Comments on 4872 | MetaTalk

I've noticed a trend of increasingly common political commentary in front page posts. Most recently, some of the links have been to news stories specifically for the purpose of criticizing them. Should we adopt an explicit policy of links on the outside, commentary on the inside?
posted by monju_bosatsu to etiquette/policy at 8:11 AM (57 comments total)

I vote 'no'.
posted by mischief at 8:17 AM on January 24, 2004

mischief - Me too, though I agree with monju_bosatsu's Metatalk posting of this question.

Metatalk etiquette complaints work best, I think, as a non-compulsory shaming mechanism : identify the worst culprits, and shame them a bit.

A few here and there are shameless, sure. But most respond to a bit 'o social opprobrium.
posted by troutfishing at 8:42 AM on January 24, 2004

Perhaps the policy ought to include asking monju's permission before posting.
posted by drstrangelove at 11:10 AM on January 24, 2004

Yes, perhaps it should. Realistically, though, we could hope that posters wouldn't taint the ensuing thread from the get-go with their own political commentary. If you really feel the urge to snipe at your own link, do it in the first comment, rather than in the post itself.

"Faux New"? C'mon, that just makes you look stupid.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:36 AM on January 24, 2004

mb: Well, that's your perspective, not necessarily shared by everyone else.
posted by mischief at 12:06 PM on January 24, 2004

As I see it, the problem with these posts is that they are just plain old, bad FPPs; one link to a widely known website with no supporting links and little or no background info. I can put up with the snarky political commentary, but the laziness of the linking is sad. FPPs like the Faux News example only provide a little forum for some bitching. I mean, seriously, is anyone really that shocked that Fox News is perhaps a little conservative?
posted by monkeyman at 12:26 PM on January 24, 2004

If you have posted
political ass vomit
you really should die
posted by angry modem at 12:38 PM on January 24, 2004

I'm kinda hoping that its the minor novelty of being in a presidential election year again, and that it'll all die down when people get bored of it in a week or so.

Yeaaaahhh, right.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:44 PM on January 24, 2004

Linking "commentary" to http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/a? C'mon, that just makes you look stupid.

Oh, and the answer is "no."
posted by languagehat at 2:17 PM on January 24, 2004

"faux news" was over the line, and basically dooms serious discussion, but riveria did post some great informative comments there.
posted by mathowie at 2:18 PM on January 24, 2004

political ass vomit is a great blog name.
posted by quonsar at 2:20 PM on January 24, 2004

it reminds me of that elephant pic, quonsar : >
posted by amberglow at 2:24 PM on January 24, 2004

great! now i have the masthead!
posted by quonsar at 2:41 PM on January 24, 2004

*picks up torch and spear, paints face*

Oops, wrong thread.
posted by hama7 at 3:51 PM on January 24, 2004

Well, I tried to do this with my link to a poll result and was immediately slammed for a boring posting. My commentary was in the second post, which explained the relevance.
posted by Slagman at 8:42 PM on January 24, 2004

a non-compulsory shaming mechanism

this is either yet another potential tagline, or, perhaps more promisingly, part of a patent application that could make me rich.
posted by namespan at 11:48 PM on January 24, 2004

Without fron page commentary, we might suffer a precipitous decline in instantaneous Steve_at_Linwood rebuttals.
posted by scarabic at 3:59 PM on January 25, 2004

Can we outlaw the term "faux news," despite the poster's telling us who don't like it to get a life? I hate Fox, but find that oh-so clever annoying and lame. I've long rolled my eyes when reading it. I'm sure such useage win over the other side. And even if you're trying to piss off those who like Fox, it's incredibly lame.
posted by raysmj at 5:26 PM on January 25, 2004

maybe "faux news" is payback for the years and years of CNN=Clinton News Network stuff?
posted by amberglow at 5:48 PM on January 25, 2004

Perhaps, amberglow, the reason that neither side takes the other seriously is precisely because of what you just demonstrated, which is the inability to ignore name-calling and raise the level of discourse.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:51 PM on January 25, 2004

Or perhaps that level is seen to be the only one understood? If a group is defined by their discourse, then the rush limbaugh gutter level is the definitive one practiced by millions.
posted by amberglow at 6:08 PM on January 25, 2004

We're not children, amberglow. We don't need to sling mud at one another to be heard. If you fail to communicate with "millions" through reasoning and cogent arguments, perhaps the arguments themselves are fallacious. That's just a possibility.

