Bad Bush thread. October 18, 2004 7:57 AM   Subscribe

Bush is Hitler. Well, I'm glad that's settled.

The post includes scintillating links to the front page of foxnews.com and to a NY Times editorial. The comments include "you never should have been born", "prayer breakfasts take us closer to forced reeducation camps for gays", (this comment met with lots of approval) "you're an idiot" and "Bush is Hitler"(the phrase "a normal Christian guy on a power trip" is a reference to an earlier comment by skallas that Hitler was just a normal Christian guy on a power trip). There’s nothing redeeming here. Will you delete this please, Matt?
posted by gd779 to Etiquette/Policy at 7:57 AM (72 comments total)



Way to go, you made the baby Jesus cry.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:06 AM on October 18, 2004


I think bashos_frog made a good point. You don't like it why? Sure, it's hyperbole, but the point seems valid. Ignoring the part of history that has any connection to Hitler seems a bit silly.

It's possible to compare Bush to Hitler and not be a wacko.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:08 AM on October 18, 2004


Ignoring the part of history that has any connection to Hitler seems a bit silly.

Okay, look. Godwin's Law is not a physical law, nor is it in element of the TCP/IP protocol. It's a principle. There may, very occassionally, be a discussion in which a calm, sane and thoughtful comparison between some issue and the Nazi Holocaust is made. In those instances, it is obviously appropriate to ignore Godwin's Law and proceed with the discussion. But the vast majority of the time, if you're comparing your political enemy to Hitler, you've frankly gone off the deep end. You've lost all perspective and reason. At best, you're deliberately making an inflammatory appeal to emotion.

I originally popped into the thread, contrary to my usual habit, for a laugh. I saw the first post. My point in response was simply that when a violation of Godwin's Law occurs, the proper response is not to shout "Godwin" and hope that the thread ends. It never does. Instead, the traditional response is just to shake your head (or laugh), mentally killfile the thread and everyone who seriously made such a silly and offensive comparison, and move on.

Then, this morning, I realized that there is still one difference between MetaFilter and Usenet - MetaFilter has MetaTalk and, most importantly, Matt. So I posted this here, to allow mathowie to do with as he will.
posted by gd779 at 8:41 AM on October 18, 2004


You write, "There’s nothing redeeming here," but goddamn, gd, how could that be when you also write "this comment met with lots of approval". Some folks found a bright spot in their day, but you didn't.

If you don't like lima beans, don't order the succatash.
posted by mischief at 8:46 AM on October 18, 2004


It's possible to compare Bush to Hitler and not be a wacko.

No, it's really not. But that's not the issue. The issue is that, while the framing of the post is original, the links themselves are clearly not the "best of the web". And with comments that don't exactly exemplify a discussion that ran "intelligent and civil", there's really no reason to keep it around as an example.
posted by gd779 at 8:48 AM on October 18, 2004


God forbid a true analog to the Nazi party should ever rise anywhere. People will be so busy falling all over each other to quote Godwin's law that they won't do anything about it. Who is this old fart, who decided we should never apply one of history's most imporant lessons, nay, not even put possible instances of relapse to the test?
posted by scarabic at 8:50 AM on October 18, 2004


Godwin's second law: any online discussion which contains any mention of Nazis, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, the holocaust, or World War II -- whether for historical, analogic, or hyperbolic purpose -- will immediately devolve into an argument about Godwin's Law.
posted by ook at 9:04 AM on October 18, 2004


Godwin's second law, first corollary: Godwin's law is most likely to be invoked by those who don't actually know what Godwin's Law is.

Godwin's second law, second corollary: Pointing this fact out will have no effect. This will not prevent people pointing it out anyway.
posted by ook at 9:15 AM on October 18, 2004


The majority of the comments in that thread are far better and less offensive than your Meta post, gd779. This call for censorship of open and civil discussion is WAY out of line. If mere reference to Hitler offends you so deeply, then depart the thread and leave the discussion to more sophisticated thinkers and their use of analogy, don't try to force everyone down to your level of simplistic rhetoric where the events and players of the greatest war of the most recent century are too scary and overwhelming to even mention and where Hitler must always be "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named," the ultimate avatar of evil with no relation to humanity whatsoever.
posted by rushmc at 9:19 AM on October 18, 2004


"But the vast majority of the time, if you're comparing your political enemy to Hitler, you've frankly gone off the deep end."

