Good warcrimes post destroyed by personal attacks in discussion September 5, 2002 5:09 PM Subscribe
I am disturbed by the conversations attacking the original poster in F&M's post on warcrimes (sorry I don't know how to hyperlink without the button.) I found the post well reasoned, free of ideology, and providing important considerations regarding future military action in Iraq. If someone had a legitimate complaint about the post it seems it should have been made here. To denegrate the post, the poster, and those who responded thanking the poster seems juvenial and small minded.
There's a reason MeTa only holds 5 posts at a time on its front page, pjgulliver, and that reason is to make people think long and hard before posting to MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 5:38 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by mediareport at 5:38 PM on September 5, 2002
Thank you mediareport
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:44 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:44 PM on September 5, 2002
There's a reason MeTa only holds 5 posts at a time on its front page...
Dudes, those're worded sorta harsh. No need to sound like a school principle... I'm sure he hears you.
; )
posted by Shane at 6:52 PM on September 5, 2002
Dudes, those're worded sorta harsh. No need to sound like a school principle... I'm sure he hears you.
; )
posted by Shane at 6:52 PM on September 5, 2002
"Dudes, those're worded sorta harsh."
Welcome to MetaTalk....
posted by mkelley at 7:16 PM on September 5, 2002
Welcome to MetaTalk....
posted by mkelley at 7:16 PM on September 5, 2002
The page should start showing more posts... one wouldn't think one would need to browse the current archives for a post two days old.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 7:20 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 7:20 PM on September 5, 2002
Gee, I wonder if we should pay attention to the whole 9/11 hype? Someone might try and manipulate how we feel, ya know. Be as disturbed as you want, but never forget that agendas exist on all sides.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2002
Sorry guys...the only reason I posted to MetaTalk rather than state this sentiment in the original thread was that I was under the impression that discussion about posts should only happen in MetaTalk, not in the original thread. And Wulfgar! said in one of his comments something to the equivilant of "drag me into MetaTalk if you disagree with this."
And I didn't realize there was a post on this yesterday. I looked at what I could see here now and didn't see anything about this.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:58 PM on September 5, 2002
And I didn't realize there was a post on this yesterday. I looked at what I could see here now and didn't see anything about this.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:58 PM on September 5, 2002
The page should start showing more posts... one wouldn't think one would need to browse the current archives for a post two days old.
Rock, meet hardplace. The system as it stands has benefits and repurcussions. It's good in that it will hopefully discourage people to banter away endlessly when MeTa is quiet for a few days. It's bad in the way that a post may only be on front page MeTa for a matter of hours. I dread the day I come on and it says "there have been 6 posts and X comments since your last visit" and I have to click on the archives just to see what someone posted between the hours of when I went to sleep and when I woke up.
::shrugs::
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:13 PM on September 5, 2002
Rock, meet hardplace. The system as it stands has benefits and repurcussions. It's good in that it will hopefully discourage people to banter away endlessly when MeTa is quiet for a few days. It's bad in the way that a post may only be on front page MeTa for a matter of hours. I dread the day I come on and it says "there have been 6 posts and X comments since your last visit" and I have to click on the archives just to see what someone posted between the hours of when I went to sleep and when I woke up.
::shrugs::
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:13 PM on September 5, 2002
doesn't foldy get shit on every time he peeks above the horizon? i thought it was in the guidelines or something.
posted by quonsar at 8:23 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by quonsar at 8:23 PM on September 5, 2002
I've been wondering why so few posts show up on the MetaTalk front page. I guess it makes sense to keep the value up, but I'd go with a couple more.
posted by gametone at 8:28 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by gametone at 8:28 PM on September 5, 2002
Mini-hijack: Why are there so many posts on MeTa these days, anyway? Influx of new newbies doing the wrong thing, f+m posting every couple days (joke, joke!) , or are we just getting more irritable as we get older?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:46 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:46 PM on September 5, 2002
Off-topic: Good to see MetaFilter up again after that brief blip!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:48 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:48 PM on September 5, 2002
Miguel: Yup, but I lost a well typed column that I'm too tired to retype. Dammit!
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:54 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:54 PM on September 5, 2002
What was it about? Wait, are we allowed to conduct a downtime conversation in tiny little letters, Ufez?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:59 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:59 PM on September 5, 2002
Some of us are only getting more irritable with the resident Portuguese authors among us.
