Why was my comment deleted?

January 30, 2004 9:44 AM

If people are going to ask religious questions, does Matt apply doctrinal arguments in adjudging what is an acceptable answer or not? [MI]
posted by biffa to Etiquette/Policy at 9:44 AM (26 comments total)

In this AskMe thread, someone asked what would happen if they were catholic but didn't believe in some key catholic doctrines. My answer "Damned to eternal hellfire" has been deleted, now while the answer may not be to all tastes, it is exactly in line with catholic doctrine and answers the question precisely. If you are a catholic who doesn't believe the beliefs specified then, assuming you still accept the existence of hellfire, that is where you are supposed to be going.
posted by biffa at 9:49 AM on January 30, 2004

I delete jokes, plain and simple. Were you dead serious when you posted that?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:53 AM on January 30, 2004

i think in a thread like that, one persons joke could be another persons dead serious comment....hard to tell. Lots of religion posts in ask meta could get a bit lame.

Have you found Jesus? [MI]

What is your favorite bible verse?

Got Milk?
posted by th3ph17 at 10:12 AM on January 30, 2004

Semi-serious. It was quite amusing to me, but them I am a lapsed catholic, and in theory am myself damned in the eyes of the catholic church on a number of counts (None of them very exciting alas). However, this does not mean it isn't a valid answer. While I don't personally believe it, the doctrinal catholic world view accepts damnation as an outcome for those who fail to live within the precepts of the church, and the question (which could have been more precise) asked about not believing those precepts.

Maybe you could consider deleting vague religious questions? (There's an even vaguer one on AskMe as we speak)
posted by biffa at 10:22 AM on January 30, 2004

Maybe you could consider deleting vague religious questions?

But this question wasn't really vague. Religions can be categorized pretty effectively, and there are lots of good answers in the thread.

The other "religious" question does suck, and I'm afraid I was unable to resist the temptation to be snarky inside.

Also, [MI] considered harmful.
posted by Galvatron at 10:33 AM on January 30, 2004

Semi-serious. It was quite amusing to me

Then you were joking like I thought.

Maybe you could consider deleting vague religious questions?

They're definitely in the gray area for what is acceptable, but if you don't think a question is worthy of the site, ignore it and move on to the next one, don't shit in it.

I think a large part of why Ask MetaFilter is still quite readable is that everyone is showing a lot of self-control by not posting in threads they have no answer for, and keeping jokes to a minimum.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:37 AM on January 30, 2004

Doesn't sound like the best deletion ever to my ear. Yes, it's smart-ass, and not the most helpful answer in the thread, but it is one valid extreme of the debate. Certain Catholic authorities will tell you just that, and if anything, I take biffa's comment to be a bitter shake of the head at them and their extremism.

Still, I appreciate Matt's catcher-in-the-rye routine as much as anyone, and if it were me, biffa, I'd probably let this one go.
posted by scarabic at 10:39 AM on January 30, 2004

The other "religious" question does suck

Ok, that one was definitely one of the pointless "what is the meaning of life" questions a quick survey of google results could help answer to some extent.

Questions that are merely polling the audience are generally pretty lame. I didn't think eamon's question was a poll, he really wanted to know about other religions.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:40 AM on January 30, 2004

It's back.
posted by gleuschk at 11:30 AM on January 30, 2004

It's back.

hmm. the spirit is strong in this one.

They rewrote it and it's a little better but still kind of sucks. I'm on the fence. I'll see how the first few comments go.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:49 AM on January 30, 2004

If the question was not "thoughts" about life after death, but "what do different religions think" and "what does science think" then this would be an okay question as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise it is just opening things up to pure chaos.
posted by tranquileye at 11:56 AM on January 30, 2004

I saw this posting and regret I rankled the ire of the community.

If I had the opportunity to ask the question again...it would be what tranquileye said; "What do different religions think?" And that's what I was thinking, but failed to communicate. Oh, and "what does science think?" too.

My apologies.
posted by grefo at 12:44 PM on January 30, 2004

one of the pointless "what is the meaning of life" questions a quick survey of google results could help answer

Ahh, Google surpasses Deep Thought. It was inevitable.
posted by Jimbob at 1:51 PM on January 30, 2004

Semi-serious. It was quite amusing to me

Then you were joking like I thought.