Huh? Really? I think it at least twice a day.
posted by xammerboy at 9:29 AM on October 18, 2004


rushmc: Calling Nazis "normal Christian guys" is a product of "sophisticated thinkers"?

If I claimed that "The Taliban were just normal Muslim guys," would you applaud my sophistication? Would you thank me for promoting "civil discussion"?
posted by Kwantsar at 9:35 AM on October 18, 2004


Who is this old fart, who decided we should never apply one of history's most imporant lessons, nay, not even put possible instances of relapse to the test?

All I'm saying is quiet down about the Nazi paranoia.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:35 AM on October 18, 2004


This call for censorship of open and civil discussion is WAY out of line.

I'm not asking Matt to censor anybody's opinion. Sadly, people around here compare Bush to Hitler all the time, and I don't run around asking for those comments and posts to be deleted. I usually just laugh, and make a note to ignore such people in the future.

No, my point is about the signal to noise ratio around here. The post linked to newspaper opinion pieces, to foxnews.com, and to georgewbush.com. It was slanted to produce a vitriolic, partisan, shallow discussion. Unsurprisingly, that's what it produced (plus an unintended argument about Godwin). It's pure noise.
posted by gd779 at 9:46 AM on October 18, 2004


I have to agree with gd779 here. This place is turning into Dailykos-lite in the past couple weeks. I can handle a few posts here and there related to the election each day, but it seems like several hyperbolic posts are going up every day that are the equivalent of "bush is the most evilest person ever!"

It's getting tiresome, and I wish rational discourse still had a chance here, but a group of users is going fundamentalist over their anti-bushness and it's getting old.

Chill out, it's just two weeks to a slim Kerry victory. We'll do fine without your Bush=Hitler post, seriously.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:51 AM on October 18, 2004 [1 favorite]


I will concede that comparing Shrub to Hitler is a bit far-fetched.

Hitler was a much nicer guy. ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:02 AM on October 18, 2004


The rejection of any comparison between Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and the nascent fascism of the Bush administration is a rejection of a fundamental truth about the Nazis and the Stalinists: they too were human. When we demonize not just Hitler and Stalin, but the hundreds of thousands of otherwise-normal Germans and Russians who cooperated with their rule, either implicitly or explicitly, we forget that we are but a step away from that kind of dictatorship and mob mentality ourselves. Much of human history, in fact, has been characterized by the seemingly 'inhuman' rule of those kind of thugs. When we ignore that fact, turn away from our history, we risk reliving the eras we so fervently try to expunge from our collective memory.

Is Bush as bad as Hitler? Surely not. But the depths of fascism under Hitler are not an unattainable low. The difference to many is one of degree, not kind. The rhetoric of the now-deleted thread was certainly overblown, but a thoughtful comparison of our own government's policies to those of governments from which we wish to distance ourselves seems perfectly appropriate to me.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:08 AM on October 18, 2004


I have to agree with gd779 here. This place is turning into Dailykos-lite in the past couple weeks. I can handle a few posts here and there related to the election each day, but it seems like several hyperbolic posts are going up every day that are the equivalent of "bush is the most evilest person ever!"

A suggestion: post a box at the top of the front page with something like this (same way you did with the voter registration reminder). I'ts not the first time you've said it, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:16 AM on October 18, 2004


Thank you Matt.
posted by loquax at 10:16 AM on October 18, 2004


Mathowie - I appreciate your inherently political position as the voice of neutrality. Still, I wonder if you have perused the controversy concerning new legislation awaiting a George W. Bush victory - such as the "Constitutional Protection Act" (written by a colleague of Pat Roberston's and Lawyer for Roy Moore - a fellow by the name of Titus who is an avowed "Dominionist") - "which would not only bar the Supreme Court from reviewing cases in which public servants acknowledge God as the source of law, but it would make judges who rule on cases such as Judge Moore’s Ten Commandment debacle vulnerable to impeachment."

My point ? The trajectory of this is rather weird. I would expect the White House - in saner times - to keep someone like Robertson, who has made overt defense of genocidal killing as described in the Bible and also called for a "fumigation" (his term, not mine) of secular and liberal America - at arms length.

