Who's "trolling" now?

September 20, 2005 11:11 AM

Who's "trolling" now? Don't we have enough vituperative political "debates" around here without somebody singling out and baiting certain individuals by name?
posted by davy to Etiquette/Policy at 11:11 AM (348 comments total)

Assholery now a bipartisan effort, News at 11.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:16 AM on September 20, 2005

Flag and move on?
posted by dazed_one at 11:17 AM on September 20, 2005

She should add davy to her list of potential intern opportunities.
posted by Plutor at 11:24 AM on September 20, 2005

One jerk feeds the fire
One nuts brains expire
Wonder who's trollin' now...

/Perry
posted by jonmc at 11:28 AM on September 20, 2005

Okay dazed one, I flagged it as "noise". And no, really didn't think of flagging it before your advice, but there's no flag that's really fitting yet anyway. Maybe "baiting fellow Mefites by name", or something like that, could be added?

And anyway, I brought this up because I'm getting blipping tired of all the personal-political squabbles around here. Some people, because of a grudge against certain Mefites and/or what they represent, often manage to turn the most innocuous thread into a flamewar/pile-on. Note that going on about how "some people bring it on themselves" is, in this context, stupid and dishonest: when the comment I flagged was posted, neither "conservative" named in it had said a damn thing in the thread yet.

And Plutor, is it you've been around as long as I have and you've still never read anything I've said? Or do you mean to provide yet another example of that stupid shit that fucks up Metafilter?
posted by davy at 11:31 AM on September 20, 2005

Dios dosn't post here no more.
posted by delmoi at 11:35 AM on September 20, 2005

I meant to be joking. No offense intended. My apologies.
posted by Plutor at 11:35 AM on September 20, 2005

Dios said adios a couple weeks ago.
Now that the rest of you know he's gone you can start to miss him too.
posted by Floydd at 11:40 AM on September 20, 2005

Why'd dios leave? I guess I missed it. Are we sure he's not a sock puppet now?
posted by Specklet at 11:53 AM on September 20, 2005

Well, Paris has suggested nuking mecca on multiple occasions. Jillian Bandes and he seem like ideological bedfellows.

I think that, in all honesty, Plutor's comment was right on the money, and astute. Eliminitive discourse seems to be par for the course for what passes for conservative rhetoric. Davy, are you so sensitive that you can't handle it when someone calls a spade a spade?
posted by Freen at 11:57 AM on September 20, 2005

I'd noticed the level of discourse had risen some, I guess I'd not noticed that it was because dios' perpetual submarining of threads was gone.

I think adding a "baiting" tag to the flags would actually be a really good idea.
posted by fenriq at 12:05 PM on September 20, 2005

This is getting silly.

I quit posting here because it was made plain to me that I was not wanted here; that a person who argued against some of the shrill leftist rhetoric and the echo chamber that predominates discussions here was not wanted.

But I still get e-mails from kind members of the site; people who took the time to get to know me and understand me. Since I left, I often get messages pointing out how my name keeps getting brought into conversations. I mostly ignore them. But this was brought to my attention. And I ask that it stops. I was shouted down and told to leave. Do me the courtesy of not baiting me or insulting after I acquiesce.

And as the referenced post shows, it is rude and petty nonsense. The poster suggests that I would have as an intern someone who made racist and xenophobic comment; in other words, the person was asserting that I am supporter of such rhetoric. I have never argued for anything that approaches what that girl posted in the newspaper. My arguments were consistently about the invalidity of shrill leftist nonsense and arguments which counterbalanced the echo chamber. There is a fundamental difference between arguing against one position and being for the other. Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position. But that sort of nuance is lost here. Because I said some of the hyperbolic rhetoric thrown around here was wrong, I have been castigated as no different than Ann Coulter (all the while ignoring the posts I made that criticize people on the right, as well). And even after I left, my name is being brought up in contexts like this as some sort of demon ultra-conservative. If the people who make such points only knew how wrong they were, they wouldn't be so apt at calling other people names and insulting other people's intelligence.

I was tired of having to spend the majority of my times trying to make this point clear and to avoid getting shouted down. I was tired of having to spend the majority of my time defending the mere validity of the right for me to say something contrary. Though people often say they like having a variety of viewpoints, it was made painfully clear that it is not so.

So I chose to leave. Its what many of you wanted. So do me the favor of not trying to insult me or bait me after I have given you what the undisturbed echo chamber that you want.

Thank you.
posted by dios at 12:08 PM on September 20, 2005

Steve @ is gone too.
posted by wakko at 12:10 PM on September 20, 2005

I'd noticed the level of discourse had risen some, I guess I'd not noticed that it was because dios' perpetual submarining of threads was gone.
posted by fenriq at 12:05 PM PST on September 20

I've quit reading this site, so I don't know what has been said. But your above comment about a perceived "rise" in the "level of discourse" sounds to me a lot like "our echo chamber has had a lot less disturbance and we have been free to 'me too'." But then again, I guess a lot of people, like yourself, define the level of discourse as the the level of "agreement." And as I said before, have at it. But if you don't want me around, then do me the respect of not trying to bait me or insult me behind my back.
posted by dios at 12:13 PM on September 20, 2005

Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position.

By definition, you finally admit to trolling, amazingly.
posted by Rothko at 12:15 PM on September 20, 2005

contrarian ≠ troll
posted by goatdog at 12:18 PM on September 20, 2005

It's weird how (it would seem) all the hardcore Bush apologists here left a week or so after the whole Katrina thing went down.
posted by wakko at 12:20 PM on September 20, 2005

So what does that mean then, wakko (assuming your coincidental observation is even accurate)?
posted by Witty at 12:38 PM on September 20, 2005

dios, thanks for completely proving my point about you. Your assumptions about what I like and dislike about the site are totally off base and my main issue with you isn't that your contrarian but that you came into threads, shit all over them and then disappeared.

Its not the disagreement that made me dislike you, it was your attack dog attitude. I don't think MeFi is an echo chamber at all, I do think its unfriendly to people who like to leave big steaming piles of their ego all over the place and then they look all surprised when people get irritated by it.

I'm not baiting you or insulting you. I'm offering my personal opinion that you brought the overall level of discussion on the site down with your derails.

wakko, yeah, like they were all recalled to Washington for a timeout or something.
posted by fenriq at 12:40 PM on September 20, 2005

davy: Some people, because of a grudge against certain Mefites and/or what they represent, often manage to turn the most innocuous thread into a flamewar/pile-on

2sheets went too far and should have a finger cut off, but I can't help but notice that what you describe is exactly what dios and PP are themselves famous for.
posted by fleacircus at 12:41 PM on September 20, 2005

dios, I hope you're still working on that whole martyr-complex. Really, get over yourself. Nobody here wanted you to leave. We wanted you to, err, make actual arguments instead of your 'devil's advocate' nonsense. (I long suspected you didn't believe anything you said--actually glad you cleared that up).

And anyway, I brought this up because I'm getting blipping tired of all the personal-political squabbles around here.

As for this comment, it's a terrible comment. Duh. But you're dancing for dollars, davy. This comment isn't representative at all. If PP and dios were continually being attacked without provocation I'd be right beside you--not because I like either of them but because such comments are pure noise and have zero redeeming value. But they're not. In this case, flagging, and maybe an email to 2sheets letting him know its not appreciated, would've been sufficient.
posted by nixerman at 12:46 PM on September 20, 2005

ai dios mios!
posted by delmoi at 12:54 PM on September 20, 2005

I think in order to have "left the site," one needs to first not post here any more.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:55 PM on September 20, 2005

Dios: If you're still reading this, I noticed during your last couple of weeks here that you seemed to be making a vast improvement in terms of both quality of argument and quality of tone.
I like having you around, even though I disagree with many of your political stances. That some others don't is their personal taste, but I think that many of them are just as reactionary and doctrinaire as you have been accused of, and because of that I find their comments tiresome and rarely of interest.
So hey, know that at least one liberal is falling prey to the Achilles heel of liberalism: the desire to have a broad range of views represented.
posted by klangklangston at 12:56 PM on September 20, 2005

contrarian ≠ troll
posted by goatdog at 12:18 PM PST on September 20 [!]

If "contrarian" means:

• to pick an often personal, mean-spirited fight on precepts you don't even believe in (cf. Dios' aforementioned comment)
• to pick an often personal, mean-spirited fight on precepts you don't even care to bother to understand properly (not even to defend on the basis of accidental ignorance; cf. Dios' comments on child molestation)
• leaving immediately after successfully causing a discussion to crash and burn
• promising to leave when one's argument is indefensible, only to return for the sole purpose of insulting people

Then "contrarian" == troll.

On preview, Optimus Chyme nails it.
posted by Rothko at 12:57 PM on September 20, 2005

Sarcastic comment flies over Conservative's head: Film at 11.
posted by shawnj at 12:59 PM on September 20, 2005

Dios you've definitely supported racial profiling at airports in the past. What she said was only a hyperbolic extension of what you've said in the past.
posted by delmoi at 1:01 PM on September 20, 2005

Why does the modifer "shrill" always get appended to "leftists"? It's worse than "pendulous" and "breasts" - you never see the first word without the other.
posted by yhbc at 1:08 PM on September 20, 2005

Okay Plutor, peace to you too.

The point of this callout was an objection to personal contention under political cover. If someone wishes to argue with me personally something like "Your mother wears army shoes!" would signal that; if you wish to argue against the position I've taken here please leave personal remarks like "Davy, are you so sensitive that you can't handle x" out of it. Note too that I'm not singling anybody out; I've done the same thing myself, I'm just wondering if it's possible to have Metafilter without it. E.g., see how quickly this thread turned into the very thing I was complaining about? By this I'd have to say that "community weblog" is a misnomer -- that "cafeteria foodfight" comes closer. And that, as this thread shows, "liberals" are just as much to blame as "conservatives".

And no, once again, I have not converted to "conservatism" or even "nonpartisanism". I have however started wondering if we shouldn't at least try to get along around here regardless of political views/labels.

By the way, what is "dancing for dollars"?
posted by davy at 1:12 PM on September 20, 2005

Rothko... you're pretty much always wrong, about everything. So just stop.
posted by Witty at 1:12 PM on September 20, 2005

Thank you fenriq.
posted by davy at 1:13 PM on September 20, 2005

"Thank you fenriq."

For saying "I think adding a 'baiting' tag to the flags would actually be a really good idea", I mean.
posted by davy at 1:16 PM on September 20, 2005

That's an... interesting definition, Rothko. There's a flaw in your if/then, which is that "contrarian" means none of those things. But what I was specifically referring to is your misreading of dios's statement. dios put it best when he said "There is a fundamental difference between arguing against one position and being for the other. Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position." To believe that to argue against one position is to support its opposite is a false dichotomy (see Bush's "You're either with us or against us" for a good example). There are other options.
posted by goatdog at 1:18 PM on September 20, 2005

Rothko... you're pretty much always wrong, about everything. So just stop.
posted by Witty at 1:12 PM PST on September 20

Go post pictures of corpses about it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:18 PM on September 20, 2005

Rothko... you're pretty much always wrong, about everything. So just stop.
posted by Witty at 1:12 PM PST on September 20 [!]

Witty, you're a wonderful human being and your personal hygiene is exemplary.
posted by Rothko at 1:19 PM on September 20, 2005

Why isn't there a "nuke from space" flag?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:21 PM on September 20, 2005

Whaaa Whaaa Whaaa!
posted by Witty at 1:22 PM on September 20, 2005

There's a flaw in your if/then, which is that "contrarian" means none of those things.

Here's one definition of an Internet troll as decided upon by a large community. That definition matches Dios' own definition of the term "contrarian", in how he behaved when being "contrary". /shrug
posted by Rothko at 1:25 PM on September 20, 2005

If "contrarian" means:...

That's a big if, dude.

I'm not neccessarily talking about dios, but you see where I'm going.
posted by jonmc at 1:33 PM on September 20, 2005

I propose that if this thread keeps being a brawl -- if my callout keeps on achieving an effect contrary to its purpose -- at say 3 pm PST that this thread then be closed.
posted by davy at 1:38 PM on September 20, 2005

I propose that if this thread keeps being a brawl --

*breaks barstool over davy's head*

what a senseless waste of a barstool. ;>
posted by jonmc at 1:40 PM on September 20, 2005

I didn't realise Dios left. That makes me a little sad. Maybe a tad bitey in his arguments on occassion, but I wouldn't've called him a troll. At least, not in comparison to some. And, while not agreeing with his views, he seemed a pretty rational fellow, for the most part.

Maybe I missed something?

And on the post in question:
Flag and enjoy the rest of your evening. Or afternoon. Or morning. Depending on where you are.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 1:51 PM on September 20, 2005

Rothko's not wrong all the time and neither is dios.

But Rothko thinks that continuous assailing of dios is his job, his mefi duty or something.

dios, as klangklangston quite rightly points out, was being more diplomatic in his comments in the few weeks leading up to Katrina. IIRC he was doing something contributive and at a cost to himself in the real world to help with disaster repercussions and he was still abused here for his troubles. That episode was the reason he wanted to get away from this place and you can't blame him really.
posted by peacay at 1:53 PM on September 20, 2005

I hadn't realized dios was gone either. No time to even bake a snark cake. He delivers his farewell with something of the tone of Napoleon leaving for Elba. The noble contrarian, yes yes, how we fail to appreciate his contemptuous dismissal of our world-views. Very good of him to remind us a final time that he's right and we're wretched. He's waving bye now. Yes I'm pretty sure he's leaving. Almost gone. Powerful moment.
posted by fleacircus at 1:58 PM on September 20, 2005 [1 favorite]

davy, you're welcome. Maybe I'll make that a MeTa thread on its own so it won't get lost in all of this.

fleacircus and others lamenting dios' "departure". If you hadn't noticed, he's not gone anywhere, he's still here, he's just pouting in his corner because people called bullshit on his bullshit.

As was noted above, you have to actually leave to depart.
posted by fenriq at 2:10 PM on September 20, 2005

As was noted above, you have to actually leave to depart

After the obligatory MetaTalk flameout, of course.
posted by Floydd at 2:14 PM on September 20, 2005

When does your bus leave, Rothko? Can't be much fun for you now that the big game has died out.
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:22 PM on September 20, 2005

("died out" makes it sound like such a passive process, doesn't it? Not intentional.)
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:31 PM on September 20, 2005

So, I was right, afterall?
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:47 PM on September 20, 2005

I quit posting here because it was made plain to me that I was not wanted here; that a person who argued against some of the shrill leftist rhetoric and the echo chamber that predominates discussions here was not wanted.

I can attest to that -- this place really is rabidly leftist. Which is ok by me, mostly, being pretty liberal myself, but the knee-jerk vituperation against anything that chafes the grain is a little annoying and very prevalent. I wish Dios and PP would post more -- and invite their friends even -- if only to rustle up the cozy liberality. Do we want a giant choir here to preach to?

Why does the modifer "shrill" always get appended to "leftists"?

Because much "leftist" rhetoric comes from urgent-sounding Cassandras.
posted by undule at 2:57 PM on September 20, 2005

dios, I hope you're still working on that whole martyr-complex

Well, the way you guys keep nailing him to a cross in all these stupid MetaTalk threads, I wouldn't be surprised if he possessed a PhD in Martyrdom. I've never seen so much collective hostility aimed at someone who isn't so much an outright dick, but a person with strong, contrary opinions.

I used to think Dios was a troll, then I realized his behavior was just a product of having every wonk on this site tasting your blood in the water every time "Post Comment" is clicked.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:03 PM on September 20, 2005

So, I was right, afterall?
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:47 PM PST on September 20
No. See, this is the exact kind of garbage that makes it so inhospitable to those who don't conform to a particular mindset. You are questioning my motivations and misstating my beliefs. When I argue against some nonsense as I have done in the past (such as the "Walmart is evil and violating the free press because they won't sell a book about how evil Walmart is"), it isn't to be inflammatory (assuming you aren't defining inflammatory as against the general opinion). Nor is it offered for the sake of starting a fight. Nor is it offered to advocate the other side. It is offered for what is: a disagreement with the bullshit notion.