However, the original point I made was that abusive language and blatant stereotyping is not an ethically pleasant and intelligent method of persuasion. If you truly believe that Bush, for instance, is wrong to call our opposition "evil", then it's equally wrong to call an entire corporation "Faux".
posted by BlueTrain at 6:18 PM on January 25, 2004

If you truly believe that Bush, for instance, is wrong to call our opposition "evil", then it's equally wrong to call an entire corporation "Faux".

Speaking of fallacious arguments..
posted by The God Complex at 6:22 PM on January 25, 2004

BlueTrain, taking the high road is useless when everyone else is wallowing in the gutter, from our president on down. If half the country agrees with the president that Osama (oops, better make that Saddam, or whoever is next on our list) is evil, and believe all the lies that are told them (the Saddam/911 connection being a very big example), then obviously reasoning and cogent arguments aren't getting through. If drstrangelove thought fauxnews was a fitting label to describe a study by a Republican thinktank reported on what's seen as the Republican party's very own network, then that's his right.
posted by amberglow at 6:39 PM on January 25, 2004

BlueTrain, taking the high road is useless when everyone else is wallowing in the gutter, from our president on down.

I think I'd disagree with this. Didn't MLK say something like "the arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice?" and he would seem to have been a pretty good example of a person who walked the high road and got some good stuff accomplished.

Not that I think "Faux News" is probably a particularly low blow, or even a misnomer -- I and many of my friends have given up on television as a news media in general and think Fox's corporate-level bias is clear. But even a trivial little swipe like that could probably turn off someone on the edge of reasonable discourse between two camps... and who is it going to sway?
posted by namespan at 6:55 PM on January 25, 2004

I don't think it's about swaying anyone or not--it's a descriptive term. Whether people want to engage in rational discourse or not is up to them.
posted by amberglow at 7:03 PM on January 25, 2004

amberglow: Payback is fine, Fox has it coming, etc., but for god's sake the term is not even half as clever as whoever came up with it thinks. Its effect is akin to scratching your fingers on a blackboard.
posted by raysmj at 7:15 PM on January 25, 2004

I don't think it's about swaying anyone or not--it's a descriptive term.

So then Iran really is evil, eh?

This isn't about partisanship. It's about discourse, amberglow. If you treat your audience like idiots, then at best they'll become insulted with your patronizing attitude, or at worst, they'll follow suit. From the sound of it, you'd prefer people be on your side, that Fox = Faux.

Personally, I'm amazed that people become fired up when the President continually claims "we will win the war on terrorism" and then proceeds to piss off another ally. But I'm not screaming that he's "evil". I'm shocked that many people are okay deposing Saddam, even though adequate proof fails to exist. Yet I'm doing my damndest not to call Bush a drunk frat boy or "the worst president in this nation's history".

There's nothing, nothing wrong with disagreeing with the current administration. There is something wrong with regressing to petty name-calling to make your point. It shows that you can't create a reasoned argument and a genuine lack of patience.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:18 PM on January 25, 2004

I think it's minorly smirk-inducing myself--especially given the antipathy and ridiculousness towards France (freedom fries, anyone?)
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on January 25, 2004

How is that fallacious, exactly? Both terms are demeaning, stereotypical, and poor methods of argument. Perhaps the amount of damage done by one term is greater than the other, but both exemplify the childishness of our persuasion.

The problem with "evil" is that "evil" doesn't exist because it's a societal construction based on a moral compass that no longer exists on a commonly accepted level. It's just intellectually wearisome rhetoric used to marginalize enemies and make for easily consumable soundbites.

You might think "faux news" is the same thing; to some extent, it fulfills the final part of my qualification. The difference, in my mind, is that "news" is something that's generally observed with as little bias as possible, especially if the tagline you give to your "news" is that it's "fair and balanced". Given that Fox News is laughably unbalanced, even more than traditional mass media outlets, and still cloyingly clings to this moniker, it's no small wonder that people would poke fun at them. "Faux News" is a largely harmless joke, whereas marginalizing people you're about to kill as "evil" speaks to a number of other things.
posted by The God Complex at 7:21 PM on January 25, 2004

BlueTrain, not everything is worth reasoned arguments or patience--Fox News Network is not, in my book (and they make their living by peddling the opposite of reasoned arguments and patience)
posted by amberglow at 7:24 PM on January 25, 2004

man, that bush sure sux0rz.
posted by quonsar at 7:27 PM on January 25, 2004

But as juvenile as that is, "freedom" at least has a phonetic relationship to "French." (Long pause.) At least! Oh lord.

