Can we stop with the ad hominem comments, please? October 11, 2002 5:07 PM Subscribe
Grrr. Can we stop with the ad hominem comments, please? You don't need to repeat someone's "It's ugly!" comment over and over again. And over again. And then again. And then repeat the last person who said it again. And then repeat the repeat. And quote the last repeat to agree with it. And then say ditto. (See how annoying that gets?)
Probably a better question: Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment? Should we?
Probably a better question: Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment? Should we?
Dude. Step slowly away from the monitor and keyboard. It'll be okay. Wired has been redesigned. Some people like it, some people don't. What's so wrong with that? Oh, wait, they conflict with your opinion. I get it now. Carry on.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:22 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by eyeballkid at 5:22 PM on October 11, 2002
Well, first we find a perfect world, then in that perfect world we find a computer hooked up to the internet, then on that perfect computer hooked up to the perfect internet in that perfect world, we log on to a perfect Metafilter.
No computer viruses either, plus all the ponies you can eat.
Until then we deal with the fact that humans post here.
posted by konolia at 5:23 PM on October 11, 2002
No computer viruses either, plus all the ponies you can eat.
Until then we deal with the fact that humans post here.
posted by konolia at 5:23 PM on October 11, 2002
But the point of the original post was... that it's ugly.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:23 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by Stan Chin at 5:23 PM on October 11, 2002
Do you know what ad hominem means?
Maybe he meant ad nauseum. But even for that to work he would need to re-arrange his sentence.
posted by quarantine at 5:48 PM on October 11, 2002
Maybe he meant ad nauseum. But even for that to work he would need to re-arrange his sentence.
posted by quarantine at 5:48 PM on October 11, 2002
ditto
posted by crunchland at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by crunchland at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2002
Since we're talking about a magazine here, I think the closest term would be Ad Libris.
"Would you people stop with the ad libris attacks!"
It sorta works.
posted by malphigian at 6:14 PM on October 11, 2002
"Would you people stop with the ad libris attacks!"
It sorta works.
posted by malphigian at 6:14 PM on October 11, 2002
I think SpecialK meant mesodiplosis. Or something equally repetitive. [Click here for a great chance to brush up your rhetorical vocabulary.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:18 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:18 PM on October 11, 2002
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
posted by machaus at 6:27 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by machaus at 6:27 PM on October 11, 2002
in a way, we really do have guidelines: matt writes "Follow the golden rule, treat others' opinions with the same respect that would like to be afforded." i think those suffice as guidelines for a comment as well as a thread. the main problem with such guidelines is that it's not too bad deleting a thread, but it's impractical to police comments so.
posted by moz at 6:48 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by moz at 6:48 PM on October 11, 2002
i agree completly with what they said, except for that last part
posted by Mick at 7:30 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by Mick at 7:30 PM on October 11, 2002
Actually, after reading through the comments, I thought some people were pretty darn clever with how they paraphrased, "I think it is ugly." A couple of comments (I've seen puke that was more attractive. ) made me laugh.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:31 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:31 PM on October 11, 2002
Main Entry: 1 ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
And I didn't select those posts because they disagreed with me. I skimmed through and grabbed the most obvious no-content, no thought 'me-too!' comments. No apologies.
No problem, I can accept that MetaFilter is Farked. You can count another MeFi-er who's publicly throwing in the towel and left for good.
This community is dead. The increase in membership has led to the dillution of the thoughtful comments. To reach those thoughtful comments, you first have to page through hundreds of "MeToo" arguments, made by members new and old who are just reacting instead of thinking. Heck, look at the front page today! You want me to page through all of THAT? 95% of it isn't even interesting. MeFi has found the September That Never Ended, and it's sad to see this community reach that kind of saturation point. I liked this place. Heck, I got my current job with MetaFilter's help! (Thanks, JCTerminal! Still there!) On the other hand, the carcass is kind of stinking and the wake has gone on too long.