So many of you seem to be unwilling or unable to accept the fact that people don't agree with you. If I disagree that Walmart is evil because they won't sell a book, I am not saying that Walmart is good. What I am saying is that you are wrong to call Walmart evil because what they didn't isn't evil.

This is such an elementary point. But can I get people to admit that such disagreement is reasonable and fair? No. Instead I get a neverending questioning of my motivations on every single post. It becomes impossible to engaged in a substantive dialogue because of the sheer number of people trying to nip at heels and go for pettiness or snark. (If you need evidence of this point, look at how many comments in this thread are devoted to trying to diminish the basis or question the motivations for statements I have made).

As was noted above, you have to actually leave to depart.
posted by fenriq at 2:10 PM PST on September 20

Did you even bother to read what I posted above? What I said was clear: I left this site at the beginning of the month. I haven't been back here at all. People still e-mail me. One in particular mentioned that this thread existed. I checked it out. I only stopped in to make a fairly reasonable request. Since you have made so obvious that you don't want me here, do me the courtesy of not talking about me behind my back and baiting me since I acquiesced.

I didn't post a MeTa flameout thread; I didn't make a MeTa post to say I am leaving. I just left. Since I gave you your wish, then it would be decent of you to not insult me.

Of course, now you've got me in a hall of mirrors. I leave without comment. People get to insult me at will. If I come back to merely ask them politely to stop, I get the "he never went away." Or the "look, here is his flameout post."

But I think a fair reading---that is, a reading by those people who aren't so vitriolic to me you are (or Optimus Chyme, AlexReynolds)---is that quit posting to this website and I merely ask that I not be insulted or baited by people who either know I am not responding or are trying to get me to respond (oftentimes just to be able to say "see! I could get you to respond!").

So just end it, ok?
posted by dios at 3:06 PM on September 20, 2005

hallelujah, undule.
posted by LarryC at 3:08 PM on September 20, 2005

dios: For good or bad, memes die hard here.
posted by mischief at 3:10 PM on September 20, 2005

then I realized his behavior was just a product of having every wonk on this site tasting your blood in the water every time "Post Comment" is clicked.

Ding ding! Which isn't to say that I condone some of his more personal attacks, but damn, I don't know of anyone here that was so reviled by such loud, vicious assholes. (Except, perhaps, ParisParamus)
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:10 PM on September 20, 2005

if my callout keeps on achieving an effect contrary to its purpose -- at say 3 pm PST that this thread then be closed.

mmm, dang it, so hard to control how other people are going to respond... Was not your purpose to express an opinion? Mission accomplished, now gotta take the lumps, or ignore the rabble depending on your perspective.

Really kind of a arrogant statement in-of-itself
posted by edgeways at 3:24 PM on September 20, 2005

"then I realized his behavior was just a product of having every wonk on this site tasting your blood in the water every time "Post Comment" is clicked."

Indeed. I believe dios was in earnest. One can debate the merits of his rhetoric, but I do not believe he was aiming purely at disruption.

hmmm... does my agreement with several others here on this make this an echo chamber?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:30 PM on September 20, 2005

But Rothko thinks that continuous assailing of dios is his job, his mefi duty or something.

Seriously. It's not just Rothko, of course, but this is a damned good example. Ugly, petty grudge-holding bullshit is really tiresome and just makes you like, well, ugly and petty.

Rothko, we really, really don't care that you don't like dios. Please stop talking about it.
posted by cortex at 3:30 PM on September 20, 2005

This entire place is soaked in arrogance... Metafiler is marinating in it.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:35 PM on September 20, 2005

posted by Witty at 3:38 PM on September 20, 2005

dios, as klangklangston quite rightly points out, was being more diplomatic in his comments in the few weeks leading up to Katrina.
posted by peacay at 1:53 PM PST on September 20 [!]

How to conduct diplomacy with a gas can and a pack of matches.

Rothko, we really, really don't care that you don't like dios. Please stop talking about it.
posted by cortex at 3:30 PM PST on September 20 [!]

Shoot the messenger. /shrug
posted by Rothko at 3:39 PM on September 20, 2005

Hold still, then, fer chrissakes!
posted by gigawhat? at 3:40 PM on September 20, 2005

Very good of him to remind us a final time that he's right and we're wretched. He's waving bye now. Yes I'm pretty sure he's leaving. Almost gone. Powerful moment.
posted by fleacircus at 1:58 PM PST on September 20 [!]

One can almost taste the sulphurous Nixonian vapor trail.
posted by Rothko at 3:50 PM on September 20, 2005

When you call yourself "god", it seems like everyone is talking about you.
posted by telstar at 3:53 PM on September 20, 2005

More and more this place is becoming an echo chamber with only one perspective allowed. Is there any hope that if we do get another poster willing to brave the firing line there could maybe be a moratorium on dickishness? dios had plenty to add to conversations, not just contrary attitudes and if the relentless badgering has seen him leave then I am genuinely sad to see him go.

I sincerely doubt many mefites could last as long on LGF or Free Republic as dios et al without becoming frustrated. Some of the changes to MeFi have been positively awful since the election. The political partisanship has taken over and ruined many a thread, worse still is the personal bitching. It's the fucking internet, really - get over yourselves. If fifty people line up to take a shot at one person, that doesn't make you brave at all, it makes you a chickenshit. Don't like what he says? Ignore it or disprove it.
posted by longbaugh at 3:57 PM on September 20, 2005

MetaFilter: That arrogance? You're soaking in it!

And Alex? "Leading up to" is the operant phrase here. The Katrina debacle was MetaFilter at its worst, with everyone sniping at everyone else. It was not pretty, and dios' particular posting style could not stand up to the vituperative personal attacks and personal grudges that were (and continue to be) prevalent here.
We can do better, I think. Maybe. A little bit.
It's important to have differing opinions, even if they're just sophistry wrapped in trolling served on a bed of warm couscous.
But this practice of troll-baiting is getting embarrassing. Surely we can do better.
posted by Floydd at 4:00 PM on September 20, 2005

Don't like what he says? Ignore it or disprove it.

Disprove what? The main thing that dios is disliked for is posting obnoxious comments that are free of any argument. I would see your point if dios were a neocon y2karl, with lots of well-considered arguments and plenty of sources, but he's not.

Also I find it creepy that this thread, which seems to be turning into a wake for dios, prominently features the deceased. If you're leaving, dios, then be gone; if you're still around, then stop talking in the past tense.
posted by squirrel at 4:06 PM on September 20, 2005

without somebody singling out and baiting certain individuals by name?

There have always been sanctioned instances of this and it's always been stupid. Yeah, it's wrong to call somebody out in a thread they may not even see... unless it's THAT guy.

And when dios, for example, does post in a thread, he gets slammed regardless. Hell, he could say something that most MeFites agree with and he'd get slammed for saying that, too (well, that's a fine turnabout, dios!).

Enough. It's hard to prevent personal animosity when both people are participating in a single thread, but spiteful callouts when the person has not even stepped foot in one is deserving of a little time out. I'm pretty charitable with regard to what may or may not be good for this site, but that kind of petty bullshit falls in no kind of grey area.
posted by dreamsign at 4:07 PM on September 20, 2005

The Katrina debacle was MetaFilter at its worst, with everyone sniping at everyone else.

I didn't see or participate in any of that. True or not, no one came after Dios, but he saw fit to comment on the supposed participation of everyone else at Metafilter in charitable contributions of time, money and resources to Katrina victims. In his own words, either he didn't believe in what he was saying and was therefore trolling for a fight, or he was being willfully, cheerfully ignorant and picking a fight anyway. It's not my fault that his fingers keep writing checks his ego can't cash.
posted by Rothko at 4:10 PM on September 20, 2005

squirrel - I mentioned disproving or ignoring. MeFi would be 100% better overnight if people flagged, ignored and moved on. MetaTalk would be quieter for it and everyone could concentrate on the links and calm, sensible discussion. I don't think people want that any more and I am sad to see so many old school MeFites leaving because they don't like where it is heading. What good is MeFi as another lefty site that shouts down any alternative viewpoint? Can't we be better than that? Please? With cherries on top?

I promise I won't be the first to bitch if someone says something "different" and I also promise to read what they have written and think before I answer. I promise that even if I have disliked something they have written previously I will not let it colour my opinion. I will take each comment fresh without allowing reputations to sully it. I will try and listen to alternate points of view. If I can disprove an argument I shall, if the argument is genuinely without reason save for starting a flame war I shall ignore it.

I would really like to hope that this place can get better than it is right now. A lot of you are very funny, very clever and very well read, a lot of you like to shout slogans. I'd much prefer to hear from the former rather than the latter.

(and just to save time)

Metafilter : A lot of you like to shout slogans
posted by longbaugh at 4:22 PM on September 20, 2005

honestly, on the whole "kneejerk liberal cabal" thing, one of the reasons I have become such a liberal is primarily because of this site. In my years lurking, and few months of participating, i have noticed the almost complete dearth of information, evidence and facts provided by the conservatives. They do nothing other than reduce the signal to noise ratio. MidasMulligan was one of the few who actually had an argument, and had the balls to actually cite sources, present facts, craft a rational argument.

All i have ever seen witty, paris, dios, et all ever do was come into a thread say something ridiculous, and then whine about being persecuted because people have pointed out that their arguments are poorly thought out, totally unsubstantiated and generally irrational arguments.

People will be less than kind when they have to tell you for the 40th time that your arguments are baseless, and you retort that mefi just doesn't love you, that we lefties at mefi are an "echochamber" that can't handle dissent.

If you do not provide evidence for your arguments, continue to make your arguments, then whine about how they are continuously refuted as loudly as possible, then proceed to troll in order to disrupt conversation, ala ParisParamus' latest incursions, then guess what, no one is going to listen to you. Moreover, they are going to ridicule you every time you try to play your same bullshit martyr game. everytime.

Sorry guys. You've made me a rabid liberal. You've shown me that in a place that freely allows for argumentation, that questions assumptions and demands evidence, the right just can't cut it.

Kinda like science and academia, but that's a whole other story.
posted by Freen at 4:25 PM on September 20, 2005

I have been thinking lately that I should probably stop reading MetaTalk.
posted by LarryC at 4:36 PM on September 20, 2005

I sincerely doubt many mefites could last as long on LGF or Free Republic

It may have something to do with being instantly banned.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:43 PM on September 20, 2005

Dios was a contrarian in the same way that Mr. Barnard, room 12, was a contrarian.

Which is to say he offered nothing of substantive value. No logic. No documented facts. No quality reports. Sweet fuck-all. Just a quick and lazy naysaying against the general consensus, and then running away when real information was presented.

MetaFilter is better off without him.

Metafilter would be better if intelligent, well-spoken conservatives were to hang out here. Alas, they are few and far between.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on September 20, 2005

I sincerely doubt many mefites could last as long on LGF or Free Republic as dios et al without becoming frustrated.

Coinkydink. Just a couple hours ago I tried to register at LGF, but registration was closed. So LGF'ers can go on chest-beating about invading Iran uninterrupted, I suppose.
posted by telstar at 4:55 PM on September 20, 2005

I promise that even if I have disliked something they have written previously I will not let it colour my opinion.

That's a promise that no one is likely to keep, and for good reason. Not to be pedantic with my truisms here, but we rely on our past experience with people to color our expectation of them. If someone spilled beer in your Camero once, well, you'd be a jerk to hold it against them forever; yet, if they spilled beer in your Camero 400 times, you'd be a fool let them near it again. dios has spilled truckloads of beer, and people generally regard his comments with the irritation and dismissiveness that he has earned. It's likely that somehwere along the way, he has actually made a well-thought-out argument that others have dismissed because of their past experience with him, but then we're all familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf.

People like dios and the turd work hard to develop, over months and months, a base of users who know them for being worthless drags on the site; davy shouldn't be surprised when people reference them by the reputations that they have fashioned, themselves.
posted by squirrel at 4:57 PM on September 20, 2005

Metafilter: a moratorium on dickishness.
posted by ericb at 5:01 PM on September 20, 2005

OK this place really needs a sarcasm tag or a (rolleyes) smiley. Text in English sucks for relaying sarcasm.

Then inflamitory shit could be tagged as devils advocate or honest.

See watch...


Dios, come back, sit by me.. We still love you.
posted by Balisong at 5:03 PM on September 20, 2005

I had an El Gee Eff account for a bit...

Those people don't give a shit about starting personal attacks against anything they don't echo.

They call people names. Then they ban you. They do not want your point of view.
posted by Balisong at 5:06 PM on September 20, 2005

I've never seen so much collective hostility aimed at someone who isn't so much an outright dick, but a person with strong, contrary opinions.

Actually, he was an outright dick, IMO. I can't say I'm sad to see him go, nor have I bothered to read a single post of his in a long time, but there's also no reason to kick a man/woman once she's/he's down and out (if he/she really is down and out).

I thought 2sheets was a bit harsh, but not that offensive, considering both users had made similar arguments about profiling.. Also, 2sheets made the comment, then it was just dropped. No response was given (nor needed). The (unnecessary, IMO) MeTa thread seem to start the real brawl.

More and more this place is becoming an echo chamber with only one perspective allowed.

No, it's not. See, I disagreed with you. ;p

Metafilter would be better if intelligent, well-spoken conservatives were to hang out here.

I agree we could use more, but there are plenty of them here already. You just don't know them by name because they're not major assholes.

People like dios and the turd...

Who the hell is "the turd"?
posted by mrgrimm at 5:07 PM on September 20, 2005

MidasMulligan was one of the few who actually had an argument, and had the balls to actually cite sources, present facts, craft a rational argument.

Oh, bull-oney. People keep making this assertion but all I remember are his patented Bait, Bellow & Sneer derails written in more italics, bold and ALL CAPS than a Reverend Ivan Stang authored Church of the Subgenius hand bill. He never cited sources, he kept repeating the same lame Clinton hating talking points and spent most of his time trying to shout people down. I certainly can provide ample examples of those. Him I don't miss at all.

But apart from that, what freen said.
posted by y2karl at 5:18 PM on September 20, 2005

The struggle between Right and Left is the struggle between hegemony and consensus.

The rightwing blogs, in my experience, simply ban anyone who makes intelligent leftwing comments - and delete all their posts, too. Don't take my word for that - try it out over a period of weeks, see how long your posts last.

MeFi doesn't do that. It provides an open forum. And open forums, on a good day, are capable of generating an honest consensus.

The Right really, really hate consensus.

That's why they pay people like dios to make their 'contributions' wherever an open forum exists. Their posts are carefully designed to obstruct consensus.

The Right always love to claim that:

1) Anyone pointing out the flaws in their arguments is "persecuting" them.

2) Everyone who disagrees with them is "shrill" and "left-wing" - and all such opponents are identical.

The reader should consider carefully how much truth there is in such claims.
posted by cleardawn at 5:37 PM on September 20, 2005

Metatalk continues it's journey towards complete redundancy.
posted by fire&wings at 5:44 PM on September 20, 2005

Well what the hell good would a partial redundancy be, eh? Sheesh. Gonna do it right if we do it at all!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:53 PM on September 20, 2005

That's another classic rightwing claim, of course: "This conversation is a complete waste of time."
posted by cleardawn at 5:54 PM on September 20, 2005

I sincerely doubt many mefites could last as long on LGF or Free Republic as dios et al without becoming frustrated.

Of course not, we'd get banned in a couple days.
posted by delmoi at 5:57 PM on September 20, 2005

And by the way, I managed to get myself banned on DailyKos, for comments that were less inflamitory then what I post here...
posted by delmoi at 5:57 PM on September 20, 2005

"The Right always love to claim that: 1) Anyone pointing out the flaws in their arguments is 'persecuting' them."

The Left is pretty good at that themselves.
posted by mischief at 6:00 PM on September 20, 2005

As my query has gone unanswered, I disagree with everyone!