I knew I'd find you here ... rassa, frassa, shmassa ...
posted by yhbc at 10:00 PM on September 5, 2002
I knew I'd find you here ... rassa, frassa, shmassa ...
posted by yhbc at 10:00 PM on September 5, 2002
WHOA!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:01 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:01 PM on September 5, 2002
Doubtful, Migs. Better take it over to that other site (that has no name) lest we get too chatty here.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:07 PM on September 5, 2002
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:07 PM on September 5, 2002
MeTa only holds 5 posts ... to make people think long and hard before posting to MeTa
Now there's a jump in logic that defies reason.
posted by mischief at 11:03 PM on September 5, 2002
Now there's a jump in logic that defies reason.
posted by mischief at 11:03 PM on September 5, 2002
Now there's a jump in logic that defies reason.
How so, mischief? I think Matt's been pretty clear in the past about not wanting MeTa to become a chatroom flooded with trivial posts. If you have another explanation for the way MeTa's front page is set up, of course, I'll be happy to read it.
posted by mediareport at 12:05 AM on September 6, 2002
How so, mischief? I think Matt's been pretty clear in the past about not wanting MeTa to become a chatroom flooded with trivial posts. If you have another explanation for the way MeTa's front page is set up, of course, I'll be happy to read it.
posted by mediareport at 12:05 AM on September 6, 2002
The page should start showing more posts
Yeah, what about 25? why not 50? Make it a hundred.
Then I'll finally be able to start MetaTalk threads like, "Should I order Thai or Chinese tonite?"
"Is baking soda toothpaste overrated?"
"Guys, I have trouble splitting a whole-cd mp3, what's the best software?"
Since MetaTalk is about MeFi, well, I'm a MeFi user, so MetaTalk is about me, too!
posted by matteo at 1:40 AM on September 6, 2002
Yeah, what about 25? why not 50? Make it a hundred.
Then I'll finally be able to start MetaTalk threads like, "Should I order Thai or Chinese tonite?"
"Is baking soda toothpaste overrated?"
"Guys, I have trouble splitting a whole-cd mp3, what's the best software?"
Since MetaTalk is about MeFi, well, I'm a MeFi user, so MetaTalk is about me, too!
posted by matteo at 1:40 AM on September 6, 2002
Oh, yeah, about foldy:
"fuck him! fuck him! fuck him for being a pacifist! let's beat the shit out of him! better yet, let's lynch him! I don't wanna read his links, he's a fuckwit who should get his own blog! let's cherish our warbloggers and Pentagon / Likud apologists!! I don't want to hear contrarian arguments! I dont give a shit about civilians getting killed! It's fuckin payback for 9-11 so shut the fuck up! You dont want your civilians killed, well you shouldnt have fucked with us! Some people disagree with the death penalty, fuck them. Or try them in Texas with a court appointed lawyer, they'll shut the fuck up"
his arrogance and his trolling made him a lot of enemies.
I don't like him one bit. He's a terrible advocate for pacifism due to his manners and his sometimes gleeful disrespect for the community here.
But he's not a racist, and he preaches compassion for the weak. We all dislike trolls but it's unbelievable how people shit on his threads out of disagreement with his pacifism
MeFi: pacifist = fuckwit
and get your own fucking blog
posted by matteo at 1:55 AM on September 6, 2002
"fuck him! fuck him! fuck him for being a pacifist! let's beat the shit out of him! better yet, let's lynch him! I don't wanna read his links, he's a fuckwit who should get his own blog! let's cherish our warbloggers and Pentagon / Likud apologists!! I don't want to hear contrarian arguments! I dont give a shit about civilians getting killed! It's fuckin payback for 9-11 so shut the fuck up! You dont want your civilians killed, well you shouldnt have fucked with us! Some people disagree with the death penalty, fuck them. Or try them in Texas with a court appointed lawyer, they'll shut the fuck up"
his arrogance and his trolling made him a lot of enemies.
I don't like him one bit. He's a terrible advocate for pacifism due to his manners and his sometimes gleeful disrespect for the community here.
But he's not a racist, and he preaches compassion for the weak. We all dislike trolls but it's unbelievable how people shit on his threads out of disagreement with his pacifism
MeFi: pacifist = fuckwit
and get your own fucking blog
posted by matteo at 1:55 AM on September 6, 2002
No need to sound like a school principle principal...
Did someone say pet peeve?
posted by dg at 3:43 AM on September 6, 2002
Did someone say pet peeve?
posted by dg at 3:43 AM on September 6, 2002
think long and hard
some of us prefer wet and tight.
posted by quonsar at 4:32 AM on September 6, 2002
some of us prefer wet and tight.
posted by quonsar at 4:32 AM on September 6, 2002
I love the foldy. All hail the fold! The foldster is my main man (or woman, as we're all so careful to allow).