Matt considers MeFi to be a "benign anarchy". It would be interesting to do studies on anarchically-styled communities to see how large they can get before they implode under their own weight. I beleive that MeFi has reached that saturation point. As Matt (who I still like, and will continue to read and respect) won't add police or social services (heck, I'd learn ColdFusion to help with programming some sort of moderation system!), it's time for me to emigrate to parts unknown. To throw out another vocabulary word for the day (as some seem to need it), adieu. I won't be back. I'm just plain frustrated and disgusted.
posted by SpecialK at 9:34 PM on October 11, 2002
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
And I didn't select those posts because they disagreed with me. I skimmed through and grabbed the most obvious no-content, no thought 'me-too!' comments. No apologies.
No problem, I can accept that MetaFilter is Farked. You can count another MeFi-er who's publicly throwing in the towel and left for good.
This community is dead. The increase in membership has led to the dillution of the thoughtful comments. To reach those thoughtful comments, you first have to page through hundreds of "MeToo" arguments, made by members new and old who are just reacting instead of thinking. Heck, look at the front page today! You want me to page through all of THAT? 95% of it isn't even interesting. MeFi has found the September That Never Ended, and it's sad to see this community reach that kind of saturation point. I liked this place. Heck, I got my current job with MetaFilter's help! (Thanks, JCTerminal! Still there!) On the other hand, the carcass is kind of stinking and the wake has gone on too long.
Matt considers MeFi to be a "benign anarchy". It would be interesting to do studies on anarchically-styled communities to see how large they can get before they implode under their own weight. I beleive that MeFi has reached that saturation point. As Matt (who I still like, and will continue to read and respect) won't add police or social services (heck, I'd learn ColdFusion to help with programming some sort of moderation system!), it's time for me to emigrate to parts unknown. To throw out another vocabulary word for the day (as some seem to need it), adieu. I won't be back. I'm just plain frustrated and disgusted.
posted by SpecialK at 9:34 PM on October 11, 2002
Out of curiousity I went back to March 2001 archives when the recently departed joined, and honestly, things looked a lot worse back then. I have a theory that instead of Mefi getting worse per say, it's just that every member has an average lifespan depending on level of participation. Then they get burnt out and nostalgic. Maybe I should draw a chart.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:54 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by Stan Chin at 9:54 PM on October 11, 2002
Uh, dude, is it 'cos folks pointed out your misuse of language, & took the piss? Rii-ight.
[As Jeb* would say, "I have a cunning plan"]
OR WAS IT BALDRICK?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:59 PM on October 11, 2002
[As Jeb* would say, "I have a cunning plan"]
OR WAS IT BALDRICK?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:59 PM on October 11, 2002
Stan:
Out of curiousity I went back to March 2001 archives when the recently departed joined, and honestly, things looked a lot worse back then. I have a theory that instead of Mefi getting worse per say, it's just that every member has an average lifespan depending on level of participation. Then they get burnt out and nostalgic. Maybe I should draw a chart.
be sure to chart when they return. a lot of them do. matt wasn't shitting when he wrote that tagline: more addictive than crack.
later, specialk.
posted by moz at 10:02 PM on October 11, 2002
Out of curiousity I went back to March 2001 archives when the recently departed joined, and honestly, things looked a lot worse back then. I have a theory that instead of Mefi getting worse per say, it's just that every member has an average lifespan depending on level of participation. Then they get burnt out and nostalgic. Maybe I should draw a chart.
be sure to chart when they return. a lot of them do. matt wasn't shitting when he wrote that tagline: more addictive than crack.
later, specialk.
posted by moz at 10:02 PM on October 11, 2002
The FPP was not exactly a call for insightful comments on web design trends. "Wired just got hit with the ugly stick." What do you say to that?
I think I see your point, but you might have made it better with a different link.
posted by Galvatron at 10:03 PM on October 11, 2002
I think I see your point, but you might have made it better with a different link.
posted by Galvatron at 10:03 PM on October 11, 2002
Stan Chin : check the Metatalk archives - I remember something very similar being discussed at length in the past, and a link to someone's mock-erudite MefiEssay on the phenomenon.