Ever!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:03 PM on September 20, 2005

Mischief, your comment is ambiguous. Are you saying the Left is pretty good at persecuting the right, or at claiming to be persecuted? Personally, I don't think we're much good at either!

BTW, I just noticed this thread was started by non-political master of etiquette Davy, who apparently dislikes "vituperative political" posts. So I feel I have to share this gem with you all.
posted by cleardawn at 6:06 PM on September 20, 2005

I am pretty good at karaoke.
posted by wakko at 6:12 PM on September 20, 2005

That's why they pay people like dios to make their 'contributions' wherever an open forum exists. Their posts are carefully designed to obstruct consensus.

Lol.

Actually I will defend Dios, he did sometimes try to put up an argument and rebut points every once in a while, although I don't remember him every changing his position or ceding any points. Not that I do that very often either, so it's not all bad. The main problem was that he started out as a jackass and got better, and it's hard to overcome initial impressions.

But the biggest problem was that he would post inflammatory crap, and then people would spend the rest of the thread arguing with him, or flipping out, rather then having an intelligent discussion.

There is also, I think, a huge difference between being a "conservative" and being a "loyal bush supporter". One of those positions is rationaly tenable, the other is, er, not.
posted by delmoi at 6:15 PM on September 20, 2005

"claiming to be persecuted"

Whining about being persecuted to be precise. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:34 PM on September 20, 2005

Meh. You guys should use Mefi Blacklist. It's done wonders for the signal-to-noise ratio here as far as I'm concerned.
posted by clevershark at 6:40 PM on September 20, 2005

Dios isn't a poor freeper on a dark, ugly day. Those guys are stark raving nuts by birth. The type of people who think Bill Clinton drinks the blood of freshly baptized Christian babies, and the only reason we don't hear about it is because the media is in on it.

"Did you know it was overseen by the Bilderburgs?"

They are a truly special sect of crazy. Dios had some arguments, and made some cogent points. For my money, he wasn't a troll.

I miss the old trolls. Now MidasMulligan was a guy who knew how to really shit all over a thread.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:41 PM on September 20, 2005

The real problem here is that so many american mefites - left right and to some extent middle of the road - are brought up to think it's ok to insult their opponents. They cannot seem to have a disagreement with out resorting to 'jerk!', 'fuck you!' & 'asshole!'.

Why is that?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:04 PM on September 20, 2005

Because, Asshole, there's always some jerk that needs a good 'Fuck You!'
posted by Balisong at 7:10 PM on September 20, 2005

(You are not being an asshole, just using the term generally...)
posted by Balisong at 7:11 PM on September 20, 2005

They cannot seem to have a disagreement with out resorting to 'jerk!', 'fuck you!' & 'asshole!'.

Don't forget douchebag. It's gained in popularity lately.
posted by justgary at 7:13 PM on September 20, 2005

I have to say that equally responsible as the so-called 'trolls' for the deterioration in threads are those who repond to 'trolls' in like kind. I say this in all sincerity (",)

Treat an inflammatory poster as you would an undereducated middle schooler: with reasoned arguments and courtesy. If you really don't care for them, they won't wind you up. If they do wind you up - and they see that - they win [is that what you want?]. If you cannot respond rationally - don't respond at all.

You're grandma probably said something along those lines. She was right.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:23 PM on September 20, 2005

Cleardawn: I'm taking some night courses in Eastern Philosophy these days and I need help reducing some of the more heady, difficult concepts to tiresome binary analogies like Left/Right, Black/White, Right/Wrong — can you help me out in this capacity?
posted by dhoyt at 7:28 PM on September 20, 2005

I've never seen so much collective hostility aimed at someone who isn't so much an outright dick, but a person with strong, contrary opinions.
111, MidasMulligan, PP, Witty, etc comes to mind as being just bad off.

Dios isn't a poor freeper on a dark, ugly day. Those guys are stark raving nuts by birth. The type of people who think Bill Clinton drinks the blood of freshly baptized Christian babies, and the only reason we don't hear about it is because the media is in on it.
Funny, I get the distinct feeling that many people here would say the same about Bush.
posted by jmd82 at 7:37 PM on September 20, 2005

I don't ever remember Dios posting in-line images of corpses, but it doesn't matter anyway since you're obviously crazy. 111, MidasMulligan and Witty deserve most of what goes for "vengeance" around here. On Paris, I'll let you slide.
posted by SweetJesus at 7:43 PM on September 20, 2005

There ya go: Dios and ParisParamus were by and large right about the Metafiltrista Majority. Y'all can even take a "Kumbaya" thread and derail it into a personal-political pile-on. Liberal fascist is more like it, with less connection to real leftism than Gregor fucking Strasser. And what gets me is that except for some random idiosyncracies of style the message of the majority is indeed a clonelike "Me-too!" festival.

I happen to agree with a lot of what of y'all say, but that's no suprise: without real leftists to steal your cant from you'd have to make up "ideas" of your own to bleat and bah in "solidarity". So I won't go on in this vein because such things only have effect on those who can know better, but I don't want to hear the people who used this inadvertant opportunity to pile on Dios use terms like "human decency" unless you complete the phrase with "(which I obviously don't have)".

To everybody else (you know who you are) I apologize for this thread. So much for my dizzily naive hope that those who prate loudest and oftenest about "etiquette" and "community" might have some idea what those are.
posted by davy at 8:29 PM on September 20, 2005

do you ever get tired of trying to be jonmc, davy?

Freen and squirrel have been dead on. Also, a conservative y2karl would be kickass. Someone get on it.
posted by hototogisu at 8:46 PM on September 20, 2005

Good points, cleardawn.

all I remember are his patented Bait, Bellow & Sneer derails written in more italics, bold and ALL CAPS than a Reverend Ivan Stang authored Church of the Subgenius hand bill.

y2karl, you continue to amaze me.
*soundless joyful sigh*

leftists to steal your cant from you'd have to make up "ideas" of your own to bleat and bah in "solidarity"

Those bleats you hear are intelligent people conversing. It sounds like nonsense to you because it's moving on another protocol. You came into this world requiring an upgrade you'll never be able to afford, davy. Standing by the door and yelling at all these gibberish-talkers isn't going to get you far.

By the way, now that I have your attention, davy, please consider this advise: take your right hand and give yourself a stout slap across the face, and then say "wake up."
posted by squirrel at 8:50 PM on September 20, 2005

One thing about the whole banning issue - I've read a number of claims about how Mefi is superior to LGF and whatever else due to the fact that no one gets banned here, while throw a number of people from here over there, and they'd be banned instantly.

Want to know why that is? Because Matt doesn't ban anyone. But judging by how a good number of you react to people like dios, PP et. al. I'm strongly suspicious that were it in your hands, they would have been banned a long time ago. And before you disagree with me, go back and read all the threads a few weeks back on killfiles.

Just a thought.
posted by vernondalhart at 8:58 PM on September 20, 2005

Yawn.
posted by 517 at 9:03 PM on September 20, 2005

Stop taking this site so seriously.
posted by 517 at 9:05 PM on September 20, 2005

Yes, yes, please, everyone, let us be thinking of ways to make this all more exciting for the 517s of our readership.
posted by squirrel at 9:06 PM on September 20, 2005

vernondalhart, damn right, the MetaFilter is what it is because of Matt. And people do get banned here. But not for having contrary opinions. For breaking the published rules, usually alot more than once.

I was being facetious about the killfile. I was kind of sorry it got turned into a big stinking MeTa (though it did have its moments).
posted by fenriq at 9:08 PM on September 20, 2005

It's all about me, always. Wait, why am I even talking to...
posted by 517 at 9:08 PM on September 20, 2005

Hey 517, who's 25402?
posted by fenriq at 9:09 PM on September 20, 2005

ME! It's me, me ,me.
posted by 517 at 9:11 PM on September 20, 2005

proud fascists deserve at least a modicum of respect; whiny insincere fascists with a persecution complex are a very sad sight to behold, dios. if pissing off your hated liberals doesn't get your rocks off as it used to be, it's nobody's fault. except probably your own -- you experienced burnout after one "devil's advocate" whopper too many.

so, for the record: if you want to stay, stay -- God knows I like the delicious fish in a barrel you're always willing to provide. but if crapping all over threads doesn't amuse you anymore, well, it's not this community's problem.
posted by matteo at 9:12 PM on September 20, 2005

Those bleats you hear are intelligent people conversing. It sounds like nonsense to you because it's moving on another protocol.

Davy is simply asking for a more civilized discussion. With exactly what part of that wish do you disagree?

Want to know why that is? Because Matt doesn't ban anyone. But judging by how a good number of you react to people like dios, PP et. al. I'm strongly suspicious that were it in your hands, they would have been banned a long time ago.

Of course. Say what you will about matt but give metafilter to some of the more vocal members here and say goodbye to open discussion.

Also, a conservative y2karl would be kickass.

Yes it would, but we have ONE y2karl out of how many left leaning members? Out of over 26,000 total members? It seems as if he's almost used as a mascot here. Maybe it would be nice to have more y2karls on both sides would be closer to the truth.
posted by justgary at 9:14 PM on September 20, 2005

The real problem here is that so many American mefites - left right and to some extent middle of the road - are brought up to think it's ok to insult their opponents. They cannot seem to have a disagreement with out resorting to 'jerk!', 'fuck you!' & 'asshole!'.

Sure, compare the British house of commons to the US senate. Debate in the US government is so sugary sweet it'll give you a toothache.

Want to know why that is? Because Matt doesn't ban anyone. But judging by how a good number of you react to people like dios, PP et. al. I'm strongly suspicious that were it in your hands, they would have been banned a long time ago.

Well, maybe. But those people aren't in charge, are they :P
posted by delmoi at 9:17 PM on September 20, 2005

It wasn't an exclusive proposition, though finding more than a few people willing to do little more than obsessively compile their political evidence and comment very little is a tough job. It just seems that there is so little ego in the bulk of the arguments; it's refreshing.

Davy asks for more "civilized discussion" with the utmost contempt and haughty sincerity, none of which he has ever earned (zombies, anyone?).

I think if some of the more "vocal members" here were given the reins they would turn out a bit different operating a community than speaking for themselves, but that's just a dumb hunch.

I also think if a few of our more famously disingenuous conservatives were banned outright, and a few of the liberals just after that, there'd be a fucking boom stick worth respecting, but that's just a dumb hunch too.
posted by hototogisu at 9:24 PM on September 20, 2005

And what gets me is that except for some random idiosyncracies of style the message of the majority is indeed a clonelike "Me-too!" festival.

yeah, maybe in your liberal-hating dreams. this alleged "liberal" bastion is made of people who cream their collective pants at the mere mention of various mega-corporate brands, who are under the funny illusion that the US Democratic Party is a somewhat progressive party, who apparently think that whites can actually say "nigger" and if you're appalled by it you're a politically-correct wuss (I also loved the "nigger stole my truck" askmefi thread, where more than a few alleged liberals talked about happily "dropping the N-bomb" among friends like it's somewhat funny).

if the average MeFi "liberal" actually met a real-life leftist (I mean a non-USian one) said MeFi "liberal" would shit his or her pants (mostly "his", since there are very few women in this "liberal", so very diverse bastion)


but keep on dreaming that this is some kind of North Korean communist cell. it must give you interesting sex dreams, I guess. it's certainly fodder for a lot of ridiculous comments like yours above.

"Conservatives" here look bad because they're trying to defend the indefensible -- Abu Ghraib, the wmd's prank, the gay-hating Christian right, the misogynist attack on Roe vs Wade, creationism in schools. they look like crap because they're fighting lost fights and lack the brains -- or the decency -- to give up those lame GOP talking points (when in doubt, yell "You just hate America!") and build an acceptable case for reasonable Conservatism. God knows if it would be interesting to hear the case for that
posted by matteo at 9:28 PM on September 20, 2005

If you ban the people you disagree with what would be the point of metafilter?
posted by 517 at 9:28 PM on September 20, 2005

I apologize for this thread.
posted by davy at 8:29 PM PST on September 20 [!]

Your apology is accepted.
posted by Rothko at 9:46 PM on September 20, 2005

Davy,

For what it's worth, I'm with ya (on the "don't single out folks by name when they haven't even participated in a thread"). I suspect there are some other folks who are, as well, but don't want to get into the dicussion because they don't want to get into a pointless and frustrating fight.
posted by Bugbread at 9:51 PM on September 20, 2005

You all realize that, come the revolution, you'll all be swinging from streetlamps, right?

Soon come the day.
posted by Jimbob at 10:18 PM on September 20, 2005

Bugbread, thanks. So it wasn't all for nothing.

And just for the record, maybe I was exaggerating when I said "most Mefites": there are several regulars who ain't in this thread or the Blue one I split it from, for example. The broad brush handles easiest when I'm damn near apoplectic, is all. To paraphrase, "Everybody's got dios in 'em!"

Incidentally, I bet many who know me from Usenet several years ago are suprised by my call for "a more civilized discussion"; I'm not sure if I'm "growing up" or if (as I said in 1995) there are a lot of people (of every "persuasion" one can imagine) who are much worse than me (though knowing me I suspect the latter).

--
Hey Jimbob, how did you get a black User page? Can you show me how to make mine magenta?
posted by davy at 10:32 PM on September 20, 2005

And bugbread wears underoos.
posted by squirrel at 10:33 PM on September 20, 2005

Well, I figure that some people are cautionary tales in and of themselves.

Sorta like mentioning the titantic to crappy ship builders etc.
posted by Freen at 10:33 PM on September 20, 2005

Two pancakes on his head. Two.
posted by mischief at 12:04 AM on September 21, 2005

Anyone who agrees with Bush is a troll
posted by angry modem at 1:47 AM on September 21, 2005

well done, davy. you could have taken the easy route, merely flagging a fairly mild potshot as "noise" or "disruptive to my digestion," but noble hall monitor that you are, you wrapped lips around the whistle of indignation and blew for all you were worth.

and now that you've summoned the twin demons of vituperation and dios himself, you cry "waaaaah! look what you've done to my noble thread about being more civilized!"

well, congratulations, ma'am. it's a trainwreck.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:43 AM on September 21, 2005

this place is kind of stale without dios and PP.
posted by shoos at 3:03 AM on September 21, 2005

well, I miss foldy
posted by matteo at 3:45 AM on September 21, 2005

Just add some gratuitous ~actions~ to your posts and you can pretend for old time's sake.
posted by darukaru at 5:15 AM on September 21, 2005

davy writes "Dios and ParisParamus were by and large right about the Metafiltrista Majority. Y'all can even take a 'Kumbaya' thread and derail it into a personal-political pile-on. Liberal fascist is more like it, with less connection to real leftism than Gregor fucking Strasser."

Good to see you're above all the name calling by the "Metafiltrista Majority".
posted by clevershark at 6:04 AM on September 21, 2005

mischief : "Two pancakes on his head. Two."

I'm pretty sure that's neither one pancake, nor two pancakes, but a dorayaki:



Which is vaguely like two pancakes with a filling of sweet bean paste.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 AM on September 21, 2005

Metafilter would be better if intelligent, well-spoken conservatives were to hang out here. Alas, they are few and far between.

On MetaFilter.
posted by yerfatma at 6:10 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: The comment about Katrina that you cite twice from Dios does not support your assertion, you angry little man. Take a look at the posts above it that he was responding to. The immediate reaction on Metafilter to a convoy of aid was derisive snark about Bush. That's what he reacted to. That you saw it as trolling is more about you and your prejudices than it was about Dios.
But really, anyone who believes that conservatives don't have any good arguments isn't ever going to find any, no matter how they're presented.
This thread is pretty good evidence of the dogmatic demogogery that goes on here regularly. And fuck, I'm a liberal.
posted by klangklangston at 6:29 AM on September 21, 2005

Where's quonsar?
posted by Balisong at 6:32 AM on September 21, 2005

Where's quonsar?
Teaching dios some new tricks?
posted by jmd82 at 7:19 AM on September 21, 2005

anyone who believes that conservatives don't have any good arguments isn't ever going to find any, no matter how they're presented

I think this is a good litmus test: if you read it and scoffed, go back to your regularly-scheduled party broadcast.
posted by yerfatma at 7:38 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: The comment about Katrina that you cite twice from Dios does not support your assertion, you angry little man

Unfortunately for you, I'm afraid that it does:

"That you can view a tragedy of this proportion and look first how to blame someone politically and not how utterly sad it is and what you can do to help.... Maybe its because it doesn't effect you directly or for whatever reason, but Metafilter should be embarassed---I know that I am."

