a grotesque lack of civility in the ad homonym realm

March 22, 2006 3:18 AM

Thread 50250 should be used to indict, convict, and ban several Members for a grotesque lack of civility in the ad homonym realm.
posted by ParisParamus to Etiquette/Policy at 3:18 AM (244 comments total)

This thread. No way to encourage discussion.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:20 AM on March 22, 2006

I was disappointed by the lack of comics.
posted by Eideteker at 3:22 AM on March 22, 2006

Sweet zombie baby Jesus on a trampoline in the back room of a leather bar sucking down loganberry schnapps out of a miner's boot!!
posted by loquacious at 3:25 AM on March 22, 2006

Now now, loquacious. There's no need for that kind of talk, you woolsucking fucker.
posted by Eideteker at 3:29 AM on March 22, 2006

Ahh yes. This will end well.
posted by knave at 3:30 AM on March 22, 2006

You mean it hasn't already?
posted by Eideteker at 3:31 AM on March 22, 2006

I suppose that is a good way to encourage discussion?
posted by MrMustard at 3:31 AM on March 22, 2006

How much better can it get with such auspicious beginnings?

Are we in a valley? Why do I feel uncanny?
posted by loquacious at 3:33 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm referring to basic civility and vulgarity. Not every single comment needs to be filled with stats. I provide some further down.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:34 AM on March 22, 2006

Profanity is the crutch of an inarticulate motherfucker. What's your point?
posted by loquacious at 3:35 AM on March 22, 2006

[04:19:53] politics have gotten really annoying.

g'night.
posted by loquacious at 3:36 AM on March 22, 2006

Ah, of course! "50250" is MeFi 50250!
(Though there may be folks in Stuart, Iowa who have it out for ParisParamus)
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:37 AM on March 22, 2006

You're not coming here for the hunting, are you Paris?
posted by orthogonality at 3:37 AM on March 22, 2006

I agree with ParisParamus. When people are confronted with idiotic hubris, it's best to be civil and point out all the flaws in the stupidity, rather than denigrating the person. Facts people, just the facts.
posted by gsb at 3:38 AM on March 22, 2006

"...several Members for a grotesque lack of civility in the ad homonym realm."

It's politics. What do you expect?

ON PREVIEW: What loquacious said.
posted by Eideteker at 3:39 AM on March 22, 2006

I expect something better; something that doesn't make me want to run away and cry.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:41 AM on March 22, 2006

Civility, huh? How about suicide?
posted by Eideteker at 3:43 AM on March 22, 2006

I expect something better; something that doesn't make me want to run away and cry.

Then don't vote for Bush.
posted by loquacious at 3:44 AM on March 22, 2006

And I meant that as an example of posts your time might be better spent reading.
posted by Eideteker at 3:45 AM on March 22, 2006

ParisParamus : "This thread. No way to encourage discussion."

It encouraged an average amount of discussion: 64 comments.
If you mean good discussion, then I'd say the problem started just about when alms pressed the "post" button. He phrased his FPP wonderfully, with no editorializing or anything else, but posting a link about politics is, in itself, no way to encourage a good discussion on MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 4:08 AM on March 22, 2006

No, actually, the thread contained some surprisingly substantive items about debt and growth. But intertwined with this was an attack on ME. Oh, I forgot: that's accepted practice.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:11 AM on March 22, 2006

We eat our own. That's why Matt never shows us the baby.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:17 AM on March 22, 2006

ad homonym

now THAT'S fucking FUNNY!
posted by quonsar at 4:25 AM on March 22, 2006

ParisParamus : "No, actually, the thread contained some surprisingly substantive items about debt and growth."

I didn't mean to imply that all posts about politics are necessarily going to be bad, just that the large body of evidence at MeFi indicates that posting something about politics is far more statistically likely to create bad discussion than good. And, again, that said, I have to give mad props to alms for posting about politics in a really neutral, non-overbearing, non-axe-grinding way.
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 AM on March 22, 2006

I thought the attacks on what you said far outweighed the ones against you personally. Not enough to derail the topic in my opinion.

But what do I know. I'm a mefite newbie who doesn't quite appreciate the subtle nuances of how much you people don't like each other.
posted by slimepuppy at 4:31 AM on March 22, 2006

ad-homonym is an eggcorn for ad-hominem!
posted by By The Grace of God at 4:33 AM on March 22, 2006

The reason I think that political threads go so badly in my own opinion is that mathowie and I can barely stand to read them and they become Autonomous Mad Max Zones where all the craven political wankery can burn itself out.

It was a nice neutral post admittedly on a political topic. You, Paris, posted fourth and fifth in that thread with your typical "I <3 Bush, who's with me?" introductions and the thread went downhill from there, from that very point, at that moment. You. Are. Hurting. Metafilter. Please stop.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:38 AM on March 22, 2006

That's false. The initial premise was utterly anti-Bush (and contrary to the economic reality), so I thought it appropriate to bring the thread back to an even keel. But, of course, that's not allowed here?
posted by ParisParamus at 4:42 AM on March 22, 2006

Stop? As you may have noticed, I don't post that much in the Blue anymore.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:43 AM on March 22, 2006

That thread should have been deleted anyway, for not even trying to consider the guidelines.
posted by Witty at 4:44 AM on March 22, 2006

• If you support Bush, the thread will go downhill. I don't think that's your fault.
• That said, if you phrase things in an abrasive fashion while doing so, then the fault is shared.
• That said, of course other people on the other side of the issue also phrase things in abrasive fashion, and they don't get called out nearly as often.
• The fact that they don't get called out is a problem. However, that does not absolve you of your responsibility to not phrase things abrasively.

In this case, the phrasing wasn't abrasive in the usual sense. I think perhaps "goading" would be a better phrasing. And, again, you aren't the only one who goads, but that doesn't mean it's OK to goad. Nor does it mean it's OK for them to goad.

I look forward to the day when Mathowie goes batshit and starts laying down the law Lowtax style for a few months.
posted by Bugbread at 4:47 AM on March 22, 2006

Bugbread, it'll be a quiet day on metafilter when that happens...
posted by slimepuppy at 4:49 AM on March 22, 2006

You, Paris, posted fourth and fifth in that thread with your typical "I <3 bush, who's with me? introductions and the thread went downhill from there, from that very point, at that moment. you. are. hurting. metafilter. please stop.

WHAT! So PP isn't allowed to say "I love Bush, who's with me"... but the opposite is perfectly welcomed? You've got to be kidding jessamyn.

The third fucking comment in that thread (which is before PP posts) begins with, "Like everything the chimp says these days, this is riddled with inaccuracy."

How is stuff like that not hurting Metafilter? And really, that a rather typical early comment in most political threads. PP certainly isn't blameless in a lot of the crap he finds himself involved in around here... but to use the thread in question as an example of how HE is hurting Metafilter, especially the way you've specifically focused on the fact that he's a Bush supporter, is a cop out and a cheap shot.
posted by Witty at 4:49 AM on March 22, 2006

After reading that thread again... I don't see one fucking PP post that anyone, espcially an admin, could complain about. Ridiculous.
posted by Witty at 4:53 AM on March 22, 2006

slimepuppy : "Bugbread, it'll be a quiet day on metafilter when that happens..."

I imagine it being like the silence in the woods. True, there isn't the honking of car horns and rumbling of trains of the city, but instead, you can hear the gentle murmur of a brook, the rustling in the grass of a rabbit, and the distant singing of a nightingale.
posted by Bugbread at 4:53 AM on March 22, 2006

The thread was no worse than many other political threads and better than many. Calling it out as some sort of example of indictment and banworthy offenses when he was as much a part of it as anyone else , is disingenuous in a "who me?" way that wastes everyone's time and is detrimental to the site.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:00 AM on March 22, 2006

Jessamyn,

I agree with you to some degree, but also Witty to some degree. Paris's goading was, as you say, a part of it. However, your comment above makes it seem that Paris was all of the problem. Considering your followup, would it be safe to say your initial comment was a matter of poor phrasing or of misinterpretation by Witty and myself?
posted by Bugbread at 5:04 AM on March 22, 2006

ParisParamus writes "That's false. The initial premise was utterly anti-Bush (and contrary to the economic reality), so I thought it appropriate to bring the thread back to an even keel. But, of course, that's not allowed here?"


alms posted, without any editorializing at all, a link to Bush being quoted verbatim. The link contained approximately 1051 words of taken from a Bush press conference, and 78 additional words of editorializing. Bush was quoted in twelve paragraphs, making his case however he wanted.

In order to "bring the thread back to an even keel", you posted

The economy is, right now, as good as it has ever been. Really remarkable. How about a round of applause for the Bush tax cuts, which have been wonderful for the US.

No facts, no links, no analysis, just your unsupported, unsourced, uncited, and apparently anecdotal opinion ("as good as it has ever been"), followed by a partisan exhortation ("How about a round of applause") and another unsupported opinion ("which have been wonderful").

Now you show up here claiming a "a grotesque lack of civility" because no one bought into your cheerleading.

What were you expecting? The von Mises Institute prize for Economic Theory? That traditional sop for failed hawks, The Presidency of the World Bank?
posted by orthogonality at 5:05 AM on March 22, 2006

orthogonality : "Now you show up here claiming a 'a grotesque lack of civility' because no one bought into your cheerleading."

Whether his claims are valid or invalid, I don't think that Paris made this thread just because people didn't buy into his cheerleading.
posted by Bugbread at 5:07 AM on March 22, 2006

The thread was no worse than many other political threads and better than many. Calling it out as some sort of example of indictment and banworthy offenses when he was as much a part of it as anyone else , is disingenuous in a "who me?" way that wastes everyone's time and is detrimental to the site.