'course I could've been dreaming it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:06 PM on October 11, 2002
'course I could've been dreaming it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:06 PM on October 11, 2002
You can count another MeFi-er who's publicly throwing in the towel and left for good.
SpecialK - don't you dare! Surely you can take a MeTa thread that went awry - I've taken dozens and I'm all the better for it. Your critical personality and general intelligence are much appreciated by me and, I bet, a lot of others (I'd say "we" but I'd be lynched). Some on this very thread - merely having a little fun at your expense. Think of it as if you'd bought the drinks and we'd all had fun, thanks to you.
Every time someone feels strongly about something (as you did about the Wired redesign) the temptation to minimize, relativize and generally evanize is not only overwhelming but healthy! Do please stick around, you hot-headed devil! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:09 PM on October 11, 2002
SpecialK - don't you dare! Surely you can take a MeTa thread that went awry - I've taken dozens and I'm all the better for it. Your critical personality and general intelligence are much appreciated by me and, I bet, a lot of others (I'd say "we" but I'd be lynched). Some on this very thread - merely having a little fun at your expense. Think of it as if you'd bought the drinks and we'd all had fun, thanks to you.
Every time someone feels strongly about something (as you did about the Wired redesign) the temptation to minimize, relativize and generally evanize is not only overwhelming but healthy! Do please stick around, you hot-headed devil! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:09 PM on October 11, 2002
Customer: I won't be back. I'm just plain frustrated and disgusted.
Randall: Hey, you're not allowed to post here anymore!
Jay: YEAAAH!!
<cough>
posted by Danelope at 10:43 PM on October 11, 2002
Randall: Hey, you're not allowed to post here anymore!
Jay: YEAAAH!!
<cough>
posted by Danelope at 10:43 PM on October 11, 2002
I was less bothered by the "gee, we all think it's ugly, don't we boys" comments than by the willful, gleeful, misunderstanding and sacking of Web standards in the thread. Mob rule.
posted by timeistight at 11:16 PM on October 11, 2002
posted by timeistight at 11:16 PM on October 11, 2002
I don't get it.
The thread in question can't possibly be SpecialK's major gripe... the "straw that broke the camel's back". I mean for cryin' out loud, what the hell were people supposed to comment on when the post, first TELLS you that it's ugly, then second, links you to it's ugliness?
I'm more tempted to think that the post isn't even FPP worthy.
To even suggest that somehow we monitor the quality of the people's comments... WOW, I can't even believe someone would think that for even a second. Doesn't that infringe on my rights or something?
I tend to agree with Stan Chin on this one. I think we're just looking at a case of burnout and we were here to witness the meltdown. I know there are sites that I used to visit all the time... eventually getting bored and moving on.
I wish you could have seen the scene (?) I pictured in my head while SpecialK was losing it.
Peace out SpecialK
posted by Witty at 1:31 AM on October 12, 2002
The thread in question can't possibly be SpecialK's major gripe... the "straw that broke the camel's back". I mean for cryin' out loud, what the hell were people supposed to comment on when the post, first TELLS you that it's ugly, then second, links you to it's ugliness?
I'm more tempted to think that the post isn't even FPP worthy.
To even suggest that somehow we monitor the quality of the people's comments... WOW, I can't even believe someone would think that for even a second. Doesn't that infringe on my rights or something?
I tend to agree with Stan Chin on this one. I think we're just looking at a case of burnout and we were here to witness the meltdown. I know there are sites that I used to visit all the time... eventually getting bored and moving on.
I wish you could have seen the scene (?) I pictured in my head while SpecialK was losing it.
Peace out SpecialK
posted by Witty at 1:31 AM on October 12, 2002
I've noticed that that there's a very strong tendency for issues brought to Metatalk to be greeted with a chorus of responses about how this shouldn't be appearing in Metatalk, or how silly the poster is for being concerned with such issues. Perhaps I don't understand the purpose of Metatalk, but I don't understand how questioning what we should expect of ourselves as commenters is not a suitable topic for this space.
The question was Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment? Should we?
I find this a fair question that calls for thoughts for and against posting suggestions about what makes a good comment.