Dios' faux outrage was an attempt to provoke a fight, despite your assertion to the contrary. Anyway, it is merely one among many examples that have been cited by others (you know, people other than myself — hint, hint) where Dios does a deliberate hit and run in a thread.

Oh, I forgot:

posted by klangklangston at 6:29 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Yep, that's just about the kind of reading comprehension I can expect. Thanks for your "honesty".
posted by Rothko at 8:02 AM on September 21, 2005

I hate you all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 AM on September 21, 2005

Can you guys turn the light off when you're through?

Everyone else left days ago.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:13 AM on September 21, 2005

But I love you, stavros.
posted by fenriq at 8:17 AM on September 21, 2005

*hands stav a snifter of scotch*
posted by sciurus at 8:32 AM on September 21, 2005

This thread is pretty good evidence of the dogmatic demogogery that goes on here regularly. And fuck, I'm a liberal.

I agree.
posted by rocketman at 8:34 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Dios' faux outrage was an attempt to provoke a fight, despite your assertion to the contrary."

"Dios' true outrage was not an attempt to provoke a fight, despite your assertion to the contrary." See, pretty easy either way. You can even try out advanced maneuvers like "Dios' pseudo-false outrage was an abortive attempt not to avoid a fight, despite your not asserting the negation of the contrary". As long as one is basically saying "A is B, despite you saying it is not", pretty much anything goes.

Bugbread, by the way, is an asshole, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, Rothko. (And I know that you've probably never phrased it exactly that way, Rothko, so I can't find any quotes, but don't bother being pedantic about it. You've gotta learn to see the forest for the trees.)
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 AM on September 21, 2005

As long as one is basically saying "A is B, despite you saying it is not", pretty much anything goes.

Or, wait, get this: "A is B, because of quote C", as opposed to "A is not B because I said so." Wow! Citations! Amazing stuff!
posted by Rothko at 8:47 AM on September 21, 2005

I apologize for that last bit. I know the best thing is to avoid trolls, but it can be so easy to fall for the bait sometimes...
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko, we really, really don't care that you don't like dios. Please stop talking about it.
posted by cortex at 3:30 PM PST on September 20 [!]

Shoot the messenger. /shrug
posted by Rothko at 3:39 PM PST on September 20 [!]

Well, when the messenger is just repeating the message again and again and again, unbidden, and the message is just "HEY LOOK AT THIS GUY HE'S A BAD GUY DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE'S BAD HE'S MEAN OH BUDDY THIS GUY IS JUST WELL JEEZ HE'S A REAL POOPYHEAD DID YOU NOTICE THAT HE'S A POOPYHEAD HEY HEY LOOK THIS GUY THIS GUY IS A BAD GUY DON'T LISTEN TO HIM HEY HEY HEY" then, yes, I am reaching for the shotgun. That grudge-holding energizer bunny bullshit doesn't do a whole lot for me.
posted by cortex at 8:56 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Wow! Citations! Amazing stuff!"

Citations are for pedants.
posted by Bugbread at 9:00 AM on September 21, 2005

Remember when dios made fun of mentally retarded children? Good times.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:02 AM on September 21, 2005

It's sad that you're stooping to Dios' level, bugbread. Very sad. You're better than that.
posted by Rothko at 9:03 AM on September 21, 2005

Aw, fuck, now I'm trolling, because I think Rothko's a troll, and Rothko thinks Dios is a troll. It's like a troll daisy chain, with new participants joining in all the time. I'm sorry (this time for real), and I'll try to keep my future comments from being trolly. Sorry, everyone.
posted by Bugbread at 9:04 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: "It's sad that you're stooping to Dios' level, bugbread. Very sad. You're better than that."

What? You're an idiot if you think bugbread's pointed critique of the logical flaws in your argument puts him "on Dios' level."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:07 AM on September 21, 2005

Well, when the messenger is just repeating the message again and again and again, unbidden, and the message is just "HEY LOOK AT THIS GUY HE'S A BAD GUY DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE'S BAD HE'S MEAN OH BUDDY THIS GUY IS JUST WELL JEEZ HE'S A REAL POOPYHEAD DID YOU NOTICE THAT HE'S A POOPYHEAD HEY HEY LOOK THIS GUY THIS GUY IS A BAD GUY DON'T LISTEN TO HIM HEY HEY HEY" then, yes, I am reaching for the shotgun. That grudge-holding energizer bunny bullshit doesn't do a whole lot for me.
posted by cortex at 8:56 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Except that the "message" isn't your ALL CAPS POOPYHEAD nonsense. In fact, there's no "message" at all, except my comment on someone else's complaint (yet again, it is someone else who starts this).

I didn't start this thread. I didn't make a grandiose exit where "you're not going to have Dios to kick around anymore", only to come back again to feed the fire.

If you don't like reality, you just go and put your head back in the sand.
posted by Rothko at 9:08 AM on September 21, 2005

Sorry, everyone.
posted by bugbread at 9:04 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Apology accepted.
posted by Rothko at 9:09 AM on September 21, 2005

matteo writes - "Conservatives" here look bad because they're trying to defend the indefensible...

And as long as the majority here carrys a similar opinion, Metafilter will continue to have these types of "not getting along" issues. I mean, why would anyone with an opposing viewpoint even TRY to participate in a discussion when it's assumed that they're already wrong before hitting 'post'.

There's this assumed truth that the left here is ALWAYS well-informed, in-the-know, and ready to back up any assertion with a plethora of reliable links and supporting data. That may be true for maybe 3% of you. The remaining bloated mass of left-leaning Mefites are just a bunch of folks with opinions, nothing more, that want to chime in about "how they feel" on a topic, all within the warmth of the majority position. As long as people are saying, "yea, I agree", there's no demand or standard or expectation for anything more from them.

But from those Mefites on the right, it's expected that ALL of them be detailed, informed citizens, with a 'favorites' folder full of "truth" that they can offer as support to any and every post they make. Conservatives aren't "allowed" to just post thoughts, ideas, or opinions. It's funny that someone suggests that the right needs a y2karl {vomits}. I can imagine the nightmare.
posted by Witty at 9:10 AM on September 21, 2005

What? You're an idiot if you think bugbread's pointed critique of the logical flaws in your argument puts him "on Dios' level."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:07 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Klang: A is not B because I say so.
Rothko: No, A is B because of comment C.
Bugbread: Rothko is a troll! Rothko is a troll! Rothko is a troll, because I say so!

You're an idiot if you think bugbread made a pointed critique.
posted by Rothko at 9:11 AM on September 21, 2005

I hate you all.

Don't make me fly over there St. Chicken.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:12 AM on September 21, 2005

it's expected that ALL of them be detailed, informed citizens, with a 'favorites' folder full of "truth" that they can offer as support to any and every post they make

*posts image of corpse*
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:13 AM on September 21, 2005

The really amusing thing about all of this is the symmetry: Rothko on one side, dios on the other.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:19 AM on September 21, 2005

St. Chicken? That's awesome.

MetaFilter: Yer an idiot, No, your an idiot, No, you'er an idiot. No, u.r. an idiot. No, urine idiot. No, urea idiot.
posted by fenriq at 9:21 AM on September 21, 2005

Get over it Optimus Chyme... you've referenced that thread more than enough now.
posted by Witty at 9:21 AM on September 21, 2005

The really amusing thing about all of this is the symmetry: Rothko on one side, dios on the other.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:19 AM PST on September 21 [!]

You're so clever. Pat yourself on the back for being so smart.

From symmetry, I suppose I went into the Katrina threads and lambasted people for not doing anything charitable to help the victims. From symmetry, I then told people to "shut the fuck up" when they disagreed with me.

You're right, the symmetry is amusing, jackass.
posted by Rothko at 9:26 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko:Dios responds to posts like this with "One would think that the response would be:

"Great" or "Thank god" or "Yay!"

But then I see the reaction here."

That's not a troll, you subliterate yammering moron. That's a pretty understandable reaction to the politicization of tragedy.
Your assertion was not supported on its face. Your attempts to justify your bad behavior only emphasize how much of an unaware, mincing, mewling, dishonest and partisan fool you are. That you can see no difference between Bugbread and some of Dios' more inflamatory posts is not surprising. You can't see the differences within Dios's posts.
But hey, I expect some more unfocused insults and more buffoonery from you. Prove me right.
posted by klangklangston at 9:27 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko, the apparent fact that you can't percieve your own tiresome obsession with dios does not make it any less tiresome. The cumulative effect is, in fact, very much like the ALL CAPS SHOUTY parody above. You've got (at least) five comments about him in this thread, none of which are novel thoughts new to this thread -- you're carrying some serious dios baggage around, and don't seem to hesitate to pull it out and share.

You're not the only person who does this. I've said that much already. You do do it, though, and it is tiresome. The messenger who insists on delivering the message repeatedly to an indifferent audience is not the messenger in your trope.
posted by cortex at 9:28 AM on September 21, 2005

It's funny. I tend to disagree with Witty, Monju and Bugbread on a pretty regular basis on the blue. And while I will admit to calling them dirty names more often than I probably should, there's something almost refreshing about being on the same side as people you've disagreed with in the past.
posted by klangklangston at 9:29 AM on September 21, 2005

Oh, and Rothko, the first "shut the fuck up" in that thread came from Amberglow, directed at Dios. You should know that, what with you being his yapping dog sidekick and all.
posted by klangklangston at 9:31 AM on September 21, 2005

That's a pretty understandable reaction to the politicization of tragedy.
posted by klangklangston at 9:27 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Sorry, nothing personal, but the thead shows you're wrong on this. The fact that so many others in that thread interpreted his comments the same way I did goes a long way to back up my claim that he was picking a fight.

But hey, I expect that you'll ignore that fact. Prove me right.
posted by Rothko at 9:34 AM on September 21, 2005

Oh, and Rothko, the first "shut the fuck up" in that thread came from Amberglow, directed at Dios. You should know that, what with you being his yapping dog sidekick and all.
posted by klangklangston at 9:31 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Is that the only way you can defend Dios' trolling, with a completely inane non sequitor? Weak, dude.
posted by Rothko at 9:36 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: This comment isn't a troll, but an honest response, and not even meant as a subtle attack. Think of it as that "having a serious discussion with your SO" thing, where you say what annoys you about the other, but without intending any of it to be barbed. So:

I was stooping to what I see as your level. If you see it as stooping to Dios' level, you may understand why there is this occasional dissonance between us. I don't really know what Dios or PP's posts are like. For the most part, a single post by either one is followed by 20 or 30 posts in opposition, and the end result is that I leave the post with an image of all those responses, but not the initial posts. There are, of course, occassional posts that I read and remember, but they tend not to be the extreme ones, but the ones where the responses don't match the initial post. Perhaps this is because, in my mind, when someone posts a single dumb comment, and then it is well-countered, my mind resets the situational counter to zero, and both the lousy post and good response are forgotten (in the sense of "I forget who said what", if not what was said overall). When a person comes back again and again, the image sticks much better, even if their posts are countered. This may be why I have a very strong image of Bevets, but not of PP or Dios, because, as everyone points out, Dios and PP tend to "drop in, shit, leave". Anyway, point of all that is that any defence of Dios I've made here is purely in relation to his posts in this thread, and is not to be interpreted as a defence of Dios in general, because, to be honest, I have no idea, in general, if Dios is a troll, brilliant, misunderstood, passive-aggressive, combative, or anything else.

So, that said, I read Dios above (in this thread) saying that he posts against positions he disagrees with, instead of posting with positions he agrees with. His example, for example, was of saying "I don't think Walmart is evil for not selling a book that disparages Walmart", and that he is then usually interpreted to be saying "I think Walmart is good for...", which is not necessarily the case. That is, his arguments are arguments that he believes in, but they are arguments against positions he disagrees with, not arguments for positions that he agrees with. You then say that he has admitted he is a troll. I see no such admission. However, when you've disagreed with me about what someone has said in the past, you referred to my attempts to clarify what was actually said as "missing the forest for the trees" and "tedious hairsplitting" (that's a paraphrase, I forget the exact phrasing), which seems like someone being intellectually disgenuous, with the focus of roasting someone taking precedence over actual accuracy. That is, it seems to me (and I may be wrong, but this is how you read to me) that you are more interested in snarking and strong reaction than precision and accuracy.

I'm not saying you're Dios. I'm not saying Dios is better than you, nor that he's worse than you. I'm just saying that I was trying to treat you as I perceive you as treating others, and you saw my actions as trying to treat you as you perceive Dios treating others. That is, the way I see your actions is the same as you see Dios' actions, and this explains why we disagree so damn much (even though we're politically probably very similar).

Either way, I apologize for the trolling, and I'll try to be better. Some people are great all the time. Some people are jerks some of the time, but don't like that, and wish they weren't. Some people are jerks all the time and are fine with it. I wish I were in category 1, but judging from the naxosaxur incident, the wireless headphones incident, and now this, it looks like I'll have to settle for category 2.
posted by Bugbread at 9:39 AM on September 21, 2005

Get over it Optimus Chyme... you've referenced that thread more than enough now.
posted by Witty at 9:21 AM PST on September 21

Ya'll havin' a good time?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:42 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko writes "Klang: A is not B because I say so.
"Rothko: No, A is B because of comment C.
"Bugbread: Rothko is a troll! Rothko is a troll! Rothko is a troll, because I say so!"

This is simply not accurate. You've chosen to read that Dios comment in a particular way, but your interpretation is not transparent. bugbread pointed out that your interpretation was argument by assertion and that one can assert the opposite just as easily. That comment by Dios which you cite simply does not represent trolling, when read with any kind of openness it suggests that Dios was pissed off and showing it. He may have done that in a bad way, but that is not the same as trolling. You lose credibility by insisting that all he wanted was a fight.

I've bitten my tongue throughout this thread, and, Rothko, I've said this before, but it drives me crazy that you so quickly make your arguments here personal. I've read the whole sordid history between you and Dios, back into the DQ thread and beyond, and so I know that there was plenty of vituperative bullshit on both sides. Still, as far as political arguments go, if you think you can beat 'em with facts and logic then you should. As soon as you start to read every comment as personal your own credibility really suffers. I agree with your politics most of the time, but your comments are starting to take on the same noise value as those of PP because they seem not only knee-jerk, but also so driven by a personal agenda of hurt and rage that they risk having no content upon which their arguments are based.
posted by OmieWise at 9:43 AM on September 21, 2005

I've said this a thousand times, but:

I think of myself as pretty conservative. MeFi has a rather liberal demographic bias. But... conservatives who bitch and moan about the "echo chamber" are just making excuses.

Period.

If you are justifiably confident in your beliefs, you will be able to defend your views. If you have troulbe defending your views, the problem is likely with YOU. Those views are probably not grounded in any serious principles or thought. Someone who has something to say will NOT be deterred by demographic bias. They will NOT resort to the pathetic, whiny "wahhhhhhh!! liberals!!!! b-b-but Michael Moore! Klin-toooooooon!" schtick.

Conservatives like to think of themselves as reasonable, grounded people. Prove it. Don't punk out with the liberal boogeyman as cover.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:44 AM on September 21, 2005

Well said bugbread.
posted by OmieWise at 9:45 AM on September 21, 2005

It's like a troll daisy chain, with new participants joining in all the time.

It's called a circle-jerk. Please.

I mean, why would anyone with an opposing viewpoint even TRY to participate in a discussion when it's assumed that they're already wrong before hitting 'post'.