This is not merely business as usual.

"I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our nation’s political leaders." – Walter Cronkite, January, 2004

gd779 -

1) The religious right, more so by far than with any US President probably in a century, has George W. Bush's ear.

2) The seven most powerful Republican senators have a 100% voting record of approval from Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.

3) Pat Robertson has - since the early to mid 1980's - been calling for religious conservatives to take over the US government and impose theocratic rule. He has also alluded to, numerous times, the need for a violent purge of Americans who are secularist or opposed to Christian theocracy.

4) "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1996

5) Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly had Clarence Thomas anoint Ashcroft with cooking oil. (? !)

Here's a nice little rundown on elements of the religious right

If opposition to the imposition of a Christian theocracy in America is partisan, then I'm a partisan. So be it.
____________________

That said, I don't think the post held together too well. But that's a technical point about the quality of posts and not a condemnation of anyone's sense of political concern - which I'd call, in this case, well justified.
posted by troutfishing at 10:25 AM on October 18, 2004


It's possible to compare Bush to Hitler and not be a wacko.

No, it's really not.

Sure it is. One can say "Bush is really very little like Hitler." That's a sane, reasonable comparison of Bush to Hitler.
posted by kindall at 10:33 AM on October 18, 2004


It's possible to compare Bush to Hitler and not be a wacko.

No, it's really not.


Amen to that. Karl Rove is Hitler. Bush is just a ventriloquist dummy with Rove's hand up his ass.
posted by Shane at 10:34 AM on October 18, 2004


GD779, it is possible to compare Bush to Hitler and not be a wacko.

It's hard to imagine how one could equate Bush and Hitler and not be a wacko, but "compare" != "equate".
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:47 AM on October 18, 2004


Thank you, Matt.
posted by gd779 at 10:48 AM on October 18, 2004


troutfishing, you remember those wackos on the Right who thought that Clinton was shepherding us to a One World Government ruled by France and the Illuminati? When it comes to the religious right, you're their mirror image. You've lost the ability to distinguish spin from reality

But kindall and Sidhedevil are right. "Compare" is not the same as "equate". My bad.
posted by gd779 at 10:52 AM on October 18, 2004


Chill out, it's just two weeks to a slim Kerry victory.

That's almost certainly false, I think, and those who contribute to the "business as usual" attitude in these last moments will bear much responsibliity for the loss. Doesn't anyone remember the lessons of the consequences of complacency learned in 2000? One cannot afford to blink at such a time.
posted by rushmc at 10:55 AM on October 18, 2004


gd779 - All I hear from you IS spin.

I cited evidence.

You haven't refuted that evidence.

To the extent that you fail to do that, you make your own case against yourself - that you're the partisan here, and also the one who is detached from reality.
posted by troutfishing at 11:13 AM on October 18, 2004


Chill out, it's just two weeks to a slim Kerry victory.

That's almost certainly false, I think, and those who contribute to the "business as usual" attitude in these last moments will bear much responsibliity for the loss. Doesn't anyone remember the lessons of the consequences of complacency learned in 2000? One cannot afford to blink at such a time.


I tend to agree that it is false, and Bush will win. On the other hand, anti-Bush screeds here will accomplish less than nothing. It is preaching to the choir. You could post conclusive proof Bush does in fact eat babies, and you would gain what, maybe one or two new votes for Kerry? You know why? Because everyone here agrees with you already. Those that don't are too few in number to count. Metafilter is trending towards LGF or FreeRepublic - A heavily slanted anti-X post, followed by much agreement and intolerance towards any dissent, however small. Which is fine, if self-congratulation and ego-stroking is the goal. If you're serious about "getting the message out" and the "consequences of complancy", every minute spent posting or commenting here is one that could have been spent knocking on doors, making phone calls and otherwise trying to reach undecided voters. What would you say if Kerry spent the rest of his campagin in Boston?