SpecialK, I hope you change your mind. This thread's still here; if you find that you cool off and feel like reconsidering your decision, there are many people who would be glad you did.
posted by taz at 1:42 AM on October 12, 2002
The question was Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment? Should we?
I find this a fair question that calls for thoughts for and against posting suggestions about what makes a good comment.
SpecialK, I hope you change your mind. This thread's still here; if you find that you cool off and feel like reconsidering your decision, there are many people who would be glad you did.
posted by taz at 1:42 AM on October 12, 2002
Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment? Should we?
For as long as I've read MeFi, comments equivalent to "me too" and "I agree" have been the norm. However, since MeFi is NOT a discussion board ;-P , why would it need comment guidelines?
posted by mischief at 2:00 AM on October 12, 2002
For as long as I've read MeFi, comments equivalent to "me too" and "I agree" have been the norm. However, since MeFi is NOT a discussion board ;-P , why would it need comment guidelines?
posted by mischief at 2:00 AM on October 12, 2002
I find this a fair question that calls for thoughts for and against posting suggestions about what makes a good comment.
Taz (sorry for posting again so soon... perhaps it's against the "guidelines"), but you have to be kidding me. Who would write the guidelines and under what guidelines would the guidelines be crafted?
What about threads (discussed on MetaTalk the other day -- something about "lots of comments mean it's a good post, few comments mean it's a bad post") where there really isn't anything to comment on and therefore the more common comment is something along the lines of "Great post, thanks for the links"?
What about pointless snarks and derails, etc.? Comments are the freedom of ALL blogs (aside from constant flames, insults, and the like).
Some things ARE silly for bringing to MetaTalk... and this is one of them.
1. Every comment should contain at least 8 words.
2. Each comment should contain at least one link.
3. All comments should be followed by the term "over", so that the person waiting to comment next knows that you're finished.
I would rather you judge the quality of my character based on my comment, than judge the quality my comment (based on my character?.. er sumthin' like that).
God Damn It! You've tricked me into discussing the plausibility of having commenting guidelines.
posted by Witty at 2:09 AM on October 12, 2002
Taz (sorry for posting again so soon... perhaps it's against the "guidelines"), but you have to be kidding me. Who would write the guidelines and under what guidelines would the guidelines be crafted?
What about threads (discussed on MetaTalk the other day -- something about "lots of comments mean it's a good post, few comments mean it's a bad post") where there really isn't anything to comment on and therefore the more common comment is something along the lines of "Great post, thanks for the links"?
What about pointless snarks and derails, etc.? Comments are the freedom of ALL blogs (aside from constant flames, insults, and the like).
Some things ARE silly for bringing to MetaTalk... and this is one of them.
1. Every comment should contain at least 8 words.
2. Each comment should contain at least one link.
3. All comments should be followed by the term "over", so that the person waiting to comment next knows that you're finished.
I would rather you judge the quality of my character based on my comment, than judge the quality my comment (based on my character?.. er sumthin' like that).
God Damn It! You've tricked me into discussing the plausibility of having commenting guidelines.
posted by Witty at 2:09 AM on October 12, 2002
Perhaps I'm not getting the whole picture here but it seems that there are two issues at work in this thread. As taz pointed out, the first is the one laid out in Sp.K's post: "Do we have guidelines for posting a good comment?" The other one is more ambiguous, and what is really eating Sp.K: The increase in membership has led to the dillution of the thoughtful comments....it's sad to see this community reach [this] kind of saturation point [Edited for brevity, of course].
Point #1: I think that there are some threads that are naturals for debate but some that just aren't; I saw the Wired thread and thought, even if I ever posted, there would be nothing I could say about it except "It's f-ugly." That's okay, because I saw the dino-mummy link, loved it, and couldn't say anything about it, either. But some people want to weigh in one way or another ("That's ugly," "Nice post," "What an idiot") and that's fine. It ain't Melville, but it ain't flamin' either.