Witty, I agree that it's harder for a person holding a non-consensus view to voice an opinion here, or anywhere. And I understand and acknowledge that this place may seem like an echo chamber to people who honestly, sincerely see the world from the neoconservative perspective. Still, I believe, and have seen evidence, that most users here are open to well-considered, respectfully-voiced perspectives and opinions from the neocon perspective. Supportive links and other citations are gravy; I'm talking about simple use of logic and consistency.

From my experience, the gallery of neocon personalities here on MeFi is generally thin on substance, and pretty high on easy jab-and-run trolling. I have friends and family with whom I have respectful disagreements about US foreign policy, etc, as I'm sure a lot of the progressives here do. We're not closed to hearing the neocon arguments; we're just closed to flamebaiting and easy snipes that don't allow us to engage ideas.

For a lot of us, this lack of idea-rich dialogue with the right leads us to conclude that so much of the transparently idiotic behavior of the Bush administration is not arguable in rational terms, and that its proponents must stoop to deflecting and distracting tactics. I reserve that judgement. I'm waiting for an intelligent and thoughtful neocon poster to emerge and take on the responsabilities of logic, honesty, and intelectual rigor, so that I can actually engage this person. I've seen little flashes of this here and there, but no one has emerged into MeFi celebrity in the way that the neocon trolls have. It's a pity. I'm still waiting.
posted by squirrel at 9:46 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Sorry, nothing personal, but the thead shows you're wrong on this. The fact that so many others in that thread interpreted his comments the same way I did goes a long way to back up my claim that he was picking a fight.

But hey, I expect that you'll ignore that fact. Prove me right."

Ok, again, you're being intellectually dishonest here. The start is fine, but then claiming that the thread backing up your claim is a "fact", and disagreeing it is "ignoring it", is intellectually dishonest. That is, one could just as easily state: "The thread shows that MeFi is an echo chamber. The fact that so many people disagreed with Dios in that thread goes a long way to back up my claim that it's an echo chamber. But I expect you'll ignore that fact. Prove me right."

Frankly stated, that's just an extremely "trollish" (in the way MeFi uses the word troll, as opposed to the more classical "say things you don't think just to start a fight" sense) way to phrase something. It's the same argument style (sorry) that Bevets uses. "The Biblical version of creation is true, and gaps in the archaelogical record back that claim up, but I expect atheists to ignore that fact. Prove me right."

Rothko : "Oh, and Rothko, the first 'shut the fuck up' in that thread came from Amberglow, directed at Dios. You should know that, what with you being his yapping dog sidekick and all.
posted by klangklangston at 9:31 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Is that the only way you can defend Dios" trolling, with a completely inane non sequitor? Weak, dude."

This, I don't even understand. You make a non sequitor involving the phrase "shut the fuck up", which does not directly state, but implies, that Dios said it. Someone then points out that it wasn't Dios, but Amberglow, and you call that an inane non sequitor? What am I missing here?
posted by Bugbread at 9:47 AM on September 21, 2005

That is, his arguments are arguments that he believes in, but they are arguments against positions he disagrees with, not arguments for positions that he agrees with.

Given the aggressive and obnoxious way Dios frames his "arguments", there is no difference between what you've just put forth and the consensus of the semi-official, community definitions of the "Internet Troll".

You like logic, clearly. So the only logical way that you can think Dios is not a troll, given that he admits he makes arguments that he doesn't believe in, is that you don't believe that those kinds of contributions are aggressive and obnoxious. Draw a Venn diagram if it helps.

Unfortunately for your argument, the overall consensus (nothing to do with my personal opinion, clearly given the hatred some are happy to throw my way) is that his comments are aggressive and obnoxious. Therefore he is a troll.

I'm not saying you're Dios.

You did, in so many words. Apology accepted.
posted by Rothko at 9:50 AM on September 21, 2005

*hands stav a snifter of crotch*
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:50 AM on September 21, 2005

I've been sitting this one out, but as someone who disagrees with pretty much everything said on the site, I've found it to be less of an "echo chamber" lately, and most political-type threads have at least a few dissenters of various political stripes (even if some threads devolve into name calling, whose fault that is I leave to the reader). I've noticed an improvement since the presidential election last year, and said so on more than one occasion, so kudos Metafilter, I guess.

Also, dios is a good guy, and severely misread, misunderstood and unfairly personally attacked here by a minority, and fairly attacked on the basis of his opinion by a majority .
posted by loquax at 9:51 AM on September 21, 2005

DuffStone started with asking for evidence and such and I was pretty hopeful about him but I guess that's not to be.

It seems it'd be a pretty sweet gig, being MeFi's lone conservative voice of reason, and you'd certainly get lots of attention, but no one has taken that challenge. Dios has posted real analysis and evidence a few times but it was mostly that hit-and-run bullshit. Surely there's someone.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:51 AM on September 21, 2005

This, I don't even understand. You make a non sequitor involving the phrase "shut the fuck up", which does not directly state, but implies, that Dios said it. Someone then points out that it wasn't Dios, but Amberglow, and you call that an inane non sequitor? What am I missing here?
posted by bugbread at 9:47 AM PST on September 21 [!]

You're missing the fact that Dios said it. Whether or not Amberglow said it does not excuse Dios' behavior. Whether or not I am Amberglow's "yapping dog sidekick" has nothing to do with Dios' behavior. It's a trollish non sequitor, but get those kicks in while you can!
posted by Rothko at 9:53 AM on September 21, 2005

squirrel : "And I understand and acknowledge that this place may seem like an echo chamber to people who honestly, sincerely see the world from the neoconservative perspective."

Actually, it seems like an echo chamber to some of us who are pretty liberal too. But I generally agree with what you're saying. I think that the truth of the matter isn't so much that an unreasonably high standard is held for conservative arguments, but that an unreasonably low one is held for liberal arguments. That is, a kick ass conservative poster can come here and probably be largely respected and accepted, as well as well-liked. A run-of-the-mill or substandard conservative will get a new asshole ripped. A kick ass liberal poster can come here and probably be largely respected, accepted, and well-liked. A run-of-the-mill or substandard liberal will still be accepted and well-liked, but probably just get fewer props for their posts.

Perhaps I should say that the double-standard has largely resulted in an echo chamber, even though few members actively want an echo chamber.
posted by Bugbread at 9:54 AM on September 21, 2005

And justifiably mocked and attacked on the basis of his disingenuous behavior, absurd contortions of non-logic, and spiteful attitude. Fuck him, and others like him.
posted by hototogisu at 9:59 AM on September 21, 2005

that should have gone to loquax.

Alex: do you ever get tired of accepting apologies? It must be rough getting slighted so fucking often.
posted by hototogisu at 10:01 AM on September 21, 2005

an unreasonably low [standard] is held for liberal arguments
posted by bugbread at 9:54 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Untrue. y2karl takes a lot of flack for his political views, as did troutfishing, before he was pretty much shouted out.
posted by Rothko at 10:03 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko writes "It's a trollish non sequitor, but get those kicks in while you can!"

No, bullshit bullshit bullshit. It was bad behavior when dios said it, but not "a trollish non sequitor" because it was a reponse to how other people were treating him in the thread.
posted by OmieWise at 10:03 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "given that he admits he makes arguments that he doesn't believe in"

When does he admit this? (I'm not denying that he admits it, but I haven't seen it).

Rothko : "Unfortunately for your argument, the overall consensus (nothing to do with my personal opinion, clearly given the hatred some are happy to throw my way) is that his comments are aggressive and obnoxious. Therefore he is a troll."

Well, now, hold on pardner. As I said, my arguments weren't against Dios being a troll. I tried to make it clear (but apparently didn't succeed) that I don't know enough about what Dios has said to judge whether or not he is a troll. So him being a troll isn't really something unfortunate for my argument.

Bugbread: "I'm not saying you're Dios.

Rothko : "You did, in so many words."

Well, I certainly didn't mean to. I meant to say "You seem, to me, to behave like Dios." I could very well be wrong (but, to be honest, neither you or I are probably a good judge of that, as we're both too close to the topic).

Rothko : "You're missing the fact that Dios said it."

You're right. I was under the mistaken impression that your reference was to who said it first, and amberglow was the first to say it. Rereading, I see that you didn't refer to who said it first, but just who said it, so, yeah, both amberglow and dios sucked in that exchange. Sorry.

Rothko : "Whether or not I am Amberglow's 'yapping dog sidekick' has nothing to do with Dios" behavior. It's a trollish non sequitor, but get those kicks in while you can!"

Ah, the trollish non-sequitor was aimed at the amberglow's yapping sidekick part; I thought it was at the "Dios didn't say it first" part. In which case, yeah, it's trollish (again, using the apparently current definition of trollish). I don't know if it's a non-sequitur, but only because I don't feel comfortable enough with the nuances of the term to state anything either way.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: Perhaps dates confuse you as much as words. Check the date on the comment from Dios that you posted, and check the date on Amberglow's.
Hardly trollish if you're responding in the same language that you're addressed with.
posted by klangklangston at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2005

he makes arguments that he doesn't believe in

Whence? How the fuck did contrarian argument get so reviled? If I call out an argument that Coke is unhealthy because it can dissolve a nail in four days what with the phosphoric acid and all as bullshit, that does not mean I believe that Coke is healthy. I'd be completely on the level stating, after that, that I don't believe that Coke is healthy. I feel like you'd label me either (1) a Coke apologist or (2) a troll because I made an argument that I don't believe in.

Dios has been a real dick at times. He's let his emotions get into stuff, he's made snarky comments, he's been inflammatory. None of that is debatable; when people say he's a good guy, or misunderstood, I believe they hold that opinion despite his warts, not as a denial of them. Kind of a complicated situation -- not so utterly black and white to those of us not emotionally invested in his character.

It's just plain dishonest to insist that arguing against a position but not for an opposing position is trolling.
posted by cortex at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2005

Some calming kabuki..

posted by peacay at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2005

(Unless, of course, you're arguing that Amberglow IS the analog of Dios. But I have a feeling you're not.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:12 AM on September 21, 2005

It was bad behavior when dios said it, but not "a trollish non sequitor" because it was a reponse to how other people were treating him in the thread.
posted by OmieWise at 10:03 AM PST on September 21 [!]

It's not his fault he's a troll. Check.
posted by Rothko at 10:12 AM on September 21, 2005

Ah, yes, Peacay. I think we have stumbled into another MeTa Kabuki afternoon. I've gotta leave for work soon enough, so perhaps someone else will put their greasepaint on so that Alex can continue to emote.
posted by klangklangston at 10:13 AM on September 21, 2005

"It's not his fault he's a troll. Check."
It's not your fault that you're illiterate. Check.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on September 21, 2005

Isn't that ukiyo-e? Maybe it's not a wood block print. I can't tell.
posted by hototogisu at 10:15 AM on September 21, 2005

Oh Christ, let it go...
posted by SweetJesus at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2005

When does he admit this? (I'm not denying that he admits it, but I haven't seen it).
by bugbread at 10:07 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Here. "Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position."
posted by Rothko at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2005

*crochets a snifter of sgt. serenity*
posted by sciurus at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2005

Hardly trollish if you're responding in the same language that you're addressed with.
posted by klangklangston at 10:08 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Whatever, weasel.
posted by Rothko at 10:18 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Untrue. y2karl takes a lot of flack for his political views, as did troutfishing, before he was pretty much shouted out."

Well (if memory serves), y2k got flack for amount of material on front page, and troutfishing for sheer amount of material in general (axe-grinding cumulatively, not on the basis of individual posts). We're all in theoretical grounds, so it's pretty much impossible to say for sure, but I suspect that troutfishing, for example, would have had the same thing happen if he'd posted an extremely high volume of posts about tattoos, or cats, or laser pointers, or what-have-you. That is, I believe that he took a lot of flack for repeated single-topic posting, and not for the content of that topic (but, again, memory is weak, so I may be wrong).

Regardless, when I say "low standards for liberal posters", I mean that I, as a relatively uninformed liberal, can drop into pretty much any post and make a little jab at Bush, and that's groovy, but that a relatively uninformed conservative can't drop into any post and make a jab at Clinton (or the like). I'm certainly not saying there are no standards for liberals, and impossible standards for conservatives, just that the standards are "low" and "high".
posted by Bugbread at 10:18 AM on September 21, 2005

(Unless, of course, you're arguing that Amberglow IS the analog of Dios. But I have a feeling you're not.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:12 AM PST on September 21 [!]

He doesn't make a habit of fucking up threads. So, no, amberglow is no analog of dios, despite your lame, weak attempt to change the subject.
posted by Rothko at 10:20 AM on September 21, 2005

It's not his fault he's a troll. Check.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by cortex at 10:21 AM on September 21, 2005

bugbread: that's hardly true, the liberals here drop snarky, entirely less-than-positive remarks on Clinton all the time.
posted by hototogisu at 10:23 AM on September 21, 2005

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by cortex at 10:21 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Think whatever you like. And try to come up with something a bit more original next time.
posted by Rothko at 10:24 AM on September 21, 2005

I mean that I, as a relatively uninformed liberal, can drop into pretty much any post and make a little jab at Bush, and that's groovy, but that a relatively uninformed conservative can't drop into any post and make a jab at Clinton (or the like).

Which of those two men is likely to be off-topic in a present-day poltiical thread?

There's your answer. When conservatives pull out the Clinton (whom I loathe, if that has any bearing) card all the time, I can't help but feel they are trying to derail the conversation.


Who fucking cares about Clinton anymore!?
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:27 AM on September 21, 2005

What sonofsamiam and squirrel have said. In spades.

I mean, seriously, Mefi does lean left. It's true. No one will deny this. When I go visit my more "conservative" minded family members, and am surrounded by people who think very differently than I, I do my level best to proceed with caution, understanding, reasoning, well referenced fact, courtesy and aplomb.

I ask questions, respond tactfully and thoughtfully, take their veiled insults in stride, try to see where they are coming from and argue in a way that makes sense to them.

Going in six guns shooting would be, well, detrimental and destructive. I would be throwing a turd in the pond, trolling, so to speak. Being an agent provocateur does very little to advance understanding, and does a whole hell of alot towards making the conversational space untenable.
posted by Freen at 10:27 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Here. 'Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position.'"

I'm sorry, I'm reading it, but I don't see it. He argues against positions he disagrees with (or, possibly, against specious arguments for positions he does agree with, as cortex's Coke example. It's a little hard to tell from Dios's post, as he uses the word "nonsense", which might refer to positions, and might refer to arguments. Either way, though, it certainly refers to things he disagrees with). How does that equate being a troll? That is, how does that equate arguing a position you disagree with?

As I see it:
1. Arguing for a position that you actually disagree with is trolling.
2. Arguing against a position that you actually disagree with is the opposite of 1.
3. Dios has stated that he argues against positions he actually disagrees with.
4. Therefore, Dios is saying that he's doing 2, which is the opposite of 1.
5. Therefore, Dios is saying that he's doing the opposite of trolling.

Note, I'm not talking about whether Dios is in fact a troll, because I really don't know. But you're saying he's admitted he's a troll, and you're pointing to a block of text that, to me, shows Dios saying that he isn't a troll. What am I missing?
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on September 21, 2005

"Being a contrarian doesn't mean that one is the advocate for the contrary position."

Jesus Christ, Alex, it doesn't. He's correct. Contrarianism is imporant, vital; it's the only thing allows for other than the binary "you're with me or you're with THEM" attitudes that so poison discussion of complex issues. It is most certainly not the same as just saying things to rile folks up. I was thinking perhaps you make the distinction based on the intent of the speaker (and your own perception of his intent as unreconcilably ill), but now I'm wondering if you even make the distinction at all.

You keep point to his statement about contrarianism in this thread and saying, "see, he's a troll!" It's ridiculous.
posted by cortex at 10:28 AM on September 21, 2005

I'm certainly not saying there are no standards for liberals, and impossible standards for conservatives, just that the standards are "low" and "high".

