November 3, 2006

11:39 PM

Can we please shut the comments on the Ted Haggard thread? It's turned into the same argument repeated over and over again.
posted by dw to etiquette/policy at 11:39 PM (537 comments total)

Left as it is, I think it could hit 2000 comments by the end of the weekend. It's turning into a cautionary tale for posting religion-related FPP.

(Maybe that's a good thing, though, because I'm really getting tired of AtheistFilter/JesusFilter.)
posted by dw at 11:40 PM on November 3, 2006

Sorry, dw. MeFi is astonishingly hard on non-fundamentalists.
posted by felix betachat at 11:52 PM on November 3, 2006

Jesus was a homosexual atheist.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:57 PM on November 3, 2006

Yes, there are some arguments which get repeated again and again on MeFi, Iraq, I/P, Bush, Religion, etc. I spent some time whining about it, but, at a certain point, it became obvious that 1) it wouldn't going away, even if God himself came down to complain on Meta about it, and 2) it's really easy to not click on posts which you don't want on MeFi once you get in the habit of it.

The problem is that you're still in the hate-but-click phase, where you hate it, but you can't stop from clicking and reading all the comments. So, just spend a week not clicking on any thread about religion. If you need to, put a rubber band around your wrist like you're kicking smoking. You'll quickly get in the habit of reading the post once, realizing it's about that subject and then your eyes will just skip over it from then on out. It really works.
posted by boaz at 12:12 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

Paul-Henri Thiry forgives you for your sins against God.



PS I agree with boaz.

PPS Has there even been a non-deleted thread where the comments were closed?
posted by Mister Cheese at 12:16 AM on November 4, 2006

dw posted "Can we please shut the comments on the Ted Haggard thread? It's turned into the same argument repeated over and over again."

dw, who's holding a gun to your head and forcing to read the comments?

You want to pick up your bat and ball and go home, that's fine. But you don't get to call the game because it's not going the way you'd hoped.
posted by orthogonality at 12:19 AM on November 4, 2006

I'll note that dw, in addition to posting 12 comments in that thread, quite possibly started the drift off-topic, with a gratuitous swipe at Richard Dawkins.

So apparently, dw can dish it out. But when it comes to taking it, he can't stand the heat so please close the kitchen. Color me impressed, dw.
posted by orthogonality at 12:25 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

But you don't get to call the game because it's not going the way you'd hoped.

The way I "hoped?" Good Lord, is everything about winning and losing to you?

I'll note that dw, in addition to posting 12 comments in that thread, quite possibly started the drift off-topic, with a gratuitous swipe at Richard Dawkins.

Oh hey, let's blame dw for the derail! Never mind that by the time he said anything the train was already flipped over, on fire, and leaking its cargo into the air prompting evacuations of more than 20,000 residents! Surely HE must be at fault!

So apparently, dw can dish it out. But when it comes to taking it, he can't stand the heat so please close the kitchen. Color me impressed, dw.

No. The thread is cycling back on itself, repeating the same arguments and brickbats with new people. It's not going anywhere. I mean, the last 100 comments were centered around whether God hates shrimp. This thread is toast.
posted by dw at 12:36 AM on November 4, 2006

someone says "fags = pedos"

and some liberal defends her because you have to respect people's sincere beliefs


that's why you guys lose a lot of elections, really. nevermind Diebold

(oh, and ther gaydar thing was hilarious)
posted by matteo at 1:19 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

Wait, if we end this, can we preemptively end those fucking Mac threads?

This thread is toast

Letting it die on its own isn't enough? It can't just die a quiet and lingering death by itself like every other thread here? This one deserves special attention because...?
posted by hototogisu at 1:48 AM on November 4, 2006

the last 100 comments were centered around whether God hates shrimp

Look, He makes them live on the bottom of the ocean and eat fish shit. You work it out.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:55 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

hototogisu writes "This one deserves special attention because...?"


Because some Christians want special treatment. The same clowns who scream about "special rights" for gays are wailing WAAAH-WAAH-WAAH, stop oppressing us Christians by talking about our hypocritical leaders!

Stop pointing out that Pastor Ted, above all, is a pastor who fueled the Republican anti-gay crusade and who kept telling Dubya he's special in God's eyes and so stay the course in Iraq.

Stop pointing out that apparently the biggest part of being a Christian, for some, is pure bigotry -- hating on gays. All the while sanctimoniously calling that hate a public service designed to "save" gays from Hell.

And when that's pointed out, inevitably some Christian asks for special rights -- close down the thread it's hurting our tender Christian sensibilities. (and there's a war on Christmas!)

Nietzsche called Christianity a slave religion. Looks more like a whine religion, at least as practiced by some of its louder adherents.

If (as dw himself gratuitously threw out) it had been Richard Dawkins being a hypocrite -- if Dawkins had cancer and was found to be secretly parrying for a miracle cure -- would dw be asking that the thread be shut down because of all the Christians pointing fingers and calling Dawkins a hypocrite? I somehow doubt it.


You know, the more I think about it, it's always the Christians who complain about "special rights" for gays, who are actually the ones asking for special rights: teach our religion in the public schools, don't teach established science that undermines it, put our slogans on your coins and in your Pledge of Allegiance, plaster our moral code in your courtrooms, open your secular law-making with prayers to our sky-wizard, call America a "Christian Nation", etc., etc., etc.

Get a grip: why does your omnipotent God need so much praise? If he does, go to your churches more often than just Sunday and do it there, not in the public schools and public courthouse and the capital building.

Despite being an atheist, despite being called immoral because of that since I was in grade school by Christians, I've never had any desire to tell anyone else how or what to worship. I've always been one to live and let live: you want to speak in tongues, you want to handle snakes, you want to eat magic wafers and wash it down with wine that's "really blood", go ahead, make the most of it. But I'm damned tired of God-botherers who can't even keep their own pants on telling the rest of us how we should live.

Go fed the hungry, go clothe the poor, but stay the hell out of our bedrooms and stop asking for special rights. According to your magic book, Jesus didn't need to, so why do you?
posted by orthogonality at 2:40 AM on November 4, 2006 [24 favorites]

who's holding a gun to your head

You want to pick up your bat and ball and go home

So apparently, dw can dish it out. But when it comes to taking it

he can't stand the heat

Color me

live and let live

Somebody needs to spend a little more time praying to Calliope.
posted by felix betachat at 2:58 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

What ortho said.
posted by slater at 3:16 AM on November 4, 2006

Ortho: Despite being an atheist... I've never had any desire to tell anyone else how or what to worship.

Well, except here:

why does your omnipotent God need so much praise? If he does, go to your churches more often than just Sunday and do it there, not in the public schools and public courthouse and the capital building.

You know, just pointing out the apparent contradiction.
posted by Dunwitty at 3:26 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's easy to ignore. Unless the five horsemen have shown up in the thread and/or a diode in the Apple Lisa this site is hosted on burned out, sending a B-52 hurtling towards Moscow, let folks hash it out.
posted by maxwelton at 3:33 AM on November 4, 2006

Why do you need to pee so much? If you do, use the bathroom more than once a day and quit pissing on the houseplants, the couch and the TV.

That's reminding people to mind their manners, not ordering them to do things.
posted by maxwelton at 3:36 AM on November 4, 2006

Can we please shut the comments on the Ted Haggard thread? It's turned into the same argument repeated over and over again.