Not only that, but it's clear that this trend in anti-Republican posting is turning off at least some people, not all of whom disagree with it. Is narrowing the audience for Metafilter desirable? Why continue posting about Bush when all it is accomplishing at the moment is driving readers away or to AskMe only? Maybe these posts get hundreds of comments, but when was the last time someone's mind was changed because of Metafilter?
posted by loquax at 11:23 AM on October 18, 2004


Chill out, it's just two weeks to a slim Kerry victory.
Does that mean you're backing out of our bet, Matt?
posted by amberglow at 11:29 AM on October 18, 2004


Well, troutfishing, lets review your evidence:

1) The "Constitutional Protection Act" has not been introduced in Congress, and I can't find the text of the bill.
2) "The religious right... has George W. Bush's ear." Okay. You're not calling this stetement "evidence", I don't think, right?
3) A notable Christian leader is trying to expand Christianity's role in government. Okay. So are nutbags of every stripe.
4) Rehnquist criticzes the "wall" metaphor. It's not in the constitution, after all. Maybe he feels that it clouds the debate.
5) Cooking oil. That's pretty good evidence that Ashcroft is a nutball, but means little about a slide into theocracy.
6) Christian Coalition ratings. I'd like to take a closer look, but it seems that this ultra-powerful organization can't even keep its website up.

Listen, if you're being the canary in the coal mine here, I respect that, but why not wait until you have something substantive?
posted by Kwantsar at 11:35 AM on October 18, 2004


Bush is Hitler.

no, Edwards is a Nazi:

''Mein Fuhrer, I Can Valk''

Also enjoy the nice reference to "cripples", too
posted by matteo at 11:44 AM on October 18, 2004


those who contribute to the "business as usual" attitude in these last moments will bear much responsibliity for the loss

Hear that Kerry campaign? If you somehow lose, it's all my fault. Please make me your poster boy. I saw what it did for Nader ruining Gore, and I want some of that.

Does anyone actually think a constant barrage of anti-Bush stuff in the last couple weeks will change any minds? And keep in mind, I'm not talking about actual news involving Bush or Kerry, I mean stuff about "dominoists taking control of our gov't."

If we're throwing around blame, I'd say the wackiest of the left ruin it for the rest of us, just like the fundies are ruining the republican party.

I'm confident Kerry will win, and if I bet on Bush a while ago (I forgot, must have been in my darkest hours), I'll gladly pay up, amberglow.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2004


I have to agree with gd779 here. This place is turning into Dailykos-lite in the past couple weeks. I can handle a few posts here and there related to the election each day, but it seems like several hyperbolic posts are going up every day that are the equivalent of "bush is the most evilest person ever!"

A suggestion: post a box at the top of the front page with something like this (same way you did with the voter registration reminder). I'ts not the first time you've said it, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.


Seconded.

Sad that extraordinary measures should have to be taken to prevent a group of adults from hard-headedly converting a "cool web stuff" forum into a trite, mainstream left vs. right hackfest—against the urging of the site admin—to get their dose of peer-approval.
posted by dhoyt at 12:09 PM on October 18, 2004


mathowie is, like, totally goebbels.
posted by liam at 12:14 PM on October 18, 2004


I think you make a lot of good points, loquax, and I certainly am not in favor of stupid, hysterical partisan posts to Metafilter. I don't agree that all the posts that are objected to on these grounds qualify, though. I also disagree with the "preaching to the choir" claim, as many times the number of people who post here (for which such a claim might well hold some truth) read the site, and as baffling as it is to contemplate, surveys show that there are still some undecided voters out there in the country.

If you somehow lose, it's all my fault. Please make me your poster boy.

Speaking of hysterical posts...

And keep in mind, I'm not talking about actual news involving Bush or Kerry, I mean stuff about "dominoists taking control of our gov't."

Then be careful who you align yourself with, because many of those complaining here are complaining about any and all election/politics-related posts, not just the whacko ones. If you didn't want election-related material to be posted here, you could easily have made that happen back when certain factions were begging you to. To silence the debate two weeks prior to the election after permitting it up until now seems counterproductive to your stated goals.

I'm confident Kerry will win

I'll be happy to extend you the same bet I made EB a couple months back if you're game. Those who celebrate victories prematurely tend to lose.
posted by rushmc at 12:20 PM on October 18, 2004


Sad that extraordinary measures should have to be taken to prevent a group of adults from hard-headedly converting a "cool web stuff" forum into a trite, mainstream left vs. right hackfest

Maybe we should have Jon Stewart appear on MetaFilter and ask for civility.
posted by COBRA! at 12:24 PM on October 18, 2004


Sad that extraordinary measures should have to be taken to prevent a group of adults from hard-headedly converting a "cool web stuff" forum into a trite, mainstream left vs. right hackfest—against the urging of the site admin—to get their dose of peer-approval.

