What does this add to the discussion? May 9, 2005 6:44 AM Subscribe
What does this add to the discussion?
What do the vast majority of all comments add to the "discussion"?
posted by loquax at 7:34 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by loquax at 7:34 AM on May 9, 2005
What loquax said. You could post that after almost every comment.
Metafilter: What does this add to the discussion?
posted by grouse at 7:37 AM on May 9, 2005
Metafilter: What does this add to the discussion?
posted by grouse at 7:37 AM on May 9, 2005
Are you objecting to the picture or the comment or both?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:38 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:38 AM on May 9, 2005
That image is terrible and violent.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:42 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:42 AM on May 9, 2005
Are you objecting to the picture or the comment or both?
The picture. Not sure it has anything to do with the post, really, other than it shows a very gruesome, graphic image of someone on fire, and the post has to do with setting a car on fire. What is the connection? People = property? The comment is not much help. I don't get it, and I think jonmc is on the right track.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:49 AM on May 9, 2005
The picture. Not sure it has anything to do with the post, really, other than it shows a very gruesome, graphic image of someone on fire, and the post has to do with setting a car on fire. What is the connection? People = property? The comment is not much help. I don't get it, and I think jonmc is on the right track.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:49 AM on May 9, 2005
This would be a better pic. Granted, it's not a hummer...
posted by C17H19NO3 at 7:56 AM on May 9, 2005
What is the connection? People = property?
I assume the connection is "if you're going to use fire as a form of political protest, set fire to yourself instead of other people's property". Perhaps a better known example would have been clearer.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:01 AM on May 9, 2005
I assume the connection is "if you're going to use fire as a form of political protest, set fire to yourself instead of other people's property". Perhaps a better known example would have been clearer.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:01 AM on May 9, 2005
He should have posted a more clever picture.
I mean, I just LOL when someone takes a Dairy Queen logo, and makes it say "Drama Queen."
Now that's what images are for!
posted by Kwantsar at 8:04 AM on May 9, 2005
I mean, I just LOL when someone takes a Dairy Queen logo, and makes it say "Drama Queen."
Now that's what images are for!
posted by Kwantsar at 8:04 AM on May 9, 2005
I could have done without seeing it, but it made perfect sense to me under the circumstances. The point that anonymously vandalizing other people's property is a shallow form of political protest is a good one.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:05 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by jacquilynne at 8:05 AM on May 9, 2005
He should have posted a more clever picture.
Brilliant logic: Photoshopped logo = picture of man burning to death.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:07 AM on May 9, 2005
Brilliant logic: Photoshopped logo = picture of man burning to death.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:07 AM on May 9, 2005
Alex, does repeatedly posting a drama queen sign that is a knock of the Dairy Queen sign add anything to the discussion? Or is it just pettiness by someone who flamed out in dramatic fashion after being called a drama queen?
On preview: Kwantzar nails it.
posted by dios at 8:09 AM on May 9, 2005
On preview: Kwantzar nails it.
posted by dios at 8:09 AM on May 9, 2005
Alex, does repeatedly posting a drama queen sign that is a knock of the Dairy Queen sign add anything to the discussion?
Applying "context" hurt your brain much?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2005
Applying "context" hurt your brain much?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2005
three blind mice is secretly working to get the image tagged banned?
posted by Mitheral at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by Mitheral at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2005
The comment is not much help. I don't get it, and I think jonmc is on the right track.
you don't get it because apparently, in the presence of images, you cease to read. i read the comment, which paved a frickin' 4-lane expressway connecting the image of self-immolation to his opinion that "if an arsonist wants to make a statement, self-immolation is the way to do it."
i call bullshit on you not getting it, and posit instead the theory that you required that little extra attention boost only a self-righteous meta thread can truly deliver.
posted by quonsar at 8:19 AM on May 9, 2005
you don't get it because apparently, in the presence of images, you cease to read. i read the comment, which paved a frickin' 4-lane expressway connecting the image of self-immolation to his opinion that "if an arsonist wants to make a statement, self-immolation is the way to do it."
i call bullshit on you not getting it, and posit instead the theory that you required that little extra attention boost only a self-righteous meta thread can truly deliver.
posted by quonsar at 8:19 AM on May 9, 2005
you don't get it because apparently, in the presence of images, you cease to read. i read the comment, which paved a frickin' 4-lane expressway connecting the image of self-immolation to his opinion that "if an arsonist wants to make a statement, self-immolation is the way to do it."
Without context, the comment has no connection to the image, other than it happens to be a (IMO, an excessively gruesome) picture of someone on fire.
If he had put up the Buddhist monk image that Armitage Shanks is referring to, then the meaning is clear because the history that the photo refers to is well known, and then jacquilynne's explanation makes sense.
