Is this too gossipy?

April 8, 2006 5:38 PM

Gossipfilter? Is this appropriate for Metafilter, or should insomnia_lj just have his hot-tub party rights revoked?
posted by dhartung to Etiquette/Policy at 5:38 PM (85 comments total)

This is fucking idiotic. I'd hardly say what was written was somehow titillating or even a tenth as prurient as half the stupid celebrity shit printed in most newspapers.

I thought it was a pretty interesting little vignette. Damn, get off insomnia's back for chissakes.
posted by docpops at 5:43 PM on April 8, 2006

this is a callout?
posted by bonaldi at 5:45 PM on April 8, 2006

Totally appropriate.
posted by ColdChef at 5:45 PM on April 8, 2006

except insomnia outed himself as well. shit, him and Dolby must be buggering every damn thing west of the Rockies.
posted by docpops at 5:48 PM on April 8, 2006

He stays in the tub.

Nothing wrong with that comment at all. What an absurd callout... personal expierience equals,"gossipfilter"?

I found it interesting.

What I would find really interesting is Dolby getting his schlong bit off by bisexual sharks while sailboarding with his tranny lover... but you can't have everything.
posted by cedar at 5:59 PM on April 8, 2006

There was an askme question a while ago about personal stories about celebrity run ins. All sorts of people commented, and the best stories were from people who had worked parties populated by celebs. It was a fun read.

Insomnia's comment in the link? Pretty tame.
posted by FunkyHelix at 6:05 PM on April 8, 2006

Eh, not worth a callout, but yeah, I'd revoke his hot tub rights. He could have easily told his story without the mildly prurient angle; I found it odd he'd post something like that about someone he respects.
posted by mediareport at 6:08 PM on April 8, 2006

They may want to take away his hottub rights in the San Francisco swinger scene, but I don't see why we should take away his posting rights here. It doesn't hurt us.
posted by delmoi at 6:15 PM on April 8, 2006

Oh, and by the way, nice way to draw attention to the story. I'd have never noticed it without this post.
posted by konolia at 6:18 PM on April 8, 2006

Oh come on. That was nothing. I mean, certainly nothing to the time PJ Harvey had me in her dungeon. Man, that woman may be skinny but she has a hell of a strong right arm. Impressive diver's watch, too.
posted by Decani at 6:20 PM on April 8, 2006

I don't see why we should take away his posting rights here

Where did I suggest that?
posted by dhartung at 6:24 PM on April 8, 2006

dhartung: "... or should insomnia_lj just have his hot-tub party rights revoked."

Oh... you meant the other hot-tub.
posted by cedar at 6:45 PM on April 8, 2006

Dammit, there's nothing wrong with being polyamorous!!!
posted by Krrrlson at 6:51 PM on April 8, 2006

I began by protesting insomnia_lj's story, but not because he broke a MeFi rule, but instead broke a basic 'rule' of the alternative lifestyle community, that everyone gets to determine their own comfort level on privacy. Nothing is wrong with polyamory, nobody is saying that. It's just that I think people have a right to privacy; even what TD puts on his biscuits or where his mum lives should be his business. But konolia is right, this is just bringing more attention to the whole thing.
posted by tula at 7:08 PM on April 8, 2006

totally interesting...we always have people giving personal expertise and experiences here--why not this? I wouldn't assume that Dolby is ashamed nor that it's something to be ashamed of--that attitude says more about how you feel about sex (and sexual variety) than about the person spoken of.
posted by amberglow at 7:12 PM on April 8, 2006

Worst callout ever.

And I know a thing or two about shitty callouts.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:19 PM on April 8, 2006

Nothing is wrong with polyamory, nobody is saying that.

No, actually I think it's rather dysfunctional.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:19 PM on April 8, 2006

Someone please save Katie Holmes...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:35 PM on April 8, 2006

tula: "I began by protesting insomnia_lj's story, but not because he broke a MeFi rule, but instead broke a basic 'rule' of the alternative lifestyle community..."