I agree... no better, no worse. Calling it out was a stretch. That being said, your comments about how Paris conducted himself and flatout WRONG.

No facts, no links, no analysis, just your unsupported, unsourced, uncited, and apparently anecdotal opinion ("as good as it has ever been"), followed by a partisan exhortation ("How about a round of applause") and another unsupported opinion ("which have been wonderful").

So what if there were no supporting links. Most of the comments in that thread are linkless. And partisan exhortation? You've got to be fucking kidding me. I mean seriously.
posted by Witty at 5:10 AM on March 22, 2006

would it be safe to say your initial comment was a matter of poor phrasing or of misinterpretation by Witty and myself?

Perhaps it was more hyperbole than I usually indulge in. Continuing to come to MetaFilter and acting suprised and hostile when you learn [again and again] that the majority of people here who discuss politics disagree with you -- to the point of creating MetaTalk threads about threads that you yourself share responsibility for ruining -- smacks of disingenuousness. It creates an admin headache, dealing with not just the original thread, but Meta posts cause threads to be re-evaluated, reflagged and also scrutinized so that even egregious comments can't easily be deleted without more MeTa threads. If this was some sort of new problem, I'd be more sympathetic, but at the same time as we deal with ad nauseum MeTa threads about how we're coddling other conservatives we get this thread essentially pointing to how we don't.

mathowie, and to a lesser extent me, try to make this a site where people can talk about things. The site has a skew in the direction of techie people, liberal people, younger people, American people. People who don't fit into these categories sometimes feel unwelcome and we actually try to help those people, to deal with that problem. And then there are some people who don't fit into those categories who seem to carry a low-level constant anger against the site (or mathowie) for not being how they want it to be, and use this as justification for bad behavior. Paris has done that and so have many other people in that thread and elsewhere, and that's bad news all around. However, only Paris started a MetaTalk thread.

Don't get me wrong, with regards to political threads almost everyone can do better. But complaining about a problem that, in my personal opinion, you are doing almost nothing to help solve is almost more maddening than the problem itself.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:21 AM on March 22, 2006

...to the point of creating MetaTalk threads about threads that you yourself share responsibility for ruining...

Again, I agree, PP made mistake for calling that thread out. But please provide an example of where he misbehaved in that thread. Please. Because I don't see it.

My suggestion is, get tougher on enforcing the guidelines. A one-link post to a typepad site? I mean c'mon, do we even need to go over this again?
posted by Witty at 5:27 AM on March 22, 2006

bugbread writes "Whether his claims are valid or invalid, I don't think that Paris made this thread just because people didn't buy into his cheerleading."


Bugbread, I always appreciate your sincere effort to be a peace-maker in these threads.

That said, ;), Paris's claim was neither valid nor invalid.

It lacked any metric, any indication of whom the economy is good for. High deficits are good for lending banks and Dubai, bad for taxpayers and other borrowers; high taxes are good for bringing down deficits, but bad for job growth; etc., etc., etc.

Since Paris made no effort to qualify what trend of the economy was good for which group, his bald statement that the economy is "good" implies good in general. And that is belied by wage growth falling behind inflation and a record debt ceiling.

But we're not here to talk economic theory, and neither was ParisParamus. His object was, as Jessamyn pointed out, to goad, to provoke, to turn the thread from a discussion of the economy (and yes, inevitably Bush's effect on it, because Bush is President and the economy, good or bad, is seen as the President's doing) to a discussion of Bush as a personality ("I luvs him!", "I h8s him!") and of ParisParamus. Whether this was to distract from solid, fact-based criticism of his hero Dubya or just to stroke his own vanity, we'll never know.

Paris's derail had no real content other than shouting praise, and other commenters saw this and -- rightly -- pointed out that Paris was playing the fool. Some added facts to refute him, others pointed out that Paris's claim had little support beyond Paris's own Army of One.

The reaction to Paris was altogether mild and warranted: Paris made an unsupported and nebulous claim, and got told as much. His complaint seem to me to just be more derailing or attention-seeking or playing the fool.
posted by orthogonality at 5:33 AM on March 22, 2006

Metafilter is not about politics. Yours, or any governments'.
posted by Eideteker at 5:36 AM on March 22, 2006

You're ridiculous orthogonality. How is a comment about the economy a derail? The god damned thread is about the U.S. economy. Once again, these complaints are rooted in the fact that you don't like ParisParamus or his political leanings.

This is your first comment in the thread. Boy, that's not goading and certainly adds a lot to the discussion. It's interesting that you waited until THIS meta thread to respond to PP's comment about the economy (the comment you made above about the plusses and minuses of high deficits, etc.). Why couldn't you have made that comment in the blue thread? Instead, you offered what I linked to at the beginning of this paragraph.

Your other contributions to the thread didn't include any supporting links, yet you claim that PP's comments requires them in order to be valid or taken seriously. You're a Mefi hypocrite, one of many.
posted by Witty at 5:44 AM on March 22, 2006

Facts people, just the facts.

That worked really well in the 9/11 Conspiracy Thread.
posted by eriko at 5:52 AM on March 22, 2006

By the way, I believe the "comments" that lead me to post this thread were actually deleted from the thread overnight.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:07 AM on March 22, 2006

That would certainly affect the interpretation of this callout.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:08 AM on March 22, 2006

ParisParamus writes "By the way, I believe the 'comments' that lead me to post this thread were actually deleted from the thread overnight."


Those comments were in the thread. I have screenshots showing exactly where.

But they weren't actually deleted. According to General Sada, they're now in Syria.
posted by orthogonality at 6:12 AM on March 22, 2006

This is possibly the funniest thing in the history of MetaFilter.

ParisParamus calling OTHER people out for rude behaviour in political threads.

Paris, your lack of self-awareness is comedy fucking gold.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:18 AM on March 22, 2006

orthogonality : "Bugbread, I always appreciate your sincere effort to be a peace-maker in these threads."

I'm not trying to be a peace-maker, I'm just really anal.

orthogonality : "That said, ;), Paris's claim was neither valid nor invalid. "

Er, I was referring to the validity of his claims (here) about the behaviour of people in the thread, not his claims (in the thread) about economics. I just meant that, whether he was right that people were being jerks, or he was wrong that people were being jerks, he isn't arguing that they were being jerks by not agreeing with him, but that they were being jerks based on how they disagreed with him.
posted by Bugbread at 6:18 AM on March 22, 2006

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!

Now that I've got that out of my system: it's true that Paris didn't, all by himself, derail the thread. He posted a superficially polite comment that he knew would drive people batshit insane and get them to insult him, which would allow him to post this sanctimonious callout. If everyone would ignore him, he wouldn't be able to stir the shit this way, but for some reason hardly anyone can bring themselves to do that, even though they know exactly what he's up to.

How is a comment about the economy a derail? The god damned thread is about the U.S. economy.

I'm sorry, Witty, but that's disingenuous. If the thread had been about the war, PP would have posted

The war is, right now, as good as it has ever been. Really remarkable. How about a round of applause for the Bush military policy, which has been wonderful for the US.

Similarly if the thread had been about civil rights, the environment, or anything else. Paris has zero interest in issues or discussing them; his sole purpose is to wander in, holler "Bush is great," and wait for the ruckus. I'd be madder at him if I weren't so aware that his effect depends entirely on his crew of enablers.

That having been said, Paris, you said you were going to reform. Please show some signs of doing so.
posted by languagehat at 6:20 AM on March 22, 2006

We need some kind of system where the flags become more satisfying, thus taking the place of actually replying to self-satisfied attempts to derail what could have been a good thread but is now a smoking dog turd in a bag.

Or, you know, more self-discipline to make such attempts fizzle.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 6:24 AM on March 22, 2006

ParisParamus : "I believe the 'comments' that lead me to post this thread were actually deleted from the thread overnight."

When were they deleted? None of the comments posted previous to 12:08 UTC have been deleted between 12:08 UTC and now.
posted by Bugbread at 6:27 AM on March 22, 2006

languagehat writes "If everyone would ignore him, he wouldn't be able to stir the shit this way, but for some reason hardly anyone can bring themselves to do that,"


I guess the perception is that no response to his patently false and outrageous sycophantism would imply we all were stupid enough to agree.
posted by orthogonality at 6:28 AM on March 22, 2006

(That is, they may have been posted previous to 12:08 UTC, and deleted previous to 12:08 UTC, or posted after 12:08 UTC and deleted after 12:08 UTC, but none of the comments posted pre-12:08 UTC were deleted post 12:08 UTC)
posted by Bugbread at 6:28 AM on March 22, 2006

oh man, I just read this thread, and found this:

But hey, most of the same people who think Iraq is going poorly also think the economy is bad--a lack of credibility knows no bounds.

So you can drop that derail bomb in a thread that is explicitly about the economy... but you want OTHER people banned?

ParisParamus: comedy gold.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:28 AM on March 22, 2006

orthogonality : "I guess the perception is that no response to his patently false and outrageous sycophantism would imply we all were stupid enough to agree."

Then that's a problem with our collective perceptions. I think that Mefi is, as a whole, sufficiently liberal/left-wing/what-have-you that if I saw someone say something traditionally conservative/right-wing/what-have-you, and nobody responded, I would assume that it meant that most folks disagreed and just were ignoring the comment.
posted by Bugbread at 6:30 AM on March 22, 2006

You know who else tends to disolve good discussion when posters come rushing to defend the actions of? Hitler.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 6:33 AM on March 22, 2006

I honestly don't know why mathowie and jessamyn treat ParisParamus as anything other than a troll.

mathowie clearly recognized the situation when he gave Paris a month off, and yet Paris is still using economy threads to bait people with comments about the Iraq war.