Exactly what I was trying to say two threads down, dhoyt. You put it much more succinctly.

on preview: yes COBRA! and howdy Paris.
posted by sciurus at 12:30 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm confident Kerry will win, and if I bet on Bush a while ago (I forgot, must have been in my darkest hours), I'll gladly pay up, amberglow.
Let's wait and see til after the elections and lawsuits...

You could post conclusive proof Bush does in fact eat babies...
You were saying? ; >
posted by amberglow at 12:36 PM on October 18, 2004


"Metafilter is trending towards LGF or FreeRepublic - A heavily slanted anti-X post" - Loquax, The God of the Old Testament would burn out your tongue or your fingers. Jesus Christ, though, would forgive your lies and welcome you with open arms, or so I have read in the Bible.

kwantsar - just look to my last two posts if you're curious. I posted an absurd amount of information - which I won't repost merely for your benefit, but......

1) the Constitution "Protection" Act - I apologize, I mislabelled it. It is The Constitution Restoration Act

2) 2) "The religious right... has George W. Bush's ear." Okay. You're not calling this stetement "evidence", I don't think, right? - no, I'm not. I'm assuming that you've read something about that - it's actually common knowledge. Walter Cronkite has expressed his concern, even.

But you can start here : "Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move"

3) "3) A notable Christian leader is trying to expand Christianity's role in government. Okay. So are nutbags of every stripe." - Well, these nutbags control Congress.

Your other observations are, I feel, frivolous - and I have to get going.
posted by troutfishing at 12:39 PM on October 18, 2004


the phrase "a normal Christian guy on a power trip" is a reference to an earlier comment by skallas that Hitler was just a normal Christian guy on a power trip

I disagree with the idea that we oughtn't discuss ways in which Bush might be similar to Hitler. (Whether or not the FPP was a good one is another matter). The above quote demonstrates that it does seem difficult for some people to follow a subtle, nuanced argument, but in point of fact, the "normal Christian guy on a power trip" point wasn't contending that Bush = Hitler, but rather that no one could have known, when Hitler was just starting out, how history would play out, and what Hitler would become. The inference one ought to draw from that is not that Bush= Hitler, but that Bush's behavior (especially since 9/11) bears striking similarities with Hitler's at certain points, and, given the right historical context, Bush might become somebody like Hitler, or at least do some Hitlerish things.
That might is important - it's a warning, not an indictment. It's probably far-fetched, but (again) the point made by the comment quoted above is precisely that it was probably far-fetched to imagine that young Adolf would become what he became.

I remember Rush Limbaugh comparing Clinton's campagin promises to Hitler's. It didn't bother me in the slightest because A: it was Rush Limbaugh, B: the argument wasn't very nuanced.

However, it might not be that bad that Matt deleted the post, since there are a good many MeFites who have demonstrated they can't handle nuanced, subtle discussion about politics, religion, etc.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:46 PM on October 18, 2004


Falwell himself said they own the Republican Party now, so i don't know why there're still debates about this. Ralph Reed went from running the Christian Coalition to running the Bush/Cheney Campaign in the Southeast (incl. Florida).

and Bush is the AntiChrist is far more effective than Bush is Hitler ; P
posted by amberglow at 12:53 PM on October 18, 2004


I mean stuff about "dominoists taking control of our gov't."

jesus christ, howie, grow a brain.
posted by quonsar at 1:20 PM on October 18, 2004


dominoists
posted by amberglow at 1:28 PM on October 18, 2004


Bah, Bush != Hitler?

And here I went digging for that face generating thingamajig :(

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
posted by filmgoerjuan at 1:33 PM on October 18, 2004


I am enjoying my sabbatical--I hope you are, too!

Ladies and gents, ParisParamus, contradicting himself once more.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:51 PM on October 18, 2004


I found that pretty terrifying, amberglow.

