PM on August 23, 2005
How can I tell if that was intentionally ironic? posted by Ryvar at 9:41 PM on August 23, 2005
He's got a timeout. In the shame corner.
PUT ON YOUR SHAME HAT AND STEW MR. FISH! posted by mathowie at 9:41 PM on August 23, 2005
m-m-m-m fish stew posted by Cranberry at 9:49 PM on August 23, 2005
Why are you people so fucking literal? ParisParamus WAS OKAY WITH THE IDEA THAT OUR COUNTRY SHOULD ENGAGE IN POLITICAL KILLINGS. FFF made fun of him. Why is FFF being given a time out? posted by interrobang at 9:51 PM on August 23, 2005
If five fresh fish is going to be given a time out over this, then fucking give me one, too. This is ridiculous. posted by interrobang at 9:59 PM on August 23, 2005
PS interrobang, whom I love like a sibling, it can't be literal: FFF NEVER MENTIONED WHICH USER! Everyone used their amazing powers of deduction, and meanwhile postroad just took the $500 and kneecapped dejah420! posted by hackly_fracture at 10:03 PM on August 23, 2005
Why is FFF being given a time out?
It's a pretty bullshit move. You can post anything you want here as long as you're "conservative" for some reason. Hell, dios makes fun of retarded kids, but that's okay, I guess. That furiousxgeorge guy advocated nuking Mecca and killing millions of innocent people, but that's okay, too.
But no satire! NO FUCKING SATIRE ON THIS WEBSITE YOU GOT IT MISTER!? I WILL NOT HAVE YOU TALKING ABOUT EATING IRISH BABIES! posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:03 PM on August 23, 2005
PP flapped his gums about politics. FFF levelled as much as a threat. I'm about the last person to defend PunyPenis but come on now. posted by scarabic at 10:03 PM on August 23, 2005
(goes back and reads again, sheepishly retracts all-caps text) posted by hackly_fracture at 10:11 PM on August 23, 2005
I wish we could just all agree on ignoring PP and its cohort for a while -- they would just go away. Can we agree on this please? posted by NewBornHippy at 10:13 PM on August 23, 2005
It's a pretty bullshit move. You can post anything you want here as long as you're "conservative" for some reason
It's a pretty bullshit move. You can post anything you want here as long as you're "ironic" for some reason.
Stupid joke or not, I can't get behind people threatening other users on the site. posted by mathowie at 10:15 PM on August 23, 2005
He probably meant to say stand behind or get behind. And now it is time for all to go outside and have a nice walk in the cool evening air.
We are Matt's guests, he makes the rules. posted by Cranberry at 10:19 PM on August 23, 2005
God damn it, matt, he wasn't threatening Paris! He was saying something that obliquely sounded like a threat, and was about Paris's tone about the "okayness" of killing people! The statement was a metaphor, not a threat. posted by interrobang at 10:20 PM on August 23, 2005
I hereby offer Pat Robertson 500 fresh fish to give ParisParasmus a good rogering. posted by louigi at 10:21 PM on August 23, 2005
I do find it amusing that people who thought it was ok to implore someone to murder the pre$ident a few days ago consider the offense graver when someone posts an obviously rhetorical "threat" against a . . . fellow MeFite. Consistency is for small minds.
posted by realcountrymusic
I find it amusing that you wrote a book in the president thread but basically have nothing to say here. Consistency, huh?
You can look at the thread in question and know from the start the nuts are going to come out. There's been violence threatened before and defended because they were making a brilliant observation on the world around us, or they simply didn't mean it. Whatever, as long as that view extends to everyone on metafilter.
If five fresh fish is going to be given a time out over this, then fucking give me one, too. This is ridiculous.
posted by interrobang
Just turn off your computer. Time out granted. posted by justgary at 10:25 PM on August 23, 2005
*Timed out for a week. Fuck this place.* posted by interrobang at 10:30 PM on August 23, 2005
I don't want Paris and crew (dios, Steve@, other newcomers) to leave. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative viewpoint on the site to counter the liberal bias here.
What I do want is for Paris and crew to get a clue, because overwhelmingly their arguments rely on misinformation that does not withstand inspection, or is disingenuous from the outset.
All of this is assuming that they're making solid, declarative fact-based statements, which is a rather rare occurrence. It has been my experience that the significantly right-wing members of Metafilter spend the bulk of their time casting out blanket assertions based largely on preconceptions.
And who can blame them? Given the lynch mob attitude we display - and that goes double for you, Mr. Man-in-the-mirror - what possible motivation could they have for sitting down and having a frank discussion? They're outnumbered a hundred to one and since not many people can make posting to MeFi a fulltime job, there's little point in starting such an exchange only to have to stop and appear 'weak.' As usual for online social problems, penis-size issues on both sides (and in both sexes) are the root cause here. posted by Ryvar at 10:32 PM on August 23, 2005
List of people who it's not okay to advocate assassinating:
George W. Bush
Metafilter Members
List of people who it is okay to advocate assassinating:
Am I missing anyone or do I have anyone misclassified? Just want to be clear on the Rules. posted by louigi at 10:37 PM on August 23, 2005
Ya know, it's wierd. As soon as I log onto LGF, all I can think of is the most inflamitory leftist drivel.
Maybe they have some sort of political allergy. They want to contribute, and they think they are, but it all comes out with so many layers of sarcasm and bias, in a desperate attempt to reach just one viewer, that it turns into a brown stain on the wall.
Don't worry, Paris, I've been there, too! posted by Balisong at 10:38 PM on August 23, 2005
I'm having a hard time understanding why any comment with "and I am dead bloody serious about this" should be given the benefit of the doubt as satire.
mathowie: I can't get behind people threatening other users on the site.
Sounds about right. Drawing a clear line at *any* threats from one user to another, named or not, seems to me a perfectly valid thing to do, even if I'm more used to the "just let the jerks embarrass themselves" approach.
But if fff's comment is a punishable offense, I'm now wondering more than ever if amberglow shouldn't have gotten a timeout for his now-infamous comment that ParisParamus would "seriously regret it" if amberglow ever saw him at a meetup. I know this has been brought up repeatedly, but despite suggestions in those later threads, I don't recall amberglow ever quite clarifying what he meant by that comment. Did he actually plan on hitting a fellow member, or just getting up in his face at a meetup and screaming personal insults at him? If the latter, would that be an acceptable, non-timeout-able threat?