Pathetic.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:33 AM on March 22, 2006

bugbread writes "None of the comments posted previous to 12:08 UTC have been deleted between 12:08 UTC and now."


I match this: the thread was started at 12:59 PST, I popped in no later than 1:37 PST (that's the time-stamp on my comment), and I checked back rather (too) frequently (for any chance of a social life). But the software I run to show where comments have been deleted isn't showing any deleted comments.
posted by orthogonality at 6:35 AM on March 22, 2006

Do we really need a MetaTalk thread on this? That thread turns to shit after the 4th post, Paris' post. Paris calling out Paris. Shocking.
posted by chunking express at 6:35 AM on March 22, 2006

What languagehat said. ParisParamus, if you poke the hornet's nest don't complain about getting stung.

But I reject the notion that ParisParamus should reform. The diversity of opinion is nice. ParisParamus' acid comments merely reflect that fact that there is no other way to present the right wing point of view other than to serve it on the point of a stick. Appealing to logic and reason is a non-starter for the right. To demand that ParisParamus "reform" would be to, in effect, censor his point of view.
posted by three blind mice at 6:40 AM on March 22, 2006

By the way, I'd be willing to put a $20, that ParisParamus made this post for the amusement of fellow trolls.

Any takers?
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:46 AM on March 22, 2006

I Love Tacos writes "By the way, I'd be willing to put a $20, that ParisParamus made this post for the amusement of fellow trolls."


I think Paris is really a Republican who became disillusioned and finally dismayed with what Bush is doing to the country. I think Paris, in the hopes of further discrediting the Administration and alienating moderate Republicans, decided to make himself a caricature of Bush's most blindly adoring followers.

Bravo, ParisParamus!
posted by orthogonality at 6:57 AM on March 22, 2006

The initial premise was utterly anti-Bush (and contrary to the economic reality), so I thought it appropriate to bring the thread back to an even keel. But, of course, that's not allowed here?

This is a flat and outright lie. The initial post was a link to a blog transcribing a press conference, with approximately 3-6 throwaway sentences of commentary that only identified the errors Bush made during the conference. Furthermore, Paris' comment doesn't even ATTEMPT to bring the thread to an even keel. It's just the kind of flag waving neocon bravado that Paris justly earned his reputation for trolling from. This persecution complex he's adopting is just a further attempt to muck up the discourse and take focus away from the issues of the post.

He is a troll. I'm fucking tired of it. If he feels like running away and crying, then I wish he'd fucking do it and stop god damn poisoning the site. I've defended his behavior in the past, but it's been MONTHS since he promised to improve his behavior and now it looks like he's given up on that promise. I'm tired of waiting for it to happen. It's not going to.
posted by shmegegge at 6:58 AM on March 22, 2006

three blind mice : "ParisParamus' acid comments merely reflect that fact that there is no other way to present the right wing point of view other than to serve it on the point of a stick. Appealing to logic and reason is a non-starter for the right."

I had a conservative friend in Uni. Very conservative. Nice guy. Outspoken, erudite, articulate. I disagreed with him all the time, but he was always civil.
When people talk about how we need civil right-wing voices here, I think of him. And then I think, there's no way he'd stay. He'd probably comment in one thread, keep civil, get railed on, get called a troll, get dragged into MeTa, get generally hounded, and realize "There's no point for me visiting MeFi."

Paris's acidity doesn't reflect, to me, the supposed fact that the only way to present the right wing point of view is on the point of a stick, or that appeal to reason is a non-starter for the right. It reflects, to me, that probably any sane right winger who appeals to reason would stay far, far away from here, and Paris is the kind who would stay.
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 AM on March 22, 2006

You know what, I was actually thinking of thread 50213! I'm sorry for starting this debate over the wrong thread.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:06 AM on March 22, 2006

Don't feel bad; it's easy to get confused when you troll so much.
posted by chunking express at 7:08 AM on March 22, 2006

no response to his patently false and outrageous sycophantism would imply we all were stupid enough to agree.

Oh, come on. Do you stop and argue with every street-corner loony because if you just walked on by, people would think you agreed?
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on March 22, 2006

Paris, if you're still dropping by, I'll repeat this for your benefit:

Paris, you said you were going to reform. Please show some signs of doing so.
posted by languagehat at 7:13 AM on March 22, 2006

Leave Paris alone.

He's not a troll - he's just voicing opinions that are different from yours! Your response is bullshit! I'm so sick of it. I'm so fucking tired of everyone piling on Paris whenever he opens his mouth! Just because he has a different viewpoint does not mean that it has to be a particularly well-voiced or even literate viewpoint. Let him post!

We are perfectly tolerant of ElPapacito's gibbering nonsense, but Paris comes out and says something mildly innocuous - "Well, I think the economy is doing well! I'm certainly glad our President is doing a good job fwap fwap fwap!" and you SHRILL assholes jump all over him! But someone else could post,
"Bush hates MUSLIM baby-jesus eating because WE tried to VOTE for No War ! Iraq bad slartibartfast ." and nobody bats an eye.

It is so, so aggravating.

I don't want to hang out here anymore if this place becomes an echo-chamber. And we are doing nothing but losing credibility when we take advantage of the ONE. REMAINING. REPUBLICAN. to vent our collective anger.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:14 AM on March 22, 2006

Maybe Matt should just start deleting all threads remotely political.
posted by chunking express at 7:17 AM on March 22, 2006

You know what, I was actually thinking of thread 50213! I'm sorry for starting this debate over the wrong thread.

Oh, you mean the thread where you wrote:

I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

Yeah, you're still a troll.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:17 AM on March 22, 2006

it may be fun to slap around poor PeePee in the blue, but, really, in the gray it has become pointless. it doesn't matter that sometimes Matt gives PeePee a timeout, because he then comes back to pee (heh) on every political/war thread he can find -- he just can't resist.

so, I have an idea: The Bunnyfire Solution

at this point the username "ParisParamus" is damaged goods -- it starts some sort of chain reaction where people attack PeePee's bullshit, he then baits the other users some more, chaos ensues.
the only real solution, at this point, since Jessamyn seems to be quite frustrated and I guess Matt isn't very happy either, timeouts are not enough to calm PeePee down, the only solution seems to me to be the bunnyfire one:
Matt bans the ParisParamus account forever, and PeePee comes back under another identity, if he promises to behave.

it worked for bunnyfire: she's been back with another username, behaving much better.

I mean, I'm sure dhoyt/jenleigh etc has come back and is still posting here, under another username -- he certainly doesn't seem to be stirring the shit as much as he did under the "dhoyt" username.

so, let's close the ParisParamus account and let's allow the user behind to start anew under a different name here. he'll be PeePee in incognito, so to speak.
posted by matteo at 7:17 AM on March 22, 2006

And a hypocrite.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:18 AM on March 22, 2006

Baby_Balrog writes "And we are doing nothing but losing credibility when we take advantage of the ONE. REMAINING. REPUBLICAN."

You forgot Poland dios-land.
posted by orthogonality at 7:18 AM on March 22, 2006

Thanks, Baby, but I'm a registered Democrat who votes for the individual candidates I decide are best: Schumer; Bush; Clinton ('92); Bloomberg, etc.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:18 AM on March 22, 2006

Matteo, no. And no sockpuppets.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 AM on March 22, 2006

Dios is not a republican.

Stop painting him as one.

He is an authoritarian libertarian.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:20 AM on March 22, 2006

Fucking GREAT!

Now we've got NO republicans.

You guys suck.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:20 AM on March 22, 2006

Why am I posting

like this?

Maybe it's a haiku.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:20 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm a Republican.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:21 AM on March 22, 2006

I guess the perception is that no response to his patently false and outrageous sycophantism would imply we all were stupid enough to agree.

That perception needs desperately to be amended. I don't really think of mefites as the sort of people who start shouting matches on the street when they come across an opinion they disagree with; we don't need to do it here, either.
posted by cortex at 7:23 AM on March 22, 2006

Hell, for what it's worth I come from a traditionally very Republican family and I wanted Bush to win in 2000 and I even (just barely) was for the war in 2003.
posted by orthogonality at 7:24 AM on March 22, 2006

What's funny is, people still managed to find reason to "blame" PP for the direction of a thread he didn't even intend to call out. I think that says quite a bit. So...

'fuck everybody who still complains about ParisParamus, and fuck everyone who hated him from the beginning, too.

look at what you goddamn idiots have gotten us into. just look at it.'

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout... yea! Every political thread should begin with a good "fuck you" from some liberal pussy... you know, for everyone to just conveniently ignore, thread after friggin' thread... only to pipe up later and whine about "partisan exhortation". Sad.
posted by Witty at 7:25 AM on March 22, 2006

orthogonality: so does that mean you accept my $20 bet that this thread was created for the amusement of his fellow trolls?

Because $20 could buy me tacos for a week, and that would be damned sweet.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:25 AM on March 22, 2006

Matteo, no. And no sockpuppets.

it won't be a sockpuppet, and it won't be your decision, either, really, unless you're secretly mathowie. frankly, I'm surprised he allowed you to come back after just one month -- I like you Paris, but for an administrator you're a massive pain in the ass -- you've been a problem for Matt for years

he should totally close the ParisParamus account and give you a clean slate. he's been way too generous with you already
posted by matteo at 7:26 AM on March 22, 2006

Witty: complaining about ParisParamus has killed thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and produced a civil war?

Your ability to derail is matched only by your inability to comprehend the scale of differing situations.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:28 AM on March 22, 2006

"But intertwined with this was an attack on ME."