Preach on, foldito! Testify!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:48 AM on September 6, 2002
Preach on, foldito! Testify!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:48 AM on September 6, 2002
As much as I find fold's shrillness grating, I prefer his behavior to the abuse that's being posted in response to him. When you reach a point that you hate the guy so much you're willing to insult people simply because they like him, it's time to back away from the keyboard and get some perspective.
There was nothing wrong with fold's link. It presented a recent news story along with an older link to provide some context, and it was light on editorializing.
posted by rcade at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2002
There was nothing wrong with fold's link. It presented a recent news story along with an older link to provide some context, and it was light on editorializing.
posted by rcade at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2002
Yes rcade, that is exactly what bothered me. It was completely out of line for someone to insult other members simply because they agreed to F&M.
BTW--how do you get a post to link to specific comments like you just did?
posted by pjgulliver at 6:23 AM on September 6, 2002
BTW--how do you get a post to link to specific comments like you just did?
posted by pjgulliver at 6:23 AM on September 6, 2002
When you reach a point that you hate the guy so much you're willing to insult people simply because they like him, it's time to back away from the keyboard and get some perspective.
That's a rather gross misrepresentation, rcade. I don't "hate" foldy. And my comments have nothing to do with whether or not someone "agrees" with f_and_m. What makes me want to puke is the blind fawning in defense of someone who's clearly abusing this site for amusement. I call it blind because of the number of people willing to throw myself and others in the "disagree with foldy" camp, or "feeling guilty about our views" brigade even though, if any bother to read, some of us actually *agree* with foldy on certain issues. The hypocricy concerning f_and_m's baiting is getting out of hand.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:45 AM on September 6, 2002
That's a rather gross misrepresentation, rcade. I don't "hate" foldy. And my comments have nothing to do with whether or not someone "agrees" with f_and_m. What makes me want to puke is the blind fawning in defense of someone who's clearly abusing this site for amusement. I call it blind because of the number of people willing to throw myself and others in the "disagree with foldy" camp, or "feeling guilty about our views" brigade even though, if any bother to read, some of us actually *agree* with foldy on certain issues. The hypocricy concerning f_and_m's baiting is getting out of hand.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:45 AM on September 6, 2002
The time of a post is a hyperlink, like this:
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/2556#47424
To put it in a post use this HTML:
<A HREF="hyperlink_goes_here">description_goes_here<A>
posted by rcade at 6:46 AM on September 6, 2002
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/2556#47424
To put it in a post use this HTML:
<A HREF="hyperlink_goes_here">description_goes_here<A>
posted by rcade at 6:46 AM on September 6, 2002
El Foldito himself has admitted that he wants to be the Ann Coulter of the left:
(I'll never become the Ann Coulter of the far-out left this way...)".
I'd say he's doing a rather good job.
~Work it~ Foldy.
posted by hama7 at 6:52 AM on September 6, 2002
(I'll never become the Ann Coulter of the far-out left this way...)".
I'd say he's doing a rather good job.
~Work it~ Foldy.
posted by hama7 at 6:52 AM on September 6, 2002
Rcade, so how do I know what number to use to specifiy an individual comment within the link? Like the #47424 in you example? (thanks for helping me on this!)
posted by pjgulliver at 6:54 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 6:54 AM on September 6, 2002
Just hover your cursor over the time stamp (the "6:54 AM")after your name in your comment just above. See where it says "http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/2556#47429" in the bar at the bottom of your screen? (unless you're using some OS I don't have a clue about). At that point, you should be able to right-click, and choose "copy shortcut" to save the link to your comment, ready to pasted into the html of your choosing.
posted by yhbc at 6:58 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by yhbc at 6:58 AM on September 6, 2002
or click on the time under the comment you want, pjgulliver.
posted by blahblah at x marks the spot! copy URL from ensuing screen's address window & voila
posted by y2karl at 7:02 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by blahblah at x marks the spot! copy URL from ensuing screen's address window & voila
posted by y2karl at 7:02 AM on September 6, 2002
Thanks guys!
posted by pjgulliver at 7:06 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 7:06 AM on September 6, 2002
I don't think he'll ever be as hot as Ann Coulter.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:10 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 7:10 AM on September 6, 2002
He may never be as hot as Ann Coulter, but baby's got *back*.
posted by hama7 at 7:17 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by hama7 at 7:17 AM on September 6, 2002
pjgulliver, you rawk. I think a tear just came to my eye.
posted by hama7 at 7:23 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by hama7 at 7:23 AM on September 6, 2002
Why is that hama7?