Good point, bugbread; I agree. What to do about it, I don't know.
posted by squirrel at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2005

Regardless, when I say "low standards for liberal posters", I mean that I, as a relatively uninformed liberal,

And there are tons of them.

can drop into pretty much any post and make a little jab at Bush, and that's groovy, but that a relatively uninformed conservative can't drop into any post and make a jab at Clinton (or the like).

And God help them if they do. A MeTa thread is sure to follow. They will be labeled, insulted, attacked, threatened, etc.

I'm certainly not saying there are no standards for liberals, and impossible standards for conservatives, just that the standards are "low" and "high".

Exactly.
posted by Witty at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2005

(Apologies for not including a pop culture reference by which you could dismiss that last comment. Will try harder in the future.)
posted by cortex at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2005

There's your answer. When conservatives pull out the Clinton (whom I loathe, if that has any bearing) card all the time, I can't help but feel they are trying to derail the conversation.

I think it was used as an example, sonofsamiam.
posted by Witty at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2005

troutfishing and fold and mutilate were fairly roundly rebuked, to the degree that they are rarely seen on the site these days.

Mostly for content, and the fairly consistent, abrasive, yet generally well researched presentation of their particular worldviews.

on preview: Witty, Clinton is irrelevant. Totally, Utterly, and Explosively Irrelevant. Plus he's a douche who rode on the coattails of policy outlined by Bush Sr. I await with glee my pending Meta callout.
posted by Freen at 10:33 AM on September 21, 2005

Debate, MeFi-style.

---

Man: I came here for a good argument!

   Other Man: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

   Other Man: Well! it CAN be!

Man: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

   Other Man: No it isn't!

Man: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

   Other Man: Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!

Man: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

   Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

   Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

   Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

   Other Man: It is NOT!

Man: It is!

   Other Man: Not at all!

Man: It is!

(The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)

   Other Man: Thank you, that's it.

---

I leave it to the reader to determine which roles our infamous MeFi citizens perform.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:34 AM on September 21, 2005

hototogisu : "bugbread: that's hardly true, the liberals here drop snarky, entirely less-than-positive remarks on Clinton all the time."

You're probably right. I was kinda pressed for a Democrat, and my mind is slipping with the nighttime.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that there aren't that many human sacred cows on the left. That is, you can insult Dean, Jackson, Obama, Clinton, etc., with relative impunity. Perhaps what I should have said is that a very high burden of proof is required of people defending conservatives, while it isn't so much of people defending liberals. Say "Clinton did a fine job", and you don't have to provide multiple links and citations, but say the same about anyone in the Republican party, and you do.

And, again, don't get me wrong. I certainly don't think that the standards should be lowered. If anything, I wish we had both more intelligent conservative posters and less ignorant liberal posters (like myself). My ideal would be a political thread where 1) I wouldn't say anything, because I'd clearly be out of my league, and 2) I'd learn a fuckload by watching intelligent, educated folks discussing things.

Not, of course, that we should set up rules or anything. I'm talking about "what would be great". I realize it won't happen, and it's a shame. It's nobody's fault, it's just a result of the political distribution of site members.
posted by Bugbread at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2005

Bugbread, it's very simple:

• Dios admitted arguing positions he didn't agree with (or about subjects he didn't even know much about)
• Dios did not admit that his behavior was meant to provoke a fight
• Many people here (including myself) felt and still feel that his behavior is meant to provoke a fight

Therefore, by most classic definitions of the Internet Troll, and by the examples I and others have provided, he is one such example.
posted by Rothko at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Dios admitted arguing positions he didn't agree with"

Where?
posted by Bugbread at 10:39 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: "Perhaps the amount of come you've consumed has clouded your ability to think rationally. You should come back when you have cleared it out of your head." (That's an unwarranted flame.)

"I believe that swallowing come detrimentally affects the ability of commenters to be rational. Would you like to comment, Alex?" (That's a troll).

"You say that swallowing come is bad because it makes you irrational? I say it's good because it makes you happy!" (Contrarian).

But keep going, Alex. You're an angry man on the internet. Revel in it! (Troll).
posted by klangklangston at 10:40 AM on September 21, 2005

That kabuki image comes from the Kyoto University Library collection 'Kunijo Kabuki Ekotoba'.

These series (types) of images are an important reference point in studying the history and practicalities of the kabuki, or Japanese classical play.

I can't conclusively tell, because there may be a little bit of Japan-0-english confusion, as to whether the scans were of the original 350 year old manuscript or just a reproduction. I think it's the former, because they go on to say how this particular manuscript series is one of only 4 of this type in existence.

This style of manuscript is referred to as Naraehon, indicating that it was produced by a number of painters, the Edokoro, at the Kasuga and various other shrines in the city of Naga.

This particular manuscript was found among other documents in a house in Oshikoji street in Kyoto - in Kinsa's house actually - and we are fortunate that the University purchased it before its true worth became widely known.

The many scans at this site, like the one above, do have intrinsic beauty but I'm not convinced that I should make a post about it/them.

What do you think?
posted by peacay at 10:41 AM on September 21, 2005

Going as fast as possible with a standard mouse wheel, I can scroll from top to bottom of this page in just under 13 seconds
posted by poppo at 10:42 AM on September 21, 2005

Bugbread, why are YOU bothering with this thread now? Every point you make is just denied offhand with repeated assertions of "I'm right and you're wrong", and the only positive content offered by your interlocutor is that "Everybody knows Dios is a poopyhead!" I suggest you retire before they-who-know-who-they-are decide you must be a "troll" and a "conservative" too.
posted by davy at 10:42 AM on September 21, 2005

bugbread: even that I disagree with. If you say "Clinton did a good job" you'll have six people saying exactly what Freen just said. Actually, if you said "George Bush the Original did a good job", you'd have the same spread as with Clinton.

The difference, bugbread, between yourself and the "average conservative poster" (really, do we even have an average conservative poster? If anything, the average is tipped in favor of dios, et al. by virtue of post-volume), is that you don't cringe away from logic and then bitch about witch hunts.

Liberals get called out here all the time.
posted by hototogisu at 10:42 AM on September 21, 2005

I wouldn't agree that Clinton is irrelevant, but using the Clinton Card, as it were, is rather unhelpful to most neocon purposes. What neocons seem to miss, in their blinding, rabid hatred of the man, is that progressives see the Clinton presidency, while rife with internal failures, as a glaring example of the intellectual dishonesty and bullying hegemony of the current right wing.

I mean, talk about MeFi holding users of different stripes to different standards! Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob, while Bush is given accolades from a neocon congress for... for... *sigh* for such abominable incompetence, and lying, and etc.

The Clinton Card will never play in favor of any neocon argument. It's a wild card that always wins for the progressive in any argument because it represents a huge, huge moral failure on the right.
posted by squirrel at 10:43 AM on September 21, 2005

davy: pearls before swine, over and over again. It'd be nice if the cycle would break--as it turns out, sentience is a lot rarer than it looks like.
posted by hototogisu at 10:43 AM on September 21, 2005

Alex: According to your point #2, he'd have to admit to being a troll in order to not be a troll. Which is why you shouldn't try to think about these things when you're so clearly infected with your bout of idiotfluenza.
(If you want to see real trolling, check out the livejournal debate community).
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 AM on September 21, 2005

Where?
posted by bugbread at 10:39 AM PST on September 21 [!]

*sigh* Here.
posted by Rothko at 10:46 AM on September 21, 2005

peacay: well, it's described as an "Illustrated Manuscript of Japanese Classical Play Kabuki."
I thought you were calling the manuscript kabuki--the manuscript is a manuscript; the play's the kabuki. We do not disagree.

It'd make a swell post, but I'd be surprised if no one else has done something very similar
posted by hototogisu at 10:48 AM on September 21, 2005

Alex: According to your point #2, he'd have to admit to being a troll in order to not be a troll.
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 AM PST on September 21 [!]

Are you really this dense in real life?
posted by Rothko at 10:49 AM on September 21, 2005

I think that would be a fantastic post, peacay. Do you have access to similar resources on Noh?
posted by sciurus at 10:49 AM on September 21, 2005

Liberals get called out here all the time.

Yea... of course, since there's about 25,000 of them here. But they don't get called out for BEING liberal in a political debate, whose arguements are nothing more than an effort to incite arguments or insult those who might hold opposing viewpoints and so forth.
posted by Witty at 10:49 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko,
I had a longer very self-righteous post written about how you've lost all of my respect. I'm not going to post it, but I do want you to know that I have considered myself an ally of yours, someone who shared most of your political sentiments and considered you wrongly treated here at times; but, your obdurate refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong, your insistence that your personal grudges (however old) are more important than comity, and your evident disdain for any semblance of intellectual honesty have made me revise my opinion. I have no doubt you don't care what PP thinks of you, but I used to be on your side.

On preview-klangklangston's latest comments seem to be a way to cleverly hide homophobia inside a critique of Rothko's behavior (unless they're quotes from someplace?) Of course they are worded carefully, but I'm not really sure how else to take them; if they were written about a woman, out of the blue like that, I would certainly think they were misogynistic. I don't condone them, nor do I think that Rothko has done anything that warrants them, but my desire to argue for Rothko is exhausted by his own behavior.
posted by OmieWise at 10:51 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko: How about a direct quote, not just some legerdemain and a vague #name tage link?
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on September 21, 2005

No, liberals get called out for using shit logic or being histrionic, irrational bastards. As it should be. It's a correlation that two of the most prominent conservative posters here fit those criteria on a daily basis. It's not causation.
posted by hototogisu at 10:52 AM on September 21, 2005

Omie: They were meant to be deliberately inflamatory, as is sort of necessary for a proper flame or troll. I have no personal feeling on come swallowing, aside from the fairly obvious belief that it is unlikely to affect rationality one way or the other.
posted by klangklangston at 10:53 AM on September 21, 2005

No, liberals get called out for using shit logic or being histrionic, irrational bastards. As it should be.

But not for simply being "trolls" (which is what conservatives are always accused of, in one form or another) and certainly not by other liberals.
posted by Witty at 10:56 AM on September 21, 2005

sciurus...what's Noh? I was actually kind of thinking of posting at my site..heh
hototogisu...I only meant it depicted the kabuki. Either way, the calming influence didn't quite work. Oh well. They are however pretty pictures.
posted by peacay at 10:56 AM on September 21, 2005

peacay : "I can't conclusively tell, because there may be a little bit of Japan-0-english confusion, as to whether the scans were of the original 350 year old manuscript or just a reproduction."

The Japanese version of the explanation page doesn't contain anything analoguous to the expression "reproduction shown here" on the English explanation page, so I'm pretty sure it was just Japan-O-English confusion.

davy : "Bugbread, why are YOU bothering with this thread now?"

Hehe. You remember our zombie discussion, right? That's just the kinda guy I am!

Hototogisu: Thanks for the comments. The more I think about this, the more I'm growing to suspect that the issue is entirely one of numbers, and that you're right. That is, it's not that standards are different as much as it is that the statistical likelihood of a post being disagreed with is higher. If a liberal makes an unsupported statement, the amount of people who disagree strongly enough to raise a fuss (general conservatives and particularly exacting liberals) is relatively low, so some statements get a callout, and others don't. If a conservative makes an unsupported statement, the amount of people who disagree strongly enough to raise a fuss (general liberals and particularly exacting conservatives) is much higher, making the likelihood of a callout much higher, as well as the likelihood of a pileon. It isn't that the standards are different so much as the population skew.

Plus, of course, there's the issue of "how well it sticks in my memory". If I see three liberal posts, each with one response by another liberal challenging it to some degree, and then one conservative post, with 40 responses challenging it to some degree, my memory registers the conservative post much more than the liberal posts (and, of course, if the tables were turned, my memory would be flipped likewise).

Anyway, thanks for getting me thinking about the specifics. I need to revise some opinions.
posted by Bugbread at 10:56 AM on September 21, 2005

Never, once, in all the years I have been a conservative MeFi member, have I been called out for stating my views, nor have I ever felt persecuted, shouted down, or marginalized in any way. If any conservative MeFi'ers feel this way, I suggest that you grow a pair.

The idea that the liberal bias is the real reason behind certain posters' reputations around here is a paranoid persecution fantasy.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:57 AM on September 21, 2005

It's funny that someone suggests that the right needs a y2karl {vomits}. I can imagine the nightmare.

I'm no fan of y2karl, but everytime we have this discussion his name is brought up as some holy god upon the lefty mountain of truth. As if this is all one big game and the left by his mere presence in the clean up spot puts them in a whole new class.

If you are justifiably confident in your beliefs, you will be able to defend your views. If you have troulbe defending your views, the problem is likely with YOU.

The problem is if you're conservative and give conservative view points you'll spend the next 6 hours responding to 10 different people. Defending your views against 90 percent of the people in the thread is a little more difficult than going with the flow. A conservative y2karl would have to quit his job simply to avoid burnout.

Someone on the left on metafilter can ask when the marines will start "raping and pillaging" and it basically goes unnoticed. An equivalent statement on the right would be lambasted.
posted by justgary at 10:59 AM on September 21, 2005

peacay, Noh isn't much like Kabuki, but it is another form of Japanese drama, one that often bores the gourd out of me. It does have its own stark beauty though, when I'm in the right mood.
posted by sciurus at 11:01 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "*sigh* Here."

Hrm...We don't see to be communicating. Let's try this: Which of these points are we disagreeing about?

Peacay: Wiki for Noh (I started an explanation, but it was growing unwieldy, and Wikipedia no doubt kicks my ass on it)
posted by Bugbread at 11:04 AM on September 21, 2005

I have no doubt you don't care what PP thinks of you, but I used to be on your side.
posted by OmieWise at 10:51 AM PST on September 21 [!]

It's not about sides, regardless of what you may think about me personally.

Actually, PP and I have exchanged emails in the past from AskMe threads. PP's a decent guy, despite my disagreement with his political views. I don't particularly care what he thinks about me, and I'm sure he thinks I'm an idiot, but I have no problem with him.

Given your incorrect assumption that I dislike Dios because I don't share his political views, or that I should respect you because we may share similar views, it's probably best that you and I don't "respect" each other. Let's just leave it at that.
posted by Rothko at 11:04 AM on September 21, 2005

I love those Chikamatsu plays, they're so incredibly melodramatic!

"My liege, to prove my loyalty to you I will pluck mine eyeball from my head!"

Meanwhile, the emperor's child is swapped with a peasant's, and set adrift in the bulrushes! An army swoops in and decapitates the court! The loyal courtier was in fact a dedicated traitor! And so forth! :)
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:04 AM on September 21, 2005

Fuck dude - is this the second AlexReynolds burnout thread?

/fetchs jumbo popcorn and prepares photoshop.
posted by longbaugh at 11:04 AM on September 21, 2005

bugbread: I think you're right to some degree. But I also think you're relying too much on everyone being forthright and honest, which isn't true. sonofsamiam is doing just fine with his commentary, cause he's not a fucking dick about it. That's the skew. It's not a more liberals vs. fewer conservatives thing, it's a function of *this particular* population, and the certain posters who have flourished here.

I also think that there are far more callouts of liberals than we collectively acknowledge--none of the liberals harp on being called out for being "liberal" over and over again. They either defend their positions to the death, leave in a huff, or recant. They deal with it as it is, rather than skirting the issue with arguments founded only on mefi interpersonal politics.

peacay: man, Nō is some awesome stuff, though I probably have to admit to enjoying reading it far more than watching it. Are you a Björk fan at all? She put a Nō singer on her latest album, the soundtrack to Drawing Restraint 9.
posted by hototogisu at 11:06 AM on September 21, 2005

Sciurus: Ever see the flick Double Suicide? It's done in semi-Noh form and is really, really good.

(Oh, and Bugbread, I've been attacked for not being "liberal enough" even though I consider myself pretty liberal... I think that's one of the biggest problems with an echo chamber/groupthink discussion... But hey, I still value getting into scraps with you over race and things like that, which I think we have very different views of, and I can still value your opinion... Of course, I also value Loquax's opinion, despite the fact that he's (gasp) conservative).
posted by klangklangston at 11:06 AM on September 21, 2005

Let's try this: Which of these points are we disagreeing about?