It's playing 'Hearts and Flowers' just for you.
posted by klangklangston at 7:28 AM on March 22, 2006

Would all the sockpuppets posting in this thread please raise their hands?
posted by crunchland at 7:36 AM on March 22, 2006

I Love Tacos (me too) - Scale has nothing to do with it. The point is, a comment like one I linked to, is perfectly "acceptable" here and allowed to fly as long as it fits the consensus opinion of the liberal collective that is Metafilter... no one cares. But someone like ortho actually takes the time to complain that PP's posted opinion of the U.S. economy is done so without supporting links... and better yet, comes up with a whine for "partisan exhortation". THAT, is comedy gold.
posted by Witty at 7:36 AM on March 22, 2006

matteo: he should totally close the ParisParamus account and give you a clean slate. he's been way too generous with you already

For comparison's sake, here's (part of) what was said when another controversial member felt the ban-hammer:

He's been pure noise for a while now, turning every thread into a war between everyone and himself. He complains about comments made by others in separate threads. I can't remember the last contribution of any merit was made by him. I've had enough of it.

He can no longer post here.

But I'm more of an ignore/flag-and-move-on type myself.
posted by hangashore at 7:37 AM on March 22, 2006

What bugbread said.

If we were to assume the same range of lucid to lunatic from both the right-wingers and the left-wingers, and MeFi attracts the same distribution within each wing, the fact that we tilt heavily to the left would create a self-sorting mechanism by which the distribution of right-wingers that stay here would be perturbed. In simpler terms, all things being equal with the sole exception of mefi attracting many more lefties than righties, the righties that stay are going to be noticably different personalities than the lefties who stay.

I try very hard to be fair and rational. I fear being wrong, so I take opposing arguments very seriously. But when I read that quote of PP's above about how both the war and the economy are just splendid—well, I just cannot bring myself to believe that he truly believes this. Even conservative economists are puzzled at an economy that is booming in some respects but is stagnant in hiring and wages. Even conservative pundits admit that things haven't been going as well as had been hoped in Iraq. Even conservative economists are concerned about the US's rising debt and I think all of them would acknowledge that Bush's claim that the tax cuts would pay for themselves in two or three years is simply proven to be factually wrong. Even conservative pundits agree that our military is stressed to the breaking point in Iraq, that we've been there with large forces longer than we expected, that there's no real end in sight. Hell, Bush yesterday admitted that we'd be there for years to come.

Now, I don't mention all those things to encourage a partisan argument about what is true of false. Many things are indeed matters of perception, but then again many things aren't. That I perceive PP's claim above to be false—at the very least in its pollyanna-ish extremism—is not so much an expression of my opinion as it is a matter of fact. And at that point I start to think that paris is fucking with us. I know that I don't hang out at conservative sites making smug assertions that even many conservatives would question. Why would I do that? Why, indeed.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:39 AM on March 22, 2006

'cause you'd get banned.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:50 AM on March 22, 2006

I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

Yes, but I think we established long ago that we're not really that interested in what you have to say about politics, because it rarely makes any kind of sense, even from the standpoint of internal logical consistency. [/resumes ignoring]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:43 PM PST on March 20 [!]

StavrosthewonderchickenTheModel
posted by y2karl at 7:54 AM on March 22, 2006

It must be my English or Latin, but I still don't understand what homonyms have to do with all this.
posted by keijo at 7:58 AM on March 22, 2006

The economy is, right now, as good as it has ever been. Really remarkable. How about a round of applause for the Bush tax cuts, which have been wonderful for the US.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:14 PM EST on March 21

Back to the point of this ridiculous callout-- how is this comment encouraging discussion?
posted by exlotuseater at 8:04 AM on March 22, 2006

but I still don't understand what homonyms have to do with all this.

with the help of activist judges, they want to marry each other -- and that would destroy America. dam homonyms
posted by matteo at 8:09 AM on March 22, 2006

perhaps he meant ad synonym? ad honorem? ad majora? ad astra per aspera? abracadabra? ABBA! yes, members of ABBA have shown a grotesque lack of civility in their realm recently, ie. the realm of Sweden, as in, the monarchy. they must have insulted the queen. PP felt offended by proxy and is defending the queen of Sweden from those ABBA thugs. which proves he is not a republican, he is pro-monarchy. and that's what he really wanted to tell everyone at Metafilter.

see? it does make sense, it's all about the decoding...
posted by funambulist at 8:21 AM on March 22, 2006

exlotuseater: how would something congruent but opposed encourage discussion?

"The economy is, right now, in terrible shape. Really awful. How about a round of boos for the Bush tax cuts, which have fucked the US."

Is that comment supposed to encourage discussion? If so, why not Paris'?

If not, should that comment be roundly vilified? Followup: would it be?

Whether or not Paris is pulling people's chains has as much to do with the chains as anything.
posted by cortex at 8:23 AM on March 22, 2006

cortex: parisparamus stated that he called out the wrong thread... He actually meant to call out the one where his post states:

I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

Yes... this is really how he starts a callout requesting bans for people who attack others.

I'm not kidding.
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:25 AM on March 22, 2006

I had a conservative friend in Uni. Very conservative. Nice guy. Outspoken, erudite, articulate. I disagreed with him all the time, but he was always civil.
When people talk about how we need civil right-wing voices here, I think of him. And then I think, there's no way he'd stay. He'd probably comment in one thread, keep civil, get railed on, get called a troll, get dragged into MeTa, get generally hounded, and realize "There's no point for me visiting MeFi."

That's the way I feel, and why I've almost stopped posting in political threads. There's only so many times you can be called a torture-lover, klansman or troll before you can't take the whole exercise of discussion on this site seriously. Which is fine. The politics of metafilter's users are overwhelmingly left-wing and anti-Bush, etc. We have the numbers to prove it. Acknowledge it! Revel in it! Start a club! Put it on the banner! It's not going to change. Stop pretending it's PP's or Dios's (and others) comments that you don't like and admit that it's their politics, plain and simple. Which is fine and fair. Many here wouldn't get fair treatment on the LGF message boards, and there wouldn't be any hand wringing about it there. If you have a contrary opinion, why bother? Go somewhere else to talk politics, somewhere more balanced. I'm happy reading the other threads on the blue, and askmefi (and MeTa, of course).
posted by loquax at 8:28 AM on March 22, 2006

And those comments --

The economy is, right now, as good as it has ever been. Really remarkable. How about a round of applause for the Bush tax cuts, which have been wonderful for the US.

I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

-- are his initial contributions to discussions already underway. Meant to inflame, derail? Opinions vary -- but, I'll say 'yes.'
posted by ericb at 8:30 AM on March 22, 2006

Tacos, I was responding to exlotus' actual comment, and my point remains.
posted by cortex at 8:37 AM on March 22, 2006

There's only so many times you can be called a torture-lover, klansman or troll before you can't take the whole exercise of discussion on this site seriously.

A-bjorkin'-men.

I'm a conservative. I like political discussion. I even enjoy debate, and I'd be happy to argue with someone like bugbread, for example (who's possibly the most polite and even-tempered poster I've met in more than a decade online). But you walk into those threads and that's not who you meet. The blue is filled with posters every bit as rude, childish, and just plain dumb as you'll find on Fark or K5 or SomethingAwful or every other site that MetaFilter thinks it's better than.

I said I was pro-life, once. I was called, among other things, a Christian fundamentalist who supports the slavery and rape of women. I replied that hyperbole wasn't helpful; I was told, in all seriousness, that those accusations weren't meant to be hyperbolical.

Liberal and stupid are two different things. I don't mind the former, but PoliMeFi reeks of the latter. Y'all seem to think the tenor of political debate here is different than you'll find on any other site. You're wrong.
posted by cribcage at 8:43 AM on March 22, 2006

loquax: I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

This is his first post in the thread that he claims he started this thread about.

Your defense of him is pointless, for his own words show that you're clearly wrong. Stick to defending Dios.
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:44 AM on March 22, 2006

Metafilter: No, I'M the republican here!
posted by blue_beetle at 8:51 AM on March 22, 2006

cortex: so... your point is that if Paris makes a stupid comment, and somebody turns it back (for the purposes of showing that it's a stupid comment), that the second person is wrong, while the first person is excused?

Personally, I think they both screwed up. Your implied defense of Paris is absurdly misguided. He probably laughs his ass off with Steve At Linnwood, when they read these threads and see people who think he's serious.
posted by I Love Tacos at 8:53 AM on March 22, 2006

cribcage, I would like to point out that while there's a tremendous amount of truth in what you're saying there's a fairly decent sized contingent of us who hate political and newsfilter threads for that very reason.

I think there are people who feel the way you describe, but there are also people who think MeFi COULD be better than those other sites by not having that type of thread at all.

me? I'm on the fence. I hate newsfilter, but I love a DECENT political discussion, as never as that happens around here.
posted by shmegegge at 8:53 AM on March 22, 2006

cortex: "The economy is, right now, in terrible shape. Really awful. How about a round of boos for the Bush tax cuts, which have fucked the US."

Without supporting evidence, neither comment encourages discussion. It's just blather. But a comment like that, when taken in the context of a members posting history, can be read as a troll.

I rarely weigh in on the "ParisParamus Issue", because I find it easy to ignore him [in the blue]; I just found it odd that he posted this MeTa, given the content of that thread.

it's moot anyway, he wasn't even talking about that thread.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:55 AM on March 22, 2006

I love tacos: I'm not defending him. I say ban him. Why bother? Just ban him and be done with it. I'm not being facetious, or trying to illustrate anything. I cannot understand why, after 7 years, mefi and mefites still need to hang on to this pretense that there is room for all views here. There isn't, and it's fine, just like there isn't on LGF, or DailyKos, or whatever. Perhaps not by design, but by sheer numbers and "community values". PP's "agitating" only agitates because of this, just like wishing the board a "happy Martin Luther King day" on a stormfront site is agitating, or bringing up the right of return on a pro-zionist site is agitating, or discussing the merits of the DH rule on a baseball purist forum is agitating. This is not an "equitable and polite discussion site", if my expectation used to be that it was, it was wrong. I've grown since then, and learned a little about the Internets, and about myself.
posted by loquax at 9:01 AM on March 22, 2006

cortex: so... your point is that if Paris makes a stupid comment, and somebody turns it back (for the purposes of showing that it's a stupid comment), that the second person is wrong, while the first person is excused?