This is where you lose me... why should I care about the rules of some "alternative lifestyle community"? Why should insomnia_lj or anyone else here care? If I cared; I'd join them and follow the rules.

You may as well line up -- right next to all those other all those other fat and retarded, lesbian and transgendered, circumcised breeding vegan Republicans -- for your chance at the winning ticket in the "quick to take offense pay attention to me I'm offended" lottery.

It was an interesting anecdote and if Mr. Dolby is concerned about his reputation: he might start by keeping his pants on. At least in the presence of gossiping hangers-on. Then again; this is the first time I've payed attention to him in a decade, so somebody, somewhere, is doing something right.
posted by cedar at 7:36 PM on April 8, 2006

Evrybody brings their own little bit to the table. I for one am glad that he put the polyamorous tidbit into the story - it wouldn't have meant as much if he hadn't. Letting us know that it was swinging party adds an extra element to the man (both Dolby and insomnia - his swinging tendencies I already knew about, fwiw, insomia's, that is). Lame call-out.

So, who here has been to a party and seen Tom Cruise's bi/gay habits. Would that be a similar crime? I'm not saying that Mr. Cruise is bi/gay/whatever, I'm just sayin' what if?
posted by ashbury at 7:37 PM on April 8, 2006

I vote for uncool on insomnia_lj's story. Why not just "I met him at a party"? No need to "out" someone who might like it kept private.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:40 PM on April 8, 2006

hey ... there's a TURD floating in the hot tub!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:40 PM on April 8, 2006

the alternative lifestyle community can go fuck itself.
posted by quonsar at 7:40 PM on April 8, 2006

I was once molested by C.S. Lewis. I really don't want to call it rape, but. . .
posted by dgaicun at 7:42 PM on April 8, 2006

I call bullshit on this story... really who would let insomnia_lj in to there swinging shindigs?

i kid, i kid, cause i dont care...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:43 PM on April 8, 2006

the alternative lifestyle community can go fuck itself.

I hear these parties have a special room for that.

I kinda see what dhartung and tula are saying -- it's a nice story and one that was completely news to me, but I could see how it sounded sorta like some page six/gawker gossip.

Heck, Nick from valleywag still reads mefi, maybe this will make it to there.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:44 PM on April 8, 2006

Heh. but noone reads valleywag...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:45 PM on April 8, 2006

I think it is a good point for discussion. Not sure why people have to rate 'callouts' as being either appropriate or not. There were many ways insomniaLJ could have phrased his (admittedly interesting) story. 'Met at an alternative lifestyle party' might have been a little less overt perhaps.

I know if someone's famous then what they do in public is to some extent 'public property' but a private community party isn't perhaps a place one should expect attendees to report your membership or association. What if it were A.A.? Or if he was attending a pedophile meeting or whatever --- perhaps just out of interest --- anecdotes reporting an association could quite easily rise to the level of defamation if the person reporting doesn't understand the circumstances properly.

I'm not saying insomniaLJ is a dick or anything. But I suspect these are the sorts of happenstances where one should be a bit discriminatory with the descriptive language. It should probably be more general and not so specific/identifying.
posted by peacay at 7:52 PM on April 8, 2006

the first rule of the alternative lifestyle community is that you don't talk about the alternative lifestyle community.

Now, if you want some really juicy gossip, check-out this experience I heard about featuring some well-known MeFites, it seems that....

[comment deleted]
posted by blue_beetle at 7:56 PM on April 8, 2006

Meatbomb >>> "I vote for uncool on insomnia_lj's story. Why not just 'I met him at a party'? No need to 'out' someone who might like it kept private."

Seconded. From my experiences in such contexts, there is a certain expectation that unless specifically and explicitly made clear otherwise, 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.' Sure, that particular poly couple may not care if their friends know that she has a girlfriend on the side and he's cool with it--but her boss might have an issue with it, and that could affect her job.