The third one. It can only be resolved when you know more about his posting history and re-read the link I gave you. I can't do that work for you.
posted by Rothko at 11:06 AM on September 21, 2005

klangklangston, I've not seen that. I'll get it from my library though, sounds interesting.
posted by sciurus at 11:08 AM on September 21, 2005

Though I should amend that: we have a few liberals here who just can't act like adults, regardless. When I'm Stalin, we can ban them too.
posted by hototogisu at 11:10 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko writes "It's not about sides, regardless of what you may think about me personally."

Well then, I have idea what the fuck you're talking about.
posted by OmieWise at 11:12 AM on September 21, 2005

*no idea*
posted by OmieWise at 11:12 AM on September 21, 2005

The kabuki flame out thread. An exquisitely beautiful dance for screaming couples armed with paintbrushes and ninja swords.

Thanks bugbread, sciurus, hototogisu and klangklangston. Sushi for thought.
posted by peacay at 11:14 AM on September 21, 2005

Rothko : "Let's try this: Which of these points are we disagreeing about?

The third one. It can only be resolved when you know more about his posting history and re-read the link I gave you. I can't do that work for you."

Ok. Thank you. I have an additional question, then: why do you think a disagreement about what Dios has said in this post needs to be cross-referenced with his posting history in order to determine what he's saying in this post?

That is, I can clearly understand that you'd have to look at his post history to determine if, for example, this post here is telling the truth, or if he is really a troll, or the like. However, why do we have to look at his post history to determine just what he is saying in this post?
posted by Bugbread at 11:15 AM on September 21, 2005

Someone on the left on metafilter can ask when the marines will start "raping and pillaging" and it basically goes unnoticed. An equivalent statement on the right would be lambasted.
posted by justgary at 10:59 AM PST on September 21

Uh, you and J.P. Hung called him out in that very thread; what the hell do you want? A 250-comment MeTa post?

Oh.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 AM on September 21, 2005

I remember when these kinds of posts would have 20 comments of silly one-liners after every 50 of earnest, hopelessly entangled grudge-settling and shouting. Good times.

I can't figure out why people are still posting to this thread! Help.
posted by furiousthought at 11:16 AM on September 21, 2005

(Sorry, forgot to check metafilthy formatting on that quote. First line should have been "Bugbread:", second line should have been "Rothko:")
posted by Bugbread at 11:17 AM on September 21, 2005

Uh, you and J.P. Hung called him out in that very thread; what the hell do you want?

Two people, me included. Exactly.

Regardless, I would never call someone out on meta.
posted by justgary at 11:21 AM on September 21, 2005

klangklangston writes "Omie: They were meant to be deliberately inflamatory, as is sort of necessary for a proper flame or troll. I have no personal feeling on come swallowing, aside from the fairly obvious belief that it is unlikely to affect rationality one way or the other."

Fair enough.
posted by OmieWise at 11:21 AM on September 21, 2005

furiousthought : "I can't figure out why people are still posting to this thread! Help."

Help is on the way!!

The answers are: I am on a night shift tomorrow, so I have to stay up late, AND
I like discussion/debate, AND
I live in a non-English speaking country, so the internet is pretty much my only venue for debate in my native tongue, AND
Metafilter, while having its problems, is a pretty good site, so I get attracted to discussion here, BUT
I get frustrated when I see arguments that appear poor, but earnest, so I latch on to them in an effort to improve the discussion, AND
Conversely I enjoy arguments that are constructed well, SO
Here I am.
posted by Bugbread at 11:22 AM on September 21, 2005

(and if someone asked about those left in the superdome the same question I think the response would have been a little different.)
posted by justgary at 11:23 AM on September 21, 2005

What bugbread said, mixed in with a little bit of being bored at work. For the record, I am in favor of more kabuki-noh-discussion interjections.
posted by cortex at 11:36 AM on September 21, 2005

(and without the non-English speaking country part)
posted by cortex at 11:38 AM on September 21, 2005

Here are a bunch of Noh masks, hidden behind a craptacular web page.
posted by sciurus at 11:39 AM on September 21, 2005

I mean, seriously, Mefi does lean left. It's true. No one will deny this.

*ahem*

If Metafilter was a German politician, it'd be Angela Merckel. If it was Spanish, it'd be Aznar. If it was Ukrainian... nah that's not a good one.

Basically, as has already been delicately hinted at by matteo, while American right wingers - who by non-American standards are so far on the right it's not even measurable - delight in the fantasy they are getting ferocious opposition from a left wing, American liberals are not really leftists at all. They're more like Bavarian Christian Democrats. Sorry. Here, have some of this for consolation:


posted by funambulist at 11:40 AM on September 21, 2005

America: Fat, lazy, violent, greedy, trollish and even our liberals are fucking right wing.

If we could harness the bloviating in this thread alone for wind power, we'd be out of Iraq tomorrow.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:49 AM on September 21, 2005

I will now cut off my own hand.
posted by Mid at 11:55 AM on September 21, 2005

Fuck sciurus you weren't kidding about that website quality...I thought it was crashing my pc. Alls well that ends well...I did make a post in the end.
posted by peacay at 12:01 PM on September 21, 2005

funambulist, that should have been a very large biscuit, not beers. Good point, by the way.
posted by gsb at 12:17 PM on September 21, 2005

I will now cut off my own hand.

Finally, some resolution.
posted by cortex at 12:28 PM on September 21, 2005

Did you even bother to read what I posted above? What I said was clear: I left this site at the beginning of the month. I haven't been back here at all. People still e-mail me. One in particular mentioned that this thread existed. I checked it out. I only stopped in to make a fairly reasonable request.

Dios, if you're still reading this, you may find this AskMe post enlightening.
posted by mkultra at 12:35 PM on September 21, 2005

the answer to the "where's quonsar?" question is as follows:

http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/9860#234169
posted by shmegegge at 12:51 PM on September 21, 2005

Easy way to suicide an account:

1) Open up text editor.
2) Mash keyboard.
3) Select "change password" option.
4) Copy and paste gibberish into the password boxes.
5) Clean break, no MeTa flameout for YOU!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:01 PM on September 21, 2005

I can't believe this thread contains 271 comments so far, even if there only a dozen or so participants. Yikes. Does this mean mean people actually get paid to sit in corporate cubicles and do Metatalk?

To wrap up my interest in this thread:

1) I do not take a position on dios' and/or Paris' poopyheadedness or the lack of it; my point is merely that poopyheadedness is practiced also by their most vocal "opponents" (who are so vocal so often it seems like they're speaking for the majority, as right-wing fundy fag-hating Xians seem like they speak for everybody for him Jesus is alright).

2) As far as the political spectrum around here goes, I'm pretty far to the left of the general run of the "leftists", "progressives" and "liberals" around here; if I wanted to make a True Leftists' Club it would be very small (and most of dios' Sworn Enemies would not be in it). Revolutionary anarcho-communists are usually going to be somewhere to the left of even the most liberal U.S. Democrats by damn near any index you've got.

3) Unlike bugbread, I have plenty of chances to practice my native tongue. If I wanted I could also find plenty of other opportunities to roll my eyes, froth at the mouth, call people dirty names, pretend that years of bourgeois liberal indoctrination have made me intelligent and sensitive while giving no evidence of those traits outside of heavily-emphasized Vocabulary Words that I holler while I bludgeon my "enemies", and generally do those things political Metafiltristas do -- and I could also get to do those things about the links to flash games and other headache-inducing neat-o tricks that abound around here. How unfortunate for y'all that I have a new puppy, my very first.

and

4) If somebody'd prophecied that this thread would contain almost 300 posts within 24 hours I'd have done something else; I long ago began to agree that expanding the range of possible flags would have obviated a callout. From this I conclude that some people are so easily and eagerly "trolled" that they don't need more than a hint of a shadow, the way a little boy can be sure that that wispy blurry thing in the yard is an evil monster come to gobble him up.

Golly.
posted by davy at 1:04 PM on September 21, 2005

Thanks shmegegge, I missed that. Good to have an answer, even if it's a depressing one.

I regret, I have no image to hasten this thread's demise, but I wish I had.
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:16 PM on September 21, 2005

3) Select "change password" option.

i believe this should read "3) ???"


PROFIT>
posted by fishfucker at 1:18 PM on September 21, 2005

davy, what kind of pooch and what did you name it?
posted by sciurus at 1:23 PM on September 21, 2005

Hey, look! They're still at it! Is this the long-sought perpetual motion machine? It seems to be continuing to go around and around with no input from the outside world. I'm going to send this one to the DOE.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:31 PM on September 21, 2005

We have the perpetual motion, it now lacks only the digging of a navigation canal.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:33 PM on September 21, 2005

So, we have consensus, then!

Great, I love it when that happens.
posted by cleardawn at 1:36 PM on September 21, 2005

Kirth Gerson : "It seems to be continuing to go around and around with no input from the outside world."

Usually, the belief in the discovery of a perpetual motion machine is due to overlooking a non-obvious source of energy, such as magnetism or static electricity. In this case, you're clearly forgetting the package of Oreos in my room.
posted by Bugbread at 1:44 PM on September 21, 2005

I still like Dios. And I think he should come back.

If that's even what we're still talking about. If not, then, well, er ... Either way, I'm just gonna go crack open that fresh new copy of We [heart] Katamari.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 1:50 PM on September 21, 2005

It can't be perpetual motion: something is definitely producing the hot air and a lot of energy is being wasted through noise.
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:54 PM on September 21, 2005

We have the perpetual motion, it now lacks only the digging of a navigation canal.

THERE IS NO CANAL
posted by cortex at 1:55 PM on September 21, 2005

Either way, I'm just gonna go crack open that fresh new copy of We [heart] Katamari.

You can still roll up God in the first flower level. I'm surprised that made the translation unscathed.
posted by darukaru at 2:00 PM on September 21, 2005

justgary, the comment you refer to is one of mine and I'm quite amazed you didn't name me as you seem to enjoy poking my comments to see if they'll do any tricks or something.

And it was sarcastic in tone. Sorry that you weren't able to catch that. I'll try to remember to use the /sarcasm tag so you don't miss it next time.
posted by fenriq at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2005

(is that a last sputtering pop as the fire dies, or the first spark of a new flame soon to be roaring?)
posted by cortex at 2:12 PM on September 21, 2005

If Metafilter was a German politician, it'd be Angela Merckel. If it was Spanish, it'd be Aznar. If it was Ukrainian... nah that's not a good one.

Basically, as has already been delicately hinted at by matteo, while American right wingers - who by non-American standards are so far on the right it's not even measurable - delight in the fantasy they are getting ferocious opposition from a left wing, American liberals are not really leftists at all. They're more like Bavarian Christian Democrats.

Do you think that analysis holds up if you include the entire world rather than just America and Europe? I'm not saying it doesn't, and I certainly wish that our political spectrum was more like Western Europe's, but for Western Europeans to exclude the rest of the world in their analysis is not much more open minded than for an American to exclude everything beyond our borders.
posted by anapestic at 2:26 PM on September 21, 2005

First!
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 2:27 PM on September 21, 2005

on preview: Damn!
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 2:29 PM on September 21, 2005

posted by Mid at 2:37 PM on September 21, 2005

Metafilter: grudge-holding energizer bunny bullshit
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:58 PM on September 21, 2005

<3
posted by cortex at 3:39 PM on September 21, 2005

posted by y2karl at 3:53 PM on September 21, 2005

anapestic: I cannot respond in earnest because I am looking at the picture of a green puppet with red hair, which sort of looks like the late Dennis Pennis, which reminds me of Kevin Costner's Waterworld, which is kind of how I see American politics really...

Seriously? Yes, whole world, no, the current political spectrum of Western Europe isn't all that much to wish for either, but calling it an "analysis" is a bit of a stretch. It was meant more like half cliché, half serious, half joke, that's three halves I know but that is because you Americans are so greedy. So there.
posted by funambulist at 4:34 PM on September 21, 2005

hmmm , i got about 32 seconds when i was scrolling with the mousewheel here but i dont think i was counting all that accurately.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:53 PM on September 21, 2005

posted by shmegegge at 4:53 PM on September 21, 2005

Alex, it does my heart good that the sum total of your efforts will be to reinvent dios and improve his standing in the community.

But it hurts you might possibly be the guy thanked on Kid 606's site. But then I realize you have to respond to every comment like a dog getting it's tummy scratched. And so I even out at a kinda tepid okayness.
posted by yerfatma at 5:02 PM on September 21, 2005

shmegegge, enough with the pirate cock.

And, pre-emptively:

Metafilter: enough with the pirate cock.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:20 PM on September 21, 2005

In Russia, the cock pirates you.
posted by fenriq at 5:29 PM on September 21, 2005

Didn't I tell you kids to knock it off last night?

Don't make me flash the lights.
posted by 517 at 5:37 PM on September 21, 2005

oh shit the five oh
hide the stash
posted by cortex at 5:41 PM on September 21, 2005

I just remembered something from my young middle age on IRC:

"We R kow of Borg. MOO!"


Anyway.
posted by davy at 6:14 PM on September 21, 2005

Wait, we got Jewish pirates now?
posted by davy at 6:15 PM on September 21, 2005

300+ posts for this?

Go outside people. There are better things to be doing...
posted by login at 6:36 PM on September 21, 2005

FIRST: Noh is like being bitten to death by butterflies. (I don't know who said that originally, but I think it's spot-on.)

SECOND: I left this thread this morning, and was surprised to see that the comments have doubled in roughly 12 hours. Good Work Guys!


This is good stuff. I don't like popcorn, but I'm having a cup of coffee and eating kit-kat bars.

...and everything OmieWise has said.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:09 PM on September 21, 2005

ps someone plz mirror just in case tia
posted by exlotuseater at 7:10 PM on September 21, 2005

Just to get things started up again:

Agreed. Less driving, less traffic, less noise, less accidents, less pollution, less dependence on foreign oil. Full speed ahead with the hurricanes, God.

The only way that will happen is when gas hurts the pocketbook of evil white suburbanites with SUVs.

OK, guess who?
posted by loquax at 7:18 PM on September 21, 2005

No one yet? I'll give you a hint, the comments are currently derailing the hurricane Rita thread, which has rapidly descended into unfunny one-liners and name calling all around.
posted by loquax at 7:37 PM on September 21, 2005

I wanted to start a MeTa thread regarding the thread loquax is referring to, but decided against it. My two cents: I apologize for my involvement in that thread at all. I tried to redeem myself with my next comment, a link to a relevant article, but God does that thread suck, and my participation did nothing to help the matter.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:43 PM on September 21, 2005

For what it's worth, SeizeTheDay, I was going to post in that thread supporting your first comment. The rush to post the one liner is the biggest disease on Metafilter, and it's the only thing that makes me hesitate in telling others about the site. Especially when they're not funny, in a thread about the third biggest hurricane of all time headed straight for Texas. On second thought, go ahead and start a MeTa thread - I'll push for a ten minute time delay before comments can be posted to a thread.
posted by loquax at 7:48 PM on September 21, 2005

OK, guess who?
I'm guessing it concerns a certain pinko, and a fucking one at that.
posted by jmd82 at 9:30 PM on September 21, 2005

Man, Cleardawn, if you use "Consensus" in one more comment, I am totally giving you a titty-twister. Sheesh.
posted by klangklangston at 9:38 PM on September 21, 2005

"The only way that will happen is when gas hurts the pocketbook of evil white suburbanites with SUVs."

OK, guess who?
posted by loquax at 7:18 PM PST on September 21 [!]

I suppose quoting keswick's rhetoric is a bad, bad thing to do. Piss off.
posted by Rothko at 9:55 PM on September 21, 2005

My mistake Rothko. You're right. My second quote shouldn't have been attributed to you. My apologies.