I'm not convinced that just because an answer is amusing on one level that it can't also be serious on another level (cutting off half a sentence doesn't address the point I made).

but if you don't think a question is worthy of the site, ignore it and move on to the next one, don't shit in it.

I don't think I did shit in it, though I shouldn't have included it with a mention of the very vague question that appeared later. My answer was contextually valid.
posted by biffa at 3:45 PM on January 30, 2004

I'm confused. Catholic doctrine states that the Pope is the ultimate interpreter and arbiter of Catholic doctrine. The Pope would answer this question "damned to eternal hellfire." Are we seeking an inferior, less authoritative answer here? Or just a softer, wishy-washier one with less to back it up?
posted by rushmc at 5:50 PM on January 30, 2004

I think if the comment had been:
The Pope would answer this question "damned to eternal hellfire."
it wouldn't have been deleted. As it stood, it sounded like a joke. Which it seems to have been, in large measure. If you want your posts to be taken seriously and read carefully, write them carefully.
posted by languagehat at 6:12 PM on January 30, 2004

If you want your posts to be taken seriously and read carefully, write them carefully.

Miss Prim meets Mademoiselle Prissy in Proper Crescent to prudely and prudently plan the death of humour, irony and literature.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:21 PM on January 30, 2004

I think if the comment had been: The Pope would answer this question "damned to eternal hellfire." it wouldn't have been deleted.

I get your point, but the argument could be made that any true Catholic would (have to) answer the question the same way (the transparency of the the answer probably makes it a very bad question but that's another issue), and therefore that the "correct" answer was deleted. "Damned to eternal hellfire" may be a humorous response, but it is also a TRUE one, given the parameters of the question. You must admit that it is not a "joke answer" like saying "Your router won't initialize because Bill Gates has funny ears."
posted by rushmc at 8:32 PM on January 30, 2004

I gotta say, I thought "Damned to eternal hellfire" was both funny and had a core of truth. Did you get complaint(s), or did it just not sit well with you?

Matt, you've always resisted Metafilter becoming a really chatty site. Philosophical questions, religion, abortion, race, most politics and polls tend towards heat without much light.
posted by theora55 at 8:59 PM on January 30, 2004

Or just do what I do and put up with having your occasional back-and-forths with Quonsar deleted for the common good.
posted by The God Complex at 10:11 PM on January 30, 2004

Miguel, that was a jerkoff comment, especially disappointing coming from someone who always writes posts with great care (the main reason so few are deleted). I'm not saying all posts should be prim and prissy, and you know it.
posted by languagehat at 11:47 AM on January 31, 2004

Oh come on, languagehat, I made the remark precisely because it sounded so unlike you - you're not at all prim and prissy (why do these two words always come together?) but came across as being a bit mestre-escola there.

Part of the fun of writing here is not being as careful as we have to be elsewhere. And you're definitely a big part of that fun, Mr All-Of-A-Sudden-Weighs-Every-World-And-Proofreads-Everything! :)

In any case, I'm sorry you took offense - I was kind of hoping for a smile and a little cumplicidade.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:10 PM on January 31, 2004

The fact that biffa's answer was both completely accurate, efficiently concise, and a joke is an interesting commentary on the state of the catholic church. Plain-truth statements of the church's issue-positions elicit humorous reactions because they are, in fact, quite silly when you think about them. I don't agree with Matt's reading, but then I am generally the guy who ruins well-intentioned religious discussions with black sarcasm.
posted by Hildago at 6:46 PM on January 31, 2004

Miguel: Oh, OK then.
*buys Migs a perfectly constructed caipirinha*
posted by languagehat at 7:38 PM on January 31, 2004

*rejoices that good old languagehat gets all the Portuguese references without a blink, downs the caipira (for this is the "in" way" to speak of caipirinhas) and, on the verandah of Reid's Hotel, makes him a personal one, with 70-year old sugar-cane brandy from the Vi?va/Widow Barbeito of the charmed island of Madeira.* :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:50 PM on January 31, 2004

*rejoices that he's finally discovered the fabled Lap of Luxury, resolves never to leave the verandah of Reid's Hotel*
posted by languagehat at 2:53 PM on February 1, 2004