I mean, as long as we're policing threatening outbursts, amberglow's furious (tho not specifically physical) threat was just as horridly shocking a precedent for the site as fff's furious (tho not specifically targetted) version. I'd be curious to hear from an admin what they thought the difference might be, if any. Seems an important guideline to be clear on. posted by mediareport at 10:55 PM on August 23, 2005
Oh, please.
You can try to diffuse death threats against members, but there's nothing that says one member might go off and punch another. No matter how many time outs, or banination.
There used to even be a time when it wasn't forbidden to be rude to somebody. I could run a vaccum cleaner salesman, or a Jehovah's Witness off my property with a shotgun.
Alas, those days are behind us. posted by Balisong at 11:05 PM on August 23, 2005
mediareport: Obviously, I speak only for myself, but I think amberglow's comment, was, unfortunatly, just on this side of vaugeness to have plausible deniability. Even FFF tried the same tack with his comment, it was just a little more obvious. I think it's a bit hard to have a bright-line measure of such things, I mean, is "Amberglow, I hope you die horribly," a threat or just being super-boorish? Around here, it can be hard to tell.
But I see your point, I just think there is already a large degree of jackassery (he said looking at himself,) that makes amberglow's quasi-threat kind of blend in. posted by Snyder at 11:06 PM on August 23, 2005
If I thought it would would work I'd pay 500 quatloos to somebody to help me kill myself so I can come back as a big scary puffball ghost and liberate the entire planet Earth. But with my luck those Bill Murray movies will turn out to be NON-fiction.
I still don't think fishy was threatening anybody, nor have I seen PP say he's afraid or that he felt it was a threat.
(And I wasn't threatening to kill myself or hire a kevorkian either; for one thing there's no such currency as a "quatloo".)
By the way, there are few real liberals here unless Senator McCarthy was one. posted by davy at 11:06 PM on August 23, 2005
did you know that 500 bucks is over a million bolivars? posted by pyramid termite at 11:07 PM on August 23, 2005
You can try to diffuse death threats against members, but there's nothing that says one member might go off and punch another.
Er, that's true, but it's not what we're talking about, Balisong. Mefi guidelines apply to Mefi, not real life. The tone of the site is a reasonable thing for the site guidelines to attempt to define. posted by mediareport at 11:09 PM on August 23, 2005
I think the next MeFi meetup is going to get interesting! posted by blue_beetle at 11:12 PM on August 23, 2005
Really, Please..
Five Fresh Fish is a Canadian of the Lefty persuasion. I have agreed with him on many points. I am probably more inclined to go on a shooting / slashing up my neighbors spree than he is.
I knew he wasn't serious.
Usually you back up claims like that with viceral, spitefull, heated, negative language. And lots of it!
I wouldn't take FFF up on his scam any more than I would buy into a Nigerian scammer. posted by Balisong at 11:14 PM on August 23, 2005
I knew he wasn't serious.
Bully for you. And I knew the comment crossed a line as soon as I saw it. Now, let's get back to the point, which is the effect on the long-term health of the site if intra-member threats become an acceptable part of the culture. I say it'd be bad. *Really* bad. And you say? posted by mediareport at 11:18 PM on August 23, 2005
Forget the long-term effects, the precedent, whatever. It's a stain and it should be wiped. When someone shits on your doorstep you don't worry about the precedent it's going to set for the neighborhood kids. You hose the fucking shit off your steps. Anybody who doesn't understand that threats of violence mark the point where it's no longer worth even having a website wherein to discuss and discourse... whoever that is has a big ass-kicking coming right up from me. posted by scarabic at 11:26 PM on August 23, 2005
Did he actually plan on hitting a fellow member, or just getting up in his face at a meetup and screaming personal insults at him?
I'm pretty sure he was going to "discuss" him to death. Just a hunch. posted by justgary at 11:33 PM on August 23, 2005
I just wanted to point out, it's a bit silly to respond so negatively towards ParisParamus. I'm pretty sure he enjoys it, greatly: Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV-TR). posted by gsb at 11:36 PM on August 23, 2005
Any hitman you hire for $500 is gunna roll on you if he catches heat. I suggest paying full-fare, or doing it yourself. posted by mosch at 12:21 AM on August 24, 2005
I don't want Paris and crew (dios, Steve@, other newcomers) to leave. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative viewpoint on the site to counter the liberal bias here.
The problem is not his conservative viewpoint.
ParisParamus's issue is that his political posts are generally designed to spark ire, not discussion. They routinely contain putdowns directed both at individuals and at large groups that he disagrees with politically.
Steve's issue is that he does not even make an attempt to participate in a political discussion. He just shits on the thread's topic and moves on. He's an extremely obvious troll, and nothing more.
Dios just likes to argue. His posts annoy a lot of people because of this, but they don't seem to be written in a malicious spirit, just an argumentative one. I don't think it's fair to lump him in with Steve or PP. posted by mosch at 12:33 AM on August 24, 2005
I don't want Paris and crew (dios, Steve@, other newcomers) to leave. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative viewpoint on the site to counter the liberal bias here.
So if a conservative asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint. If a liberal asserts an opinion, it's bias. Good to know.
And it wasn't just an opinion, PP was obliquely calling for the assassination of a democratically elected official. That's fucked up, no matter which way you want to slice it.
On preview: Fucked is not in the dictionary. posted by Talanvor at 12:53 AM on August 24, 2005
mosch, Dios relishes jumping into the second or third comment in a thread and shitting on it profusely, usually couching it with something "Oh, once again, the LeFites" etc. You give him too much credit.
As for PP, he considers all of the citizens of Venezuela to be "peasants." That's reprehensible. It's obvious he doesn't leave the house much.
I agree with FFF on a number of issues politically, but rank him up their with the former two in terms of his penchant for asshattery. posted by bardic at 12:58 AM on August 24, 2005
Banning fff and then discussing him seems unfair and counterproductive -- if pp can sit in on this thread (calling fff "the Sirhan Sirhan of Metafilter" and so on), fff should be able to answer the charges for everyone to read.