By contrast, "faux" is pronounced "fo." It only looks similar on the page. It looks really cutesy, and not pissed off, and for that reason curiously haughty, snooty.
posted by raysmj at 7:28 PM on January 25, 2004

I like it. It's an elbow in the brain. A nudge. A wink. Who gives a flying fuck. Hemorrhoidal faultfinding, IMO.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:33 PM on January 25, 2004

So "Faux News" is out, how about "The unending stream of corrosive bullshit that firehoses out of Rupert Murdochs mouth"?

Mind you, I still wouldn't put that on the front page.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:52 PM on January 25, 2004

What, you only want people to tell that you're so clever? It looks annoying, and comes off as so stupid. I imagine that plenty of others feel the same way, people who aren't as into this shit.
posted by raysmj at 8:03 PM on January 25, 2004

Substance is fleeting. Cleverness lasts forever.
posted by Opus Dark at 8:37 PM on January 25, 2004

But it's not clever - exactly my point.
posted by raysmj at 8:58 PM on January 25, 2004

Faux Pax America is still OK.
posted by y2karl at 9:35 PM on January 25, 2004

Yes - a pun, but clever.
posted by raysmj at 9:51 PM on January 25, 2004

raysmj, I get that "Faux News" is your own personal ingrown toenail. For me, it's a mere bagatelle, my dear, whose significance is exceeded only by its insignificance. It's so insubstantial, in fact, that watching people strain to use it as an ingredient in synthesized ideological outrage is a delicious cartoon snack.

It's not Oscar Wilde - it's not even Homer Simpson - but it tickled a responsive node in my unbrittle brain, and I repaid it with mild approbation. I could have done less, but I shan't do more. T'ain't nowhere near worth it.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:26 PM on January 25, 2004

Blah blah hemorrhoids blah ingrown toenails blah whatever. Nighty,
posted by raysmj at 10:44 PM on January 25, 2004

Out-blahed. Finally. My work here is done.
posted by Opus Dark at 11:05 PM on January 25, 2004

I thought you already were finished, frankly. (I received a phone call, and kept editing stuff, and decided to stay up. Sorry.)
posted by raysmj at 11:19 PM on January 25, 2004

S'okay. Wanna blah some more?
posted by Opus Dark at 11:21 PM on January 25, 2004

No, not really. What I really want is some chocolate.
posted by raysmj at 11:25 PM on January 25, 2004

Good. I'm tired of squirting you with my precious ornateness.

I've got some Ovaltine and soy milk. (Full of that healthy I'm-more-valuable-than-everyone-else counterfeit simulacrum chocolate goodness.)
posted by Opus Dark at 11:43 PM on January 25, 2004

If you put some crushed ice in it, and some whipped topping, sure.
posted by raysmj at 11:53 PM on January 25, 2004

Hmm, I thought 'Faux' was rather banal, but given some of the revulsion shown here for it, I will henceforth adopt its usage.
posted by mischief at 11:57 PM on January 25, 2004

Chopped ice and sweet suds it is.

Did you know that 'chocolate' spelled backwards yields 'Etalocohc' - an ancient Aztec word which means 'enthusiastically fat'?
posted by Opus Dark at 12:00 AM on January 26, 2004

Great, but - he says, looking up from the faux chocolate soy milk thingie - I'm about as far from a Fox fan as you could find. I hate that fucking pathetic excuse for journalism, OK?
posted by raysmj at 12:00 AM on January 26, 2004

Thanks, that's dynamite trivia, even if I've been trying to lose a little weight.
posted by raysmj at 12:04 AM on January 26, 2004

I thought 'Faux' was rather banal

Analyzation frequently leads to banalization. A peril of scholarship, apparently - amply demonstrated by fully two-thirds of the lectures through which I've slept.
posted by Opus Dark at 12:07 AM on January 26, 2004

January 24, 2004 8:11 AM Subscribe

January 24, 2004
8:11 AM Subscribe