Point #2: However, the dischord between the old/new, "too many people, too little respect," "I'm disgruntled and you're the problem" thing is completely out of control. I understand that we feel passionately about this place (it is a place, somehow), but it is just a place. Bars change their clientele, towns change their character, and people change with them. Sometimes the patrons leave and sometimes they weather it, but things are always changing...I just wish that the people who were so put-out would just gracefully bow out rather than throw the barstool across the room. It aids nothing, and just leaves a mess to clean up (i.e. we all bicker about why so-and-so left and how bad things have gotten around here). MetaTalk exists so that we can talk about the protocol, bugs, issues, etc. but sometimes it seems that it exists merely as the stage upon which people take their final bow.
It bums me out.
That's it. I'm finished. *bows*
posted by readymade at 2:22 AM on October 12, 2002
Point #1: I think that there are some threads that are naturals for debate but some that just aren't; I saw the Wired thread and thought, even if I ever posted, there would be nothing I could say about it except "It's f-ugly." That's okay, because I saw the dino-mummy link, loved it, and couldn't say anything about it, either. But some people want to weigh in one way or another ("That's ugly," "Nice post," "What an idiot") and that's fine. It ain't Melville, but it ain't flamin' either.
Point #2: However, the dischord between the old/new, "too many people, too little respect," "I'm disgruntled and you're the problem" thing is completely out of control. I understand that we feel passionately about this place (it is a place, somehow), but it is just a place. Bars change their clientele, towns change their character, and people change with them. Sometimes the patrons leave and sometimes they weather it, but things are always changing...I just wish that the people who were so put-out would just gracefully bow out rather than throw the barstool across the room. It aids nothing, and just leaves a mess to clean up (i.e. we all bicker about why so-and-so left and how bad things have gotten around here). MetaTalk exists so that we can talk about the protocol, bugs, issues, etc. but sometimes it seems that it exists merely as the stage upon which people take their final bow.
It bums me out.
That's it. I'm finished. *bows*
posted by readymade at 2:22 AM on October 12, 2002
Yes, Witty... I agree. Maybe the problem is the idea of guidelines vs. "rules". I'm willing to think about the question of whether there should or shouldn't be certain suggestions regarding comments that are similar to the existing suggestions offered regarding what makes a good post. I don't know how I feel about that yet, but I do really believe that the question is a reasonable one to bring to the Metatalk "etiquette/policy"category.
readymade: Yeah, I'm one of the newbies, so I didn't really focus that much on SpecialK's comment in that vein. Many times the posters here are expressing frustration, and I kind of try to look for the kernel of their point before I get too upset with the tone. To me, SpecialK saw this in his/her own post and thus amended "Probably a better question is...", and it is a better question.
posted by taz at 2:33 AM on October 12, 2002
readymade: Yeah, I'm one of the newbies, so I didn't really focus that much on SpecialK's comment in that vein. Many times the posters here are expressing frustration, and I kind of try to look for the kernel of their point before I get too upset with the tone. To me, SpecialK saw this in his/her own post and thus amended "Probably a better question is...", and it is a better question.
posted by taz at 2:33 AM on October 12, 2002
but it is just a place
I hate this. Too me, it spanks of the "if you don't like it, leave" mentality. And that's fine, if you want to leave. But the assumption that standing up for the the quality of the place and the respect that it rightly commands is somehow arrogant and wrong rubs me the wrong way.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:41 AM on October 12, 2002
I hate this. Too me, it spanks of the "if you don't like it, leave" mentality. And that's fine, if you want to leave. But the assumption that standing up for the the quality of the place and the respect that it rightly commands is somehow arrogant and wrong rubs me the wrong way.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:41 AM on October 12, 2002
I'm with Yelling At Nothing; since MetaFilter's a forum for debate, it's naturally going to be a showcase of conflicting opinion. If we were to follow Robert's Rules of Order to the letter, the site would become a parody of itself with all the mincing and genuflecting obstructing any real ideas brought to the table.
If anyone gets too worked up over an insult, fine, gripe about it.
If the aesthetic quirks on the order of "Thanks, ____" are reason for displeasure, it sounds like a "virtual vacation" may be needed.