So.. a certain amount of discretion is implied and expected. Unless he told insomnia_lj otherwise, it's bad form to blast this all over the internets.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:00 PM on April 8, 2006

I think dhartung is just upset because he wasn't invited.
posted by crunchland at 8:02 PM on April 8, 2006

Oh joy. Soon the site shall be rendered utterly prim-safe.

Dhartung, I occasionally enjoy reading your stuff, but your MeTa callouts are consistently merely prissy.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:09 PM on April 8, 2006

When I first read insomnia's post I thought it was a slight breach of etiquette, but I did find it interesting. If Dolby was concerned about that bit of info getting out, he wouldn't have attended a public polyamorous gathering, and let's face it, it's not like he's still in the limelight or his record sales depend on the public thinking he's a wholesome family values type of guy (not that polyamorous folks can't be wholesome family men). And lastly, insomnia does seem to be a bit of an advocate for polyamory and didn't seem to mention the anecdote to dish some dirt on a celeb or mean it as prurient gossip; it was more like, "Hey, this famous person that I think is cool also shares my lifestyle".
posted by Devils Slide at 8:09 PM on April 8, 2006

it's bad form

Yes. Nothing to be "ashamed" of (on anyone's part), but if you like and respect someone, it should have been obvious that there were some details of the evening that weren't yours to tell in a public forum. That's just the way this stuff works. At least for folks I know.
posted by mediareport at 8:10 PM on April 8, 2006

The bottomline is MeFi guidelines clearly state that isn't appropriate to 'out' celebrities, unless they are Tom Cruise or a White House press mole.
posted by dgaicun at 8:12 PM on April 8, 2006

cedar, first I wasn't ever offended. My first comment consisted of a pretty mild tease that he wasn't invited to my next orgy if he was going to name names. It was supposed to be mildly funny, not a giant MeFi reprimand. He defended himself quite nicely. As for why he should care about those rule, well, he was at the party. Assuming I like TD, and my hosts, I might want to respect his privacy, is all. For all I know he wants his poly curiosity to be posted on a website.

Personally, I'd out Tom Cruise in a second because I wouldn't mind doing him, his 'church', or his media empire, a little harm. And while I might think of it as releasing him from the chains of hypocrisy, he would see it as harm, and that would be his call.

Prim-safe? Oh please. Talk about your own shit to your heart's content.
posted by tula at 8:13 PM on April 8, 2006

dhartung is cuming off like a scorned bossy-bottom. Outing someone for outing someone etc. et al. lj should have probably kept it to himself, but so should you, Mr./ Ms. dhartung.
posted by snsranch at 8:17 PM on April 8, 2006

bonaldi >>> "this is a callout?"


This callout, it vibrates?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:23 PM on April 8, 2006

I once had a beer with Quonsar. At Chuck E. Cheese's!
posted by LarryC at 8:24 PM on April 8, 2006

I wouldn't assume that Dolby is ashamed nor that it's something to be ashamed of--that attitude says more about how you feel about sex (and sexual variety) than about the person spoken of.

You don't need to assume that Dolby would be ashamed to find such gossip objectionable. You only need to assume that there's a very real possibility that he wouldn't like his personal matters aired on a public website. And I don't know dhartung personally, but his consideration of the matter says absolutely nothing about his sexual attitudes. It speaks to the level of consideration he would offer to others.

As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly the sort of matter that the community should weigh in about. After all, the first rule of the alternative lifestyle community is that you don't talk about the alternative lifestyle community.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:25 PM on April 8, 2006

I vote uncool, but no real foul. insomnia_lj's anecdote would have been equally good without that little bit of detail and it just smacks of name-dropping and betraying what might be a privacy. Mildly bad form, that's all.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:25 PM on April 8, 2006

i would like to be the first to welcome our new callout overlords...
posted by quonsar at 8:26 PM on April 8, 2006

Yeah, but LarryC, did he say he was mouse-curious?
posted by tula at 8:28 PM on April 8, 2006

yeah, presuming that Dolby didn't tell him in the hot tub, "hey, by the way dude, it's fine if you mention my sexual proclivities in a public internet forum (the internet, of course, being invented by SCIENCE)," I thought it was bad form, too. Great anecdote, but still kinda bad form.
posted by scody at 8:41 PM on April 8, 2006

"I once had a beer with Quonsar. At Chuck E. Cheese's!"