On the other hand, at least I don't pray for more hurricanes.
posted by loquax at 10:18 PM on September 21, 2005

But it hurts you might possibly be the guy thanked on Kid 606's site. But then I realize you have to respond to every comment like a dog getting it's tummy scratched. And so I even out at a kinda tepid okayness.
posted by yerfatma at 5:02 PM PST on September 21 [!]

Wow, is that still on his site? That's years old.
posted by Rothko at 10:19 PM on September 21, 2005

My mistake Rothko. You're right. My second quote shouldn't have been attributed to you. My apologies.

Apology accepted for misrepresenting my comments.

On the other hand, at least I don't pray for more hurricanes.
posted by loquax at 10:18 PM PST on September 21 [!]

Nor do I. Since there are other comments there that adequately explained my point, that'll suffice for me. You can keep picking a fight if you like, but it'll fall on deaf ears.
posted by Rothko at 10:23 PM on September 21, 2005

Agreed. Less driving, less traffic, less noise, less accidents, less pollution, less dependence on foreign oil. Full speed ahead with the hurricanes, God.
posted by Rothko at 6:42 PM PST on September 21

Welcome to your worst nightmare: you are now a less ethical human being than dios.

P.S. I read your other comments in that thread and you are still despicable for saying that ridiculous, vile, mean-spirited shit.

Getting gas to 99 cents a gallon is not worth human lives, and getting gas to five dollars a gallon is not worth human lives. Evil white oil barons and Rothko: two sides of the same coin. Hoo-fucking-hah.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:13 PM on September 21, 2005

It's OK, Loquax. Alex was just... trolling.
posted by klangklangston at 11:19 PM on September 21, 2005

Trolling, trolling, trolling...
Keep those comment's rolling...
Gotta keep on trolling...

Trollhide!!
posted by Balisong at 12:08 AM on September 22, 2005

The worst thing about trolls is that they regenerate unless you burn them with fire or acid.
posted by sciurus at 5:36 AM on September 22, 2005

I thought you could freeze them too... Man, do I have to find my dungeon master's guide?
posted by klangklangston at 5:41 AM on September 22, 2005

klangklangston writes "I thought you could freeze them too... Man, do I have to find my dungeon master's guide?"

-1 Inaccurate

Every geek knows the monster information is in the Monster Manual, not the Dungeon Master's Guide!
posted by Bugbread at 6:11 AM on September 22, 2005

Bugbread: Aren't trolls in the monster appendix that comes with the basic Dungeon Master's Guide? The Monster's Manual was just where you went to look to find out who would win: a cockatrice or a beholder.
posted by klangklangston at 6:31 AM on September 22, 2005

Oops. Googling "Dungeon Master's Guide" "troll" leads me to think you're right, in that: the DM guide gives instructions on making PCs, and one of the races you can choose for a PC is half-troll. As such, it probably gives details on the characteristics of trolls (as well as orcs, elves, dwarves, and other races that can be PCs). However, all the information on how to kill cockatrices and beholders is probably only in the MM, since they can't be PCs.
posted by Bugbread at 6:38 AM on September 22, 2005

Wow, only now reading this thread.

A few things really stand out to me. (If this is too long for you, which it is for most people, just scan for the topics, bolded, which interest you.)

First, partisanship: it's the small like-minded group that claims, essentially, that anything identified with conservatism is conservative; that conservativism is wholly, truly intellectually and morally bankrupt; and thus, by necessity, people espousing or defending any conservativism associated point-of-view is irrational and evil and should be dismissed a priori.

This could be true. But I'm pretty sure it's not. And it's a red flag to me when the exact same claim is made when the partisanship is reversed.

The people that really believe this, again, may be right. And they may be righteous. But they are not capable of discourse in good-faith because doing so requires an assumption of good faith in the opposition, an innocent until proven guilty in every specific instance assumption. If you engage with these people, you need to be aware that what they are actually doing in conversation is different than what you, and they, might think they are doing.

Secondly, Witty and standards of behavior: one of Witty's comments above really, really impressed me and I agree with it completely. You can probably figure out which one that is. I'd like to see this version of Witty all the time; but then, that expectation is at the heart of this argument, isn't it? Why should Witty be on his best behavior at all times when the rest of us don't hold ourselves to the same standard? The obvious answer to that is: he's conservative.

Whomever mentioned dealing with their conservative family and knowing to be tactful and non-confrontational and reasonable is wise to be that way. But that's far different than asserting that they have the moral responsibility to be that way. Especially if your family loudly claimed to be interested and fair with all thoughtful opposing viewpoints, you'd start to get tired of being bound by a double-standard that forces you to be on best behavior while it's not expected of everyone else.

As a matter of fact, this describes my own family situation pretty well, and I act similarly: I'm especially tactful because I especially am motivated to be convincing and not alienating. But in a sense, this isn't "fair" and I do resent it.

Thirdly, American vs European "leftism": there's the comments about what leftism really is and whether American liberals are leftist by external standards. I, myself, have made that rhetorical point in the past, but I'm not very happy with it. It's dishonest, ultimately, because it compares apples and oranges. Leftism can be economic or cultural and how strongly you emphasize one or the other greatly determines how the US appears in European terms. In economic terms, and it's important to realize that for most leftists, even American leftists who self-ieditify that way or as "progressive" as opposed to liberal do so exactly because for them the political culture of economics in the US is, in fact, overwhelmingly to the right by European standards.

On the other hand, in the US the cultural left is much more isomorphic to the generalized "left" than is the case in Europe. In cultural terms, what is considered "left" in the US is not that far from what is left in Europe and, more to the point, European leftism allows a lot more cultural conservatism in its leftism than US leftism does. We also have inverted views of each other: Europeans, for whatever reasons, are very aware of American conservatism and generally see American conservatism as representing the majority, perhaps "true" face of the US. They generally know little about American leftism. Similarly, Americans are very aware of European leftism and see it as the majority viewpoint of Europeans and are not very aware at all of European rightism.

In general, I don't think there's usually enough inderstanding among concerned parties in such discussions to make these comparisons very helpful.

Finally, Rothko, Dios, and "contrarianism": There's a serious flaw in Rothko's logic that is, frankly, alarming. Putting that aside, I have to say that I somewhat agree that there is an overlap between contrarians and trolls, there's a fine line between them and, often, trolls (in the web-era definition of the term) are contrarians who misunderstand the value and purpose of contrarianism.

One of my two best friends is an aggressive contrarian, and in the seminar only style college we attended, in the classroom we tended to be at odds. In outside conversations, he asserted the necessity of criticism for keeping people intellectually honest. He also had a background in high school debate, which I don't think was a coincidence. My response what that, ultimately, the point of a conversation must be constructive and so being destructive, being contrarian, must be constantly evaluated in terms of the ultimate, productive goal. Far too many contrarians become enamored of contrarianism for its own sake, though they will often deny this.

Contrary viewpoints in a community that is largely of a single-mind are, by self-selection, often the product of people who are contrarian by nature and prone to a misunderstanding of contrarianism. I really liked the point someone made about those of us who defend dios do so in spite of his warts, not in denial of them; and I do think that dios can be trollish in the sense of being too fond of being contrary for contrary's sake. But how do you avoid that?

I want productive conversations, not fights. I don't require people to be in agreement with me, but simply because of practicality I don't attempt to engage in hostile fora because I don't really get any pleasure out of being disagreeable. I don't see it as particularly virtuous, or that the world needs more people brave enough to stand firm against the mad hordes (thus how differently dame and I see things and how we disagree). I can't imagine trying to spend a lot of time in a largely hostile forum, even one quite well-behaved and intelligent. Like, say, Volokh Conspiracy if they had comments (do they now?). It's just not fun. Not to me. So the people that show up in hostile environments automatically have some high tolerance for dissonance and, that being the case, are far more likely to use it as a rhetorical tactic. Those are dios's warts. But, aside from them, he's a well-meaning, smart, informed person and, personally, I've liked his conservative participation in metafilter more than any of the other notorious conservative posters that have been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the length of this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:50 AM on September 22, 2005

Sorry, EB. Do you have any opinions on the Beholder v. Cockatrice? Because this thread is totally about D&D now.
posted by klangklangston at 7:46 AM on September 22, 2005

My question is: is the Beholder memorable because it was always on the cover or was it on the cover because it was memorable? And was the Monster Manual the one with the high school study hall-quality cover (blue with yellow Times New Roman title)? Also, do you know what my mom did with it?

EB: I think I agree with you about the American left vs. Leftism (world philosophy, not electonic group), but wouldn't you say there's been a noticable drift in the waypoints of the American "left"? I consider myself something like a Goldwater Republican. This has left me far to the left of center for the past 5+ years.
posted by yerfatma at 8:04 AM on September 22, 2005

yerfatma writes "My question is: is the Beholder memorable because it was always on the cover or was it on the cover because it was memorable?"

False dichotomy, troll-boy!! I'm guessing it was memorable because it looked unusual, but it may have been on the cover for any number of other reasons. But that itself begs the question, because it wasn't on the cover! Ahah!! Begging the question and false dichotomy! Take that, straw man! (Oops, that was an ad hominem attack. Speaking of ad hominem attacks, you know another guy who liked ad hominem attacks? Hitler, that's who!)

yerfatma writes "And was the Monster Manual the one with the high school study hall-quality cover (blue with yellow Times New Roman title)?"

Yep.
Mine looked like this:

But I understand some young whippersnappers had this obviously artistically inferior version:


yerfatma writes "Also, do you know what my mom did with it?"

She threw it away, man. You've got to understand that the first step in coping with sorrow is acceptance.
posted by Bugbread at 8:26 AM on September 22, 2005

Bzzzt: it's in a box somewhere. Honestly, how did that dragonesque birdthing fly? The Liefieldian proportionality of it all!
posted by yerfatma at 8:38 AM on September 22, 2005

Liefield? Why, that dragon's legs are hardly bigger than its head!
posted by klangklangston at 9:01 AM on September 22, 2005

"but wouldn't you say there's been a noticable drift in the waypoints of the American 'left'? I consider myself something like a Goldwater Republican. This has left me far to the left of center for the past 5+ years."

Again, it's how much emphasis you place on either cultural or economic leftism. The US conservative movement has moved more to the right, overall, driven by the religious conservatives, over the last 25 years. This is, I think, an inevitable reactionary response to the simple fact that US culture has been moving fairly steadily leftward for a very long time. That freaked-out constituency has captured the modern GOP like Labor had captured the Dems in years past.

Economic conservatives are like traditional leftists in that both see things chiefly in terms of ecomonics and government. But they are in opposition. Economic conservatives are in bed with the cultural conservatives because they oppose the economic liberals.

You'd have thought that the US neoliberal movement would have provided a home for those conservatives who are not terribly culturally conservative and mistrust the fundies, but I really think that why this isn't really the case goes back to, well, Goldwater.

Despite Clinton's quite rightward economic drift, it is absolutely unquestioned among conservatives, and even moderates and independents, that liberals and dems are the tax-and-spend Big Brother Government party. I really think the New Dems that favor neoliberal economics make this much less true than was once the case, but, frankly, no one on the right has ever believed it.

Meanwhile, the economic leftists have been very aware of the rightward drift of American liberalism (with regard to economics) and so, for them, the whole place has become a madhouse of crazy conservativism.

I probably sound like a libertarian (which I'm not, but when I was very young I self-identified as such) but this alliance of the economic and cultural conservatives in the modern GOP shows many signs of failing and I think that were it to do so, everyone in the US would benefit.

As a Dem, I would say that because a truly fractured GOP would be ideal for the Dems. But, honestly, I'm not that happy with the state of the modern Democratic party and would like to see some disentaglement of various interests there, too. I'm not comfortable with many of the people I'm in bed with myself.

I really see the US and Europe as approaching the same position from different directions. I'm pretty sure the future in these areas is one of very liberal culture and something to the right of traditional Labor leftism and to the left of traditional unrestrained American capitalism.

But if you have a strong affiliation with a particular cultural or economic point-of-view, your analysis of all this looks quite a bit different. Because of what's thought important and unimportant.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:01 AM on September 22, 2005

Oh, I should also say that I think the doom-and-gloom from cultural leftists in the US is the response to the capture of the GOP by the fundies and the resulting much higher profile of cultural conservatism in American politics than there was previously. But, really, if you look at things widely, the cultural conservatives have won a battle here and there, but have continued to lose the war.

Nevertheless, the fundies have people like rothko deeply freaked out, and, I admit, myself sometimes. They're hugely visible. But when I take a breath and put things in perspective, it's pretty obvious that these are the death shrieks of an increasingly marginalized community. Of course, there's that old adage about cornered animals, and it's true. Even so, they are cornered.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:06 AM on September 22, 2005

Man...1 minute and 5 seconds to scroll through the page with the mouse wheel...and it's really tiring on the fingers.
posted by Bugbread at 5:10 PM on September 22, 2005

You know you can grab and drag that scrollbar.

Savin' wrists wherever I go... I mean... you need to keep those puppies lithe for... well... you know.. uh.. PLEASURING YOUR PARTNER.
posted by scarabic at 6:40 PM on September 22, 2005

scarabic : "You know you can grab and drag that scrollbar."

Actually, I do the "middle click and then move mouse slightly up to autoscroll" thing, and it goes through the whole page in 6 seconds with minimal effort, but I wanted to provide an update on poppo and sgt.serenity's times.
posted by Bugbread at 7:45 PM on September 22, 2005

"Actually, I do the 'middle click and then move mouse slightly up to autoscroll' thing"...

I should do that, but I'm notoriously narrow and conservative in how I use UIs. I'm not sure why that is, but it is. I'm really stuck on using the Windows right-button context menu for very common tasks that could be more efficiently accomplished differently. Part of that, where it concerns file copying/moving, has to do with the very stupid and unintuitive way that Windows originally handled this with regard to within the same logical drive or not. Somewhere right at the beginning, I didn't try to remember automatically what the default action in a given situation would be (although it's really not that hard to figure out and I probably do now intuitively know it though I don't use that knowledge) and always just used the right-click context menu just to be sure. And I can't break the habit.

Similarly, all sorts of neato and very handy extended keyboard functions and customizations greatly appeal to me, and I will periodically make sure they work and I'll try to use them but, inevitably, fall back to ignoring them completely.

Is this maybe just a sign that I've gotten old? I've been using personal computers for, um, almost thirty years now I suppose it's inevitable that I will become even more inflexible and conservative as I age.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:02 PM on September 22, 2005

Caution: The bottom of this thread has sharp edges!
(also, the bridge is out ahead)
posted by Balisong at 9:31 PM on September 22, 2005

The fraggle I posted -- is that Wembly? I don't remember.
posted by Mid at 6:22 AM on September 23, 2005

No bridge = no shelter for trolls.

This is good.
posted by longbaugh at 6:51 AM on September 23, 2005

Mid writes "The fraggle I posted -- is that Wembly? I don't remember."

Yep, it's Wembley, looking suspiciously unscared.
posted by Bugbread at 7:39 AM on September 23, 2005

I used to know a girl who was the spitting image of Mokey, even down to her favourite clothes and hobby. Scary.
posted by longbaugh at 11:12 AM on September 23, 2005

I had a huge crush on Mokey.
posted by Mid at 11:23 AM on September 23, 2005

The scroll-pad section of my laptop's touchpad can get me top to bottom in two seconds. PWNERSHIP DISPUTE.
posted by cortex at 1:49 PM on September 24, 2005

Clicking on the scroll bar and pulling it down can get me top to bottom in less than a second. PWNERSHIP DISPUTE SETTLED ETERNALLY!!
posted by Bugbread at 7:42 PM on September 24, 2005

Four words to shatter your world view:

HOME and END keys.
posted by cortex at 2:17 PM on September 27, 2005

Huh. I never knew they worked that way on homepages. I always think of them as "go to far left of line", "go to far right of line", but when you're in a non-data-entry-field, they do indeed go to the far top of the page and the far bottom of the page. My world view is indeed shattered.
posted by Bugbread at 8:27 PM on September 27, 2005

HELLO
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 7:37 AM on September 28, 2005