Log off for a few days, visit some other sites,
and sip a beverage in the lobby;
the mental refresher can work wonders.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:20 AM on October 12, 2002
If anyone gets too worked up over an insult, fine, gripe about it.
If the aesthetic quirks on the order of "Thanks, ____" are reason for displeasure, it sounds like a "virtual vacation" may be needed.
Log off for a few days, visit some other sites,
and sip a beverage in the lobby;
the mental refresher can work wonders.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:20 AM on October 12, 2002
About ad hominem
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. (via dictionary.com)
Whether you use original or current meanings, there's really no way that calling a web site ugly is an ad hominem attack. This may seem like a minor point, but it isn't. An ad hominem attack is a serious logical and ethical infraction, and when one happens, whoever perpetrated it deserves to be called out (whether this really needs to happen in metatalk every time is a matter that I'm not addressing here). The charge should not be made willy nilly to anything that anyone thinks is an argument not worthy of his or her attention. Otherwise, you become the boy who cries "wolf," and, even worse, the term begins to lose its legitimate meaning.
posted by anapestic at 7:47 AM on October 12, 2002
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. (via dictionary.com)
Whether you use original or current meanings, there's really no way that calling a web site ugly is an ad hominem attack. This may seem like a minor point, but it isn't. An ad hominem attack is a serious logical and ethical infraction, and when one happens, whoever perpetrated it deserves to be called out (whether this really needs to happen in metatalk every time is a matter that I'm not addressing here). The charge should not be made willy nilly to anything that anyone thinks is an argument not worthy of his or her attention. Otherwise, you become the boy who cries "wolf," and, even worse, the term begins to lose its legitimate meaning.
posted by anapestic at 7:47 AM on October 12, 2002
I think we should adopt a term that makes it easier to mock people who post self-important public resignations: denbested. As in, SpecialK had a pretty good point about the number of pointless me-too comments but he lost me when he denbested.
posted by rcade at 7:54 AM on October 12, 2002
posted by rcade at 7:54 AM on October 12, 2002
I second that motion, rcade. And if they tag an "If anyone needs me, I'll be here." self-link to the end of their little tantrum, it should be dubbed a denbested maulana.
posted by Danelope at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2002
posted by Danelope at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2002
I think we should adopt a term that makes it easier to mock people who post self-important public resignations: denbested.
If we're trying to mock the departing, perhaps we should adopt a less formal-sounding term: whipping shitties. As in, "SpecialK had a pretty good point... but then he lost me when he whipped a shitty." The actual meaning in the midwest is to whip your car around in tight circles, so there is even a cursory association with "turning around and leaving."
posted by Galvatron at 11:01 AM on October 12, 2002
If we're trying to mock the departing, perhaps we should adopt a less formal-sounding term: whipping shitties. As in, "SpecialK had a pretty good point... but then he lost me when he whipped a shitty." The actual meaning in the midwest is to whip your car around in tight circles, so there is even a cursory association with "turning around and leaving."
posted by Galvatron at 11:01 AM on October 12, 2002
there are two men in a boat, one named pete, the other repeat. now one falls off the boat into the water, it's pete. who's left in the boat?
posted by meikel at 12:21 PM on October 12, 2002
posted by meikel at 12:21 PM on October 12, 2002
I think SpecialK meant mesodiplosis.
Oh my god that's funny. Thanks miguel.
posted by rhyax at 1:18 PM on October 12, 2002
Oh my god that's funny. Thanks miguel.
posted by rhyax at 1:18 PM on October 12, 2002
I don't think the comments questioning SpecialK's post here had to be so snarky. He didn't pick the best example, but his question wasn't a stupid one. On the other hand it seems to be generally true that if you post something in Metatalk when you're all pissed off, you're going to get hammered for it. (WHAT. THE. FUCK. METATALK?)
Unless you're undisputably right. Then there are dancing cats.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:46 PM on October 12, 2002
Unless you're undisputably right. Then there are dancing cats.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:46 PM on October 12, 2002
I'm with Yelling At Nothing; since MetaFilter's a forum for debate, it's naturally going to be a showcase of conflicting opinion.