posted by pjgulliver at 7:32 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 7:32 AM on September 6, 2002
someone who's clearly abusing this site for amusement
Considering your work here last night, Wulfgar the Humiliator, you're one to talk. As if your challenges to 'debate'--Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't. Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it? --were really about reason rather than your virtual testoserone... You want discourse or do you just want to push around kids on the playground? The derision suggests the latter, O warrior of the keyboard. Talk about hypocrisy and ego gratification--you've got both departments covered.
hama's just taking his morning troll, pj...
posted by y2karl at 7:38 AM on September 6, 2002
Considering your work here last night, Wulfgar the Humiliator, you're one to talk. As if your challenges to 'debate'--Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't. Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it? --were really about reason rather than your virtual testoserone... You want discourse or do you just want to push around kids on the playground? The derision suggests the latter, O warrior of the keyboard. Talk about hypocrisy and ego gratification--you've got both departments covered.
hama's just taking his morning troll, pj...
posted by y2karl at 7:38 AM on September 6, 2002
I'm just glad to see that Foldy is finally enjoying the tolerance and respect for his positions and beliefs that aaron, ljromanoff and midasmulligan enjoyed for so long.
~winks~
posted by UncleFes at 7:40 AM on September 6, 2002
~winks~
posted by UncleFes at 7:40 AM on September 6, 2002
I really admire your style. You are nice, polite, and your attitude is unbelievably refreshing (and your name is splendid too; please don't change it). I am really happy that you are here. I look forward to more of pjgulliver's posts. Rawk on pjgulliver!
posted by hama7 at 7:45 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by hama7 at 7:45 AM on September 6, 2002
hama's just taking his morning troll, pj...
If you only knew how wrong you are, y2karl.
I meant what I said. I wish more of us could be more frank and less jaded. pj's definitely got the hang of it.
posted by hama7 at 7:51 AM on September 6, 2002
If you only knew how wrong you are, y2karl.
I meant what I said. I wish more of us could be more frank and less jaded. pj's definitely got the hang of it.
posted by hama7 at 7:51 AM on September 6, 2002
Well, thanks Hama7.
posted by pjgulliver at 7:52 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 7:52 AM on September 6, 2002
You want discourse or do you just want to push around kids on the playground?
Nice question, but I have to wonder: do you actually care for an answer? I prefer discourse. I do tend to react poorly to those who tell me what I think, feel, and believe. Foldy does that all the time. Ryvar did it last night with his quip equating disagreement with foldy and guilt over one's beliefs. Assumptions, no really attacks, like that flow right into the "discourse" with nary a hiccup. But, if I were to claim that all liberals indulge in self-hatred, now that would get a rise, wouldn't it? I guarentee, reactions to it would every bit as angry as mine last night. Two differences though: that anger would be somehow justified by proxy, and no one would offer a challenge to prove, support, or otherwise validate the statement. Its simply wrong to assume motivation. Yet it happens all the time in this "discourse", and foldy even gets thanked for it.
Please, don't accuse me of hypocricy when your indulging in it and defending it. Yes, I do take offense at that. And kindly get over the name. 'Makes for flowery literature but doesn't add to the discussion. We're about reason, right?
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:19 AM on September 6, 2002
Nice question, but I have to wonder: do you actually care for an answer? I prefer discourse. I do tend to react poorly to those who tell me what I think, feel, and believe. Foldy does that all the time. Ryvar did it last night with his quip equating disagreement with foldy and guilt over one's beliefs. Assumptions, no really attacks, like that flow right into the "discourse" with nary a hiccup. But, if I were to claim that all liberals indulge in self-hatred, now that would get a rise, wouldn't it? I guarentee, reactions to it would every bit as angry as mine last night. Two differences though: that anger would be somehow justified by proxy, and no one would offer a challenge to prove, support, or otherwise validate the statement. Its simply wrong to assume motivation. Yet it happens all the time in this "discourse", and foldy even gets thanked for it.
Please, don't accuse me of hypocricy when your indulging in it and defending it. Yes, I do take offense at that. And kindly get over the name. 'Makes for flowery literature but doesn't add to the discussion. We're about reason, right?
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:19 AM on September 6, 2002
good lord are LJ and Midas gone now too? well, wulfgar is holding his own and advancing.
posted by clavdivs at 8:56 AM on September 6, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 8:56 AM on September 6, 2002
Please, don't accuse me of hypocricy when your indulging in it and defending it.