No. My point is that there is nothing qualitatively different between the two comments, and that the wildly different receptions their analogues get is fucked up. Paris should be no more excused for contentless blather than anyone else; but he should also be no more vilified for it; and independent of Paris, general opinions should not be boxed up and treated as leperous simply because they're not popular.

Personally, I think they both screwed up. Your implied defense of Paris is absurdly misguided. He probably laughs his ass off with Steve At Linnwood, when they read these threads and see people who think he's serious.

My defense is not of Paris but of fair trade. That anyone who argues a moderate position on the subject is treated as a some sort of crypto-fascist fanboy is what is absurdly misguided.

People should have the wherewithal to simply disagree with a user. Some folks around here do that fairly well; a lot of folks don't; and a shockingly, stupidly high number of mefites seem to lose all sense when they see the words "posted by ParisParimus".

I have no desire to defend him. He can clearly take care of himself. I do, however, wish to call out the stupid and rabid vigor with which mefites attack the idea of Paris. It's fucking embarrassing.
posted by cortex at 9:12 AM on March 22, 2006

cortex writes "a shockingly, stupidly high number of mefites seem to lose all sense when they see the words 'posted by ParisParimus' [sic]."


Yeah, especially when "posted by ParisParamus" is prefixed by "I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not."

Perhaps you could give examples of comments by non-conservatives, which were equally inflammatory but were not responded to?
posted by orthogonality at 9:20 AM on March 22, 2006

orthogonality : "Perhaps you could give examples of comments by non-conservatives, which were equally inflammatory but were not responded to?"

Orthogonality:

I suck at finding specific examples of stuff. My memory keeps impressions but drops specifics. However, if you root around in matteo, decani, or nofundy's comment history, you should probably be able to find some stuff. I know that the burden of proof is probably on me, but I really do suck at finding stuff like this, so unfortunately I can't produce my own evidence.
posted by Bugbread at 9:30 AM on March 22, 2006

What bugbread said. If I feel obsessive and take a significant break from the actually productive stuff I'm doing today, I'll root around and see if I can get you some evidence, but my gut tells me it is fucking everywhere.

And seeing as how I am by-and-large politically aligned with the jackassery I'm referring to, it's not a case of ideological blinders boosting some sort of Frequency Illusion; as a stodgy liberal I have no motivation to invent bad behavior among my clansmen, as it were.

But this:

Yeah, especially when "posted by ParisParamus" is prefixed by "I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not."

Is weak. It is just a snarky comment that chaps your hide. Let it go, or be consumed by it.
posted by cortex at 9:36 AM on March 22, 2006

Perhaps you could give examples of comments by non-conservatives, which were equally inflammatory but were not responded to?

I did... in my comment here.
posted by Witty at 9:45 AM on March 22, 2006

I know I'm late to the party here, but if PP's first comment in that thread had been posted by anyone else, there is no way in hell I'd have thought it to be sincere.
posted by jenovus at 9:50 AM on March 22, 2006

I notice nobody rushed to defend bevets, who put a lot more effort into defending his bald assertions than PP.

If you can't find facts to support your position, there is always the nuclear option:

THIS SITE IS TOO CLOSE MINDED FOR MY GENIOUS
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:52 AM on March 22, 2006

I really feel that under a different kind of administration, we'd be able to talk about politics without being at each other's throats all the time. It's unfortunate that one side has been forced to defend the completely indefensible. It may be that ParisParasmus merely wanted to talk about tax cuts. But every time he (or anyone else) rah rah's the administration, he's tarred with all the crimes the administration has committed in our names-- the looting of the treasury, the torturing, the un-necessary wars, the drowning of New Orleans, everything else. There is just to much baggage being attached to the conservative cause, and it's going to take it a generation to recover, imo.

Maybe if everyone prefaced every conservative opinion with an apology for George Bush, it might be possible to have a reasonable discussion.
posted by empath at 10:00 AM on March 22, 2006

if you root around in bugbread's computer, you should probably be able to find some kiddie porn. I know that the burden of proof is probably on me, but I really do suck at finding stuff like this, so unfortunately I can't produce my own evidence.
posted by matteo at 10:04 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm a Republican. (1)

Great! Who will be my hero now that I know monju_bosatsu is... I can't even say it. I'm in denial. It can't be. Say it ain't so!

I kid, of course.
posted by sequential at 10:04 AM on March 22, 2006

matteo : "if you root around in bugbread's computer, you should probably be able to find some kiddie porn. I know that the burden of proof is probably on me, but I really do suck at finding stuff like this, so unfortunately I can't produce my own evidence."

If anyone wants to come over and check my computer, that's cool.
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 AM on March 22, 2006

matteo, don't play dumb.
posted by Witty at 10:06 AM on March 22, 2006

you'll probably clean it up before we can.

I cannot re-edit my comment history. so check it yourself, or shut up.
posted by matteo at 10:07 AM on March 22, 2006

anyway, you children are free to dig dig dig in my posting history -- it's more than five years of posts and comments, I'm sure you'll find something.

then you can e-mail your daddyhowie, and ask him to ban me
posted by matteo at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2006

Whoa. What's THAT about.
posted by jenovus at 10:10 AM on March 22, 2006

Metafilter: let's all play Who Wants To Be Banned

alternatively, Timeout Deal or No Timeout Deal

or even, I'm A Republican, Get Me Out Of Here!
posted by funambulist at 10:11 AM on March 22, 2006

I am so naming my band Daddy Howie & His Free-Digging Children.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 AM on March 22, 2006

The reaction to Paris was altogether mild and warranted: Paris made an unsupported and nebulous claim, and got told as much. His complaint seem to me to just be more derailing or attention-seeking or playing the fool.
posted by orthogonality at 8:33 AM EST on March 22 [!]

Well said. People try to make it about his "politics" which are entirely unclear and totally irrelevant. It has nothing to do with his politics.

Comedy gold is about right I'd say. MeFi is his stage. Serious discussion, or even light, genuine discussion is pretty well impossible. When someone's chief argument in defense of any point is that it's "lefty" the discussion is clearly a joke. Some people don't care for his constant dalliance.
posted by juiceCake at 10:18 AM on March 22, 2006

I'll just ditto what bugbread said on this topic (and apparently, everything he says on Metatalk).

And for that matter, I'll agree with cribcage when he said this:

bugbread, for example (who's possibly the most polite and even-tempered poster I've met in more than a decade online).

As for the issue of Paris: Crass partisanship is ugly in all forms. Hyperbolic and shrill rhetoric never belongs in any discussion and should be castigated in all forms. Ideological fascism by foreclosing the right of people to genuinely disagree without consequence will result in an echo chamber and the mess we see here. Paris does get treated unfairly to a degree, but is plenty culpable in some of the treatment he gets.
posted by dios at 10:18 AM on March 22, 2006

Whoa. What's THAT about.

That's about matteo refusing to believe any "progressive" could possibly say anything offensive, and/or exhibiting his attack-dog instincts (why bother with reasoned dialog when you can go for the throat with accusations of kiddie porn?).

cribcage: I agree with you, and I hope you'll stick around and keep trying. Things can be better, even if they rarely are.
posted by languagehat at 10:19 AM on March 22, 2006

matteo, don't play dumb.
posted by Witty at 1:06 PM EST on March 22 [!]

PP does. Why the double standard Mr. Witty?
posted by juiceCake at 10:19 AM on March 22, 2006

matteo : "I cannot re-edit my comment history. so check it yourself, or shut up."

I apologize for naming names without evidence. I will rephrase it to be: "I have memories of reading things that matteo, nofundy, and decani posted which annoyed me because they were phrased quite aggressively, although I agreed with the actual contents of what they said. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of those memories, and they may be due to confusion, amplification over time, or other distortions of reality. Reading through each of these commenters' post histories would show me, one way or the other, if my memories are accurate or not. However, as comments deleted from Metafilter do not show up in comment histories, and the combined comment history of the three individuals is 9,814 comments, I do not have the desire or drive to read through them to determine if my memory is accurate or not." Orthogonality (and anyone else who read the comment), please feel to disregard my initial comment. Sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 10:23 AM on March 22, 2006

Every political thread should begin with a good "fuck you" from some liberal pussy... you know, for everyone to just conveniently ignore, thread after friggin' thread... only to pipe up later and whine about "partisan exhortation". Sad.
posted by Witty at 7:25 AM PST on March 22

Metafilter "doesn't do politics well" because of cocksuckers like you... soyjoy, jackspace, nofundy, reklaw, etc. Fuck you all.
posted by Witty at 1:41 PM PST on September 7

So um why should anyone give a shit about your opinion here, Witty?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:39 AM on March 22, 2006

Ideological fascism by foreclosing the right of people to genuinely disagree without consequence will result in an echo chamber and the mess we see here.

Funny you'd mention the right to "genuinely disagree" and follow it up directly with your "echo chamber" sentiment.

Let's just look at the way PP kicked this off: Thread 50250 should be used to indict, convict, and ban...

Who says things like that? It's mildly psychotic, given his participation in that very thread and the subsequent replies. I'd assume he's specifically mentioning me, as I was particularly thin-skinned that night and have been becoming increasingly perturbed every time he shits in a thread and it goes unchecked. So what?