Yes, YES! Ha ha ha! Cry more! "No! No! I don't like to hear it! Mummy! Stop them saying those things!" CRY MORE! FEEL THE JARRING SCRAPE OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE! FEEL THE STING!!!
posted by Arcaz Ino at 3:52 AM on November 4, 2006

Newsfilter. Delete it.
posted by Eideteker at 4:44 AM on November 4, 2006

While it often happens here, has a thread ever been closed but not deleted on Metafilter? I can't think of another such instance.
posted by crunchland at 5:14 AM on November 4, 2006

All worth it for the gaydar thing. I did teh lol.
posted by reklaw at 5:14 AM on November 4, 2006

> Newsfilter. Delete it.

I vote that it remain both permanently open and permanently on the front page as flypaper a playground for the Same Old Crowd.
posted by jfuller at 5:28 AM on November 4, 2006

Same Old Crowd = do not hate teh fags
posted by matteo at 6:20 AM on November 4, 2006

Five horsemen? There's a new horseman? That's kind of wierd, like when She-Hulk was in the Fantastic Four.

Say, it's not She-Hulk, is it? Death, War, Pestilence, Famine and She-Hulk.

It would have to be a big horse.
posted by Grangousier at 6:39 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Fuck yes, orthogonality, well and truly said.
posted by OmieWise at 7:10 AM on November 4, 2006

Thank god for no img tag, tho
posted by bonaldi at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2006

This has to be the whiniest, most especially stupidist callout I've seen in months.

Yes, I have taken into account all the ultra-whiny "why was my AskMe deleted?", and I still had to adjust the scale from decades to a base 10 logrithm.

According to my instruments this registered as a 7.5 on the Prickter scale, with a hypocentral depth of 0.01 meters (very shallow) and an epicenter located approximately 4.1 miles South by Southwest of your mom.
posted by loquacious at 7:20 AM on November 4, 2006 [4 favorites]

while we're at it, can we delete all those 'ask metafilter' questions? i just don't have the time to answer them all...
posted by troybob at 7:29 AM on November 4, 2006

Having read the excellent and amusing coverage here on metaTalk, I thought I'd take a look at the thread in question, I found this:

Oh, and sadly, my grandma might just be in hell-but only the Saviour knows that for sure. Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven. Obviously it hurts my heart a lot (Most of my extended family are not born again.)

Does that break anyone else's heart a little?
posted by econous at 7:42 AM on November 4, 2006

boaz: "The problem is that you're still in the hate-but-click phase, where you hate it, but you can't stop from clicking and reading all the comments."

That's a really bad excuse. People have used it for too long.

Look, here's the deal. There are those of us who choose not to read the political screeds here at MeFi because they usually turn ugly. The trouble is, when they turn ugly, and people start screaming at each other, the stock response is, "you don't have to read it." Well, that would be fine, except for the fact that we're aiming for civil discourse here. I don't mind people having threads about whale shit, or Bush, or Iraq, or semen-eating monkeys even. I don't need to read them. But when people start throwing extremely cheap insults around like there's no tomorrow, a thread doesn't fucking need to be open. It's just a monstrous troll-catcher. It serves to degrade what we do at MeFi. I read through those 740-something comments, and there's no discussion left. There wasn't really one to begin with.

It is possible to have a well-reasoned discussion about this stuff. That thread ain't doing it.
posted by koeselitz at 7:56 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

...and, Matt, if you're looking for suggestions, I'd close that thread and let somebody else start a new one. Trolls tend to get confused when you do that.
posted by koeselitz at 7:59 AM on November 4, 2006

It needs to remain open, lest the triumphalist masturbation of the ranting atheists be thwarted. If they can't build their straw men in this harvest season, they'll get rhetorical blue balls.

And yeah, all the actual content of the incident has already been hashed and rehashed, like the worst diner potatoes. But closing the thread would obviously be the same thing as making everyone in America say "Merry Christmas" by force of jackboot for those who still claim that konolia said that homosexuals are pedophiles, even after she clarified that she didn't.

Or is it that the thread shouldn't be closed because everyone is still abiding by the doctrine of not attacking other members of the site, that injunction written right next to the comment box? Surely, none of those arguing against the closure here aren't doing so because they're enjoying the exercise of their asshole gland, and unable to make rational decisions about the good of the community.

And how will people of faith who disagree with Ted Haggard's hypocracy learn that Metafilter is a welcoming and rational place with no unfair attacks if that thread doesn't remain there for them to see? Truly, those would be special rights to feel that they could participate without being attacked by the spittle-flecked and red-eyed. And those people from communities of faith who might have more to add to the conversation should be driven away by repeated straw men, because the outrage over Haggard and the shadenfreude justifies it. Truly, having that thread open makes us all better people and a better community.
posted by klangklangston at 8:00 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

(And I misspelled hypocricy. Doh.)
posted by klangklangston at 8:02 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

dw, who's holding a gun to your head and forcing to read the comments?

In my case, it's Matt's implementation of "My Comments", that doesn't let me remove something that I posted in 980 comments ago.
posted by smackfu at 8:05 AM on November 4, 2006

and some liberal defends her because you have to respect people's sincere beliefs

Oh bite me Matteo. I was defending her from the accusation that she was actively trying to insult people. I know it might be a subtle distinction, but make an effort.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:06 AM on November 4, 2006

(And I misspelled hypocricy. Doh.)
And again...
posted by matthewr at 8:14 AM on November 4, 2006

Were the img tag around that thread would probably have degenerated into ceiling cat hilarity by now.
posted by casarkos at 8:16 AM on November 4, 2006

you do see that communities of faith who might have more to add to the conversation are inconsistent with the ideal that Metafilter is a welcoming and rational place with no unfair attacks...right? the whole reason these conversations degenerate is the failure of attempt at rational discussion with those for whom membership in the saviour club requires the mystical suspension of rationality itself...but metafilter is just a demonstration of this lack of common ground, not the basis for it...
posted by troybob at 8:17 AM on November 4, 2006

*makes an effort*

no, sorry, tough shit.

"she was actively trying to insult people"? I hope to God (heh) that she was doing just that. if she wasn't, then she simply lacks the brains to figure out that comparing homosexuality with pedophilia might indeed being problematic in the world outside of, say, some evangelical Sunday school coffee break.

with a statement like that, she's either homophobic or dumb. I choose to think she's not dumb, you're of course free to have different ideas. but then, I've never been a fan of bending over backwards to accomodate the delicate sensibilities of people who actively work to take away rights from other people, in God's name, of course.
posted by matteo at 8:19 AM on November 4, 2006

troybob: "the whole reason these conversations degenerate is the failure of attempt at rational discussion with those for whom membership in the saviour club requires the mystical suspension of rationality itself..."

Exactly. Those irrational religious people. They forced us to call them mean names.
posted by koeselitz at 8:26 AM on November 4, 2006

Were the img tag around that thread would probably have degenerated into ceiling cat hilarity by now.

And yet you People continue to doubt My Will, Purpose and everlasting Love for each and every one of you. Though My ways may be inscrutable, never be in doubt of my Love.

Really, it's for your own Good.
posted by loquacious at 8:32 AM on November 4, 2006

Also, that thread is a monster. I had to stop about 2/3rds of the way through for a nourishing and revitalizing burrito break.

And I would have missed Konolia's "gaydar" comments if it weren't for this callout. Holy. Shit.
posted by loquacious at 8:34 AM on November 4, 2006

I've never been a fan of bending over backwards to accomodate the delicate sensibilities of people who actively work to take away rights from other people, in God's name, of course.

matteo, konolia is bending herself into knots trying to justify something she knows isn't true, which is what's saddening and frustrating to me.
posted by jonmc at 8:37 AM on November 4, 2006

"the whole reason these conversations degenerate is the failure of attempt at rational discussion with those for whom membership in the saviour club requires the mystical suspension of rationality itself..."