Can't someone be banned from blue and green but allowed in brown, and perhaps only in this brown thread? Or is this application too inflexible for that? posted by pracowity at 1:01 AM on August 24, 2005
I bet if you mapped the MeFette contribution rate to the grey -vs- the blue and compared it to the boys it would show....something to think about. posted by peacay at 1:08 AM on August 24, 2005
(Is this grey? I thought it was a sort of muddy sewer-water brown. Maybe it's the pee-stain yellow buttons and links that fooled me.) posted by pracowity at 1:15 AM on August 24, 2005
Balisong :"You can try to diffuse death threats against members, but there's nothing that says one member might go off and punch another. No matter how many time outs, or banination."
True. But that's not what bannination is for. Bannination is not an attempt to prevent real-world violence, it is an attempt to prevent folks from threatening other folks on Mefi. Much like when someone says "shut the fuck up, man!" when their roomate shouts "Wake up or I'm gonna pour a bucket of water on your head!", they aren't trying to prevent the bucket of water from being poured on themselves, they're trying to shut up their obnoxious roomate.
Balisong :"There used to even be a time when it wasn't forbidden to be rude to somebody. I could run a vaccum cleaner salesman, or a Jehovah's Witness off my property with a shotgun.
"Alas, those days are behind us."
Nah, you can still be rude to people. There's plenty of evidence of that all around.
Ryvar: "I don't want Paris and crew (dios, Steve@, other newcomers) to leave. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative viewpoint on the site to counter the liberal bias here."
Talanvor :"So if a conservative asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint. If a liberal asserts an opinion, it's bias. Good to know."
Er, no. That's not what "bias" means. If a conservative asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint (or an opinion, more likely). If a liberal asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint (or an opinion, more likely). If a site has more liberal views or commentators than conservative, it has a liberal bias. If it has more conservative views or commentators than liberal, it has a conservative bias. MeFi is more liberal than conservative, so it has a liberal bias. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means it tilts towards liberal.
pracowity :"(Is this grey? I thought it was a sort of muddy sewer-water brown. Maybe it's the pee-stain yellow buttons and links that fooled me.)"
Apparently it shows up as brown on some computers/monitors (perhaps browsers?). For me it's a very neutral flat smooth grey. posted by bugbread at 1:59 AM on August 24, 2005
I find it amusing that you wrote a book in the president thread but basically have nothing to say here. Consistency, huh?
No, fool. Boredom. I have nothing to add to this debate. I support Matt's decision here. I think threatening people with violence is always wrong except in self defense. On the other hand, I think threatening the president publicly is a specific crime. A vague threat against an unspecified person, as FFF did, is not a crime. It's gross, but not illegal. So the two issues are distinct.
If you really want to read my complete views on freedom of speech and the incitement of violence again, be my guest. . There is nothing inconsistent in my views. posted by realcountrymusic at 4:18 AM on August 24, 2005
Besides, I love PP. I don't want to see it harmed. I would defend to the death its right to say the stupidest things I've ever read on the internets, d00d. posted by realcountrymusic at 4:23 AM on August 24, 2005
If a conservative asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint (or an opinion, more likely). If a liberal asserts an opinion, it's a viewpoint (or an opinion, more likely). If a site has more liberal views or commentators than conservative, it has a liberal bias. If it has more conservative views or commentators than liberal, it has a conservative bias. MeFi is more liberal than conservative, so it has a liberal bias. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means it tilts towards liberal.
Thank you. posted by Ryvar at 4:42 AM on August 24, 2005
Threatening someone: words.
Kicking someone's ass: not words.
Offering money to have someone hurt: a crime (albeit fff did not name his target).
Urging others to commit violence against a US president: a crime (in some cases).
Some words: incitement, slander, obscenity = crimes.
It just isn't as simple as you make it sound, stavros. In no society in the world is speech absolutely free from all social constraints or sanctions. posted by realcountrymusic at 5:40 AM on August 24, 2005
Heh. I love watching MeFites make physical threats. As if there's a single can of genuine whoop-ass in this House of Geek. We're such a bunch of sissies we have to fantasize about being able to pay someone to beat each other up.
posted by scarabic at 9:31 PM PST on August 23
Anybody who doesn't understand that threats of violence mark the point where it's no longer worth even having a website wherein to discuss and discourse... whoever that is has a big ass-kicking coming right up from me.
posted by scarabic at 11:26 PM PST on August 23 [!][!]
scarabic, are you just so much more meta that you're trying to freak us the fuck out? or do you think that this continual meetup photo p.r. that your agent insists upon is actually working? bizarrely, it seems that the only reason that all the broads (and amber and Paris, er, dios) think you're so hot is that you're not a total neo maxi zoom dweebie.
anyway, by all means, you should continue your "peace through violence and derision" campaign. it's bound to get you somewhere. posted by Hat Maui at 5:45 AM on August 24, 2005
Paris is not being threatened, his worldview is being parodied.
That's how I read. Obviously the use of a <parody metamember="paris"> tag would have been useful.*
*Assuming of course I read it properly. Could be wrong. The ambiguity (or amberglowity for some) of the situation makes it a difficult call. posted by juiceCake at 5:45 AM on August 24, 2005
this is a ridiculous timeout. there is no "there" there.
*awaits timeout from Recumbent Brother* posted by Hat Maui at 5:50 AM on August 24, 2005
But if fff's comment is a punishable offense, I'm now wondering more than ever if amberglow shouldn't have gotten a timeout for his now-infamous comment that ParisParamus would "seriously regret it" if amberglow ever saw him at a meetup. I know this has been brought up repeatedly, but despite suggestions in those later threads, I don't recall amberglow ever quite clarifying what he meant by that comment. Did he actually plan on hitting a fellow member, or just getting up in his face at a meetup and screaming personal insults at him? If the latter, would that be an acceptable, non-timeout-able threat?
I mean, as long as we're policing threatening outbursts, amberglow's furious (tho not specifically physical) threat was just as horridly shocking a precedent for the site as fff's furious (tho not specifically targetted) version. I'd be curious to hear from an admin what they thought the difference might be, if any. Seems an important guideline to be clear on.
Is it really a threat when it's crystal clear that the person spoken of never dares show his face at the frequent meetups? It was a statement of intent--but one that i knew would never come to pass, unfortunately. Call it a proposal, if you like, or call it a threat. I don't care. Some people (thankfully just a few here) deserve no better. Their actions invite that kind of response.