So, the problem is - this kind of ideology of persecution has permeated and is somehow providing him the wiggle room he needs to feel secure in continuing his antics. I'll iterate my thoughts expressed to bugbread in the previous thread: how is it that his trash comments are seen as viable and pristine simply due to the fact that they cause so much static? Only now do I realize it's a rhetorical question, because we've allowed them to control the conversation with this idea that every piece of resistance he comes upon is part of "groupthink" or an "echo chamber".

That, in and of itself, is more disturbing than any amount of vulgarities that may or may not be uttered in any fashion. In fact, it makes me not want to contribute anything to this site one way or another. If you want me gone, PP, so be it. I'm slowly phasing myself out as it is, so don't you worry.
posted by prostyle at 10:42 AM on March 22, 2006

bugbread writes "However, as comments deleted from Metafilter do not show up in comment histories, and the combined comment history of the three individuals is 9,814 comments, I do not have the desire or drive to read through them to determine if my memory is accurate or not."


If you want access to my off-line comments database, I'd be happy to let you. You can do a full-text search on the comments, limited to usernames if you want. Many (but not all) comments are also tagged by tone or emotional color, the user to whom they were directed, the Flesch-Kincaid complexity of the comment, and a Slashdot-style "score". Users can be filtered by (sometimes derived or guessed) sex, location, occupation, political affiliation, hobbies, and "kinks". So you can come up with the comments you need to support your argument pretty easily.
posted by orthogonality at 10:43 AM on March 22, 2006

Orthogonality: Do you really have such a thing?
posted by empath at 10:49 AM on March 22, 2006

Fuck ParisParamus. He exists solely to destroy discussion. And fuck anyone who supports him, for the collateral damage they inflict on this site.

As for the argument that we have a double standard (it's okay to bash Bush, not support him), that is simply stupid. It's like saying we have a double standard about child abuse, that it should be "okay" to support child abuse.

By almost every measure, every action taken by Bush this past six years has been harmful to the USA. The economy is near collapse, the wealth gap is accelerating, your soldiers are dying in swarms, the religionists are invading the government, and your Administration is choc-a-bloc full of criminals.

It is not a double standard when the facts point to him as being a collosal disaster. It is not okay to support Bush, because to do so is to support a criminal enterprise that is harming the country.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:53 AM on March 22, 2006

So um why should anyone give a shit about your opinion here, Witty?

No fair. He meant to login as 111 for that comment.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:53 AM on March 22, 2006

Matteo says 240 provocative things before breakfast. Give me a fucking break.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:55 AM on March 22, 2006

This thread demonstrates and fully embodies everything that is wrong with "conservatives" these days. What a bunch of whiners!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:58 AM on March 22, 2006

Fuck ParisParamus. He exists solely to destroy discussion. And fuck anyone who supports him, for the collateral damage they inflict on this site.

Enjoy your week-long ban.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:59 AM on March 22, 2006

"It is not okay to support Bush."

I support Barbara Bush's right to an abortion.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:59 AM on March 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

FFF: I agree 100%

Anybody supporting Bush on any level deserves all the scorn they get. However, sometimes conservatives are right, and even when I don't agree with them, I can accept that they have valid opinions, supportable by facts.

Like I said, if you're going to voice a conservative opinion, or defend a particular Bush policy (hell, even the Iraq War), just preface it by apologizing for inflicting George Bush on us first, and things should go much easier.
posted by empath at 11:00 AM on March 22, 2006

Oh for the love of Zardoz in a tutu, this thread is still here? And not one image?


Here's the deal. ParisParamus, if he actually does honestly support this administration, has realized they have failed.

So, he comes in and baits everyone in a most skillful manner by making outlandish, unsupported statements.

Which rile them up enough to go out and hunt down supporting facts and links and post them in outraged tones.

That way he can sleep better at night, having done his obfuscated, obdurate part to correct his wrongs.


Now, your image. Enjoy.

posted by loquacious at 11:06 AM on March 22, 2006

It is not okay to support Bush, because to do so is to support a criminal enterprise that is harming the country.

I agree, but here's the problem: the Republicans are running on pure identity politics now. If you disagree with their programs, it must be because of who you are, a liberal or an anti-Semite or a satanic pagan or something, depending on who you are talking to. If you agree, you're a fair-minded individual who takes all the facts into consideration. If this is brought up, you get "Well, you liberals just do the same thing, pick and choose the facts you like, it's a double standard!"

I have no idea how to argue against this kind of disconnect. There is a weird gap on one side of which, the affirmation of the abstract symbol ("freedom", "peace", or pejoratively, "liberal") takes priority over the relationship of the abstract to the tangible.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:07 AM on March 22, 2006

That takes guts to shower nekkid with an obviously reluctant cat.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:09 AM on March 22, 2006

Optimus Chyme - You might consider posting the entire comment next time... you know, instead of just part of it. Oh, and... blow me, for that's all I have for you.
posted by Witty at 11:11 AM on March 22, 2006

Empath: Are you asking 'cause you're as freaked out by that as I am?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on March 22, 2006

empath writes "Orthogonality: Do you really have such a thing?"

Yeah, it's an outgrowth of some government-related work I was doing and some Firefox scripts. There's no real GUI for it thought.
posted by orthogonality at 11:15 AM on March 22, 2006

alvy: I actually typed-and-deleted ", because that sounds cool, but a little stalker-y"
posted by empath at 11:16 AM on March 22, 2006

Empath, Alvy, I'm pretty sure it's just what we call a dry sense of humour.
posted by Bugbread at 11:17 AM on March 22, 2006

sonofsamian is very astute. Very good, needs to be listened to. Please continue.
posted by gsb at 11:19 AM on March 22, 2006

Bugbread: It was just plausible enough for me to ask.
posted by empath at 11:25 AM on March 22, 2006

If I didn't know that ortho was a little eccentric, I'd dismiss the idea of that database's existence. But that ortho is an interesting guy, maybe he does have it. I hope it does because I really want to see it.
posted by mullacc at 11:28 AM on March 22, 2006

Oh, and... blow me, for that's all I have for you.
posted by Witty at 11:11 AM PST on March 22

Well, W, that's why I linked it. Sometimes when you quote someone you post the relevant parts instead of the entire boring screed. I'm just saying that it's a little goofy for you to be whining about poor Paris when you routinely tell others to fuck off, shut the fuck up, et cetera. I wouldn't have a problem with it if you weren't a hypocrite. So:

Fuck off.
posted by Witty at 10:41 AM PST on March 17

blow me
posted by Witty at 11:09 AM PST on March 17

shut the fuck up
posted by Witty at 11:16 AM PST on March 17
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:29 AM on March 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

er, "I hope it does exist". Damnit, that's going to look stupid in the Database.
posted by mullacc at 11:30 AM on March 22, 2006

My comments have been very magenta lately, with just a touch of vinyl.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:31 AM on March 22, 2006

(it's okay to bash Bush, not support him), that is simply stupid. It's like saying we have a double standard about child abuse, that it should be "okay" to support child abuse.

Supporting Bush = stupid and like supporting child abuse.

It is not okay to support Bush, because to do so is to support a criminal enterprise that is harming the country.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:53 PM CST on March 22

Supporting Bush = supporting criminal enterprises.

Anybody supporting Bush on any level deserves all the scorn they get.

Supporting Bush = deserving of scorn.

These comments make my point for me: Ideological fascism by foreclosing the right of people to genuinely disagree without consequence will result in an echo chamber and the mess we see here.

An entire point of view is written off as inherently unreasonable, if not evil, and deserving of scorn regardless of the sincerety of basis for that viewpoint. Wherefrom does this analysis derive? From people's subjective view of politics! How nice and cocooning that rhetorical trick is!

That attitude of partisanship that excludes an entire point of view is wrong, deleterious to civil discourse and the website, and sufficient proof that the problem with Paris is based a large part on substance of his political views. Quite simply, no reasonable person of good intent who might otherwise participate, won't do it because of this exact attitude.

And it is the prevailing attitude on Metafilter.
posted by dios at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2006

Well, W, that's why I linked it.

Well, OC, your link doesn't work right. That being said, what is your point?

I'm just saying that it's a little goofy for you to be whining about poor Paris when you routinely tell others to fuck off, shut the fuck up, et cetera.

No, I tell you to "blow me", "fuck off", etc. So kindly, eat me... and die.
posted by Witty at 11:34 AM on March 22, 2006

If you want access to my off-line comments database, I'd be happy to let you. You can do a full-text search on the comments, limited to usernames if you want. Many (but not all) comments are also tagged by tone or emotional color, the user to whom they were directed, the Flesch-Kincaid complexity of the comment, and a Slashdot-style "score". Users can be filtered by (sometimes derived or guessed) sex, location, occupation, political affiliation, hobbies, and "kinks". So you can come up with the comments you need to support your argument pretty easily.

You should slap a gui on it and put it online. Also:

Oh for the love of Zardoz in a tutu, this thread is still here? And not one image?


posted by puke & cry at 11:34 AM on March 22, 2006

I'd love to see the database, ortho. sent you an email to that effect at your hushmail.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:45 AM on March 22, 2006

Whaddayamean "not one image"? There most certainly was!
posted by klangklangston at 11:47 AM on March 22, 2006

An entire point of view is written off as inherently unreasonable, if not evil, and deserving of scorn regardless of the sincerety of basis for that viewpoint.

I love it when conservatives fall back on moral relativism. If he really means it, then his opinion is as valid as anybody else's.

That's bullshit. Your opinion is only valid if and when you back it up with facts. And if you're going to continually spout off what you know to be unpopular opinions without a shred of evidence to back it up and never make any effort to argue your case, you're just wasting everybody's time.

Paris knows what he said was going to be unpopular, knew it was going to cause a backlash, and he posted it anyway, and most importantly: HAD NO LOGICAL ARGUMENTS OR FACTS TO BACK IT UP.