The whole reason these conversations fail is that there are plenty of good people in MeFi, but there are also plenty of incredible assholes. From my experience, those assholes distribute pretty evenly across theist/atheist, fat/skinny, male/female, and pretty much any other lines.
posted by bugbread at 8:40 AM on November 4, 2006

Do you have some crazy bug in your browser that automatically opens that thread and forces you to sit and read through it? Otherwise, just don't open it. Its not hard. In fact, maybe you should just skip MeFi altogether until its off the front page. Maybe longer.
posted by fenriq at 8:40 AM on November 4, 2006

But closing the thread would obviously be the same thing as making everyone in America say "Merry Christmas" by force of jackboot for those who still claim that konolia said that homosexuals are pedophiles, even after she clarified that she didn't.

I'm sorry, but she did equate the two, despite later sorta-maybe backpedalling.

As many noted, her comment was specious and hateful, and it doesn't matter much to me, and I suspect others, that her intentions may — in her mind — be to save me from her idea of theist punishment. I don't believe that her intentions here rephrase or repurpose her original statement.

If she came to the thread to have a dialogue, then hopefully she came away from it understanding that gays are not pedophiles, that reinforcing this quite common, stereotypical comparison is actually very hurtful, and that this kind of commentary will get an according response. Rather, from reading subsequent comments, I suspect she was there to proselytize.

I don't believe pointing out to her that her comment was hurtful is nearly as dramatic as you make it sound. I could care less if you say, "Merry Christmas", clad in jackboots or slippers. Rather, were you to equate homosexuality with pederasty as she did, I would ask you if you truly understand the implications and consequences of what you are saying, even if it is within your own moral context.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:41 AM on November 4, 2006

"you do see that communities of faith who might have more to add to the conversation are inconsistent with the ideal that Metafilter is a welcoming and rational place with no unfair attacks...right?"

No, it's not. While faith is at its core irrational, that doesn't mean that the decisions and beliefs that come from faith are de facto irrational any more than Plato's Republic. And the thought that you can't have a rational discussion with a person of faith shows you to either be ignorant or vastly overestimating your own rationality.
It's a common assumption here, and an absolutely wrong one.
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Wow, I skipped that thread the first time... kinda wish I hadn't peeked in now.

There's a lot of ugly in there, from both side.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:48 AM on November 4, 2006

Yeah, konolia's "gaydar" quip went over about as well as a white person walking up to the Wu-Tang Clan asking "so, what are you negros up to these days" -- not really insulting, but clearly showing someone venturing into territory she thinks she knows, but is in reality clueless about.

The subsequent "homosexuality is morally equivalent to pedophilia" suggestion was just incredibly dumb. I don't think there's a possible comeback for that.
posted by clevershark at 8:48 AM on November 4, 2006

"I'm sorry, but she did equate the two, despite later sorta-maybe backpedalling. "

I disagree, but I don't have any interest in being offended. She "equated" them under the umbrella of "things that are sins," which includes, what, shoplifting and public spitting? And I realize that she did so in a rhetorically lazy way, and I don't put much stock in her ability to actually argue, but that was pointed out again and again.

But, even granting that she did, that point was well rebutted by the next hundred comments. Did we gain anything by dirtynumbangelboy's personal attacks? At what point can you stop the high-fiving over putting that ignorant savage in her place and return to something resembling a conversation?
Or is it always about the triumph of outrage?
posted by klangklangston at 8:49 AM on November 4, 2006

what klang said.
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on November 4, 2006

Konolia was much more hateful than this, right?

Or would it force you to realize that you're choking on a fucking lie, and clinging to a fucking retarded interpretation of a text in order to shelter yourself from anything resembling independent thought, you fat fucking bigoted small-minded homophobic bitch?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:03 AM on November 4, 2006

well, leftcoastbob, dirtynumbangelboy is living directly in the sights of the ideas konolia is (however tacitly) supporting. So I can't really blame him for being irked.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM on November 4, 2006

And when that's pointed out, inevitably some Christian asks for special rights -- close down the thread it's hurting our tender Christian sensibilities. (and there's a war on Christmas!)>

I have a friend who believes in Jesus and all the jazz, but doesn't refer to herself as a Christian because of connotations exactly like that it brings.

Personally, I think all groups at some point ask for special rights so I don't care. Most the time it is about perception- an evangelist is going to perceive an atheist asking to remove the "One nation, Under God" part from the Pledge as asking for special rights while the atheist will not. The same is visa-versa. I'm always in the right when I'm asking for something, but you're in the wrong when you ask. Duh.
posted by jmd82 at 9:08 AM on November 4, 2006

I've never been a fan of bending over backwards to accomodate the delicate sensibilities of people who actively work to take away rights from other people

I didn't think there was a more militant atheist with less interest in protecting the sensibilities of fundamentalists out there than I am, but goddamn, this kind of comment:

Konolia is a fat, gluttonous hypocritical waste of flesh

is repulsive.

That frothing, hysterical pile-on brought honor to nobody.

Or, you know, what klang said.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:13 AM on November 4, 2006

I never said that the subset of gay people and the subset of pedophiles were the same people. A careful dispassionate reading of what I posted will confirm that.

But as emotions are running pretty high on that thread, I can understand the confusion.

Carry on.
posted by konolia at 9:16 AM on November 4, 2006

Well it basically comes down to "what the f*ck did she expect", really.

If there was a thread about Martin Luther King jr. and someone started openly wondering if MLK "would spend his days smoking crack and drinking malt liquor like those guys in that neighborhood I go through every day on my ride to work" in a comment, you'd pretty much expect all hell to break loose, even if it were true that the poster actually went through a neighborhood where that openly took place every day on his ride to work.
posted by clevershark at 9:21 AM on November 4, 2006

I never said that the subset of gay people and the subset of pedophiles were the same people.

But you did say that homosexual sex and pedophilia were morally equivalent.
posted by clevershark at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2006

I haven't had a bottle of malt liquor since Crazy Horse went off the market. Maybe I should pick up a bottle of malt liquor this morning. And them post on Metafilter.
posted by LarryC at 9:27 AM on November 4, 2006

Carefully dispassionate like saying people are GOING TO HELL? Dispassionate like that?

The obvious hatred of the rest of humanity doesn't get me as riled up as does the obvious hypocrisy. If you want to be a hate monger, at least stand the fuck up and be honest about it.
posted by OmieWise at 9:29 AM on November 4, 2006

Hey, dumbass.
You still haven't answered the fucking question.
Where did Jesus say that gay == bad?
Where?
Have the courage of your convictions or for fuck's sake, go fucking shoot yourself and save us all.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy

well, leftcoastbob, dirtynumbangelboy is living directly in the sights of the ideas konolia is (however tacitly) supporting. So I can't really blame him for being irked.
posted by jonmc

Yeah, jonmc, I can see your point.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:37 AM on November 4, 2006

You know who else says people are going to hell?

Satan
posted by boaz at 9:38 AM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "But as emotions are running pretty high on that thread, I can understand the confusion.

"Carry on."

Emotions are running high, konolia, because of the fucking filth that you and your ilk spew on a daily basis. The fucking filth that tries to ensure that me, and people like me, will permanently be second-class. That we will be subject to discrimination. That gay kids can be brainwashed, electroshocked, and forced to not be who they are.

And you still haven't answered the fucking question.