I said it before and i'll say it again--Paris continually insults and derides everyone on this site daily. He is incapable of making a comment unless it also includes a disparagement of either everyone here or specific members. He is a troll. It's not those people who are fed up with his continual shitting--on this site and other members--that should be given a timeout. posted by amberglow at 6:26 AM on August 24, 2005
Can I offer five bucks for someone to rub a lot of gum in Paris's hair?
That's pretty much consistent with the level of annoyance I feel when reading him. posted by klangklangston at 6:32 AM on August 24, 2005
louigi - by my recollection the rules also make it acceptable to advocate assassinating:
Saddam Hussein
Yasser Arafat
Jacques Chirac
Anti-US leaders (as needed)
But talk shit about a Mefite and wind up dead timed-out. posted by McGuillicuddy at 6:33 AM on August 24, 2005
I think it's absolutely disgusting that this Ma Thowie lady can just switch us on or off like we are some kind of disembodied shock-jock on radio station W.A.N.K. If someone here can't post for, say, a week, just think of the incredible damage they'll do "on the outside".
Basically, the problem is that mefi provokes the most terrible cacoethes within the tiny, withered minds of its inhabitants - scurrying as they do within its dank and cavernous catacombs, bathing in rivers of malice, and only emerging bile-heavy to the world of thin sunlight in order to belch vast gobs of acidic hate onto the unblemished countenances of the innocent.
Apart from that, though, its quite a delightful community - or "blogopolis", as the modern lexicon mandates. posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:42 AM on August 24, 2005
If you hadn't just spent so long trying to think up zany things to write, you might have been able to make it to the bathroom in time.
Oh well. posted by NinjaPirate at 6:48 AM on August 24, 2005
It just isn't as simple as you make it sound, stavros.
Of course. Nothing is simple if you think about it too much. The trick is not thinking so hard, unless absolutely necessary. posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:56 AM on August 24, 2005
Can't resist:
Metafilter: As if there's a single can of genuine whoop-ass in this House of Geek posted by found missing at 7:00 AM on August 24, 2005
This witch-hunt banning thing on every other metatalk thread, did I need to read Lord of the Flies to understand it?
Gezz. I remember when it was okay to threaten to beat up other members. I once got another member's phone number and address. I called him up and said I was coming over to beat him up. Most people here at that time seemed to think that was okay, although there were several dissenters.
I never did drive over to his apartment. My goal was only to get him to stop posting, and that worked - He never came back. My point is that as ugly as it is, sometimes threatening to beat someone up can be very productive. In PP's case I don't think it's justified though. His schtick is just too pointless and inane. If we beat up members just for being trolling, pointless windbags we'd have to go after 25% of the membership. Not worth the bother in my humble opinion. posted by y6y6y6 at 7:36 AM on August 24, 2005
How did I know amberglow would sidestep condemning any threat directed at Paris, no matter how abhorrent?
Yeah, amberglow is a fine fellow as long as you agree with him politically. Otherwise, you're not human and he's happy to threaten you or cheer any bad things that happen to you. Not that that's unusual around here.
The timeout is silly. The callout is silly. All of this is just words; talking about "crime" is silly. I personally find that kind of thread valuable because it refreshes my memory as to who's worth listening to and who's a babbling asshole; I really don't see how people can get so bent out of shape about childish threats and "ironic" comments. Some of you seem never to have experienced an actual fight and think that impolite words on your computer screen are the moral equivalent of war.
Oh, and just to get past the "we don't really know who he was talking about" stuff, here's an earlier comment that seems to have been ignored:
I'm kicking in C$50 to the "assasinate ParisParamus" fund. Let's get rid of the fucker.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:02 PM EST on August 23 posted by languagehat at 7:40 AM on August 24, 2005
On nonpreview: if y6y6y6 is being ironic, I'm missing the point. If what he's saying is true, he's an incredible asshole. posted by languagehat at 7:42 AM on August 24, 2005
I said it before and i'll say it again--Paris continually insults and derides everyone on this site daily. He is incapable of making a comment unless it also includes a disparagement of either everyone here or specific members. He is a troll. It's not those people who are fed up with his continual shitting--on this site and other members--that should be given a timeout.
I agree with this. ParisParamus is a troll. Unfortunately, trolling the site is acceptable, so long as you toss in a few right-wing sentiments in between insults. posted by mosch at 7:48 AM on August 24, 2005
Is it really a threat when it's crystal clear that the person spoken of never dares show his face at the frequent meetups? It was a statement of intent--but one that i knew would never come to pass, unfortunately.
Ha... I would kick you in your coddled shit-covered nuts if I ever saw you at a meetup. Just a statement of intent... not an actual threat of course. posted by Witty at 8:01 AM on August 24, 2005
"If what he's saying is true, he's an incredible asshole."
/shrug
Judge for yourself. At ther time you failed to weigh in on the issue as far as I can tell. Also - I find it interesting that even back in that thread we were talking about what an ass PP was.
Good times. posted by y6y6y6 at 8:03 AM on August 24, 2005
FFF get s the timeout and PP, yet again, doesn't ? It's not those people who are fed up with his continual shitting--on this site and other members--that should be given a timeout.
Agreed.
Given this new policy, "Stupid joke or not, I can't get behind people threatening other users on the site", I trust Witty will be indulged in his unambiguous request for a timeout? posted by Zetetics at 8:16 AM on August 24, 2005
FREE FFF posted by mr.marx at 8:18 AM on August 24, 2005
I don't think many of you realize how hollow your comments sound. It is often said that people want diversity of viewpoints here. But they often complain that people who have a differing view aren't straightforward, honest, sincere or whatever as if the opposing viewpoints have to held to a higher standard, even though they have to deal with more grief. It is a shame that I only see a few people who consistently understand and are fair about noting the extreme bad faith with which an opposing viewpoint is recieved. Any vocal poster with an opposing viewpoint is assume to be the worst, have untoward motives for posting, disingenuous, stupid, trolling, etc or just a plain jerk. Treated like that, who could behave differently?
If you want opposing viewpoints, don't be so openly threatening to them and insulting to them. A person with opposing views can't possibly be vocal without heaps of scorn. I submit no one with an opposing viewpoint can be respectful and vocal here. Because eventually the sheer amount of bad faith, scorn, insults and the like that the person has to deal with would eventually cause anyone to break down to more base rhetoric.