Huh? You questioned fold_and_mutilate's intentions, I question yours--what does that have to do with defending him? You got flowery literate with the mocking--Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't. Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it? --and recipes and didn't just piss on the thread, but shit on it. Where's the reason in that?
posted by y2karl at 9:02 AM on September 6, 2002
Huh? You questioned fold_and_mutilate's intentions, I question yours--what does that have to do with defending him? You got flowery literate with the mocking--Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't. Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it? --and recipes and didn't just piss on the thread, but shit on it. Where's the reason in that?
posted by y2karl at 9:02 AM on September 6, 2002
wulfgar is holding his own and advancing.
For now. But eventually his capacity for masochism will be exceeded, like everyone else's. And then there will once again be Unity.
*continues sweeping, whistles tunelessly*
posted by UncleFes at 9:16 AM on September 6, 2002
For now. But eventually his capacity for masochism will be exceeded, like everyone else's. And then there will once again be Unity.
*continues sweeping, whistles tunelessly*
posted by UncleFes at 9:16 AM on September 6, 2002
'scuse me fellas, but this is gettin' a bit too cryptic. And a bit spell check skip-o-rific.
Care to take it outside?
posted by hama7 at 9:19 AM on September 6, 2002
Care to take it outside?
posted by hama7 at 9:19 AM on September 6, 2002
I'm just glad to see that Foldy is finally enjoying the tolerance and respect for his positions and beliefs that aaron, ljromanoff and midasmulligan enjoyed for so long.
Is aaron ever coming back? Aaron, are you out there reading, laughing at this latest ludicrous squabble? Please phone home... again.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:25 AM on September 6, 2002
Is aaron ever coming back? Aaron, are you out there reading, laughing at this latest ludicrous squabble? Please phone home... again.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:25 AM on September 6, 2002
y2karl, you keep coming back to that statement like it is somehow a damning confession. So let's be reasonable and look at it, shall we:
Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't.
Seems pretty straightforward. As I've indicated, a remarkably ridiculous and offensive statement was thrown out as truth. It is indeed unsupportable.
Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it?
Not too hard to see where that bit of vitriol comes from. ~wink~
If you believe that I shit on the thread, thats fine. I'm not convinced that you're wrong, or that you're right. But that's for me to figure out. When you tell me that I shat on the thread are you commenting about what I wrote, or how I wrote it? Seems to me, the latter. I admit, I get very combative when offended.
But that's still an issue of style, not content. So, if we're about reason, here, why all the hooha about my style while complaining that I didn't deal with content in the thread? 'Cause if you take a look, you'll find that I did deal with the content. This is starting to look a whole lot like a double standard from over here...
And I never said you were defending foldy; its that double standard that seems to beg your protection.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:30 AM on September 6, 2002
Care to support your assumption? Didn't think so, just 'cause I know you can't.
Seems pretty straightforward. As I've indicated, a remarkably ridiculous and offensive statement was thrown out as truth. It is indeed unsupportable.
Yes, I'm laughing at you. Pisses you off, doesn't it?
Not too hard to see where that bit of vitriol comes from. ~wink~
If you believe that I shit on the thread, thats fine. I'm not convinced that you're wrong, or that you're right. But that's for me to figure out. When you tell me that I shat on the thread are you commenting about what I wrote, or how I wrote it? Seems to me, the latter. I admit, I get very combative when offended.
But that's still an issue of style, not content. So, if we're about reason, here, why all the hooha about my style while complaining that I didn't deal with content in the thread? 'Cause if you take a look, you'll find that I did deal with the content. This is starting to look a whole lot like a double standard from over here...
And I never said you were defending foldy; its that double standard that seems to beg your protection.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:30 AM on September 6, 2002
I admit, I get very combative when offended--Wulfgar!
Yeah, no kidding. But here's the point. Mefi isn't a pissing contest (at least, I hope not.) It a place for people to learn from posts, discuss said posts, and learn from other members. Or even try to sway the opinions of other members by arguing what you feel is right. But I don't see how insulting and jumping on people furthers any of these ends. You were offended by the posts about war crimes? Don't yell at people for offending you, those posts were perfectly legitimate. Rather, tell us, in normal written English, why you were offended, what the opposite point of view is regarding this issue, and back up those points with thoughts of your own.
If you simply feel like being the meanest kid on the block and using poorly written exclamations and insults to attack those with whom you disagree, well, don't you think a middle school gym class would be more suited to your style?
posted by pjgulliver at 9:42 AM on September 6, 2002
Yeah, no kidding. But here's the point. Mefi isn't a pissing contest (at least, I hope not.) It a place for people to learn from posts, discuss said posts, and learn from other members. Or even try to sway the opinions of other members by arguing what you feel is right. But I don't see how insulting and jumping on people furthers any of these ends. You were offended by the posts about war crimes? Don't yell at people for offending you, those posts were perfectly legitimate. Rather, tell us, in normal written English, why you were offended, what the opposite point of view is regarding this issue, and back up those points with thoughts of your own.