And to everyone else... when someone's views, hypocrisy, and lies are explicitly trying to make you a second-class citizen (at best), when there is a systematic attempt to strip you of rights and dignity, I'd like to see how the fuck you respond.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:39 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Just to bring a little fucking levity back, here's the best Haggard headline I've seen today:

Haggard sex allegations could rub off on election returns


posted by CunningLinguist at 9:40 AM on November 4, 2006

Yeah, jonmc, I can see your point.

And I see yours, and his and hers. and it all drives you crazy after awhile, so you say 'fuck it,' and go bowling.
posted by jonmc at 9:40 AM on November 4, 2006

leftcoastbob writes "Yeah, jonmc, I can see your point."

See above. Every single one of these wilfully ignorant bigoted fuckheads should just shoot themselves and save the rest of us the fucking pain of having to fucking deal with them.

Are you gay, bob? I don't seem to recall that you are. You cannot possibly understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of such reckless hate.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:41 AM on November 4, 2006

Just to clarify, did Konolia actually say gays are going to hell in the thread? All I see is you go to hell if you don't repent- a mild of difference between the two.
posted by jmd82 at 9:44 AM on November 4, 2006

Maybe I should pick up a bottle of malt liquor this morning. And them post on Metafilter.

I strongly support this sentiment. May I interest you in a High Gravity malt, an Ice or would you prefer something more traditional like an Olde English 800, Cobra or a Colt 45? Or are you looking for a more upscale urban experience in the form of a Phat Boy, Brick House or Viper?
posted by loquacious at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2006

Doh, a mile of difference...
posted by jmd82 at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2006

What's the fucking difference? Those of us who actually use our brains for the purpose God gave them aren't going to bother with repentance, because it's simply not applicable.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:46 AM on November 4, 2006

um, it's rather disingenuous to invoke one's jesus mumbo-jumbo as if it were logical discourse and then to fault others for failing at careful, dispassionate reading...and it's a plain lie to say that drawing a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia was not meant to imply a connection...religious belief itself has been founded on connective threads more precarious than that...
posted by troybob at 9:47 AM on November 4, 2006

I like Merle Haggard, don't understand what all the fuss is about. [sings] I'm proud to be an Okie from Musgokee, the place where even squares can have a ball....
posted by fixedgear at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2006

...fucking...
...fucking...fucking...
...fucking...fucking...fucking...
...fucking...
...fucking...
...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:30 AM JST on November 4

...fucking...fucking...fucking...
...FUCK...FUCKED...fucking...
...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:28 PM JST on November 4

...fucking...FUCING...fucking...fucking...fucking...fucking...
...fucking...fucking...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:38 PM JST on November 4

...fucking...
...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:54 PM JST on November 4

...fucking...
...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:24 PM JST on November 4

...fucking...
...fuck's...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:22 AM JST on November 5

...fucking...fucking...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:26 AM JST on November 5

I only skimmed through the thread, but I take it that it has something to do with fucking?
posted by bugbread at 9:49 AM on November 4, 2006

Who doesn't like fucking?

Hey, get off my leg.
posted by loquacious at 9:52 AM on November 4, 2006

Are you gay, bob? I don't seem to recall that you are. You cannot possibly understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of such reckless hate.

I'm not gay either, dirtynumb, but I've been on the recieving end of homophobia myself. I went to visit a freind on his college campus once. My friends roommate, Jimmy, was flamingly and flamboyantly gay, but a nice guy. I was early so I sat next to his door and waited. What people passing by saw was a young skinny guy sitting outside a known gay man's room. "Hey, Jimmy you fuckin' faggott," one guy muttered. Other people gave me stares of disgust. And this was just for sitting down.

Then there was the weird incident a few weeks ago where I was crossing the street to the deli and an old guy asked me where the nearest PATH train was. "Christopher Street" [a well known gay cruising strip] I said. He made a limp wrist and said,"but that's the gay train." "That's where it is," I said and walked off. I dunno whether he thought I was gay and was trying to bait me or whether I was a fellow homophobe or what. And I've taken any number of shots from white folks and straight folks for not restricting who I spend my time with. So yeah, maybe I have some idea, my friend.

Look, maybe I'm in a unique position. Between the flat-out haters and flat-out embracers there's a whole lotta confused and muddleheaded people. If I can be in a position to change some minds rather then just keep on balkanizing things, I'm gonna try. call me crazy.
posted by jonmc at 9:55 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

You must take the Gay Train
To go to Sugar Hill way up in Harlem

If you miss the Gay Train
You'll find you've missed the quickest way to Harlem

Hurry, get on, now, it's coming
Listen to those rails a-thrumming (All Board!)

Get on the Gay Train
Soon you will be on Sugar Hill in Harlem

And bugbread, my cursory glance lead me to believe it was about retardation.
Get a thesaurus, people.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on November 4, 2006

I am a thesaurus person.
posted by loquacious at 10:04 AM on November 4, 2006

I think this thread and that thread both need more comments about how bad they are. I'll go first seventy-seventh: what a train wreck.
posted by mattbucher at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2006

I wish the election would just get over with. People sure are riled up.
posted by smackfu at 10:26 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

That thread is like the 9622 of dead seriousness and rage.

There are some interesting exchanges to be found, but the whole thing does speak to the utility of people eventually being allowed to devolve into surrealistic thread-pissing and, yes, posting pictures of Ceiling Cat.
posted by furiousthought at 10:28 AM on November 4, 2006

What's the fucking difference? Those of us who actually use our brains for the purpose God gave them aren't going to bother with repentance, because it's simply not applicable.

Any it makes no sense, why? While the gay-hate is questionable, I think the call for repentance in the NT is quite obvious. If we the brain God gave us and claim to follow Christ, I think repentance is very applicable. Of course, if you're not Christian (I haven't followed this enough to know who is and isn't anymore), this is all irrelevant.
posted by jmd82 at 10:30 AM on November 4, 2006

MetaFilter: the same arguments repeated over and over again.
posted by SenshiNeko at 10:33 AM on November 4, 2006

Are you gay, bob? I don't seem to recall that you are. You cannot possibly understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of such reckless hate.

I'm not gay, but I am Black, so can *I* chime in?

You do yourself no good by arguing with these people, especially on the internet, most especially using the hate you expressed.

You're not going to change peoples minds that way. And that is the point isn't it, to at least get the people who hate you for your color/sex/orientation to at least pause and think "hey, that person doesn't fit the stereotype, what do I do NOW"?

The ONLY thing you can do is live your life in such a way that if others followed your lead, the world would be a better place. Either people will see that or they won't, but you can't fix, save or change them by yelling at them, calling them names and advocating they be killed. I understand you're angry and fed up with that crap you get 'cause dammit it isn't right and no one should have to deal with it.

But we don't live in fairy tales and you're going to have make some sort of peace with that fact that people hate and despise you for something you can't and don't want to change.

Ask yourself, about that thread, what has truly be solved? Each "side" is going thinking/feeling as they did before, but with a bit more venom. Will that help gay people be recognized as equal? Is that what you want?

Talk, don't shout, knowing that you are no less of a human being and maybe they'll be able to see that. Not all the time or even when you want them to, but that's not your issue or problem. Talk and move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:42 AM on November 4, 2006 [5 favorites]

Hey, get off my leg.

Ah, you like foreplay....
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:44 AM on November 4, 2006

You want to pick up your bat and ball and go home, that's fine. But you don't get to call the game because it's not going the way you'd hoped.

This has to be the whiniest, most especially stupidist callout I've seen in months.