I know this has been pointed out by many people before me and the mob mentality isn't likely to change. But I am just flabbergasted by people who hate PP because he isn't congenial, but then threaten him and joke about him to the point he is turned into a monster. As if he could be anything else by the way he is treated. posted by dios at 8:25 AM on August 24, 2005
I submit no one with an opposing viewpoint can be respectful and vocal here.
I submit justgary as example of a poster with an often opposing viewpoint who is both respected and respectful.
And respectfully await Witty's timeout. posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:33 AM on August 24, 2005
y6y6y6, you yourself said that you refrained from threatening the guy in that thread (the page with the emails is down, so I can't read the actual correspondence), and then someone else in the thread was criticized for only suggesting to send the guy a virus. And that was concerning a user who was bypassing banning attempts and who openly declared that he wanted to ruin the site. How does that apply here? posted by loquax at 8:33 AM on August 24, 2005
y6y6y6: My apologies; that was before my time, which is why I didn't weigh in and why I had no memory of what you were talking about. The fact that Matt said "Mob. Go. Now. Find him" certainly gives you whatever cover you might need. But it would have been sensible to link to the thread in your first comment; as it stands, you have to agree you sound over-the-top.
I was amused to see this comment by fooljay in that thread:
What I think would be really really really cool is to have his posts only show up to him and non-authenticated visitors. IOW, when he looks at the site, he sees his posts. When anyone else looks at the site (while logged in), his posts don't appear.
Mute-button banning I'll call it. Kills many birds with one bush if you think about it for a second.
These ideas just keep cropping up, don't they? posted by languagehat at 8:35 AM on August 24, 2005
"How does that apply here?"
It doesn't. Not really. I mean maybe it sort of does. Or not. You know? posted by y6y6y6 at 8:36 AM on August 24, 2005
(PParts not referring to ParisParamus, but to the troll in question at the time) posted by loquax at 8:42 AM on August 24, 2005
As if there's a single can of genuine whoop-ass in this House of Geek.
Hah! Very true. Any actual physical altercation between two of us would definitely be a slap fight. posted by LarryC at 8:44 AM on August 24, 2005
Hat Maui - I'm gathering that you desperately need more attention in your life, and that you disagree with something I said. But that second part is still vague. Can you take the gimp mask off and repeat? posted by scarabic at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2005
"you have to agree you sound over-the-top"
Score another point for me!!!! The Internet is one of my favorite things.
My point is that these things have a context. I did indeed threaten to beat the guy up, I just left that completely out of the MeTa thread. I didn't think it would ever come to blows, but I wanted to completely disconnect that from MetaFilter just in case. In truth, we had exchanged so many emails that I felt I knew him pretty well, and I knew him to be a complete coward. So the best response was to confront his threat to beat up me and Matt by making him confront his cowardice.
The context in my case was confronting a racist bully. He threatened to beat me up, I said okay I'll be right over, he slunk away forever.
In FFF's case the context was a joke born of complete exasperation and exhaustion. So PP is allowed to troll the site for years, constantly goading people into anger without offering much in the way of thought provoking counterpoint. But when fff gets fed up and responds with some provocative irony, he gets banned.
Or whatever. It just seems like we've grown into some tight-asses. posted by y6y6y6 at 9:00 AM on August 24, 2005
Ad hominem arguments offered in refutation of empirically substantiable claims are not "respectful" of an opposing viewpoint, from either (or all) side(s) of a debate. They invite, and sometimes deserve, ad hominem responses, but at the cost of lowering the tone. This well describes contemporary US politics. And it well describes the effects of the political polorization in this country on even our most intimate spheres, let alone our public engagements such as the ones we have on MeFi. Of all the terrible effects of the far right's inexorable ascendancy in the US since the 1980s, the worst is the casting of legitimate opposition as stupid, traitorous, venal, or immoral. It happens from all sides these days (as it has in the past - I'm not claiming the present moment is unique) and it is deeply exacerbated in a time of war. (The more cynical among us think that we are at war largely because of this effect, which is to the advantage of the party in power and with control of the media.)
I love to debate with conservatives, even ideologues, who can engage in serious and fact-based argument. There are a few on MeFi. I honestly would be happy to see more, and converse with them. I plead guilty to plenty of ad hominem snark myself. It's very hard to rise above where things are. But this goes beyond right/left polarization. It goes to a cheapening of discourse, and a declining sense of community if it is tolerated. MeFi is (even with all its troubles) an island of civil and passionate debate in a sea of ideological and physical brutality. [/anticipates obligatory "Metafilter: tagline reply] It stays that way by having standards, and a strong hand or two on the rudder. Obviously, enduring the usual snarky banter is part of the deal, and part of the fun. Insults, polemics, and sarcasm can be valuable seasoning for reasoned debate. Threats of physical harm cannot, even if they are registered in insulting, polemical, or sarcastic tones. That way lies trouble and oppression. There's a very bright line, sections of which are enshrined in law, and others in longstanding conventions for civil discourse here and in general, that is simply not hard to see. The point of the "book" I wrote in the presidential thread was that observing this line makes us more rather than less free. We don't need to parse rules like "no physical threats" too finely. They are self-evident. posted by realcountrymusic at 9:07 AM on August 24, 2005
Murdering PP, Dios and Steve@? Not the best of ideas, but I am not going to lose any sleep if it happens. posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:12 AM on August 24, 2005
If I had a nickle for every political thread (although not limited to) that someone from the left hasn't jumped in early with a zippy snark-filled trolling comment, well... I just love that this is always everyone's major complaint about the conservative contributers... that and being insensitive, aggressive, insulting, etc. All I know is, it goes both ways and there's plenty more coming from the left than there is from the right (on this site), due primarily to the fact that there are simply more of the former. posted by Witty at 9:22 AM on August 24, 2005
Care to share some examples, Witty? posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:24 AM on August 24, 2005
I am not a troll. I attempt to make points using humor given that I'm outnumbered in outlook, what, 100-2? It remains pathetic that this is not understood by more people (it's the same blindness that go you John Kerry and Howard Dean, but...whatever). posted by ParisParamus at 9:40 AM on August 24, 2005
I think we could all use a good beating from time to time. Maybe we should have a service that at some point, when we least expect it, kicks our ass.