And then the three of you fucked Thomas Dolby.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:46 PM on April 8, 2006

insomnia_lj's anecdote would have been equally good without that little bit of detail and it just smacks of name-dropping

Exactly. Most people would have refrained from that bit of detail, but very few have as large an ego either.
posted by justgary at 8:57 PM on April 8, 2006

Is this appropriate for Metafilter?

It was a question, with a question mark, so I don't know why I'm being piled on, but whatever. I brought it to MeTa mainly because it was being discussed in-thread.

I didn't realize that the standard now is that callouts mean you want someone banned.
posted by dhartung at 9:26 PM on April 8, 2006

Oh c'mon dhartung. It was only mildly discussed in thread - not a derail at all. And the "banned" discussion here is because people, understandably, mistook "hot-tub rights" as a euphemism.

As a metatalk thread, I agree in not seeing the purpose except to direct many, including myself, to a comment they never would have read.
posted by vacapinta at 9:33 PM on April 8, 2006

How many are hoping for an invitation to tula's next orgy?
posted by Cranberry at 9:56 PM on April 8, 2006

I didn't realize that the standard now is that callouts mean you want someone banned.

Duh. Things have changed since the days when you and Migs ruled the roost.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:58 PM on April 8, 2006

Oh, bother. Again:

Duh. Things have changed since the days when you and Migs ruled the roost.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:59 PM on April 8, 2006

because people, understandably, mistook "hot-tub rights" as a euphemism

To be clear, I meant it as an allusion to the issue of whether this was something for our community to police, or whether these were the rules of another community to which insomnia_lj is separately responsible. That's all.

Incidentally, my concern was not so much Dolby here as his wife, who is not a public figure. I might have made that more clear. I know people who have, er, flexible recreational arrangements, and I would never speak out of school -- but then here in the Midwest people can lose jobs over such things. (Maybe in the Bay it means getting invited to more parties, avant-garde networking you might say. I wouldn't know ...)

Kwantsar: True dat. Double true! But I deliberately chose to lurk; I hated finding out I was #1 (most comments).

not seeing the purpose except to direct many, including myself, to a comment they never would have read.

I felt stupid flagging it, because I didn't know what guideline to say it broke. I guess I should have listened to that little voice more. Really, though, I didn't take this all that seriously, I was just taken aback, and I thought that my wording would convey a bit of ham on wry.

Also, when Migs and I were in office, many people still read everything. Now MeTa threads hit 300 comments without breaking a sweat ...

Anyway, jessamyn has provided the Best Answer, but I can't find the button to click. I declare the threat closeable.
posted by dhartung at 11:08 PM on April 8, 2006

In my opinion it is absolutely tasteless to talk about others' sex lives without their explicit permission.

We're trying to have a civilization here. Let's try to behave civilly. "Outing" private lives is not civil in the least.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 PM on April 8, 2006

"In my opinion it is absolutely tasteless to talk about others' sex lives without their explicit permission"

In my opinion it is absolutely tasteless to put your sex life on public display and not expect people to talk about it. To do it front of the looky-loos with an expectation of privacy, where none exists, is just plain silly.

Hell, it worked for Tommy Lee.

R. Kelly, not so much.
posted by cedar at 11:43 PM on April 8, 2006

Sorry, poly clubs are "public display"?

I had no idea. I shall have to go view one some day.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 AM on April 9, 2006

"if Mr. Dolby is concerned about his reputation: he might start by keeping his pants on."