If you simply feel like being the meanest kid on the block and using poorly written exclamations and insults to attack those with whom you disagree, well, don't you think a middle school gym class would be more suited to your style?
posted by pjgulliver at 9:42 AM on September 6, 2002
*sigh* It's hard to separate the reason from the chest thumping sometimes.
aaron has his troubles, ljromanoff a blog amd midas a job, or so it seems to me. None are gone. All seem united in their contempt for the leftwing cabal but aaron was the most interested in things other than just baiting the liberals and hence showed a human side.
posted by y2karl at 9:45 AM on September 6, 2002
aaron has his troubles, ljromanoff a blog amd midas a job, or so it seems to me. None are gone. All seem united in their contempt for the leftwing cabal but aaron was the most interested in things other than just baiting the liberals and hence showed a human side.
posted by y2karl at 9:45 AM on September 6, 2002
Rather, tell us, in normal written English, why you were offended,
*sigh indeed* I did. Its all the harder to seperate reason from chest thumping if what's written is just assumed instead of read.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:06 AM on September 6, 2002
*sigh indeed* I did. Its all the harder to seperate reason from chest thumping if what's written is just assumed instead of read.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:06 AM on September 6, 2002
My point was that there occasionally seems to be a bit of a double standard, as Wulfgar points out - where lefty sub-trolling tends to get the benefit of the doubt, if not outrightly championed, the same behavior from the right - or even wisecracky or vociferous response to a patently provocative post as we are seeing here, draws immediate, vigorous and continuing criticism. Ok, there's probably not a cabal, but Mefi is overwhelmingly liberal, and not as tolerant of conservatives as I think it would like to think it is.
`Aaron’s last post was April 28, 2002
`Ljromanoff’s last post was August 2, 2002
`Midasmulligan’s last post was day before yesterday, you got me there.
I think most of us are in agreement - we'd like to see more reasoned debate, less chest thumping, less outright provocation, more talk. But the FPs these days are polarizing, the sides are picked, and the posts are almost de riguer. Hell, y2karl, how many times have you and I kicked the dust up in the pedophilia threads? Three-four times are least? Truth is, there is some hypocrisy out there, some kettle-calling, a lot of willful ignorance and even more short tempers. And it's been building as we approach the "anniversary."
Personally, I'm seriously considering taking a week off from Mefi, and this week looks like a great time to do it. But otherwise, maybe we all ought to do what Matt and others have advocated in the past: read over your post before you hit the button and think: does this add or detract from the conversation?
I try, and I promise to try harder to do that. When I come back next Friday.
posted by UncleFes at 10:07 AM on September 6, 2002
`Aaron’s last post was April 28, 2002
`Ljromanoff’s last post was August 2, 2002
`Midasmulligan’s last post was day before yesterday, you got me there.
I think most of us are in agreement - we'd like to see more reasoned debate, less chest thumping, less outright provocation, more talk. But the FPs these days are polarizing, the sides are picked, and the posts are almost de riguer. Hell, y2karl, how many times have you and I kicked the dust up in the pedophilia threads? Three-four times are least? Truth is, there is some hypocrisy out there, some kettle-calling, a lot of willful ignorance and even more short tempers. And it's been building as we approach the "anniversary."
Personally, I'm seriously considering taking a week off from Mefi, and this week looks like a great time to do it. But otherwise, maybe we all ought to do what Matt and others have advocated in the past: read over your post before you hit the button and think: does this add or detract from the conversation?
I try, and I promise to try harder to do that. When I come back next Friday.
posted by UncleFes at 10:07 AM on September 6, 2002
I also promise to remove the effing extra carriage returns at the end of my posts before posting from now on, too.
*smacks forehead*
posted by UncleFes at 10:10 AM on September 6, 2002
*smacks forehead*
posted by UncleFes at 10:10 AM on September 6, 2002
I also promise to remove the effing extra carriage returns at the end of my posts before posting from now on, too.
You right-wingers fuck everything up, don't you?
Extra carriage returns inserted to emphasize dumb, harmless joke
posted by Skot at 10:34 AM on September 6, 2002
You right-wingers fuck everything up, don't you?
Extra carriage returns inserted to emphasize dumb, harmless joke
posted by Skot at 10:34 AM on September 6, 2002
PJ, I'm glad you weren't too daunted by a couple of condescending comments starting off this thread. Glad to see you jumped right back in.
