Are we the anti-freep?

April 27, 2005 3:35 PM

Does anyone else find themselves annoyed by the mirror-image-of-freep qualities of this?
posted by kavasa to Etiquette/Policy at 3:35 PM (39 comments total)

No.
Are you serious?
posted by schyler523 at 4:04 PM on April 27, 2005

Nope. If the argument the post is making is wrong, go and add a comment that demolishes the argument, rather than complaining here.

If the argument isn't wrong, why are you complaining here?
posted by orthogonality at 4:08 PM on April 27, 2005

Nope, no annoyance here.
posted by mischief at 4:16 PM on April 27, 2005

Yes I'm serious.

I didn't look at the argument, I have no idea if it's wrong or right or somewhere inbetween. I'm complaining here because it has nothing to do with the argument. If it had anything to do with the argument, don't you think I'd post in the thread? Come on.

Democrats do something dumb, freep posts and says something about blah blah liberals blah blah idiots blah cowards etc.

Republicans do something dumb, and sometimes (although not always) you'll see a mefi post along the lines of blah blah talabangilists blah pigfuckers etc.
posted by kavasa at 4:16 PM on April 27, 2005

Nothing to see here, move along.
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on April 27, 2005

I have been reading the debate taking place on that thread and I must assume you haven't, or this counts as a pretty worthless callout. The debate taking place is/was substantive and respectful. The thread is a model for MeFi, not something to whine about. When is the last time you saw somebody post something like this...

Bulgaroktonos

P.S. I appreciate your thoughtful comments on this subject. Thanks for contributing to an interesting conversation.
posted by EmoChild at 4:47 PM EST on April 27

...in a political thread about Republicans and abortion?

I agree that the wording of the post is freep-like and everyone should avoid such language, but the resulting thread is great and maybe we can save our call-outs for worse problems. Or just flag it.
posted by Falconetti at 4:25 PM on April 27, 2005

Democrats do something dumb...
Republicans do something dumb...
Democrats do something dumb...
Republicans do something dumb...

It's turtles all the way down! ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:33 PM on April 27, 2005

Does anyone else find themselves annoyed by the mirror-image-of-freep qualities of this?

Not here. You can bash republicans, southerners, and catholics, and if you're all three, god help you.

The link is standard issue, but emochild doesn't seem happy with merely posting it, so he/she adds the other nonsense to help it along. I guess everyone wants to be drudge these days.
posted by justgary at 4:37 PM on April 27, 2005

I feel dumb, but could someone define "freep"?
posted by Specklet at 4:41 PM on April 27, 2005

Yeah, I thought the original post was over the top and ridiculously worded. A few comments in someone pointed out the original premise was wrong.

I considered deleting it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:44 PM on April 27, 2005

I just read the post, and found it interesting, informative, and not shrill. I don't think it should be deleted.
posted by interrobang at 4:47 PM on April 27, 2005

not shrill

"talabangilists" sounds like something someone would read in a well-reasoned argument that was part of a larger constructive, calm debate?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:57 PM on April 27, 2005

The "talabangelists" thing happened too many times, sure, but people aren't screaming at each other in there.
posted by interrobang at 4:59 PM on April 27, 2005

Heh. Talabangilists. I like that. Spelling's a bit dodgy, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on April 27, 2005

regrettable labelling aside, there's some interesting stuff in that thread, and is far less idiotic that I'd expected.
posted by boo_radley at 5:12 PM on April 27, 2005

Falconetti - why would the fact that a good thread came out of it mean I shouldn't express my dislike of the post itself? It's great that the thread turned out that way, but the post itself was still poor.

Specklet - google "free republic" and peruse the resultant site. Beware: it's ugly. Real ugly.

Freep and sites like it are why I'm not a fan of posts like that, even if mefi manages to salvage a decent thread out of it.
posted by kavasa at 5:23 PM on April 27, 2005

Metafilter: I considered deleting it
posted by I EAT TAPES at 7:00 PM on April 27, 2005

I was sure this was going to be about that "I buggered Ann Coulter" post.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:04 PM on April 27, 2005

Technically it should really be "Talibangelists", not "Talabangelists".
posted by clevershark at 7:44 PM on April 27, 2005

I find the whole tribal warfare thing to be sad and pathetic.
posted by nightchrome at 8:13 PM on April 27, 2005

It was a terrible post - a classic example of kneejerk anti-Republicanism that didn't address the complex issues involved. Thank goodness thoughtful folks quickly pointed out EmoChild's superficial and misleading take on the matter, but it could have gone either way.

Yes, kavasa, I was annoyed, too.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 PM on April 27, 2005

Falconetti - why would the fact that a good thread came out of it mean I shouldn't express my dislike of the post itself? It's great that the thread turned out that way, but the post itself was still poor.