I actually agree with the "opposition" on this one. There are certainly trolls on the left and certainly rude snarkiness from the left and there are sure a heck of a lot more of them. For every one PP there are a dozen lefties. I can see how that has got to be frustrating. It's no excuse, but it's got to be frustrating.
I don't participate in freep, but I've got to imagine that it is a little maddening to hear 75 times for each post that you are a liberal weenie.
I think the only thing I can say to guys like Paris is that the less you give in to just spouting a position and the more time you spend giving more concrete reasoning for your opinions, at least you will come off as presenting an argument and less as a troll and the more the detractors on the left side will look like jackasses.
One liners don't seem to be winning over any hearts and minds. posted by Pollomacho at 9:55 AM on August 24, 2005
"It remains pathetic that this is not understood by more people"
It remains your responsiblity to actually be funny and get your point across. posted by OmieWise at 9:59 AM on August 24, 2005
Here's a recent example "If I Had An Anus". I won't suggest that it's the best example or is the kind of example that covers all cases. But you take any FPP that targets Bush or the administration, for example, and you can be GUARANTEED to read AT LEAST 50% snark, trolls, insults against conservative MeFi members that aren't even present, etc. within the first 10-20 comments. Every time? Maybe not. Most of the time? Absolutely. posted by Witty at 10:04 AM on August 24, 2005
"It remains your responsiblity to actually be funny and get your point across."
I try. Maybe you get my point(s), maybe you laugh, but if you don't, that doesn't make me a troll. Hey, next March will mark my FIFTH year of Metafilter! posted by ParisParamus at 10:10 AM on August 24, 2005
Good comment, Dios.
Enforcement of standards here is erratic and ad hoc but, I strongly believe, well-intentioned and, on average, fair. It's probably not a good idea to say something that can be construed as a specific threat to another commenter. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:14 AM on August 24, 2005
I agree with dios. Hmmm, again. That's strange. Anyway, I took a critical view of Cindy Sheehan in one of the recent posts, and was pretty roundly attacked for it, despite not being one of the conservative "usual suspects." posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:23 AM on August 24, 2005
I try. Maybe you get my point(s), maybe you laugh, but if you don't, that doesn't make me a troll. Hey, next March will mark my FIFTH year of Metafilter!
Bad breath has been around since the dawn of time, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
I will not go into the definition of "troll" or whether you are one, but you are clearly, at the very least, an attention whore. You are nearly, if not entirely, universally despised by the other members of the site, yet you keep showing up and asking for abuse. The only possible conclusions are that you enjoy stirring up trouble for its own sake or that you enjoy abuse. If you were not around, there would still be plenty of people who would espouse a conservative point of view and who would do so more cogently and in a less hostile manner than you do. People who continue to show up where they're not wanted or appreciated may not be trolls, but they are sad. posted by anapestic at 10:26 AM on August 24, 2005
Ryvar writes"They're outnumbered a hundred to one"
Right wing people have trouble being taken seriously? Cry me a river.
I have experienced plenty of ignorance and verbal violence in response to my comments here. I have responded with links to support my position and exposition. That is what I have learned to do following years of contributing to this site.
As usual for online social problems, penis-size issues on both sides (and in both sexes) are the root cause here
So, lets forget about the political orientation and focus on the real issue, people need not feel persecuted. Thicker skin may help with this. posted by asok at 10:29 AM on August 24, 2005
"If you were not around, there would still be plenty of people who would espouse a conservative point of view and who would do so more cogently and in a less hostile manner than you do. People who continue to show up where they're not wanted or appreciated may not be trolls, but they are sad."
Yeah, plenty of conservative/neoconservative posters here. Sure. I guess you consider the number "6" to be plenty.
If I'm so awful, feel free to ignore me. posted by ParisParamus at 10:45 AM on August 24, 2005
The truth is that the same narrowmindedness and arrogance that dominates the Left causes people to feel obliged to call me a troll, or critique the number of links or annotations in my posts.
Sorry, I ain't goin nowhere. posted by ParisParamus at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2005
Hey, next March will mark my FIFTH year of Metafilter!
And you should be proud of raising the tone here so much during that time. You're such a witty, sparkling conversationalist--so full of bon mots and links to factual information. You never spout talking points and lies and fail to back them up with links or proof--no sir, not you. No insults have ever dripped from your honeyed tongue. You truly are a ray of sanity shining upon hopelessly delusional people. posted by amberglow at 10:50 AM on August 24, 2005
Make that 7, ParisParamus.
I don't think you're a troll. I do think you enjoy being one of the magnificent sane voices in this leftist pit of sin. posted by gsb at 10:59 AM on August 24, 2005
Um, scarabic, you see that quote from five_fresh_fish up there at the head of the thread? The one that started all this? I wish you, and those with you, would please explain why you think that's a threat.
I think your wussery interefered with your reading comprehesion.
Again: that JGN guy did NOT thtreaten Gee Dubya, Pat Robertson did NOT threaten Chavez, and five_fresh_fish did NOT threaten ParisParamus. And if I say "I think somebody should threaten to threaten to punch you in the nose so you'll know a real threat from an excuse to demonstrate wussiness" I will NOT be threatening you. (Note: I just used something called the second Conditional Mood, which a lot of you people should read before you get your panties bunched up; furthermore I did not speak of harming anyone, but said 'sometimes I think that someone should threaten to threaten'.)
I have no doubt that scarabic will again start babbling about what a homicidal psycho I am. posted by davy at 11:14 AM on August 24, 2005
Thicker skin may help with this.
Or thicker somethings.
Cry me a river is right. This is a voluntary community. It leans left. Just because you are outnumbered doesn't give you a right to be abusive. Convert others or attract new members who come for the brilliant conservative repartee. On the other hand, just because liberals are a numerical majority doesn't make it right to abuse conservatives with ad hominem attacks either. I don't agree that most liberals on MeFi are "abusive" toward conservatives, though it happens and it's wrong.
And monju, on the Sheehan thread, I don't think you were really attacked. I thought that was a good and substantive debate, and that your contributions were cogent and were responded to, for the most part, seriously. Maybe I am remembering it wrong.