I dunno. I think it should be closed because it's going nowhere. It's been going nowhere for a while, now. Just a breeding ground for further hostility and axe grinding. Of course, none of that is stopping me from refreshing my browser every few minutes. Ha!

Of course, this all could have been averted with the img tag.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:47 AM on November 4, 2006

Alvy Ampersand: "And bugbread, my cursory glance lead me to believe it was about retardation."

Nope. Even when charitably accepting "obtuse" as being the same as "retarded", we just get:

...moron.
...moron.
...moron.
...retarded moron.
...moron.
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:30 AM JST on November 4}

...moron?
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:28 PM JST on November 4}

...retarded
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:38 PM JST on November 4}

...obtuse...
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:54 PM JST on November 4}

...dumbass.
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:22 AM JST on November 5}

...mildly retarded...
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:26 AM JST on November 5}

...stupid.
...stupidity.
_{posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:43 AM JST on November 5}

So fucking it is.
posted by bugbread at 10:55 AM on November 4, 2006

And I thought I was having a slow Saturday. Wow.

I stand corrected.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2006

"And I thought I was having a slow Saturday. Wow.

I stand corrected."

Kneel before the power of the weekend night shift.
posted by bugbread at 11:03 AM on November 4, 2006

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN SANITIZED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
posted by quonsar at 11:03 AM on November 4, 2006

The only reason I like threads like that is it allows me to realize all the people I should choose to ignore in the future.
posted by Falconetti at 11:05 AM on November 4, 2006

quonsar writes "THIS THREAD HAS BEEN SANITIZED FOR YOUR PROTECTION"

I was wondering where the paper ring surrounding my monitor had come from!
posted by clevershark at 11:09 AM on November 4, 2006

Are you gay, bob? I don't seem to recall that you are. You cannot possibly understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of such reckless hate.

Since I'm not gay, I'll stop trying to get fellow Catholics to vote pro-gay, not be bigoted, etc, because I'm not gay and thus can't relate to your plight. Cause, ya know, I've never received reckless hate. Ever.

Fuck it all. Unless you're straight, Caucasian, and Catholic, I no longer give a shit about you since I can't understand anything beyond myself.
posted by jmd82 at 11:22 AM on November 4, 2006

CunningLinguist writes "[saying] 'Konolia is a fat, gluttonous hypocritical waste of flesh'"is repulsive."

I agree, the personal attacks on Konolia go too far.

And to be honest, initially I wasn't too offended by Konolia saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are both sins; according to her world-view, they are, and according to that world-view, sins are equivalent: homosex is just as bad as, but not worse than, easting shrimp.

But then I got to thinking: we probably all agree that rapists are bad and that usurious money lenders are bad too.

But there's a particular rhetorical device of the bigot: he'll get up on his soapbox and draw us in by exclaiming rape or money-lending is bad (and we mentally nod in agreement) and then he'll go on to use our agreement to advance his bigotry, by talking about "wild-eyed drug-crazed Negro rapists" or "blood-sucking Jew money-lenders".

So perhaps Konolia's comment was entirely innocent, but I think it deserves some extra skepticism. We all want to protect our kids from pedophiles, so the Christian Right's equation of two particular sins (out of the whole myriad of sins they could be talking about) seems designed to get people riled up and angry about one thing (pedophilia) and then to direct their anger and hate against another (homosexuality).

And although in our majority white Christian heterosexual society, of course, the majority of pedophiles, rapists, and money lenders are white Christian heterosexuals, there are (a minority of) homosexual pedophiles, just as there exist "Negro" rapists and Jewish money-lenders.

But our society has matured to the point where we no longer tolerate bigots who conflate being black and being a rapist, or being Jewish and being a money-lender. We rightly reject that rhetorical device as solely the tool of bigots and hate-mongers.

If konolia had railed against Jews and money-lenders or "Negroes" and rapists (and I don't think she would, she's not that kind of bigot), no one here would have defended that or even tried to "understand" much less excuse the mind-set that caused her to spew such bile.

But somehow, it's still acceptable to get up on a podium and explicitly conflate homosexuality and pederasty. Knowing that conflating pushes a hot button, our fear of harm to our children. Knowing that most homosexuals aren't pederasts and most pederasts aren't homosexuals, it's still considered a-OK to get up and spew that sort of bigotry.

I take heart that in the last fifty years, we've marginalized and ostracized the bigots who seek to conflate money-lending and being Jewish, or raping and being black. In another fifty years, I hope the American people will be equally disgusted at anyone conflating homosexuality between consenting adults, with the rape of children.
posted by orthogonality at 11:25 AM on November 4, 2006 [7 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher writes "You do yourself no good by arguing with these people, especially on the internet, most especially using the hate you expressed."

Not hate. Rage. There is a difference.

jmd82 writes "Since I'm not gay, I'll stop trying to get fellow Catholics to vote pro-gay, not be bigoted, etc, because I'm not gay and thus can't relate to your plight. Cause, ya know, I've never received reckless hate. Ever."

I didn't at any point say you can't relate, so kindly do not put words in my mouth.

You cannot, however, truly understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of this bullshit--just like I, as a white male, cannot ever truly understand what it's like to be called a nigger, or what it's like to be female and suffer that discrimination.

Doesn't mean I can't fight for those things. Just means I will never truly grok them.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:27 AM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy : "Not hate. Rage. There is a difference."

True, but that doesn't really change Brandon Blatcher's argument: "You do yourself no good by arguing with these people, especially on the internet, most especially using the rage you expressed."
posted by bugbread at 11:38 AM on November 4, 2006

Fair enough dirty. I just don't see how being gay or not has any bearing on this. I think your idea "can't understand how it feels unless [etc etc etc]" does is reinforce our differences and give bigots an even bigger voice in the mainstream. I don't mean to come off as an asshole, but all your vitriolic voice does is give those who oppose you even more vigor and hatred. Then again, I don't know what else you ought to do.
posted by jmd82 at 11:43 AM on November 4, 2006

On preview:
It doesn't matter if your words are full of hate or rage. Reality is what matters is other's first impression of your voice.
posted by jmd82 at 11:45 AM on November 4, 2006

Ortho— Your last point was absolutely dead on. I only wish that was the way konolia had been addressed within that thread. It was exactly the rebuttal needed, and I hope that she sees it.
posted by klangklangston at 11:48 AM on November 4, 2006

I'm a little curious (not in the "I think it's fucking horrible and Matt is a dick and MetaFilter is managed shittily and I hate everyone!!" passive-aggressive sense of "curious" that is sometimes used on MeFi, but the old-fashioned literal meaning of "curious") why the Ted thread is still open but the "Doubt and disbelief on the rise in the US" thread was closed with "jesusfilter/atheistfilter - please go fight someplace else" as the reason for post deletion.
posted by bugbread at 12:07 PM on November 4, 2006

YOu wanna know why I used the pedo example? Because there was a thread about it a few posts up. That's it.

Happy now?
posted by konolia at 12:16 PM on November 4, 2006

YOu wanna know why I used the pedo example? Because there was a thread about it a few posts up. That's it. Happy now?

It's a pity that Moses was all "seriously, a nice round number would be better, trust me," because as I understand that in the first draft of the commandments, there was actually an 11th: Thou Shalt Not Be Insultingly Disingenuous. Then at least the rest of us would be spared this sort of bullshit.
posted by scody at 12:34 PM on November 4, 2006

No. The thread is cycling back on itself, repeating the same arguments and brickbats with new people. It's not going anywhere. I mean, the last 100 comments were centered around whether God hates shrimp. This thread is toast.