True, true. I think I was so shocked by how nicely it turned out that I was temporarily bewildered.
posted by Falconetti at 8:54 PM on April 27, 2005

I'm sorry to point out that I've grown to expect somewhat starkly biased, and propaganda-ish FPPs from mefi. The general quality of discussion is good, but there is always going to be at least one extremist on every issue.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:42 PM on April 27, 2005

Please insert 'the occasional' between expect and somewhat.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:47 PM on April 27, 2005

I cannot express how much I appreciate it when posters who are addressing political/controversial issues exercise self-restraint in how they compose their posts. Here are my personal reasons why:

Calm, rational posts that attempt to be objective encourage similar commenting. And vice-versa.

Personally, I just don't click through on posts that give all indications of promising a shrill, repetitive trainwreck of a thread. Sadly, I've therefore missed the occasional good threads that have bucked the odds, but I have to go with the clues I have.

As a Mefite, I am acutely embarrassed when the phrasing of posts here (from whichever political camp) come across as "rabid". (As I said, just my personal feelings.)
posted by taz at 3:22 AM on April 28, 2005

BrotherCaine writes "The general quality of discussion is good, but there is always going to be at least one extremist on every issue."

No! There are no extremists. I know this to be true. Don't contradict me. Only scum like your kind claim there are extremists! It's people like you who ought to be hunted down, killed, roasted, and fed to your own children, damn you!

THERE ARE NO EXTREMISTS !1111!!!1eleven!!!1!
posted by orthogonality at 5:39 AM on April 28, 2005

I thought sarcastic orthogonality comments always had an STFU at the end.

"Are you being sarcastic, dude?"
"I don't even know anymore."
posted by Kwantsar at 5:57 AM on April 28, 2005

As a Mefite, I am acutely embarrassed when the phrasing of posts here (from whichever political camp) come across as "rabid".

Ditto. But more embarrassed when rabid posts come from the left.
posted by mediareport at 6:13 AM on April 28, 2005

Kwantsar writes "I thought sarcastic orthogonality comments always had an STFU at the end. "

Sorry, right, my oversight. "STFU reasonable mod'rates!"
posted by orthogonality at 6:13 AM on April 28, 2005

regrettable labelling aside, there's some interesting stuff in that thread, and is far less idiotic that I'd expected.

Part of the point is that if you engage in the kind of regrettable labelling and rabid post-making that emochild did here, you're much less likely to either 1) get people to read your post 2) Generate a good thread. That the thread is good is a result of a bigger than usual portion of MeFiLuck^TM.
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on April 28, 2005

... why would the fact that a good thread came out of it mean I shouldn't express my dislike of the post itself?

I believe this is when the post-flagging feature comes in handy. If you can't contribute to the thread by politely constructing your own argument/position, then you can either ignore the post or flag it.
posted by terrapin at 6:30 AM on April 28, 2005

terrapin - I am under the impression that post-flagging brings it to the attention of matt, so he can Do Something About It. I didn't want matt to Do Something About It, I was hoping to influence mefi behavior. If I've mistaken the functionality of the flagging and meta, enlighten me, but I don't think I have.
posted by kavasa at 6:38 AM on April 28, 2005

kavasa: You answered yourself. The flag draws it to Matt's attention. If you think the thread is "annoying" (which isn't a very helpful description) then you could flag the post as "noise" or "other" or "breaks the guidelines" or whatever is apropriate. Matt will see the flagging and investigate. Your callout really just draws attention to you, and, honestly, makes it look like you want to have something deleted simply because you don't agree... especially when you admit here that a "good thread came out of it."

I was hoping to influence mefi behavior.

Good luck with that.
posted by terrapin at 6:56 AM on April 28, 2005

Specklet - google "free republic" and peruse the resultant site. Beware: it's ugly. Real ugly.

For equal time, also see Democratic Underground. Now, that is a mirror image of Free Republic.
posted by Doohickie at 7:10 AM on April 28, 2005

when the phrasing of posts here (from whichever political camp) come across as "rabid".

*bites taz's sweet ankle*
posted by matteo at 9:27 AM on April 28, 2005

Quite an interesting debate in that thread. Thanks for calling it to my attention, kavasa. I probably would have skipped it if it weren't for your callout.

Great use of MetaTalk.
posted by breezeway at 11:39 AM on April 28, 2005

... I was hoping to influence mefi behavior ...
Bwahahahahaha
posted by dg at 3:06 PM on April 28, 2005

you'll see a mefi post along the lines of blah blah talabangilists blah pigfuckers etc.
Caused by poor reading. A post earlier this week was a good as example. The article’s intro made it clear about a group being banned. Though thread went on an on about a word which was a party that was calimed to be banned yet never mentioned.

The irony is no matter what political parties you are in, you’re still labeled. Which seems wrong in a country having democratic voting.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:44 AM on April 29, 2005

you can either ignore the post or flag it.
So a secret policing exists? Because effective policing, which is part of the site is making an informative learning process from it. Think all here like a streamlined site and this adds to it. The end result by doing it this way is completing a communication circle; you, them and me.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:51 AM on April 29, 2005