And when did I ever say that he took them off? I didn't even say that TDR was bisexual, or polyamorous. Only that he attended a rather public private party with a crapload of people who were. It's been an open secret in the local community. I've even seen it posted about elsewhere.

Sorry I shocked some of you with my mildly bad form, though.

That said, I've known many other musicians, due to my stint in college radio / managing an indie record store, and oh, the stories I *could've* told you! Like Primus, for instance, and the time I witnessed them doing something both immoral *AND* illegal. Did you know that those guys smoked pot?!!

(Yes I know, you're all shocked...)
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:42 AM on April 9, 2006

"Sorry, poly clubs are "public display"?

There are no poly clubs. There are parties, events, and gatherings thrown by people who are polyamorous. Many are open to the public.

If you really want to know, you'll look around a bit, and then you'll know.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:45 AM on April 9, 2006

cedar, having a nice pleasant conversation at a party, which is all insomnia_lj mentioned, is hardly putting anyone's sex life on display. The "doing it in front of looky-loos" part came from you. Hey insomnia, you're living up to your name.
posted by tula at 1:58 AM on April 9, 2006

insomnia minored in Page 6 at livejournalism school.
posted by crunchland at 5:03 AM on April 9, 2006

IANAL question: If this tidbit had been about someone sue-happy like Tom Cruise, could MetaFilter (mathowie, etc.) be a possible target of legal action?
posted by availablelight at 6:20 AM on April 9, 2006

Dhartung, I occasionally enjoy reading your stuff, but your MeTa callouts are consistently merely prissy.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:09 AM GMT on April 9

f_&_m, ole buddy, that is objectively untrue. Prior to this post, dan has posted only two threads in 2005, one on bugs and one on a scummy spammer.

If you want to go back to 3 years ago, he posted about site design, and in 2002 about hyperbole in the comments.

Where is he being prissy, exactly? (It goes almost without saying that I generally wished that you posted more, but your comment there seemed very unfair).
posted by dash_slot- at 6:39 AM on April 9, 2006

Sorry I shocked some of you with my mildly bad form, though.

It's not shock, just a bit of "ew" at the uncoolness with some "I'd have thought he knew better" mixed in.
posted by mediareport at 6:43 AM on April 9, 2006

Oh, and by the way, nice way to draw attention to the story. I'd have never noticed it without this post.

Yeah, BRAVO. Talk about outing someone.
posted by smackfu at 8:29 AM on April 9, 2006

It's not shock, just a bit of "ew" at the uncoolness with some "I'd have thought he knew better" mixed in.

Amen!
posted by LarryC at 9:08 AM on April 9, 2006

insomnia_lj >>> "It's been an open secret in the local community"


And that's rather the crux of the matter, insomnia_lj. Open scret--local community.

Not splashed all over an extremely high-traffic website.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:35 AM on April 9, 2006

And then the three of you fucked Thomas Dolby.

and thanks to the noise reduction, nobody knew.
posted by quonsar at 9:39 AM on April 9, 2006

Well played.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:52 AM on April 9, 2006

a rather public private party

What kind of backpedal is this? So outing someone's private life is ok if the private party is "rather public" by your reckoning?

I guess a public private party is kind of like summary quotation marks that can be summarizing but not quoting (I misused them above).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:20 AM on April 9, 2006

...my concern was not so much Dolby here as his wife, who is not a public figure.

That's debatable .
posted by obloquy at 1:07 PM on April 9, 2006

nice way to draw attention to the story. I'd have never noticed it without this post.

Same.

Thanks, dhartung! Anecdotes rule.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:31 PM on April 9, 2006

What kind of backpedal is this? So outing someone's private life is ok if the private party is "rather public" by your reckoning?