Why does a thread need to 'go' anywhere?
posted by delmoi at 12:41 PM on November 4, 2006

Also, I've seen threads do that in the past, cycle back through the same arguments with new people. It's annoying, but just relax and stop reading it. Are you trying to accomplish something in the thread? Don't bother.

why the Ted thread is still open but the "Doubt and disbelief on the rise in the US" thread was closed with "jesusfilter/atheistfilter - please go fight someplace else" as the reason for post deletion.

It would be a bit silly to close a thread with 800 comments
posted by delmoi at 12:43 PM on November 4, 2006

bugbread ...maybe beacause the doubt and disbelief post was turning into another yet another bevets thread.
posted by adamvasco at 12:44 PM on November 4, 2006

I agree, the personal attacks on Konolia go too far.

I totally agree with that. Way over the top. Konolia seems like a very nice person, and is a valued member of metafilter and metachat. Attacking her is just really lame. I think the people who did attack her must have been people who are not really 'into' metafilter that much, just passive lurkers.

People really need to not take discussions so personally. It's the reason we can't have "shiny" things around here, because people freak out and take things way to far.

Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 12:46 PM on November 4, 2006

...and unable to make rational decisions about the good of the community.

And how will people of faith who disagree with Ted Haggard's hypocracy learn that Metafilter is a welcoming and rational place with no unfair attacks....

The problem with rationality is that it is itself not rational, and can not be easily made so. If rationality forbids arguing in a circle (that is, assuming your conclusions in any way), then the validity of rationality itself, including and especially scientific rationality, can never be argued for by rational means. Many religious people, of which I am not one, appear to grasp this instinctively, if inarticulately, nor does an argument from faith necessarily suffer such a defect, and this compels attention to whatever they have to say, in my opinion.

MetaFilter is seething and practically boiling right now. I can't decide how much I think this reflects the state of the US in general, but it is disturbing and rather marvellous.
posted by jamjam at 12:50 PM on November 4, 2006

delmoi writes "Konolia seems like a very nice person"

She's also a homophobic, ignorant, and bigoted Bible-thumper. What, precisely, is your point?

delmoi writes "People really need to not take discussions so personally."

I beg your fucking pardon? This issue is personal.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:51 PM on November 4, 2006

delmoi writes "Konolia seems like a very nice person"

She's also a homophobic, ignorant, and bigoted Bible-thumper. What, precisely, is your point?

that is the point, my friend. generally decent people believe all kinds of indecent shit, which puts us in an odd position sometimes.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on November 4, 2006

that is the point, my friend. generally decent people believe all kinds of indecent shit, which puts us in an odd position sometimes.

True that, jonmc.

Especially when we're members of a community. One we'd like to be something other than a bad version of "Lord of the Flies."
posted by felix betachat at 1:03 PM on November 4, 2006

I should note, though, that I have no idea what's even going on in that thread, since I certainly don't have time to to read 800 comments. There are over 70,000 words on that page, almost a novels length.
posted by delmoi at 1:04 PM on November 4, 2006

She's also a homophobic, ignorant, and bigoted Bible-thumper. What, precisely, is your point? I beg your fucking pardon? This issue is personal.

Well, I haven't read the thread, but my impression of her is that she does not actually hate gay people, although she does support gay-bashing republicans or whatever.

Obviously ranting and insulting people is not a good way to get your point across. did Konolia attack any member personally in that thread?
posted by delmoi at 1:07 PM on November 4, 2006

There are over 70,000 words on that page, almost a novels length.

I dare somebody to submit the whole thread to NaNoWriMo.
posted by Gator at 1:08 PM on November 4, 2006

jon, I have much less respect for you now than I used to. She, and her ilk, are dedicated to destroying intellectual discours, promoting ignorance, and fanning the flames of bigotry.

These are not 'decent' people. They are KKK members without the pointy hats.

And as far as your homophobic experience goes.. I'm sure it was unpleasant, but it was nothing compared to how an actual gay person feels when treated that way. You were insulted by these fuckers, yes. But they were attacking you on a perception only--easy for you to shrug off. They say that to us, and it attacks an integral part of who we are.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:09 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy I agree it is personal, though you seem a little half arsed about the whole thing. In your position you should go burn a damn church down. Feel your inner righteous rage, it rocks.
posted by econous at 1:09 PM on November 4, 2006

delmoi writes "Well, I haven't read the thread, but my impression of her is that she does not actually hate gay people, although she does support gay-bashing republicans or whatever."

And the difference is what, precisely? Not to Godwin, but: "Some of my best friends are Jews..."

"I'm, not racist, but I support segregation."

You'd be one of the first to call bullshit on that, and you know it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:11 PM on November 4, 2006

wtf superfluous comma
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:11 PM on November 4, 2006

econous writes "dirtynumbangelboy I agree it is personal, though you seem a little half arsed about the whole thing. In your position you should go burn a damn church down. Feel your inner righteous rage, it rocks."

I'm going to choose to believe that was a joke.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:12 PM on November 4, 2006

there are still people in that thread who refuse to believe that Haggard's been lying, even in the face of direct evidence from his own mouth--that alone should be enough to keep it open.

It's also still developing as a story--let the thread be where all the updates go.
posted by amberglow at 1:12 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

dirtynumbangelboy, your vitriol would go down a teensy bit easier for me if you didn't throw around "fat" and "retard" as insults. Besides being juvenile, they are both offensive to others that are far outside the scope of your narrow attack. I have seen enough people call a close family member who has autism a "retard" to know the pain that can cause and it bugs me when it is casually used. And the "fat" remarks seem obviously repellent. I wouldn't advocate censoring you or even complaining about it, but you seem to be blind to the way in which you are promulgating the very sort of activity you are complaining about. It is a different degree to be sure, but of the same kind.
posted by Falconetti at 1:18 PM on November 4, 2006

jon, I have much less respect for you now than I used to. She, and her ilk, are dedicated to destroying intellectual discours, promoting ignorance, and fanning the flames of bigotry.

dirtynumb, haven't you figured out that I'm not defending her, but using the fact that me and her have generally gotten along in the past as a wedge to just maybe change her way of thinking (and a lot of stuff from previous interactions tells me that just maybe it's possible, cuase if we give up on the idea of positive human change, we might as well just fuck it and go bowling as they say).

And as far as your homophobic experience goes.. I'm sure it was unpleasant, but it was nothing compared to how an actual gay person feels when treated that way. You were insulted by these fuckers, yes. But they were attacking you on a perception only--easy for you to shrug off. They say that to us, and it attacks an integral part of who we are.

What, if I had yelled 'hey, I'm not gay!" It would've stopped those guys from kicking my ass if I felt like it. And, FWIW, as somebody who cares about his friends and relatives who happen to be gay, it's an attack on me, too. (and FWIW, I've described gay experiences of my own in online forums and konolia didn't give me any shit about it, so like I said, just maybe...)
posted by jonmc at 1:20 PM on November 4, 2006

Falconetti writes "dirtynumbangelboy, your vitriol would go down a teensy bit easier for me if you didn't throw around 'fat' and 'retard' as insults. "

I suggest that you read my comment about being fat. I'll reproduce it here to make it easier:

"Still, my point stands. But just in case anyone wants to quote out of context:

Nothing wrong with being fat. Everything wrong with it when gluttony is a sin and you carp endlessly about everyone else's sins."

