What a pointlessly provocative post

September 16, 2004 9:47 PM

"Do the smirking people in [this single link to a photo I just posted to the front page of MetaFilter for no obvious reason and leading to no possibilities other than a Democrat/Republican pissing match] really feel proud for terrorizing a three-year-old girl?" What a pointlessly provocative post. Delete please.
posted by louigi to Etiquette/Policy at 9:47 PM (42 comments total)

Is there ever a good reason for a FPP of a single photo?
posted by 2sheets at 9:50 PM on September 16, 2004

If she's hot enough, yes.
posted by fenriq at 9:52 PM on September 16, 2004

I thought it would be a good opportunity for a dialogue on the decline of civility in political discourse. But, with terms like "nutworlddaily", I can see that there's not much point. Feel free to delete.
posted by DWRoelands at 10:02 PM on September 16, 2004

I thought it would be a good opportunity for a dialogue on the decline of civility in political discourse.

now THAT's one fucking clever weasel job.
posted by quonsar at 10:08 PM on September 16, 2004

"I thought it would be a good opportunity for a dialogue on the decline of civility in political discourse."

Yes, and posting a link to a single incendiary image, without context or balance, always leads to civility. Your addition of the editorial 'smirking' and 'terrorizing' sets a fine example for civil discourse. I applaud you for drawing our attention to the decline of civility in such a forthright manner.

Or... WTF, DWRoelands?
posted by cedar at 10:09 PM on September 16, 2004

There's nothing civil about tearing up a sign in front of a little kid (not that involving kids in politics isn't stupid). The photo didn't especially need any "contextual caveat": you simply don't do that in front of a kid--it's cruel.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:16 PM on September 16, 2004

Anyway. My point was not to start a fight but pre-empt one that the post was doubtlessly going to cause if allowed to remain on the front page. It obviously wasn't pre-empted but maybe there's still a chance of empting it. I hate it when fights go to the post-empt stage.
posted by louigi at 10:19 PM on September 16, 2004

Okay, so the post was a troll, but at least I found out what it takes to make ParisParamus start acting all paternal and shit

Okay, you're right on that.
posted by scarabic at 10:20 PM on September 16, 2004

agree. this one should have been deleted
posted by quarsan at 10:40 PM on September 16, 2004

Well, it is currently Yahoo!'s most e-mailed photo, which means it *must* be Best of the Web.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:57 PM on September 16, 2004

Now that the post is gone, maybe the MetaTalk page could be erased too? Then there would be no more fighting on MetaFilter!

Wait...
posted by louigi at 11:09 PM on September 16, 2004

Let's get naked and get each other off, but we have to be discreet...

Oh snap!
posted by The God Complex at 11:31 PM on September 16, 2004

You know what - this thread was just as thin, angry, and spot on a dead-horse topic as the one that just got deleted.
posted by scarabic at 12:20 AM on September 17, 2004

You know what - this thread was just as thin, angry, and spot on a dead-horse topic as the one that just got deleted.

I almost axed it earlier tonight, but you're right. It's gone too.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:14 AM on September 17, 2004

There's nothing civil about killing a little kid (not that involving kids in war isn't stupid). The war didn't especially need any "contextual caveat": you simply don't do that to a kid--it's cruel.
posted by johnnydark at 5:00 AM on September 17, 2004

That little girl is going to turn into the next Ann Coulter.

Did the Democrats learn nothing from the Republicans about provocative destructive acts and their potential for creating intransigent hostility?
posted by Blue Stone at 5:10 AM on September 17, 2004

Did the Democrats learn nothing from the Republicans about provocative destructive acts and their potential for creating intransigent hostility?

Did the Republicans?
posted by substrate at 5:24 AM on September 17, 2004

Well, it was fun watching the usual suspects rationalize asshole behavior on the rationale that since it was done by people on their side it must be OK.

And to all the people saying "He shouldn't have brought a kid there." I was at the big march in NYC and there were tons of people with kids. For once, just say "Yeah, the people who did this are assholes, and they're an embarrassment."
posted by jonmc at 6:15 AM on September 17, 2004

Well, they weren't bringing kids into an opposing camp type situation. That was unfair to the kid, and the use of the pic by Drudge and others as a propaganda tool reminds me for various reason of a recent "Daily Show" pic about a gas station manager whose supplier was upset with him for lowering prices. To get the oil company's side, the show had their statement read by an "adorable eight-year-old girl." Whoever did this sucked, certainly, but the use of the photo is being taken too far, and will only fuel more stupidity from the other side, which will spur more by the other other side. It involved a few people, or maybe one or two. We'll never know. It didn't represent everyone at the Edwards event, I'm sure, much less an entire group of voters.
posted by raysmj at 6:43 AM on September 17, 2004

I know that, ray, just like I know most Republicans, however much I might dislike their policies, don't go around kicking women or pulling people's hair.