It was pure noise. At least, dios, when you post, you make an effort to show that you know what the hell you are talking about, even though I think you often over-reach with your generalisations of 'liberals'.
posted by empath at 11:49 AM on March 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Everyone who's posted to this thread needs a month off of Metafilter.

Matt, make it happen!
posted by Eideteker at 11:49 AM on March 22, 2006

dios : "That attitude of partisanship that excludes an entire point of view is wrong, deleterious to civil discourse and the website, and sufficient proof that the problem with Paris is based a large part on substance of his political views."

Well, to be fair, that attitude would be sufficient proof that the problem with Paris is based a large part on substance of his political views if that attitude were shared by a large portion of MeFi. While I understand your belief that this is true, believing something is true and therefore sufficient proof is not actually sufficient proof, as it's based on belief. I'm not saying it isn't true, but by itself that attitude, explicitly expressed by one or two people (or perhaps three, I've lost count), might only be sufficient proof that the problem those posters have with PP is based a large part on substance of his political views.
posted by Bugbread at 11:53 AM on March 22, 2006

Well, OC, your link doesn't work right.

Ctrl-F then.

No, I tell you to "blow me", "fuck off", etc. So kindly, eat me... and die.
posted by Witty at 11:34 AM PST on March 22

You're so glib when you're desperate.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:54 AM on March 22, 2006

empath : "I love it when conservatives fall back on moral relativism."

Empath, if what has been said in other threads is true, dios is a moral relativist. He's not "falling back" on moral relativism, it is the foundation of his beliefs.

(Note: for the record, I'm a moral relativist as well, but I disagree with dios on most things political)
posted by Bugbread at 11:57 AM on March 22, 2006

My moral relatives have shunned me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:01 PM on March 22, 2006

Ctrl-F then.

I did, thank you.

You're so glib when you're desperate.

Nah... just disinterested.
posted by Witty at 12:03 PM on March 22, 2006

Now that I think about it, I think I should have said 'truthiness' instead of moral relativism.
posted by empath at 12:04 PM on March 22, 2006

I think witty deserves a timeout by this point.

I also think dios makes a good point about the idea that supporting bush is immediately deserving of scorn.

Imagine a neighborhood terrorized by this one criminally minded spoiled brat of a child. He breaks into peoples' houses, he steals things he gets people killed but never pulls the trigger himself. The problem is, this child wears a policeman's uniform. Is it really worthy of scorn and derision and insult to support the child? Maybe it's not in the best interest of the people being robbed, maybe it's not in the best interest of anyone at all, except the criminal-cop-child, but it's misguided, not offensive. (this is not a defense of paris, by the way, who I've already said is a fucking troll.) At least, it's misguided in my opinion. I'm certainly not going to start insulting people or accusing them of supporting a great evil just because they're suffering from some funky stockholm syndrome or something. See, that's what the religious right and the fundamentalists do.
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 PM on March 22, 2006

shmegegge writes "Imagine a neighborhood terrorized...."

Wha? Is this an analogy or the movie treatment that got axed in favor of the less confusing Snakes on a Plane? Criminal Child in a Cop Uniform?
posted by orthogonality at 12:22 PM on March 22, 2006

the idea is that it's a childish simpleton wreaking havoc on his neighborhood, but he's an authority figure.

see? not that hard to get.
posted by shmegegge at 12:28 PM on March 22, 2006

Is this an analogy or the movie treatment that got axed in favor of the less confusing Snakes on a Plane?

I don't think Snakes on a Plane is very confusing. It's snakes on a plane.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2006

I'm not sure I follow. Snakes on a plane? So it's like a geometry movie?
posted by Bugbread at 12:32 PM on March 22, 2006

Why aren't you in the Army kid? Plenty of boys your age, good boys from Johnson City and Peoria are dying in Iraq to keep you free, while you mock them and split hairs up at Harvard. You elitist East Coast types are always looking down on normal Americans who had to work their way though college wearing respectable Republican cloth coats. Well, the Hive Mind in America is the Silent majority, and we don't like you effete privileged hippies much more than we like the Viet Cong, son. So join up and pick up a gun, or go back to Harvard and put on a skirt.
posted by orthogonality at 12:37 PM on March 22, 2006

Oh, sorry, that was for the askmefi Hive Mind dating thread.
posted by orthogonality at 12:37 PM on March 22, 2006

What are you, colorblind?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:39 PM on March 22, 2006

I doubt it sonof..., but it'd be a damn shame to let an awesome comment like that unposted.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:40 PM on March 22, 2006

sonofsamiam writes "What are you, colorblind?"

When I had the tumor removed, the neurosurgeon said they'd try to save my color vision, but it didn't work. But I try to stay cheerful. But not the way you stay cheerful, by making fun of the disabled.
posted by orthogonality at 12:42 PM on March 22, 2006

Yeah, yeah. I know all about you colorblind SOBs, leaving hidden messages for each other that look like clusters of randomly colored dots to us "normies."

Don't bother coming after me to kill me. I'll be hiding in the yellow region of the visible spectrum.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:53 PM on March 22, 2006

Did you know people with green eyes can't see dogs? It's completely true, and it's very scary. Think about it. All they hear is the barking.
posted by Bugbread at 12:55 PM on March 22, 2006

So ParisParamus says,

Thread 50250 should be used to indict, convict, and ban several Members...

Then, after almost a hundred comments (including some in which he refers to the contents of thread 50250), he says,

You know what, I was actually thinking of thread 50213! I'm sorry for starting this debate over the wrong thread.

Does anyone need any more evidence that ParisParmus is just trolling?
posted by klausness at 1:37 PM on March 22, 2006

klausness writes "Does anyone need any more evidence that ParisParmus is just trolling?"


So what do you suggest? That when he comes back from banishment, we all of us take an oath to refuse to every respond to any post he makes?
posted by orthogonality at 1:41 PM on March 22, 2006

I liked it better when ParisParamus was in Iraq.
posted by bardic at 1:44 PM on March 22, 2006

"...and I think to myself, what a wonderful world. "
posted by Tenuki at 1:46 PM on March 22, 2006

If the thread number ain't right, you can't indict.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on March 22, 2006

Anybody supporting Bush on any level deserves all the scorn they get.

...
posted by cortex at 1:58 PM on March 22, 2006

Can it be true that no one has linked to the fan-fucking-tastic "Smedleyman's disturbing offer" thread??
posted by orthogonality at 2:04 PM on March 22, 2006

They don't deserve banishment - they deserve... gunishment!
posted by funambulist at 2:20 PM on March 22, 2006

2 people have won this thread, in my opinion. orthogonality, for the "but not the way you stay cheerful, by making fun of the disabled." comment, and bugbrad, for the "all they hear is barking," comment.
posted by shmegegge at 2:21 PM on March 22, 2006

I won this thread simply by not playing.

Fuck. I just lost.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:31 PM on March 22, 2006

shmegegge : "bugbrad, for the 'all they hear is barking,' comment."

Hangs head in shame...
posted by Bugbread at 2:31 PM on March 22, 2006

To be honest, I sorta stole it from Stephen Colbert's show last week. But -- to be totally honest -- I've used a variation several times over the last four years in IRC. When people complained about my horrible typing, I explained that physical disability forces me to type with a stick held in my teeth, and rebuke them for their insensitivity.
posted by orthogonality at 2:40 PM on March 22, 2006

I won this thread simply by not playing.

How about a nice game of chess?
posted by Gator at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2006

Global Thermonuclear War
posted by BobFrapples at 2:45 PM on March 22, 2006

The reason I think that political threads go so badly in my own opinion is that mathowie and I can barely stand to read them

the reason i thinks that political threads go so badly in my own opinion is that you and mathowie have forgotten you are not the only members.
posted by quonsar at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2006

quonsar : "the reason i thinks that political threads go so badly in my own opinion is that you and mathowie have forgotten you are not the only members."

??
posted by Bugbread at 2:49 PM on March 22, 2006

quonsar's afternoon meds apparently haven't kicked in yet.
posted by crunchland at 2:56 PM on March 22, 2006

So, after admitting that he is so incompetent in reading comprehension, linking, analysing and calling out...ParisParamus hasn't returned to this thread to further argue precisely what his gripes in the correct thread were?

This is beyond bizarre.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:58 PM on March 22, 2006

quonsar, why do you feel the need to shit on mathowie and jessamyn so frequently? Do you seriously think you could do a better job of running this website?
posted by languagehat at 2:59 PM on March 22, 2006

dash_slot, PP has been given a timeout.
posted by Gator at 3:00 PM on March 22, 2006

Apologies:
Paris posted 2 comments after that gobsmacking admission:

Thanks, Baby, but I'm a registered Democrat who votes for the individual candidates I decide are best: Schumer; Bush; Clinton ('92); Bloomberg, etc.
posted by ParisParamusPoster at 3:18 PM GMT
&
Matteo, no. And no sockpuppets.
posted by ParisParamusPoster at 3:19 PM GMT

Neither were at all apropos to the callout.

Is he for real?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:04 PM on March 22, 2006

Do you seriously think you could do a better job of running this website?

yup. why is direct criticism of the admins always characterized as "shitting on"?
posted by quonsar at 3:05 PM on March 22, 2006

Ok, not caught up with that yet.