"Dance with Mr. Domino! Dance! Dance!" {evil laugh}
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:06 PM on October 18, 2004


No, it's really not.

Yes, it really is.

But that's not the issue.

Fair enough.

I am enjoying my sabbatical--I hope you are, too!

Who let that guy back in here?

I don't take part in much of the bashing and gnashing and flailing and wailing of the liberalleftluftwaffe these days, other than to drop in a faintly amusing (to me) quip or two. I do agree that 'the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity,' and I'm sometimes tempted with the devilish idea that a Bush re-election (or initial election) might be a good thing, as it would hasten the demise of the nation and the rest of the world could get on with trying to repair the damage. Mostly, though, I wish Bush and his cadre irrevocably gone with as much fervent intensity as the next hippie freak antiwar dimwit dupe, even if I don't shit all over the front page with the latest NYTimes article bolstering my position.

But to say that those whose identify themselves with the left and the challenger, in trying to grapple with the gravity of the historical moment (and maybe fling a few insults around in the process) are as bad in their disputational tactics as those who identify with the right and the incumbent is soft-headed nonsense that has been -- in the familiar way that those who could gain from framing the argument in ways they want would wish -- put forward without any kind of real justification and mountains of evidence to the contrary, and taken up by those of little wit who wish to be seen as 'fair and balanced' in their personal views.

Fair and balanced is fine. Lazy and passively accepting arguments framed in ways that do a disservice to none of us is not. It's worse, in a way that's insidious, because at least the yokels who shout 'Bush is Hitler!' without a hint of irony are laughable and easily dismissed (unless, as it's perfectly reasonable and possible to do, they build a nuanced argument that they way the National Socialists came to power has worrisome echoes in today's Bush administration). It's harder to poke fun at ironic malaise or determined evenhandedness, even when that evenhandedness is based on a false set of premises.

But I do think there's too much fucking wasabi on the front page, and The Stupid™ continues to multiply. For what it's worth.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:07 PM on October 18, 2004


juan: that pic looks like Anthony Hopkins. ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:18 PM on October 18, 2004


hard-headedly converting a "cool web stuff"

i'm getting sick of hearing this myth. it's pure, unmitigated bullshit. i'm going to shove your face into the archives and hold your head under by the ears until you manage to come up with a mouthful of all this "cool web stuff" that used to daily grace these hallowed pages.

glub. glub. glub.
posted by quonsar at 2:18 PM on October 18, 2004


...who wish to be seen as 'fair and balanced' in their personal views

Er, add '...is nonsense.' to that. As if it wasn't already hard enough to follow.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:30 PM on October 18, 2004


I take it ParisP made a comment that has been deleted. Did he say something vile? If it was just the "I am enjoying my sabbatical--I hope you are, too!" that was quoted, I fail to understand why it's gone. If comments that don't contribute to a nuanced understanding of the topic are banned, pretty much every thread is going to look like Swiss cheese.
posted by languagehat at 2:40 PM on October 18, 2004


languagehat: It was just that short comment, and another, similar comment.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2004


I love all of you.

But that's probably the vicodin talking.
posted by jonmc at 3:04 PM on October 18, 2004


MetaFilter: Vicodin Talking.
posted by wendell at 3:15 PM on October 18, 2004


i'm getting sick of hearing this myth. it's pure, unmitigated bullshit. i'm going to shove your face into the archives and hold your head under by the ears until you manage to come up with a mouthful of all this "cool web stuff" that used to daily grace these hallowed pages.

Hear, hear. I started reading MeFi back in 2001 and I remember that one of the things that attracted me to the site was all the interesting news posts. Every time someone makes some comment about "the good ole days" I think man, that 2000 must've been one heckuva year!

Of course, 2000 was Clinton's last year in office...

<kerry>"Under this President, political posts on MetaFiler have gone way, way up." </kerry>
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:20 PM on October 18, 2004


It was just that short comment, and another, similar comment.

that just truly, truly sucks.
posted by quonsar at 3:22 PM on October 18, 2004


i'm going to shove your face into the archives and hold your head under by the ears until you manage to come up with a mouthful of all this "cool web stuff" that used to daily grace these hallowed pages.

Nice image.