As for 'retard'... she is socially and intelectually retarded, as in 'stunted'.

jonmc writes "it's an attack on me, too. "

With all due respect, jon, and as much as it's important that straight people are on our side, it's not the same.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:26 PM on November 4, 2006

Missed your clarification in the morass, although your explanations are pretty disingenuous.
posted by Falconetti at 1:28 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumb, so if theoretically, if those guys glaring at me had decided to elevate things to throwing punches, it wouldn't have been a gay-bashing, just a fight?
posted by jonmc at 1:29 PM on November 4, 2006

Falconetti, it's not disingenuous. You can believe so if you wish, but you are incorrect.

jonmc.. gaybashing would well have been the motivation, but you are completely missing the point.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:54 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, I think jonmc has stated elsewhere that he is bisexual. Of course he can speak for himself on that point.

Your beef is with me*. Leave him alone.

*actually, who I represent. If you are trying to hurt or upset me it isn't working, sorry. But no sense lashing out at others on these threads, 'k?
posted by konolia at 1:55 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy : "As for 'retard'... she is socially and intelectually retarded, as in 'stunted'."

What a fucking queer defense of using the word "retard" as an insult.
posted by bugbread at 1:57 PM on November 4, 2006

Just out of curiosity, is the Haggard thread setting a MeFi record? Any other thread get any more comments?
posted by SBMike at 2:02 PM on November 4, 2006

*: Does this mean you believe you speak for God?
posted by ltracey at 2:03 PM on November 4, 2006

It was a joke. I can only hope the mean girl didn't make you cry. With all the shrillness here I imagine she probably did, which leaves me feeling a little heart ache for both of you. Empathy can suck.
posted by econous at 2:04 PM on November 4, 2006

The bible says that we are Christ's ambassadors, so if that is what you meant, then I guess yes.
posted by konolia at 2:07 PM on November 4, 2006

Maybe I should rephrase that. His beef is with God, and I'm God's servant. Kinda like you getting mad with a walmart employee when they are only following walmart policy on something.

I'm just God's clerk, in other words.
posted by konolia at 2:09 PM on November 4, 2006

Typewriter bangers on
You're all just hangers on
Everyone's human 'cept Jools and Jim
posted by jonmc at 2:10 PM on November 4, 2006

So you were only following orders.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:12 PM on November 4, 2006 [3 favorites]

SBMike : "Just out of curiosity, is the Haggard thread setting a MeFi record? Any other thread get any more comments?"

1729 comments (but the rules were a little different back then: no automatic 30 day cutoff).
posted by bugbread at 2:12 PM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "Your beef is with me*. Leave him alone."

And you still haven't answered the fucking question, you hypocritical fuck.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:21 PM on November 4, 2006

Seriously, Konolia is why Usenet has killfiles. You're talking to a brick wall. It doesn't matter if the mortar is religion or medication; the more you bang your head against it, the more it's going to hurt.

Because she's "polite", some people assume she'll be more likely to one day see a different point of view. That's like assuming that a homeless guy on the subway raving about the rapture would be less crazy if he just had a nice suit on.

dirtynumbangelboy, walk away from it. You have nothing left to gain whatsoever.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:22 PM on November 4, 2006

The "talking to a brick wall" issue goes both ways on this.

Konolia, you are never going to be able to show dirtynumbangelboy a different point of view. You're talking to a brick wall.
Dirtynumbangelboy, you are never going to be able to show konolia a different point of view. You're talking to a brick wall.

Neither of you have anything to gain from it.
posted by bugbread at 2:26 PM on November 4, 2006

"Just out of curiosity, is the Haggard thread setting a MeFi record? Any other thread get any more comments?"

It still has a ways to go to beat this one, too.

I think it should stay open for thirty days.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:30 PM on November 4, 2006

The bible says that we are Christ's ambassadors,

The bible also says that women should not teach men but should instead remain silent. Just sayin'
posted by boaz at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2006

bugbread writes "Konolia, you are never going to be able to show dirtynumbangelboy a different point of view. You're talking to a brick wall."

If you cannot see a fundamental difference between her position and mine, you're being just as wilfullyignorant and obtuse as she is.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:32 PM on November 4, 2006

I don't know, Armitage Shanks, I think most people on Metafilter, certainly the high-profile users, have pretty unshakeable beliefs about things like politics and religion. I don't think konolia needs to be be singled out. In a choice between polite, friendly users with rigid views and loud, argumentative users with rigid views, I know which one I'd prefer.

I think konolia is a lot more tolerant of Metafilter than Metafilter is of her.
posted by matthewr at 2:33 PM on November 4, 2006

Maybe I should rephrase that. His beef is with God, and I'm God's servant.

Is his beef with God, though? I know he keeps asking you to show him where God says gay = wrong, and I haven't seen you do it yet. (If I missed it, someone please point me in that direction..I've read these as best I could, but very much could've missed something..) Until that happens, I'd say his beef is with you, no?
posted by inigo2 at 2:36 PM on November 4, 2006

If you can't see how you're being goaded into more and more incoherent ranting, which has no effect whatsoever on the target of your rants, while at the same time losing you the support of people who actually do agree with your position, you're also being obtuse.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2006

Oops, the above is a reply to "f you cannot see a fundamental difference between her position and mine,..."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:40 PM on November 4, 2006

Konolia, you are never going to be able to show dirtynumbangelboy a different point of view. You're talking to a brick wall.
Dirtynumbangelboy, you are never going to be able to show konolia a different point of view. You're talking to a brick wall.

Our guests today, two brick walls, on the next Metafilter...
posted by jonmc at 2:40 PM on November 4, 2006

And you still haven't answered the fucking question, you hypocritical fuck.

Lord, go take a breather. Your tone and tactics are putting konolia in a better light, which given her deranged ideas is a pretty impressive accomplishment.
posted by xmutex at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2006

I think konolia is a lot more tolerant of Metafilter than Metafilter is of her.

Sure, if politely telling people that their lives are an abomination before God that will eventually send them to hell counts as tolerant, then she's frigging Gandhi.

Well, except she's not going to hell like Gandhi, of course.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:45 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

dirtynumbangelboy : "If you cannot see a fundamental difference between her position and mine, you're being just as wilfullyignorant and obtuse as she is."

I can see a fundamental difference in her position and yours. I didn't say you think the same things, the same way, or for the same reasons. But, for different reasons, different backgrounds, different stances, different rationales, and the like, you share several traits (you're both human, you both speak English, you both comment on Metafilter, etc.), and one of those traits is that nothing either of you will say will change the others' mind. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or a good thing. But it's true.

Do you really, honestly, believe that there's something that you could say that would change her mind?

Do you really, honestly, believe that there's something she could say that would change your mind?

Both of you are wasting your time arguing with eachother. Saying that does not mean that I "cannot see a fundamental difference between her position and yours". It just means that I can see at least one non-fundamental similarity between them.
posted by bugbread at 2:45 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm quickly sinking into outrage fatigue here. Konolia's posts, in this and the Haggard thread, seem to have this pattern (mainly, not exclusively):

1. come into the thread and say something outrageous
2. leave for some time (sometimes several hours) while people debate what she said
3. come back and stir shit up again, sometimes by answering cherry-picked comments and failing to address sensible criticism
4. goto 2.

It seems clear to me that konolia just posts about "the gay issue" to get herself talked about and keep people from paying too much attention to the subject of the post, so that maybe the substantive elements of the actual post will get forgotten about, just the way Fox News kept the discussion of substantive topics out of the 2004 presidential election by parrotting outrageous talking points.
posted by clevershark at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2006

The Bible teaches that sex is for one man and one woman in marriage. God created it for procreation, pair bonding, and as symbolism of greater truths.(and yes, fun.) Jesus spoke against immorality, which the OT and the Jews of that time knew clearly meant fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality.