I'm just sick of the infantile behavior all around, and the need to rationalize it that people seem to feel.
posted by jonmc at 6:53 AM on September 17, 2004

The alleged Kerry-Edwards supporters who allegedly tore three-year-old Sophia Parlock's Bush-Cheney sign in front of her very eyes were paid GOP operatives doing it for the negative Kerry PR.

/Just sayin
posted by DBAPaul at 6:53 AM on September 17, 2004

Of course they were, DBAPaul. Now go check your toothpaste for explosives.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on September 17, 2004

"Yeah, the people who did this are assholes, and they're an embarrassment."

I take the assholishness of everyone involved there for granted. But, you know, it's one thing to take a small child to a political rally for someone you support. You're among friends and you can have a nice time whatever you're rallying for. But what kind of parent takes a three year old to protest the opposing candidate? I might want to mix it up at a Bush rally, myself, but there's no way I'd ever take a three year old with me.

So, yeah: Sign vandals: assholes. Daddy: needs to learn parenting comes before politics.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:03 AM on September 17, 2004

jonmc, thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking, and then thank you again for this comment, which just made me laugh.
posted by jonson at 7:28 AM on September 17, 2004

OK, that is interesting, XQ. And if it all pans out, then this guy is reprehensible, both for the subterfuge, and for involving his kids.

But the hypersnark in the initial thread went on irregardless of knowing any of this, and like a lot of people, I'm just sick of it.

Crap like this is the reason that even though I disagree with him on a lot, I still respect John McCain, because he's one of the few people in politics today who has a least a modicum of class in how he conducts himself.
posted by jonmc at 7:37 AM on September 17, 2004

I wish the thread were still up, it's an interesting story of fakery and headline generating.

Oh well, there's a blurb on Wonkette.
posted by milovoo at 7:43 AM on September 17, 2004

and by the way, DBAPaul, the reason you got a wisecrack and XQ got a measured response is because he provided evidence and you merely shot your mouth off. These things make a difference.
posted by jonmc at 8:14 AM on September 17, 2004

And here's a site with the most current info. Apparently this guy also claims to have been shot at and had signs stolen from his yard by democratic supporters.
posted by milovoo at 8:45 AM on September 17, 2004

I hear the guy's now planning to take his daughter to Monday's Eagles game dressed in a Vikings jersey.
posted by soyjoy at 8:52 AM on September 17, 2004

<snark>
None of this would have happened if Kerry/Edwards campaign would have everyone sign loyalty agreements like the Bush/Cheney campaign.
</snark>
posted by terrapin at 9:39 AM on September 17, 2004

Ok, fine, it's back. That really is an interesting twist.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:14 AM on September 17, 2004

Thanks, Matt.

I regret my instant snark in the thread and here, but it was still a lame post only salvaged by the fact that we live in Bizarro world.
posted by cedar at 10:25 AM on September 17, 2004

raysmj repeat after me "The Daily Show is comedy"
posted by Mitheral at 11:00 AM on September 17, 2004

There's nothing civil about tearing up a sign in front of a little kid (not that involving kids in politics isn't stupid). The photo didn't especially need any "contextual caveat": you simply don't do that in front of a kid--it's cruel.

Tell that to Parlock, since a cursory review of the "crying Bush girl" photo and a photo of Parlock's family reveals that the "union guy" tearing up the sign is actually one of Parlock's other kids... Atrios has both photos available for your devilishly leftist viewing pleasure...
posted by JollyWanker at 11:01 AM on September 17, 2004

i bet he pinches the kid on the leg in order to get her to cry when a camera goes by.
posted by quonsar at 11:26 AM on September 17, 2004

Mitheral: Oh, yeah, it's comedy. C-SPAN is the best comedy channel on television, though, if you look much of what goes on there as intentional satire. Or imagine it as such, rather.
posted by raysmj at 11:36 AM on September 17, 2004

Thanks for undeleting the thread, Matt. Can you come and help undelete some documents I accidentally got rid of now?

And the father having done this twice before already completely kills any impact his story may have had. He knew exactly what he was doing and why and how?

He's exploiting his children to try and advance his own political beliefs. Nice!
posted by fenriq at 11:41 AM on September 17, 2004

You know, I was going to vote for Kerry but when I saw what his supporters did to that little girl I was disgusted and decided to vote for Bush. But now it turns out it was faked so now I have to vote for Kerry.

Damn, it's hard being a swing voter.
posted by victors at 1:26 PM on September 17, 2004

Soon enough we'll find out that the family photo was faked. And soon after that, the birth certificates used to debunk the family photo will be proved forgeries. Eventually, it will be demonstrated that I never left this comment.
posted by scarabic at 4:22 PM on September 17, 2004

And that you never existed.

That's it, I demand much more rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
posted by deadcowdan at 7:10 PM on September 17, 2004

I'm fairly confident that the family photo was faked, but accurate.
posted by soyjoy at 8:18 PM on September 17, 2004

raysmj, that was Stephen Colbert's daughter playing the part of the "oil company" on TDS.

I mean, COME ON. If you watched the credits, you woulda known.
posted by LimePi at 10:37 PM on September 17, 2004