A private party of more than 100 people is hardly private. Unless your on an island or something.
posted by snsranch at 4:03 PM on April 9, 2006

Les Claypool told me that breakfast was a scam invented by the breakfast cereal companies to peddle their wares.
posted by furtive at 4:34 PM on April 9, 2006

Whatever, y'all. In a post about a celebrity, someone told an anecdote about meeting him. The only reason it seems like "gossip" is that some people are scandalized by the context in the anecdote. But the anecdote itself is very tastefully put forth, so if the mere mention that a polyamorous community exists seems like "page 6" to you, I'd say that's more of a statement about your own personal moral comfort zone than anything else.

Someone met Thomas Dolby at a hot tub party? BFD!
posted by scarabic at 4:40 PM on April 9, 2006

Don't pick on dhartung, damn it.

One of the best things that's happened here in recent times is that he's become a regular contributor again (along with Steven Den Beste's return, too, I'll say, while I'm at it, no matter that our political views are orthogonal).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:29 PM on April 9, 2006

There was an askme question a while ago about personal stories about celebrity run ins. All sorts of people commented, and the best stories were from people who had worked parties populated by celebs. It was a fun read.

I looked for that thread but couldn't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
posted by Devils Slide at 7:16 PM on April 9, 2006

Gee, one of my posts gets a callout, and it's not about ME?!?
posted by wendell at 7:22 PM on April 9, 2006

"...my concern was not so much Dolby here as his wife, who is not a public figure.

That's debatable."

I always thought she was smokin' hot.

How do I get invited to these parties?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:55 PM on April 9, 2006

I don't know dhartung personally, but his consideration of the matter says absolutely nothing about his sexual attitudes. It speaks to the level of consideration he would offer to others.
The mistake he made was thinking that anyone else would care about social ettiquette to the extent that he does.
posted by dg at 9:27 PM on April 9, 2006

Okay, now I'm getting pissed off. Lay off of dhartung. Plenty of people think insomnia_lj made a misstep, and dhartung shouldn't be taking the brunt of this.

And again, it's not about the sex!!!. It's about privacy, which is apparently too nuanced a concept for some of you to grasp. What many people consider private: Sex life, medical history, inner-most hopes and fears, home address, some financial records, etc. Private does not equal forbidden or bad. If you talk about somebody else's stuff without their consent it's considered a bit gossipy. The fact that some people find this titillating, bad, sinful or whatever is irrelevant to the general assumed privacy of any sexual issue.
posted by tula at 10:24 PM on April 9, 2006

*shakes head sadly at stavros's trendy use of orthogonal but agrees about dhartung*
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on April 10, 2006

Metafilter: It's not about the sex!
posted by konolia at 10:08 AM on April 10, 2006

*shakes head sadly at stavros's trendy use of orthogonal but agrees about dhartung*

It's all about the lawn care products, isn't it?
posted by SteveInMaine at 11:06 AM on April 10, 2006

"a rather public private party
What kind of backpedal is this?"

The event was promoted on public web forums. Technically, anyone with a webbrowser was invited. That makes it as public as many of the parties that many out there have moblogged / liveblogged. In fact, at least one person I know of took pictures at that party and posted them online, while numerous others posted about it. (Most of the people there had a blog or a journal, and many of them found out about the event through the act of blogging/journaling.)

Really, the event in question wasn't even specifically polyamorous, and certainly was not exclusionary. It was, however, promoted on polyamorous and bisexual forums. As I mentioned previously, most polyamorous events are held in people's houses unless a sufficient amount of "private" public space or a supportive-enough environment can be found so that other customers are not offended.

Being polyamorous in public can be an ordeal at times. The other weekend, my two partners and I went to see a movie together, only to have to listen to a woman behind us complain to her partner. Why? Because I hugged and held hands with both of my partners, and I innocently kissed one of them.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:11 PM on April 10, 2006

*shakes head sadly at stavros's trendy use of orthogonal but agrees about dhartung*

I've been ornithogonal since before you were born, son. *swaggers off into the threadset*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:49 PM on April 10, 2006

Well, of course you're ornithogonal—you're a chicken!

But what kind of backpedal is this?
posted by languagehat at 7:31 AM on April 11, 2006