I think users who joined Metafilter to make unfunny "look at me!" one-liners or talk about t0tally punching Bu$h in his face probably also willfully ignore the "cool web stuff" posts found in the archives. They tend to be low-key threads which offer little platform for trite classclowning, so there's a good chance you skipped right over them.
posted by dhoyt at 3:23 PM on October 18, 2004


Nice image.

i thought it was amusing.

willfully ignore the "cool web stuff" posts found in the archives. They tend to be low-key threads which offer little platform for trite classclowning, so there's a good chance you skipped right over them.

nice try, but aside from your attempt to deflect the discussion to my behavior, you've essentially admitted that your "cool web stuff" was awash in a sea of other, "higher key" threads, and could easily be skipped over. in other words, you admit to fostering the myth that this place used to emphasize some kind of "cool web stuff" and that it's since been ruined by newsfilter. you lose.

neener.
posted by quonsar at 3:31 PM on October 18, 2004


At this point, it's hard for me to understand why anybody who's really informed about this election and historical US presidential elections can be confident of a Bush win. Unless one is expecting some sort of October surpise that would make a difference, or vote fraud, or legal maneuvering and a repeat of 2000. I don't expect any of those things (although I fear the last). Almost all the polls are now showing Bush and Kerry in a dead heat—which means Bush will lose, as the level of support for the incumbent going into the election never goes up, while the undecides tend to swing to the challenger at the last minute. But that's just looking at the national numbers. In enough of the battleground states, Bush is doing worse. Kerry will win the popular vote by a small but very real margin, and will win the electoral college by a moderately large margin. We have that $10 bet, right rushmc?

I'd like to repeat something. I care more about this election than any in my life. I hate the Bush administration and I agree that this is also probably the most important election in a long while. I hate hate hate hate hate Bush and his cronies. But I read probably ten to twenty news and politics and, particularly, US election focused sites all day, every day, and not only do I not need MeFi for election news, the fact is that what's here isn't that great and the discussion sucks. And the thing is, MeFi isn't a news and politics and US election oriented site. Matt doesn't like the recent focus. Lots of people don't like it. The reason I don't like it cannot possibly be because I favor Bush, or have little interest in this election, or am not motivated to campaign for Kerry, or whatever, because none of those things are true. There's nothing I wish for more fervently than for Bush to choke to death on a pretzel after he's suffered the humiliation of being a one-term president. But I think those sorts of thoughts all day, every day. I don't need to read them on MeFi, or get encouragement from other people to hate Bush. Frankly, it's boring.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:02 PM on October 18, 2004


I'll just throw in to support what others have been writing in this thread. Anti-Bush or Pro-kerry posts aren't going to be very useful to anyone. Most Mefites have long ago decided, for their own reasons, who they are supporting this november. The continual drum-beating isn't changing anyone's mind, it's just interfering with other decisions that need to be made. For example, I tend to hang out in bars (one in particular is more of the neighborhood social nexus then anything else - but that's a long story.) Recently more and more people are trying to start political discussions/arguments. Lately I feel like I've both heard and said everything I know and understand. My strategy has been to steer the conversation back to state and local elections.

Random Drunk: "Gah! Bush-Itler! Bush-itler!!!"
Drunk Elwood: "Yeah, maybe. Look, how are you voting for the second city council seat?
Random Drunk: "City council?"
Drunk Elwood: "Yeah, you know, they are trying to direct funds away from education and into mass transit. This vote could really effect the livibility of the city."
Random Drunk: "Uh."
Drunk Elwood: "And measure 36 really weakens the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Supporters claim it clarifies things, but really it make certain constitional clauses seem vague and is going to lead to further court decisions."
Random Drunk: "Uh, where's the bathroom?"
Drunk Elwood: "Through there, see you around, eh?"

Get out and talk to people. Study the local issues. Vote.

Use MetaFilter to bring interesting links about interesting things that maybe, just maybe, people can talk about and learn from one another.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:35 PM on October 18, 2004


Why were Paris' posts deleted? What's wrong with him saying he's enjoying his sabbatical? It doesn't advance this fascinating and not at all repetitive argument a tittle, granted, but why delete it?
posted by kenko at 5:01 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm enjoying Paris' sabbatical. I hope he is, too.
posted by chicobangs at 5:16 PM on October 18, 2004


People who make a Big Fuss about Saying They're Leaving should be treated as people who have Left.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:54 PM on October 18, 2004


Bush always gets compared to Hitler. But why doesn't anyone ever compare Hitler to Bush? That's so sad.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:35 PM on October 18, 2004


Poor little Adolf--they always leave him out.