But let's not let the grey-area thinking (pun intended) overwhelm what's black and white here. It's never ok to threaten or call for physical violence in civil debate. Right? Isn't that the point? Snarky, ad hominem, bilious, vituperative polemic ain't pretty, but it's not the same as "I'm gonna kick your ass." (or kill you, etc.) posted by realcountrymusic at 11:25 AM on August 24, 2005
I just used something called the second Conditional Mood, which a lot of you people should read before you get your panties bunched up
Rendering a statement deniable while letting its supposedly deniable implication stand is a common rheotrical tactic, as is insinuation of a threat, or incitement ("Won't somebody please shoot . . ." or "if it were legal I would pay $500 for someone to kick the ass of . . ."). If such an implication is made, it behooves a thoughtful debater to add "just kidding" or something of the sort, at least. Mistakes were made. The only question is by whom? Something doesn't have to rise to illegality to be wrong. I fully agree that fff's statement was technically not a threat, nor do I think it was meant to be taken as one, nor did I (or anyone else, I think) actually imagine fff writing a check and PP getting a bloody nose the next day. Doesn't make it right. posted by realcountrymusic at 11:31 AM on August 24, 2005
And monju, on the Sheehan thread, I don't think you were really attacked. I thought that was a good and substantive debate, and that your contributions were cogent and were responded to, for the most part, seriously. Maybe I am remembering it wrong.
You're correct that there were several civil participants on both sides in that thread, and the debate between those participants was productive, or at least not abusive. However, the background noise in that thread was pretty loud, though. Like mooncrow calling those critical of Sheehan "cynical ... sick shits" whose voices "will die away in the coming whirlwind." A few others dismissed any criticism of Sheehan as an "ad hominem" attack. And that thread was mild, frankly.
I disagree that "snarky, ad hominem, bilious, vituperative polemic" is any different from faux threats of physical violence here. With rare exceptions, there is no opportunity or expectation that any such threat would be carried out. I view threats as little more than rhetorical puffery, and would frankly be shocked if they were actually intended as anything more. posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:45 AM on August 24, 2005
On the other hand, just because liberals are a numerical majority doesn't make it right to abuse conservatives with ad hominem attacks either. I don't agree that most liberals on MeFi are "abusive" toward conservatives, though it happens and it's wrong.
It does happen, that's true. But part of the problem is, it happens (damn near) every time though. I agree that most liberals on Mefi are not "abusive" towards conservatives. But you can count on any politically-driven thread, where a conservative dares to show his/her face, that they will be "abused" by someone (and I'm only using that term for continuity's sake). Very rarely, if ever, especially in hot topics, can a conservative escape attack-free. When I read threads like those, I get the feeling that opposing views and opinions aren't welcome, despite everyone's supposed best intentions. It's more of a "get out troll, with your obviously-wrong conservative views... this thread belongs to the left, where we will spend all day trying to one-up each other with ridiculous jokes, sarcastic one-liners and direct insults to you and your kind".
That being said, it's obvious that conservatives shouldn't be looking for comfort and like-minded individuals around here. It just ain't happnin'. Nor should it, necessarily. But damn if it isn't fucking old listening to the masses moan and groan, whine and complain about the same handful of conservative contributers when there's 10 or more left-leaning dickheads for every one on the right. Get the fuck over it already. posted by Witty at 11:56 AM on August 24, 2005
gsb, Je vous remercie de votre attitude sain. posted by ParisParamus at 12:00 PM on August 24, 2005
y6y6y6y you're a hardass. Seriously that was pretty cool thing. I would have never gone that far fearing someone might actually call me out on it and be a bigger hardass than I. Good work. posted by geoff. at 12:09 PM on August 24, 2005
davy, you're right but I'm afraid you're still a homicidal psycho.
As for the so-called value of "diverse opinions" it's bullshit. PP rarely offers an opinion. Take a moment to look up some of his comments. This is a person who has literally gone into threads, shouted, in all caps, an idiotic remark only tangentially related to the topic, and then disappeared. That's not a diverse opinion, it's just trolling. And when PP is such a complete asshole--really he must either enjoy it or just be severely damaged--he shouldn't expect anything but such assholery in return.
Also, dios and bugbread deliberately misuse the word "bias," as it applies to blogs, to somehow provide for some sort of conservative exception. Also bullshit. Sadly, there was a once upon time when interesting, nuanced discussions did frequently occur. There was one poster in particular I actually looked forward to--was it Midas something? Anyways, it's laughable that dios, somebody who starts most every post with the obligatory "Lefites," would even have the audacity to complain about invective, but I digress.
fff's comment was in poor taste and the callout was fine, but the timeout leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's quite clear fff was not seriously threatning PP and it may have even been an ironic comment on PP's above comment. posted by nixerman at 12:15 PM on August 24, 2005
"PP rarely offers an opinion"
False. I just spice my opinion up with some entertainment value. Because minority viewpoints need that to get heard. It's just that you have little or no tolerance for people who disagree with you. posted by ParisParamus at 12:22 PM on August 24, 2005
Just to get things strait here, I was under the impression that trolls lived under bridges and trawls were drift nets, no? posted by Pollomacho at 12:23 PM on August 24, 2005
But rcn, again you're muddying the waters by dragging in something extraneous: we're not arguing here about whether it's right (or polite, or conducive to scholarly discourse) to speak to anybody in any particular way; we're discussing whether what fishy posted (apparently) at Paris was a threat to PP's well-being, or if it was meant to be taken as one, or if it sounds like any harm to PP might result from it. Whether it's "right" or not is beside the point, orthogonal and extraneous. On Metafilter people say things that are not "right" all the time without getting "timed out" for it and without provoking long threads like this.
What matters here is that sanctions were brought to bear because of a misreading of what was said. As far as "rhetorical deniability" goes, that's just silly: my posting "If I were Stalin I'd have half of you shot!", e.g., does not give any reasonable person any reasonable cause for any reasonable fear. That is because a) I am not Stalin, b) nor am I likely to ever be the head of any tyrannical party-state (in fact even my hair won't obey me), so c) all I've really done is vented hot air concerning a dislike of mine which d) I would clearly not in any position to carry out if I had meant it as a threat (see A and B above).
Getting freaked out by the tone someone uses to say something that's pretty innocuous is silly: if I in a loud snarling tone say "Alright you liberal pantywaists, come get your free factory-sealed cans of beer!" have I threatened anybody?
To quote myself, 'What matters here is that sanctions were brought to bear because of a misreading of what was said.' As you've no doubt figured out (I doubt even scarabic could miss it since flat out I've said so several times) what gets me going is when these threads point out things that people do offline as well which bear deleterious implications for civil liberties. If I say, for example, that "I don't think Muslim communal prayer should be outlawed" I have NOT committed a terrorist act nor have I even indicated my approval of any terrorism: I have merely expressed a not-completely-anti-Muslim opinion, which won't stop a lot of "patriots" from hollering about my alleged "hatred of Freedom". That way lies the worst kind of tyranny, the totally stupid kind.
My point here is that if we can teach people to read what is written as well as to hallucinate between the lines we will advance the cause of liberty, and if we can't train highly-educated folks like your average Mefite to do that or to even understand what we're talking about we might as well practice heiling hitler and work on our death-camp skills.
As far as having something nice to say, a lot of us spend a lot of time on the bench beside Ms. Parker. Whether we have any idea what we're yammering about or not. As others here have pointed out, that's just the way political threads go on Metafilter, or anywhere else, on the Net or off, for that matter. This is not the Ladies Sewing Circle: if that's what you want I suggest you get out your needles and thread and go find yourself some ladies. (You could also simply avoid political threads: I haven't seen anything but these go on for this long in ages.) posted by davy at 12:28 PM on August 24, 2005
PP, lying to yourself isn't tolerated after age 3. I won't even bother addressing your point because it's quite clear to anybody who glances over your posting history that your modus operandi is to show up, shit in the thread, and disappear.
But, just to entertain the remote possibility that you do have an opinion, consider that the majority of users here see your actions as nothing but trolling. In light of this truth, perhaps--if you actually want to participate in the discussion--you should drop the "spice" and focus on making a cogent argument. posted by nixerman at 12:35 PM on August 24, 2005
It's pretty rad that anyone can say all they want about FFF in this thread and he can't defend himself. What a cool, fun idea.
So here's a message from him:
The ironic part is that just a little while ago fff was yelling at anybody who responded to Paris for being big bait-taking dummies.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:45 PM PST on August 23
"Touché. My bad.
ParisParamus has been voicing his sincere support and desire to see someone murdered. Several times over, in fact.
I suppose my mistake was to offer payment.
No biggie. Back whenever, or not. Ciao." posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:00 PM on August 24, 2005
"I am not a troll."
(why is that like Nixon saying I’m not a crook?)
Va te faire foutre.
You’re a self-avowed troll (Oh, but let’s AGAIN carefully forget you stated explicitly you are here to distrupt this board) and a myopic unprincipled pogue
You see, like many here I believe in free speech. Don’t confuse your disruption with speech. However I don’t believe one has the right to silence another’s voice. I don’t believe in doing violence for money or over empty words. If I did I’d be in Park Slope standing behind you right now.
Mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo
That said, I understand FFF’s frustration. I myself wrote in another thread I would smash someone’s testicles flat out of frustration, but I did make it very explicit I meant no real threat. Perhaps FFF forgot that bit. Perhaps he was serious. I don’t know.
Ira furor brevis est
But I do believe you can’t throw down an challenge and not have it answered. PP does that and tries to play the victim. Dios, others, don’t. Fighting words are not always words.
For example: I take exception to gsb’s comment lumping me in “this leftist pit of sin.”
Well,
All Americans suck their mothers asses.
All military people are scumbags.
All ‘X’ists perform ‘x’ unnatural acts.
If someone looked at me and said something like that, I’d be pissed and I might lose my temper. Not just because I identify with them, but I’m there whether I like it or not.
If someone like gsb writes that, I figure they’re talking about THOSE Americans, or THOSE MeFi’ers.
That’s not what PP does.
Making someone angry can be as simple an act as picking your teeth or clicking a pen. If it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on - as PP said for five years, well, someone might lose it.
And if you walk into the middle of that seeing only someone click a pen a few times after being told to stop scores of thousands of times, you might not see where that frustration is coming from and think the one lashing out is the one who is wrong.
Manipulating someone into that position is worse than someone who gives in to that anger and lashes out.
Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo
Unlike any other “conservative” voice here - perhaps neocon is appropriate - PP does this. It’s his stated purpose for being here. You can’t challenge someone then run and hide behind mama’s skirt like this.
baisez votre mère
Pardon my French.
PP
349 MetaFilter users near this user:
Not one of them offered to take FFF up.
"By their works shall ye know them"
“I personally find that kind of thread valuable because it refreshes my memory as to who's worth listening to and who's a babbling asshole”
bada bing!
/Although I had babbling asshole after eating 4 bran muffins and a 4 shot espresso. posted by Smedleyman at 1:26 PM on August 24, 2005
I am not a troll. I attempt to make points using humor given that I'm outnumbered in outlook, what, 100-2?
It's funny to insult people's intelligence, and to tell them to fuck off?
It remains pathetic that this is not understood by more people (it's the same blindness that go you John Kerry and Howard Dean, but...whatever).
Ah yes, and then there's the mandatory derisive comment, not just disagreeing with a viewpoint, but insulting the intelligence of the people who hold it.
You're a troll, and nothing more. posted by mosch at 1:28 PM on August 24, 2005
The truth is that the same narrowmindedness and arrogance that dominates the Left causes people to feel obliged to call me a troll, or critique the number of links or annotations in my posts.
Yes, and now the entire Left is narrowminded and arrogant.
When will the administrators wake up and realize that ParisParamus is not a purveyor of an alternate opinion, he's a fucking troll. posted by mosch at 1:30 PM on August 24, 2005
fff - there's a difference between wishing for another's death and specifically wishing for the death of another user.
You might have been making an ironical point, but it was still a threat. posted by bshort at 1:45 PM on August 24, 2005
mosch, wow, you're great. posted by ParisParamus at 1:51 PM on August 24, 2005
mosch, wow, you're great.
And you're a troll.
You got me to try out the mefi-killfile greasemonkey script, but it's sadly ineffective because all the angry replies are still visibile, often containing quoted material where you insult the whole of MeFi. posted by
Subscribe
posted by loquax at 6:18 PM on August 23, 2005