Smart Dalek,
That's one view of Metafilter. But, there are other means of social intercourse possible here. I like the site better when people build upon other comments to explore topics, and view those from many different perspectives. I believe that is what SpecialK was trying to add to the site with his original post.
dash_slot,
I thought it was a devious plan, indeed.
posted by bragadocchio at 2:14 PM on October 12, 2002
Smart Dalek,
That's one view of Metafilter. But, there are other means of social intercourse possible here. I like the site better when people build upon other comments to explore topics, and view those from many different perspectives. I believe that is what SpecialK was trying to add to the site with his original post.
dash_slot,
I thought it was a devious plan, indeed.
posted by bragadocchio at 2:14 PM on October 12, 2002
the homo of ad hominem
I'm immediately printing that on T-shirts. Who wants one?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:20 PM on October 12, 2002
I'm immediately printing that on T-shirts. Who wants one?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:20 PM on October 12, 2002
But, there are other means of social intercourse possible here. I like the site better when people build upon other comments to explore topics, and view those from many different perspectives.
Bravo. It's not all "You're wrong! No you're wrong!", fun as that can be sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:30 PM on October 12, 2002
Bravo. It's not all "You're wrong! No you're wrong!", fun as that can be sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:30 PM on October 12, 2002
the homo of ad hominem
I'm immediately printing that on T-shirts. Who wants one?
Put me down for one, and one for a friend that says "the femme in the femidom." (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2002
I'm immediately printing that on T-shirts. Who wants one?
Put me down for one, and one for a friend that says "the femme in the femidom." (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2002
I denbested way before it was fashionable, was made fun of by rodii and returned unabashed, all before SpecialK had joined.
Not that anybody noticed.
Bastards.
posted by ceiriog at 11:18 AM on October 13, 2002
Not that anybody noticed.
Bastards.
posted by ceiriog at 11:18 AM on October 13, 2002
rofl, glad I'm not drinking anything at the moment, ceiriog.
posted by ginz at 11:36 AM on October 13, 2002
posted by ginz at 11:36 AM on October 13, 2002
"This community is dead. The increase in membership has led to the dillution of the thoughtful comments. To reach those thoughtful comments, you first have to page through hundreds of "MeToo" arguments, made by members new and old who are just reacting instead of thinking. Heck, look at the front page today! You want me to page through all of THAT? 95% of it isn't even interesting. MeFi has found the September That Never Ended, and it's sad to see this community reach that kind of saturation point. I liked this place. Heck, I got my current job with MetaFilter's help! (Thanks, JCTerminal! Still there!) On the other hand, the carcass is kind of stinking and the wake has gone on too long."
for a community that's "dead", there sure seems to be a whole lot of movement... oh well.
don't let the door hit ya. :P
god i hate when people capitalize my name
posted by jcterminal at 12:27 PM on October 13, 2002
for a community that's "dead", there sure seems to be a whole lot of movement... oh well.
don't let the door hit ya. :P
god i hate when people capitalize my name
posted by jcterminal at 12:27 PM on October 13, 2002
Special K, if you're still here secretly reading the comments and feeling all red-faced or whatnot: Keep reaching for the stars! Or don't.
posted by haqspan at 1:08 PM on October 13, 2002
posted by haqspan at 1:08 PM on October 13, 2002
I liked this place beter the first time when it was called glassDOG
posted by Mick at 10:48 PM on October 13, 2002
posted by Mick at 10:48 PM on October 13, 2002
Shouldn't somebody be suing Lance for the honkzilla nickname, come to think of it?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:46 AM on October 14, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:46 AM on October 14, 2002
Ego numquam pronuciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus...
posted by bwg at 7:55 AM on October 14, 2002
posted by bwg at 7:55 AM on October 14, 2002
Ou en Français si vous préférez.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on October 14, 2002
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on October 14, 2002
« Older What is the MetaFilter styleguide on... | This is definitely now how we do an update Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
But still. What can we do to police valueless comments that simply clutter the screen and give certain readers homicidal tendencies?
posted by SpecialK at 5:09 PM on October 11, 2002