[sigh]

Why this need to keep up with all the shitstorms? I need another hobby.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2006

yup.
posted by quonsar at 3:05 PM PST on March 22

So why don't you create a competing site?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:09 PM on March 22, 2006

It should surprise no one that quonsar has a deep disrespect for authority figures. Starting his own community would turn him into that which he hates. Better to sit on the sidelines and shake his fist in impotent rage.
posted by crunchland at 3:11 PM on March 22, 2006

quonsar, give me a break. Pointing out problems and suggesting solutions is one thing; saying "you and mathowie have forgotten you are not the only members" is shitting, pure and simple.
posted by languagehat at 3:14 PM on March 22, 2006

PP was given a time out. Man, there goes another MeFi user that links to me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:14 PM on March 22, 2006

I'd link to you but zombies are scary, and astro zombies even more so.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:21 PM on March 22, 2006

AttentionWhoring: SUCCESSFUL!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 PM on March 22, 2006

Astro Zombies rulez ok.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:22 PM on March 22, 2006

PP was given a time out. Man, there goes another MeFi user that links to me.

Was he? How'd you find that out?

Err, I mean woof woof. Woof. Woof woof woof, woof! Woof woof woo-woof! Woof woof woof. Woof.
posted by loquacious at 4:42 PM on March 22, 2006

It's here.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2006

Ah, thanks Flo. I was ignoring that thread.
posted by loquacious at 5:01 PM on March 22, 2006

Good plan.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:02 PM on March 22, 2006

I don't get it...
posted by 29 at 6:55 PM on March 22, 2006

comment 223 kthxbi
posted by moonbird at 7:14 PM on March 22, 2006

Alright, I'm back from work! What did I miss?

[Checks programme, sees that we're at the Quonsar's a Silly Attention Whore part of the show.]

I've seen this already.

[Changes channel]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:41 PM on March 22, 2006

And it is the prevailing attitude on Metafilter.
posted by dios at 2:33 PM EST on March 22 [!]

No it isn't it.
posted by juiceCake at 9:10 PM on March 22, 2006

Good god, this is still open? The numerous rapid fire thread closures of late would make a lot more sense if giant bags of dingle like this weren't so often left to sweat in the sun.
posted by scarabic at 9:47 PM on March 22, 2006

There are a lot of comments, particularly in political threads, that are based much more on opinion and belief than in facts and are highly partisan and inflammatory. The only reason PP gets singled out for his comments is that most people don't share his political and ethical view of the world.
posted by insomnus at 9:48 PM on March 22, 2006

The only reason PP gets singled out for his comments is that most people don't share his political and ethical view of the world.

Yeah, we all agree except for him. So we pick on him. We're pegged. And it's not that there's anything worth fighting against in his hateful, anti-arab tracts, it's just that we can't stand anyone who doesn't share our views, and don't know how to engage in reasoning. So we stoop to personal attacks.

It's a good thing that PP has the moral fortitude to carry his banner against the prevailing winds around here. One man against the mob! V for Vendetta! Blow up the datacenter, PP!
posted by scarabic at 10:25 PM on March 22, 2006

My point is scarabic, there are people who are equally hateful on Metafilter. They're just hateful against christian fundamentalists, supposedly ignorant republican voters etc. They are not called trolls. Why is there a double-standard for PP?
posted by insomnus at 10:36 PM on March 22, 2006

I think we should close this thread and re-open the oh no MetaChat is down woo cats!! thread. That is, and would have been, a good thread.
posted by loquacious at 11:00 PM on March 22, 2006

Wasn't it, though? Taught me how to love again.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:04 PM on March 22, 2006

It made me as strong as an ox and twice as smart. It made me feel fluffy.
posted by loquacious at 11:25 PM on March 22, 2006

I think we should close this thread and re-open the oh no MetaChat is down woo cats!! thread. That is, and would have been, a good thread.

You're half right. I'm going to go and fuck with your mind though (oooOOOOooo) and not tell you which half.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:29 PM on March 22, 2006

My point is scarabic, there are people who are equally hateful on Metafilter.

But we only care about hate when it deals with us personally. Isn't scarabic part arabic? But he's not southern, or fat, or christian, so no need to address those frequent targets. That's for the southern people, or the fat people, or the christian people to fight. And I just mention scarabic's name as an example. Most of us are that way. A gay man/woman will condemn homophobia, yet make sweeping statements about an entire part of the country. A christian will condemn hatred against their religion, and then tell you homosexuals are going to hell.

Rare is the individual who isn't hypocritical when it comes to hatred, who fights it in all forms.
posted by justgary at 11:33 PM on March 22, 2006

So what do you suggest? That when he comes back from banishment, we all of us take an oath to refuse to every respond to any post he makes?

Well, I wouldn't be the first to suggest that... Or at least we can make an effort to refuse to respond to him unless we're absolutely sure he's not trolling.

My point is [...] there are people who are equally hateful on Metafilter...

The point isn't that ParisParamus is hateful. The point is that, as far as I can tell, he's just jerking our chains.
posted by klausness at 11:40 PM on March 22, 2006

The point isn't that ParisParamus is hateful. The point is that, as far as I can tell, he's just jerking our chains.

That's exactly why I don't talk to my dad anymore.
posted by 235w103 at 12:31 AM on March 23, 2006

"The point is that, as far as I can tell, he's just jerking our chains.
posted by klausness at 2:40 AM EST on March 23 [!]"

klausness wins the thread, and all the rest of us, except PP, lose. PP, of course, is in troll heaven, with another 238 (and counting) post thread of lameness to his credit. On behalf of PP, who can't do this himself at the moment, let me say, thanks to everyone for playing...
posted by paulsc at 2:50 AM on March 23, 2006

I hope Paris sticks around, purely because Metafilter needs him. Without Paris, there would only be one side, and how much fun is preaching to their choir?
posted by sophist at 3:26 AM on March 23, 2006

"Empath, if what has been said in other threads is true, dios is a moral relativist."

I'd like to point out, as I often have before, that the most egregious intellectual mistake most people make (in this context), including me, is having in mind a stereotypical "enemy" and then use individual people as unwilling proxies for that idealized foe. You are being relativistic, you're a conservative, and conservatives are absolutist so I've just proven you're a liar or a hypocrite. It's not just that the implied syllogism is either a fallacy or its premise(s) are false, the destructive part of it is building that villain in our heads, assuming the worst in every detail, and then arguing against our opponents as if they were that villain.

Yeah, that's the strawman fallacy. But what I think that many people don't realize is that when we think of the strawman fallacy, we think of an opponent intentionally using a rhetorical tactic, and we don't realize that it's not a tactic...it's essentially how they see us. It's how we see our opponents. We all really believe, to greater and lesser degrees, that everyone are actually strawmen, beard-stroking villains.

And when that assumption has been made and used in argument, and it proves to be false, we tend to then silently move along and think that it really doesn't matter because, otherwise, that person really is like those villains. That this was just one exception that proves the point. So let's not dwell on it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:31 AM on March 23, 2006

Excellent point, EB. Too bad it's hidden away beneath the six tons of elephant dung that had already accumulated in this thread. But someday, when the human race is long extinct, alien archeologists will excavate this thread, turn the fossilized dung into spaceship fuel, and retrieve your comment. And they'll appreciate it.

But I hate them already for surviving when we didn't. Goddam beard-stroking villains.
posted by languagehat at 5:09 AM on March 23, 2006

giant bags of dingle

This screams "make me into a tagline," but I resist.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 6:45 AM on March 23, 2006

It's how we see our opponents. We all really believe, to greater and lesser degrees, that everyone are actually strawmen, beard-stroking villains.

It makes it pretty easy when they say things like this:

Kill them all (at least those over the age of 13).
posted by ParisParamus at 7:31 AM PST on September 29

So he is actually a genocide-advocating, beard-stroking villian, or just a troll. You pick.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:43 AM on March 23, 2006

He's not the first, and won't be the last, to participate in a little hyperbole, even if provocateur is his modus operandi.
posted by crunchland at 7:52 AM on March 23, 2006

Without Paris, there would only be one side, and how much fun is preaching to their choir?

Urm, he's not on the other side. He's a troll.
And it ain't a beard he's strokin' when people takes his bait.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:10 AM on March 23, 2006

But we only care about hate when it deals with us personally. Isn't scarabic part arabic? But he's not southern, or fat, or christian, so no need to address those frequent targets.

To bad this example is just wrong. I am not a religious man but I've spent a lot of time railing against the ridicule of all religious people here. I have not crusaded on behalf of fat people and southerners. I guess this makes me merely self-interested in my rejection of hatefulness?

I'm beginning to feel hateful in a self-serving way right now, it's true!

They are not called trolls.

There's a reason for that. PP is not just speaking his point of view, he's deliberately stirring the pot. He has a unique history of being called out, timed out, taken to the mat again and again and he loves it. If you haven't been around long enough or watched closely enough to see that, I'm sorry. But it's true. And we don't need to take 2 steps back and examine our navels about whether or not we're persecuting him AGAIN.
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on March 23, 2006

I suppose many of you have forgotten Paris' previous troll hobby-horse: insane comments about Israel and Palestine. For the longest time I was convinced he was a rabid Jew-hater, posing as a loony right-wing Israel supporter. Same sort of MO as his current rah-rah-Bush spew.

PP is an asswipe of a user who has been actively engaged in hurting this community for at least five years. There has been NO other user who has caused so much disruption to this otherwise fine community. Fuck PP and fuck those who support him.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 AM on March 23, 2006

I'm with five fresh fish on this one, PP has nothing to contribute but bile and deliberate baiting of threads with the intent to derail, nothing more. I don't mind if someone has a differing opinion, but PP doesn't have an opinion, just a wish to divert discussion from the topic at hand.

As I've said before,

Please disregard the ParisParamus trollbot, it has nothing to contribute and is best disregarded.

Cut and paste the above into any thread that PP is involved in and repeat as necessary until everyone stops responding to him. Until or unless he is banned form Me-Fi I think it's the best thing to do. Ignore, ignore, disregard, disregard.
posted by mk1gti at 4:37 PM on March 23, 2006