I could bring up Paul's teachings but he was specific he wanted to know what Jesus said. I believe the whole Bible is the word of God, though. Any way the first part of Romans is pretty clear about the Bible's take on homosexualilty.

Interestingly enough never a word is said about masturbation in old or new testament altho I suppose the Bible implies it is sin-Christians don't all agree on that point.
posted by konolia at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2006

My first reaction to all this, is I have a huge beef with you and yours as well, konolia.

What your words "represent" is absolutely the worst kind of bigotry and hatred.

Your ignorant views are not Christian in any way. Please stop trying to represent them as such.

On preview, I do have empathy for you, and it's obvious you are in fact actually hurting. Unfortunately, you really have absolutely no clue what Christianity is all about. For you God = Walmart. A corporation in the sky you merely take orders from, mindlessly, clerklike. No responsibility.

That would be merely a curious and minor tragedy, were it not for the fact that you and yours are hurting other feeling beings in your steadfast ignorance.

I wish better for you than what you are giving others, here and I suspect elsewhere. I wish love and comfort for you personally, in place of the intolerance you breathe in every word toward the eternal other. That intolerance and rigidity, if not hate, is something you appear to have personally suffered yourself in some profound form.

I wish you well.

And dirtynumangelboy, don't sweat it. Your rage is understandable, justified, and will eventually prevail over stupidity. I'm just sorry it seems to take forever. Don't take it all personally, if you can. You are dealing with a lot of hidden layers, and heavily defended pain in other humans which are actually at some level decent people.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:49 PM on November 4, 2006

Actually this thread is making me wonder -- what passages in the Bible condemn pedophilia specifically? I don't mean incest -- that's covered well enough.
posted by clevershark at 2:50 PM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "Jesus spoke against immorality, which the OT and the Jews of that time knew clearly meant fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality. "

On what do you base this? Where, precisely, did Jesus condemn homosexuality?

Oh, right... he didn't. He did have a lot of thigns to say about feeding and clothing the poor, about not judging, about motes and beams, and so forth.

Fuck off, you pathetic little shit. You are no more Christian than Osama bin Laden is.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:58 PM on November 4, 2006

bugbread writes "Do you really, honestly, believe that there's something that you could say that would change her mind?"

Possibly. It is, however, cathartic to rage against her. I have tried the eloquent and reasoned approach with her, but what someone else said really rings true: she does not fundamentally believe that homosexuals are actually human beings. We aren't real. Therefore, this 'pain and suffering' we speak of to her simply does not register.

She is a fucking moron. Period.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:00 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy : "what someone else said really rings true: she does not fundamentally believe that homosexuals are actually human beings. We aren't real. Therefore, this 'pain and suffering' we speak of to her simply does not register."

That doesn't ring true to me. From what I've seen her post, it seems more that she thinks you're human, but unrepentant sinners, and the 'pain and suffering' you speak of to her is deserved somehow.

Not that that's any better, of course, but I've never heard her say anything that indicates she thinks y'all are ghosts or robots or figments of imagination or anything. I'd say she definitely considers homosexuals (and pedophiles, and people who have oral sex, and folks who say "goddamn" instead of "golly darn", and shrimp-eaters, and whoever else she feels incurs God's wrath) to be humans.
posted by bugbread at 3:06 PM on November 4, 2006

But, anyway, I digress. If catharsis is your objective, it might just be better to send email directly to her (just a suggestion, not a command/demand/order-disguised-as-suggestion).
posted by bugbread at 3:07 PM on November 4, 2006

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

Nothing wrong with pedophilia, as long as it's within marriage or with virgin girls(not boys(even virgin ones)) won through conquest. There's something in Romans 1 about that. Near the beginning.

I hoped my personal relationship with Jesus would never come out. It's rather different to konolia's.
posted by econous at 3:20 PM on November 4, 2006

econous: The question dirtynumb's been asking is "where did Jesus say...", not "where in the Bible does it say...". The closest you can get is perhaps "I have not come to take away any of the old laws" (or whatever the quote), but to my knowledge Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality.

econous : "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman"

Well, see, there's your problem right there. Men lie with women, usually, by putting their penises in their partners' vaginas. As long as you don't put your penis in another man's vagina, strictly speaking, you're cool.
posted by bugbread at 3:29 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

did Konolia attack any member personally in that thread?

I don't know about you or your sex life (nor is it my business), but I was lumped in with pedophiles on the basis of who I choose to sleep with.

I think most reasonable people would consider being called the equivalent of a child rapist — what Konolia did — pretty offensive.

Again, I can't and won't speak for everyone on that score, but in any case, it's probably not something Jesus did or would do.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:30 PM on November 4, 2006

Maybe it's an injunction against bisexuals who like to have anal sex with both men and women while being the "active" partner on both occasions.
posted by clevershark at 3:32 PM on November 4, 2006

I only skimmed through the thread, but I take it that it has something to do with fucking?

Only 14 fucks in this thread by DNAB. His ratio may be slipping.
posted by Kwantsar at 3:40 PM on November 4, 2006

Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck

There.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:53 PM on November 4, 2006

Bugger, got my pedo reference wasn't Roman 1 it was numbers.

In reference to the children of the Midianites:
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. -- Num 17-18

bugbread even literalism has limits, so the vag buisness is a red herring. Though perhaps the whole thing has been about post-op trannies all this bloody time? I require meditation on this.

As for those gays, seems Jesus was a bit of a liberal for the times. Certainly nothing like his old man, and didn't seem to give a rats arse about homos one way or the other. Other than the non-specific love vibe he gave out.
posted by econous at 4:01 PM on November 4, 2006

Again, I thought I was having a slow Saturday... unless those were just copied and pasted, in which case, -42 Angry Cred points.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:02 PM on November 4, 2006

Well, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He doesn't seem to have been the judgemental type, except for those naughty money-changers who set up shop in the temple.
posted by clevershark at 4:15 PM on November 4, 2006

did Konolia attack any member personally in that thread?

No, she attacked all the gay people in that thread collectively. Which is better how, again?

Look, I'm perfectly happy ignoring moronic fundamentalist "I'm just God's clerk" stuff; I've done it all my life, and stay away from konolia here as much as I can. But when folks like jonmc jump in to defend her as "decent" and "well-meaning," I think it's very reasonable for the gay folks here to note just how much it strikes us as bullshit that there's anything decent or well-meaning about telling someone they're going to hell because of who they are.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, ok?
posted by mediareport at 4:19 PM on November 4, 2006

I agree with clevershark. Of course Jesus wasn't judgmental. He married Mary Magdalen and his descendants live in France. Or something like that. Didn't you read The Da Vinci Code? Keep up people.

I betcha Mary Magdalen was a hot piece of ass.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 4:30 PM on November 4, 2006

Well, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He doesn't seem to have been the judgemental type, except for those naughty money-changers who set up shop in the temple.

Well, yea, he did hang out with the peeps. Heck, He didn't even talk a lot of smack in the presence of Satan! He was all, "Meh, no thanks" and went about His walk. At the same time, he also told them to repent so they didn't get a totally free ride. In the end, I tend to think His message was one of mercy & forgiveness rather than condemnation.
posted by jmd82 at 4:41 PM on November 4, 2006

In your position you should go burn a damn church down. Feel your inner righteous rage, it rocks.

We're not animals like them--they bomb gay bars and abortion clinics and physically attack us all the time. (How's that for righteous?)
posted by amberglow at 4:51 PM on November 4, 2006