*throws up uncontrollably*
posted by amberglow at 7:49 PM on October 18, 2004


but that Bush's behavior (especially since 9/11) bears striking similarities with Hitler's at certain points, and, given the right historical context, Bush might become somebody like Hitler, or at least do some Hitlerish things.

You're either woefully ignorant of history or extremely paranoid. I don't like bush either, but he has not got himself voted into a legal dictator, he has not arrested members of congress who voted against him on the issue, he has not set up an unofficial army to beat up anyone who disagreed with the nazis (or basically, anyone they felt like) and he has not killed over 400 of his own because - well - I don't think we really know why - he decided they might be against him.

Hitler did all of that (and more) within a year of taking power. He had written a testament to what he wanted to do almost a decade before he came to power, and it explicitly declared his hatred of democracy, communism, and especially the jews, and also his goal of conquering russia and eastern europe so that noble germany would have its rightful 'living space'.

I appreciate that bush has done some things that seem to limit rights or instill fear, but at this stage there are plenty of countries around the world you could compare him with - like in france you can't wear a muslim head scarf, or in germany you can't buy a copy of mein kampf, or whatever. Lots of countries have more restraints than we do, or a similar amount in different areas... I think bush for another four years would be shit, in a lot of areas, which I've outlined on other threads so won't again here, but at the moment he is not like hitler.
posted by mdn at 8:19 PM on October 18, 2004


It's getting tiresome, and I wish rational discourse still had a chance here, but a group of users is going fundamentalist over their anti-bushness and it's getting old.

Once again: you are the only one here who can restrain users who cannot, or will not, restrain themselves. It's still your site, mang--is someone going to shoot a puppy if you exercise your right as #1?
If you can identify a cabal, then you can certainly put its members on hiatus until 11/3. What're they going to do, send you nasty emails?
posted by darukaru at 8:20 PM on October 18, 2004


We have that $10 bet, right rushmc?

You betcha.
posted by rushmc at 10:13 PM on October 18, 2004


At this point, it's hard for me to understand why anybody who's really informed about this election and historical US presidential elections can be confident of a Bush win. Unless one is expecting some sort of October surpise that would make a difference, or vote fraud, or legal maneuvering and a repeat of 2000.

Yes. Do I have to choose only one?
posted by DaShiv at 3:20 AM on October 19, 2004


You're either woefully ignorant of history or extremely paranoid.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you're one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between a comparison and equating two things. I didn't say "Bush is the new Hitler" or "Bush is just like Hitler" or "Bush's career is progressing as Hitler's did." I'm not even saying it's my argument - only that it isn't the false analogy gd779 was making it out to be but rather that the argument posed by the two photos is that Bush's behavior (especially since 9/11) bears striking similarities with Hitler's at certain points, and, given the right historical context, Bush might become somebody like Hitler, or at least do some Hitlerish things.


But I bet that straw man falls over real easily when you punch it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:57 AM on October 19, 2004


Do I have to choose only one?

No, but you do have to chose who to root for on October 31st.

Go Skins!
posted by grateful at 8:01 AM on October 19, 2004


I don't like bush either, but he has not got himself voted into a legal dictator, he has not arrested members of congress who voted against him on the issue, he has not set up an unofficial army to beat up anyone who disagreed with the nazis (or basically, anyone they felt like) and he has not killed over 400 of his own because - well - I don't think we really know why - he decided they might be against him.

Not yet! But he has the means! He has the will! And the intention!

:P
posted by scarabic at 4:46 PM on October 20, 2004


CrapCrapCrap. I woke up in the middle of the night fearing the worst - and it's true. Dammit, I meant to say Go Packers! Lifelong Democrat, lifelong Skins fan, one time slip of the tongue.

Oh well - I guess it's just fodder for the right-wingers to accuse me of being a flip-flopper.
posted by grateful at 5:57 PM on October 20, 2004


« Older We're not the pirates you're looking for   |   recordcount element error Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments