Dios is blatantly trolling. August 31, 2005 2:32 AM Subscribe
Dios is blatantly trolling. Again. This time, there can be no doubt in my mind that he is simply posting ridiculous, inflammatory and disingenuous comments for the purpose of starting needless arguments. If he had bothered to read the post, he would know that his point is invalidated completely. Do we have to tolerate his constant shitting on any political thread?
Once again, trolling means "he's deftly making fun of my position! Gang! Make him stop!"
Why do you force me to defend dios? He's right you know-- finding an allocation that you dislike and calling it the source of a shortfall somewhere else is stupid. The defense contractors and energy companies that own the government were going to get that money whether there's an actual war or simply a made-up threat to justify stockpiling weapons and leaning on foreign governments for "safety concessions" ("petroleum rights").
Anyway, he made fun of a biased, dumb position, did it pretty cleverly and now you've showcased it in another thread. Because you've cased your disdain in a worthless label ("trolling), I have to acknowledge that someone whom I find revolting was spot-on. I hope you're happy.
Dios, I would like to see a day when right-wingers are strung up by their intestines, but that comment made me laugh WITH you. Nice one!
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:56 AM on August 31, 2005
Why do you force me to defend dios? He's right you know-- finding an allocation that you dislike and calling it the source of a shortfall somewhere else is stupid. The defense contractors and energy companies that own the government were going to get that money whether there's an actual war or simply a made-up threat to justify stockpiling weapons and leaning on foreign governments for "safety concessions" ("petroleum rights").
Anyway, he made fun of a biased, dumb position, did it pretty cleverly and now you've showcased it in another thread. Because you've cased your disdain in a worthless label ("trolling), I have to acknowledge that someone whom I find revolting was spot-on. I hope you're happy.
Dios, I would like to see a day when right-wingers are strung up by their intestines, but that comment made me laugh WITH you. Nice one!
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:56 AM on August 31, 2005
But he's not, is he? He's pointing out something perfectly sensible.
I'm sure that the Iraq war has snaffled finance from innumerable other projects, because it's very f***ing expensive. No one was to know at the time that trying to alleviate one very pressing calamity was going to rebound in quite this manner.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:03 AM on August 31, 2005
I'm sure that the Iraq war has snaffled finance from innumerable other projects, because it's very f***ing expensive. No one was to know at the time that trying to alleviate one very pressing calamity was going to rebound in quite this manner.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:03 AM on August 31, 2005
Oh dear, "inadvertant dios fan club" and "I don't like him, but he's right" badges on sale at the back of the hall.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:06 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:06 AM on August 31, 2005
Read the fucking article guys. He doesn't even try to support his assertions, or make his posts relevant to the article, which he clearly hasn't read. He's trolling, he's doing it for kicks. His argument is rendered baseless by the article, which actually provides references. Dios doesn't care, he just wants to pick a fight with anyone who will take the bait. I'm sick of it.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:06 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:06 AM on August 31, 2005
This later dios comment isn't a troll at all, I don't think. You (or I) may not agree, and our 'value choices' may differ, but that's what makes the world go round.
A heartfelt 'meh' from me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:08 AM on August 31, 2005
A heartfelt 'meh' from me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:08 AM on August 31, 2005
That's clever? Sure, the thread sucks, and like begets like, but clever?
*withdraws 100 wuffie from Mayor Curley's balance*
posted by loquacious at 3:09 AM on August 31, 2005
*withdraws 100 wuffie from Mayor Curley's balance*
posted by loquacious at 3:09 AM on August 31, 2005
*watches 1000 wuffie get dinged from his own account for being unclever and quoting Doctorow*
posted by loquacious at 3:09 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by loquacious at 3:09 AM on August 31, 2005
RTFA. RTFA. Read the goddamn fucking article. Who cares about the NEA when the Corps has repeatedly cited homeland security and the Iraq war as reasons for the drying up of funds. You can speculate about the NEA's budget paying for the levee all you want, but it's all bait either ignorant of, or a diversion from the fact that the war was cited as a reason for the cuts to levee funds. The dyke money didn't go to the perverted arts.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:13 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:13 AM on August 31, 2005
This time, there can be no doubt in my mind that he is
Then I saw her face, ba dum ba dum
Now I'm a believer, ba dum ba dum
Not a trace, ba dum ba dum
Of doubt in my mind,
ooooI'm in loveooohhhOOHHH,
I'm a believer I couldn't leave her if I tried
bum down a dow nanananow badow
*watches 1000 wuffie get dinged from his own account for being unclever and quoting Doctorow*
*credits self with 100 wuffie for not getting what sounds like a horribly stupid reference*
posted by Ryvar at 3:17 AM on August 31, 2005
Then I saw her face, ba dum ba dum
Now I'm a believer, ba dum ba dum
Not a trace, ba dum ba dum
Of doubt in my mind,
ooooI'm in loveooohhhOOHHH,
I'm a believer I couldn't leave her if I tried
bum down a dow nanananow badow
*watches 1000 wuffie get dinged from his own account for being unclever and quoting Doctorow*
*credits self with 100 wuffie for not getting what sounds like a horribly stupid reference*
posted by Ryvar at 3:17 AM on August 31, 2005
[flagged thread as noise and moved on]
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:24 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:24 AM on August 31, 2005
Is what he did somehow worse than calling someone a douchebag?
posted by Dagobert at 3:26 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by Dagobert at 3:26 AM on August 31, 2005
I'm guessing you don't watch the Daily Show, Dag.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:29 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:29 AM on August 31, 2005
RTFA. RTFA. Read the goddamn fucking article.
I did. It doesn't cite anything credible. It quotes a local politician, makes a lot of assertions that it doesn't actually cite and looks into an alternate reality where the second Gulf War wasn't fought.
I don't like the war, either. But it doesn't work to try and tie every shortsighted policy to it. The Bush Administration is disgusting for a lot of reasons that don't have anything to do with Iraq. Dios is making fun of a pretty standard blog entry-- writer doesn't like Bush, starts from that angle, looks for new reason to dislike and claims that a lot of guesswork/fantasy is fact.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:30 AM on August 31, 2005
I did. It doesn't cite anything credible. It quotes a local politician, makes a lot of assertions that it doesn't actually cite and looks into an alternate reality where the second Gulf War wasn't fought.
I don't like the war, either. But it doesn't work to try and tie every shortsighted policy to it. The Bush Administration is disgusting for a lot of reasons that don't have anything to do with Iraq. Dios is making fun of a pretty standard blog entry-- writer doesn't like Bush, starts from that angle, looks for new reason to dislike and claims that a lot of guesswork/fantasy is fact.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:30 AM on August 31, 2005
I find it terribly appropriate and amusing that [expletive deleted] posted this... should I get out more?
posted by dabitch at 3:30 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by dabitch at 3:30 AM on August 31, 2005
No, I don't. I live in Belgium.
Please answer my question.
posted by Dagobert at 3:31 AM on August 31, 2005
Please answer my question.
posted by Dagobert at 3:31 AM on August 31, 2005
BELGIUM!
...what's 6 times 7? No, no that won't work....
posted by loquacious at 3:48 AM on August 31, 2005
...what's 6 times 7? No, no that won't work....
posted by loquacious at 3:48 AM on August 31, 2005
Dagobert: from the start of the Plame affair, Jon Stewart has repeatedly and consistently referred to Novak as a douchebag at every opportunity, on account of his slimy behaviour as of late. I admit the comment is rude and unnecessary out of context, but there is context there.
Curley: So local papers don't count as credible now? Even when they quote the Corps project manager Al Naomi saying "But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money". What about this? If there is a reason for me not to trust these sources, neither dios, nor you has revealed it. I fail to see where you have shown that dios isn't completely ignorant or dismissive of the content in the FPP link for the sake of an argument that is at best, tangential to the original topic. This thread isn't about the merits of funding the NEA, the Clinton library and other federal expenditures, and dios knows this. He just wants to pick a fight removed from the substance of the FPP. The article builds a case that the money already promised by the federal government was cut because of the war. If dios actually wanted to have an honest debate about the article, I imagine he would actually address points the article raises, rather than sarcastically dismiss it for the purpose of starting a different argument.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:07 AM on August 31, 2005
Curley: So local papers don't count as credible now? Even when they quote the Corps project manager Al Naomi saying "But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money". What about this? If there is a reason for me not to trust these sources, neither dios, nor you has revealed it. I fail to see where you have shown that dios isn't completely ignorant or dismissive of the content in the FPP link for the sake of an argument that is at best, tangential to the original topic. This thread isn't about the merits of funding the NEA, the Clinton library and other federal expenditures, and dios knows this. He just wants to pick a fight removed from the substance of the FPP. The article builds a case that the money already promised by the federal government was cut because of the war. If dios actually wanted to have an honest debate about the article, I imagine he would actually address points the article raises, rather than sarcastically dismiss it for the purpose of starting a different argument.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:07 AM on August 31, 2005
Dios ate my kitten. But he wasn't trolling.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:33 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:33 AM on August 31, 2005
He's trolling, he's doing it for kicks.
He's definitely not. You and I may disagree with him more than 90% of the time (I certainly do), but he's consistent and clear and his views are unquestionably honest and authentic. That's not trolling.
Did he highjack the thread? Yes. Did the thread deserve to be hijacked due to its GYOFB nature? Debatable.
posted by psmealey at 4:45 AM on August 31, 2005
He's definitely not. You and I may disagree with him more than 90% of the time (I certainly do), but he's consistent and clear and his views are unquestionably honest and authentic. That's not trolling.
Did he highjack the thread? Yes. Did the thread deserve to be hijacked due to its GYOFB nature? Debatable.
posted by psmealey at 4:45 AM on August 31, 2005
The post is a single-link op-ed (SLOE). Crap post, crap comments. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 4:54 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by mischief at 4:54 AM on August 31, 2005
Perhaps you and I disagree on our definition of troll. A person can express views honestly, but just be persistently disingenuous when arguing, and still post at least in part for the purpose of raising hackles and picking fights. Just because dios seems to genuinely disagree with the people he baits doesn't mean he isn't trolling. The case can be made from his posts in this thread that he knows he is hijacking it with a dishonest argument that ignores the content of the link.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:57 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:57 AM on August 31, 2005
I agree the post wasn't the best, but there was still plenty of room for informed and substantive debate before the dios hijack.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:59 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:59 AM on August 31, 2005
Dios breaks the metafilter troll rule-of-thumb. We seem to believe collectively (or at least mathowie believes) that to troll, one must not honestly believe what one is saying. So long as the individual consistently and enthusiastically subscribes to their own ontology we allow it. Thus bevets continues to grace us with his presence.
But what happens when someone is honest about their opinions, but dishonestly argues them? Apparently they get a pass. Dios is either "persistently disengenuous" or really stupid, and I highly doubt the latter because he does occasionally contribute. It's these contributions which make his other comments so obviously inflammatory.
posted by mek at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2005
But what happens when someone is honest about their opinions, but dishonestly argues them? Apparently they get a pass. Dios is either "persistently disengenuous" or really stupid, and I highly doubt the latter because he does occasionally contribute. It's these contributions which make his other comments so obviously inflammatory.
posted by mek at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2005
Triple post bonus! I also wanted to say that I don't think dios is a simple troll, but that he does engage in trollish behavior in some threads.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2005
I was wondering about the ontology bit.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:12 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:12 AM on August 31, 2005
Ontology recapitulates orthodonty.
No, wait, that's not it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:20 AM on August 31, 2005
No, wait, that's not it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:20 AM on August 31, 2005
This is pathetic [dumbass]... and really, it's embarassing.
bd1.ibd2#clear arp-cache
bd1.ibd2#exit
posted by Witty at 5:22 AM on August 31, 2005
bd1.ibd2#clear arp-cache
bd1.ibd2#exit
posted by Witty at 5:22 AM on August 31, 2005
Actually, it's not speculative (or politicizing) to claim that the levee budget was reallocated to the war effort. If the Army Corps. of Engineers was deeply involved in the project (as the article says), and their personnel, resources, and budget are sent halfway around the planet, it's not unreasonable to think that incomplete state-side projects might have something to do with that allocation.
It's not as though the money for the New Orleans project just got swept up into the wind and dispersed like seeds, either. Since the Army Corps of Engineers budget is part of the Army's budget (duh), if the Army is spending it's money on the war, it's not getting spent elsewhere. The levees were an Army project which fell to the wayside due to Iraq.
To say something like "Well, maybe their money went to the NEA" is idiotic, at the least. Not only is the NEA an outstanding victim of federal budget cuts, it's never had anything to do with building dams. Although it's budget is linked to politics, it's got nothing to do with the war.
posted by Jon-o at 5:33 AM on August 31, 2005
It's not as though the money for the New Orleans project just got swept up into the wind and dispersed like seeds, either. Since the Army Corps of Engineers budget is part of the Army's budget (duh), if the Army is spending it's money on the war, it's not getting spent elsewhere. The levees were an Army project which fell to the wayside due to Iraq.
To say something like "Well, maybe their money went to the NEA" is idiotic, at the least. Not only is the NEA an outstanding victim of federal budget cuts, it's never had anything to do with building dams. Although it's budget is linked to politics, it's got nothing to do with the war.
posted by Jon-o at 5:33 AM on August 31, 2005
To say something like "Well, maybe their money went to the NEA" is idiotic, at the least.
Wasn't that the point, though? Come on, people. I know your sarcasm meters are all poorly calibrated, but how blatant does Dios have to be before you can recognize irony? He was making a point, and if you don't agree with it, then argue with it, preferably in the thread. Don't start yet another "UserX is trolling" MeTa post over a simple disagreement.
posted by anapestic at 5:45 AM on August 31, 2005
Wasn't that the point, though? Come on, people. I know your sarcasm meters are all poorly calibrated, but how blatant does Dios have to be before you can recognize irony? He was making a point, and if you don't agree with it, then argue with it, preferably in the thread. Don't start yet another "UserX is trolling" MeTa post over a simple disagreement.
posted by anapestic at 5:45 AM on August 31, 2005
To say something like "Well, maybe their money went to the NEA" is idiotic, at the least. Not only is the NEA an outstanding victim of federal budget cuts, it's never had anything to do with building dams. Although it's budget is linked to politics, it's got nothing to do with the war.
"But if the money wasn't going to [Funded Project I Personally Dislike (X)], there would be money for [Project I Wholeheartedly Endorse (Y)]."
Try it! It's awesome!
"But if the money wasn't going to Corporate Welfare, there would be money for Breakfasts For Poor Children."
"But if the money wasn't going to Pentagon Death Ray Development, there would be money for the Federal Save the Puppies Initiative."
"But if the money wasn't going to Bush Campaign Contributors, there would be money for Lots Of Worthwhile Things."
This is great because both X and Y can be anything, and you can't really peek into a Marvel Comics-style alternate reality where X didn't get the money.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:45 AM on August 31, 2005
"But if the money wasn't going to [Funded Project I Personally Dislike (X)], there would be money for [Project I Wholeheartedly Endorse (Y)]."
Try it! It's awesome!
"But if the money wasn't going to Corporate Welfare, there would be money for Breakfasts For Poor Children."
"But if the money wasn't going to Pentagon Death Ray Development, there would be money for the Federal Save the Puppies Initiative."
"But if the money wasn't going to Bush Campaign Contributors, there would be money for Lots Of Worthwhile Things."
This is great because both X and Y can be anything, and you can't really peek into a Marvel Comics-style alternate reality where X didn't get the money.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:45 AM on August 31, 2005
Very poor callout. I frequently disagree with Dios, but if you RTFC you'll see that he wasn't trolling. He presented a characiture of the position he finds ridiculous, and then asked quite seriously what the point of the exercise was. That's simply disagreeing that the fucking article was self-evidently worthwhile.
If you want to accuse someone of trolling you've got to learn to parse their comments a bit better.
posted by OmieWise at 6:16 AM on August 31, 2005
If you want to accuse someone of trolling you've got to learn to parse their comments a bit better.
posted by OmieWise at 6:16 AM on August 31, 2005
I cannot believe this. Again. So what do you want, expletive deleted? You want him banned? Mocked? Tickled? What? What!?!?
I propose a new rule. NO MORE META THREADS ABOUT TROLLING. Nobody even knows what it means. Start threads about people being abusive, disruptive, incoherent, whatever. Trolling is a pointless term, and in this case, it's as plain as the nose on my face that the accusation was levied simply because dios disagreed with the poster. Tough beans!
posted by loquax at 6:16 AM on August 31, 2005
I propose a new rule. NO MORE META THREADS ABOUT TROLLING. Nobody even knows what it means. Start threads about people being abusive, disruptive, incoherent, whatever. Trolling is a pointless term, and in this case, it's as plain as the nose on my face that the accusation was levied simply because dios disagreed with the poster. Tough beans!
posted by loquax at 6:16 AM on August 31, 2005
Also, and not beside the point, dios has shown that he is willing to engage in discussion even after dismissing threads and comments, which further indicates that he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding his motives in the Oops thread.
In the most recent Hitchens thread, he commented to say that he thought the comments so far were inane, and then when the conversation veered (at his instigation, I might add), into the substantive, he came back and made several trenchant comments that contributed to the discussion. I would credit dios with saving that thread from itself, because his first comment made people who actually did have something to say about Hitchens' take say it. Even those who agreed with the FA, were, at the point dios made his comment, not addressing it substantively.
Compare that to ParisParamus' comments in the thread, which, despite his protestations that he is a man of substance, fail to address either any of the issues presented in the FA, or those in the comments about the FA. PP, while being repectful, per his new credo, was nonetheless trolling for reaction in that thread.
posted by OmieWise at 6:25 AM on August 31, 2005
In the most recent Hitchens thread, he commented to say that he thought the comments so far were inane, and then when the conversation veered (at his instigation, I might add), into the substantive, he came back and made several trenchant comments that contributed to the discussion. I would credit dios with saving that thread from itself, because his first comment made people who actually did have something to say about Hitchens' take say it. Even those who agreed with the FA, were, at the point dios made his comment, not addressing it substantively.
Compare that to ParisParamus' comments in the thread, which, despite his protestations that he is a man of substance, fail to address either any of the issues presented in the FA, or those in the comments about the FA. PP, while being repectful, per his new credo, was nonetheless trolling for reaction in that thread.
posted by OmieWise at 6:25 AM on August 31, 2005
"Waaaaah, Dios and I differ politically, so when he uses sarcasm and hyperbole to make a point, it's like, much worse than when everyone else does it (which, I should note, happens on a daily basis and rarely necessitates a MeTa callout)!"
posted by dhoyt at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2005
Dios's comment was spot-on and funny as hell. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
posted by LarryC at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by LarryC at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2005
[expletive deleted] is nothing but a whiny little bitch.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 6:59 AM on August 31, 2005
dios was merely trying to point out how inane the post was.
Once again: someone disagrees with you != trolling.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2005
Once again: someone disagrees with you != trolling.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2005
What the Mayor, OmieWise, and, well, pretty much everybody said. This is one of the worst callouts I've seen in a long time, but I'm glad it's here just so I can point to it as an example of how ideological blinders make us do dumb things. Good show, [expletive deleted]!
posted by languagehat at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2005
posted by languagehat at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2005
anapestic, the problem is not dios' 'point'. The problem is that (1) dios more than likely did not even bother to read the article. He saw the admittedly biased FPP and leapt in for some fun. (2) the point he makes is repeatedly invalidated by the article. dios makes no attempt to address the quotes and concerns raised by the article. (3) shouting in all caps in the middle of a thread is ok as long as it's a joke? That's just nonsense. dios' 'argument by repetition' (everybody dismissed by inane point the first time, so let me repeat it louder!) comes very close to shitting on the thread.
Ironically, in this particular case I don't think dios was trolling. He was just being his usual assinine self. It's a shame there's no easy way to hide his comments; if people ignored him he'd either make an effort or leave.
posted by nixerman at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2005
Ironically, in this particular case I don't think dios was trolling. He was just being his usual assinine self. It's a shame there's no easy way to hide his comments; if people ignored him he'd either make an effort or leave.
posted by nixerman at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2005
Dios wasn't trolling. RTFT. I've seen several threads over the past few days where dios was analyzing the situation and offering an opinion as to legal remedies...and because people don't agree with him politically, they were jumping down his throat and calling him all kinds of things. Trolling does not mean "I disagree with him", it means, rather: "You're acting like a .|."
And what languagehat said.
posted by Vidiot at 8:17 AM on August 31, 2005
And what languagehat said.
posted by Vidiot at 8:17 AM on August 31, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by biffa at 2:56 AM on August 31, 2005