While I understand this is the norm here, I can't help but think sometimes that a less demeaning, more mature tone here, and especially in comments on the front page, would not only add credibility to peoples' arguments, but would also represent the MetaFilter site and community better to the world. Good natured banter is great, but still...
After all, I think we're mostly out of high school here, aren't we? At least we should want people to think we're out of high school.
Okay, someone jump in now and tell me to fuck off and get my own weblog.
posted by Shane at 10:49 AM on September 6, 2002
While I understand this is the norm here, I can't help but think sometimes that a less demeaning, more mature tone here, and especially in comments on the front page, would not only add credibility to peoples' arguments, but would also represent the MetaFilter site and community better to the world. Good natured banter is great, but still...
After all, I think we're mostly out of high school here, aren't we? At least we should want people to think we're out of high school.
Okay, someone jump in now and tell me to fuck off and get my own weblog.
posted by Shane at 10:49 AM on September 6, 2002
where lefty sub-trolling tends to get the benefit of the doubt, if not outrightly championed
Would you mind providing an example or two, UncleFes, of an instance in which "lefty sub-trolling" wasn't called out when it occurred?
posted by mediareport at 10:59 AM on September 6, 2002
Would you mind providing an example or two, UncleFes, of an instance in which "lefty sub-trolling" wasn't called out when it occurred?
posted by mediareport at 10:59 AM on September 6, 2002
Do I really have to?
-Almost any F_&_M post ever made, including the one that prompted this meta thread.
-Almost any Israel-Palestine post since the new intifada.
-Almost any self-flagellatory I-hate-being-an-American post since 9/11
-etc.
I call it "sub"-trolling because it's not really trolling by definition, just provocatory and, ultimately, asphyxiating. And it doesn't happen every time. I admit, Foldy is right on the money sometimes. He's smart, tough-minded and apparently believes every word of what he says - but he strangles discourse of the kind we purport to seek here, and I believe it's purposefully done (although, to give F_&_M his props, he's been far less provocatory lately than he was in the past). And I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, albeit arguably to a lesser extent (here's where most mention my now infamous "booga-booga" thread) than most.
I'm just saying that there does seem to be tendency to shout down provocative conservative speech - as well as assume as the baseline a liberal PoV as the norm - while provocatory liberal speech tends to garner a strong defense.
Is it impossible for a mefi conservative to advocate less provocatory speech on both sides without being called out?
You right-wingers fuck everything up, don't you?
Bwahahahahaha!
*leans back, steeples fingers, falls off chair*
posted by UncleFes at 11:25 AM on September 6, 2002
-Almost any F_&_M post ever made, including the one that prompted this meta thread.
-Almost any Israel-Palestine post since the new intifada.
-Almost any self-flagellatory I-hate-being-an-American post since 9/11
-etc.
I call it "sub"-trolling because it's not really trolling by definition, just provocatory and, ultimately, asphyxiating. And it doesn't happen every time. I admit, Foldy is right on the money sometimes. He's smart, tough-minded and apparently believes every word of what he says - but he strangles discourse of the kind we purport to seek here, and I believe it's purposefully done (although, to give F_&_M his props, he's been far less provocatory lately than he was in the past). And I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, albeit arguably to a lesser extent (here's where most mention my now infamous "booga-booga" thread) than most.
I'm just saying that there does seem to be tendency to shout down provocative conservative speech - as well as assume as the baseline a liberal PoV as the norm - while provocatory liberal speech tends to garner a strong defense.
Is it impossible for a mefi conservative to advocate less provocatory speech on both sides without being called out?
You right-wingers fuck everything up, don't you?
Bwahahahahaha!
*leans back, steeples fingers, falls off chair*
posted by UncleFes at 11:25 AM on September 6, 2002
*nervously eyes clavdivs and quonsar*
*covers nuts, just in case*
posted by UncleFes at 12:00 PM on September 6, 2002
*covers nuts, just in case*
posted by UncleFes at 12:00 PM on September 6, 2002
see ya friday Fes and I wish i has the guts to change my sub-troll tendencies and play nice. something rodii said before he left "i don't like who i am becoming" just ah, just reacted like a bat upside me head.
Is it impossible for a mefi conservative to advocate less provocative speech on both sides without being called out? Bingo, few seem to understand that one can be a conservative and hold liberal ideals and practices, after all the old GOP slogan was "Fiscal conservatism, social progression"
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on September 6, 2002
Is it impossible for a mefi conservative to advocate less provocative speech on both sides without being called out? Bingo, few seem to understand that one can be a conservative and hold liberal ideals and practices, after all the old GOP slogan was "Fiscal conservatism, social progression"
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on September 6, 2002
Here's a thought - it's the 9/11 anniversary. People are extraordinarily keyed up and given to hair trigger responses of late. It would be nice if we could lay off the hot button posts and comments--but if pigs could fly on that...
The memory of tone lingers longer than words. All of the notables mentioned have displayed condescension, contempt or occasional illtempered over-reactions to perceived slights. Emotional memory trumps rational memory and people lash out.
As for which side is getting let off easier, it's a whose ox is getting gored roundelay, pointless to argue. We should all watch ourselves and cut each other a lot of slack. And have a cup. This is no time to be writing bibles.
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on September 6, 2002
The memory of tone lingers longer than words. All of the notables mentioned have displayed condescension, contempt or occasional illtempered over-reactions to perceived slights. Emotional memory trumps rational memory and people lash out.
As for which side is getting let off easier, it's a whose ox is getting gored roundelay, pointless to argue. We should all watch ourselves and cut each other a lot of slack. And have a cup. This is no time to be writing bibles.
posted by y2karl at 12:33 PM on September 6, 2002
something rodii said before he left "i don't like who i am becoming" just ah, just reacted like a bat upside me head.
I know how he felt. Because there is no life context to the "text on a screen" here, I sometimes find myself becoming a person I don't like just to try and make a point. Too many assumptions about the person on the other end, too many personal filters for what you might think they're getting at. This place becomes pretty ugly to me sometimes, and I get pretty ugly in it.
I really like this place. But I like it a whole lot better when I don't comment, and resist the urge to correct the assumptions of others. I'll join y2karl in raising that cup, and urge everybody to just read what others write. Don't assume, don't filter, read and digest. Strangely, I think that's a matter of cutting ourselves a lot of slack.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:57 PM on September 6, 2002
I know how he felt. Because there is no life context to the "text on a screen" here, I sometimes find myself becoming a person I don't like just to try and make a point. Too many assumptions about the person on the other end, too many personal filters for what you might think they're getting at. This place becomes pretty ugly to me sometimes, and I get pretty ugly in it.
I really like this place. But I like it a whole lot better when I don't comment, and resist the urge to correct the assumptions of others. I'll join y2karl in raising that cup, and urge everybody to just read what others write. Don't assume, don't filter, read and digest. Strangely, I think that's a matter of cutting ourselves a lot of slack.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:57 PM on September 6, 2002
Do I really have to?
Yes, actually, you do. Your first example, "Almost any F_&_M post ever made, including the one that prompted this meta thread," completely undermines your own point. F_&_M got hauled to the woodshed on this post (perhaps unjustifiably) as well as hir previous one (which most assuredly deserved to be called out). What on earth are you talking about with this "lefty sub-trolling tends to get the benefit of the doubt" crap?
You damn well have to provide examples, or else you're just another conservative whiner who complains when the slimness of your positions is called out on MeFi. I thought the victim mentality was supposed to be a problem on the left, not the right.
posted by mediareport at 3:30 PM on September 6, 2002
Yes, actually, you do. Your first example, "Almost any F_&_M post ever made, including the one that prompted this meta thread," completely undermines your own point. F_&_M got hauled to the woodshed on this post (perhaps unjustifiably) as well as hir previous one (which most assuredly deserved to be called out). What on earth are you talking about with this "lefty sub-trolling tends to get the benefit of the doubt" crap?
You damn well have to provide examples, or else you're just another conservative whiner who complains when the slimness of your positions is called out on MeFi. I thought the victim mentality was supposed to be a problem on the left, not the right.
posted by mediareport at 3:30 PM on September 6, 2002
F_&_M got hauled to the woodshed on this post (perhaps unjustifiably) as well as hir previous one (which most assuredly deserved to be called out).
You're rewriting history, aren't you? Foldy didn't get called out in this thread, or for the post which lead to it (though he should have). It was those who claim he's trolling that got called out and roundly slapped. If that isn't evidence of exactly what Fes was bringing up, I don't know what is.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:57 PM on September 7, 2002
You're rewriting history, aren't you? Foldy didn't get called out in this thread, or for the post which lead to it (though he should have). It was those who claim he's trolling that got called out and roundly slapped. If that isn't evidence of exactly what Fes was bringing up, I don't know what is.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:57 PM on September 7, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
We have a winner. Two posts to MetaTalk in five hours... and one of them is a reiteration of a post from yesterday. Sparky, what does he win for this amazing near hat trick?
While I agree with you, and also believe that foldy's two contributions could have become worthwhile threads, this is already being discussed in both of the original posts and a MeTa post from yesterday.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:32 PM on September 5, 2002