The image that TBM links to is not. Is the image portraying self-immolation? Was it someone set on fire by accident or on purpose (i.e. arson victim)? Seems a pretty random selection to me, chosen more to shock than to connect to any particular point.
i call bullshit on you not getting it, and posit instead the theory that you required that little extra attention boost only a self-righteous meta thread can truly deliver.
It really isn't true, though I understand why you think that. In hindsight I should have posted this under a different account. Sorry, folks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:29 AM on May 9, 2005
Without context, the comment has no connection to the image, other than it happens to be a (IMO, an excessively gruesome) picture of someone on fire.
If he had put up the Buddhist monk image that Armitage Shanks is referring to, then the meaning is clear because the history that the photo refers to is well known, and then jacquilynne's explanation makes sense.
The image that TBM links to is not. Is the image portraying self-immolation? Was it someone set on fire by accident or on purpose (i.e. arson victim)? Seems a pretty random selection to me, chosen more to shock than to connect to any particular point.
i call bullshit on you not getting it, and posit instead the theory that you required that little extra attention boost only a self-righteous meta thread can truly deliver.
It really isn't true, though I understand why you think that. In hindsight I should have posted this under a different account. Sorry, folks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:29 AM on May 9, 2005
If only there were some way to "flag" posts that we find disagreeable...
posted by jonson at 8:32 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by jonson at 8:32 AM on May 9, 2005
Alex, his picture made sense contextually and he even explained it. You care to explain your pathetic behavior of plastering the Drama Queen/Dairy Queen image at least 10 times to this website in some manner that makes sense contextually and adds to the discussion? Till then, you should drop this argument because its pretty clear that quonsar has you nailed.
posted by dios at 8:37 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by dios at 8:37 AM on May 9, 2005
The point was a fair one. I don't think the picture helped make it.
posted by nthdegx at 8:43 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 8:43 AM on May 9, 2005
In hindsight I should have posted this under a different account.
That's an odd response. You're thinking the AlexReynolds persona is played out? Time to pull up stakes and start over? Because it's going to be hard to leave that DQ logo behind. And leave it behind you must.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:46 AM on May 9, 2005
That's an odd response. You're thinking the AlexReynolds persona is played out? Time to pull up stakes and start over? Because it's going to be hard to leave that DQ logo behind. And leave it behind you must.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:46 AM on May 9, 2005
Brilliant logic: Photoshopped logo = picture of man burning to death.
Brilliant logic: Argument by analogy = claim of complete equivalence.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2005
Brilliant logic: Argument by analogy = claim of complete equivalence.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2005
Maybe you should ask for clarification in the thread. Calling it out here is, as quonsar perferctly noted, nothing but a plea for attention. If you don't understand something, then ask the commentor to clarify... just like anyone else would.
posted by Witty at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by Witty at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2005
Alex, it's generally considered good form to place a link to MetaTalk in the thread in question, even if you're not complaining about the post itself. For future reference.
While the photo wasn't really necessary, it related directly to three blind mice's comment, which related directly to the post. To answer your question, the connection is clearly setting fires as political protest. Self-immolation is not arson, but the point gets across pretty effectively. I think you "don't get it" because you're too busy being offended to let yourself get it.
Now, I agree with you that the image isn't necessary, but claiming not to get the connection doesn't help plead your case.
posted by me3dia at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2005
While the photo wasn't really necessary, it related directly to three blind mice's comment, which related directly to the post. To answer your question, the connection is clearly setting fires as political protest. Self-immolation is not arson, but the point gets across pretty effectively. I think you "don't get it" because you're too busy being offended to let yourself get it.
Now, I agree with you that the image isn't necessary, but claiming not to get the connection doesn't help plead your case.
posted by me3dia at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2005
"In hindsight I should have posted this under a different account"
That IS an interesting comment... worth a discussion all of its own. What does it mean that we can assume a different persona, not just on the internets in general, but on a single forum. What does that say about the forum, or the individual who feels there is a need to have multiple accounts, how does it impact on how we relate to others?
Lots to think about here... Someone do the research and post a good FPP about multiple-internet-personalities so we can delve into this a bit....
posted by HuronBob at 9:16 AM on May 9, 2005
That IS an interesting comment... worth a discussion all of its own. What does it mean that we can assume a different persona, not just on the internets in general, but on a single forum. What does that say about the forum, or the individual who feels there is a need to have multiple accounts, how does it impact on how we relate to others?
Lots to think about here... Someone do the research and post a good FPP about multiple-internet-personalities so we can delve into this a bit....
posted by HuronBob at 9:16 AM on May 9, 2005
Maybe you should ask for clarification in the thread.
Witty, or maybe I should ask in Metatalk; that's what it is for, after all.
Calling it out here is, as quonsar perferctly noted, nothing but a plea for attention.
Ya know, if it was really a call for attention, I would have called TBM various names and then put a "MeTa" link in big bold letters in a FPP that his image had only a tangential relation to. I really didn't feel like distracting everyone else from the better threads going on, believe it or not.
If you're not trying to score points on me, feel free to flag this thread, much like I flagged TBM's image.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:19 AM on May 9, 2005
Witty, or maybe I should ask in Metatalk; that's what it is for, after all.
Calling it out here is, as quonsar perferctly noted, nothing but a plea for attention.
Ya know, if it was really a call for attention, I would have called TBM various names and then put a "MeTa" link in big bold letters in a FPP that his image had only a tangential relation to. I really didn't feel like distracting everyone else from the better threads going on, believe it or not.
If you're not trying to score points on me, feel free to flag this thread, much like I flagged TBM's image.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:19 AM on May 9, 2005
I'm confused. Are we allowed more than one flame-out per user name?
posted by LarryC at 9:25 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by LarryC at 9:25 AM on May 9, 2005
AlexReynolds : " Without context, the comment has no connection to the image, other than it happens to be a (IMO, an excessively gruesome) picture of someone on fire."
Context?
If I post a picture of a hamburger, and write "I like hamburgers", would you argue that the comment has no connection to the image because there is no context?! It's a picture of a man on fire with a comment about self-immolation! How can you not see the connection?
posted by Bugbread at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2005
Context?
If I post a picture of a hamburger, and write "I like hamburgers", would you argue that the comment has no connection to the image because there is no context?! It's a picture of a man on fire with a comment about self-immolation! How can you not see the connection?
posted by Bugbread at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2005
If you're not trying to score points on me,
AlexReynolds ...enough already... or in more understandable language STFU
Your worn record is jumping its groove.
posted by adamvasco at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2005
AlexReynolds ...enough already... or in more understandable language STFU
Your worn record is jumping its groove.
posted by adamvasco at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2005
Bugbread, I thought I was clear up here:
Is the image portraying self-immolation? Was it someone set on fire by accident or on purpose (i.e. arson victim)? Seems a pretty random selection to me, chosen more to shock than to connect to any particular point.
What does that image add to the point he was making, other than that it adds a tabloid-like shock value?
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2005
Is the image portraying self-immolation? Was it someone set on fire by accident or on purpose (i.e. arson victim)? Seems a pretty random selection to me, chosen more to shock than to connect to any particular point.
What does that image add to the point he was making, other than that it adds a tabloid-like shock value?
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2005
just my 2 cents. does it add anything? no. but the self-immolation pic did.
now, if he posted it in like, ten comments, then we would call it "noise". or a plea for attention.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2005
If only there were some way to "flag" posts that we find disagreeable...
posted by Specklet at 9:43 AM on May 9, 2005
posted by Specklet at 9:43 AM on May 9, 2005
Witty, or maybe I should ask in Metatalk; that's what it is for, after all.
No it's not. If someone makes a comment in a thread that you don't understand, it's perfectly reasonable to, in the course of normal discussion, ask that person for clarification. You don't have to pull your inability to understand something into Meta.
If I said, "I think gay marriage should be legal for some, but not all" would you call me into Meta for a consensus explanation, or would you just ask me to elaborate in the thread? I'm guessing the latter.
posted by Witty at 9:59 AM on May 9, 2005
No it's not. If someone makes a comment in a thread that you don't understand, it's perfectly reasonable to, in the course of normal discussion, ask that person for clarification. You don't have to pull your inability to understand something into Meta.
If I said, "I think gay marriage should be legal for some, but not all" would you call me into Meta for a consensus explanation, or would you just ask me to elaborate in the thread? I'm guessing the latter.
posted by Witty at 9:59 AM on May 9, 2005
What does that image add to the point he was making, other than that it adds a tabloid-like shock value?
Nothing, Alex. Tabloid-like shock value was definitely what he was going for. If *your* point was "We shouldn't need to shock people to make a point, and that's all this is doing" then perhaps you should have mentioned it. Playing the "Duh, I'm too stupid to understand what this picture is supposed to mean" game for 7 posts was not particularly helpful in getting your point across. Rhetorical devices abound - some of them are stupider than others. Yours was a lot farther over that line than the picture you're calling out.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:04 AM on May 9, 2005
Nothing, Alex. Tabloid-like shock value was definitely what he was going for. If *your* point was "We shouldn't need to shock people to make a point, and that's all this is doing" then perhaps you should have mentioned it. Playing the "Duh, I'm too stupid to understand what this picture is supposed to mean" game for 7 posts was not particularly helpful in getting your point across. Rhetorical devices abound - some of them are stupider than others. Yours was a lot farther over that line than the picture you're calling out.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:04 AM on May 9, 2005
Alex, whether you posted this shitty excuse for a MeTa thread under another account or not, the deeper issue is how a person like you - who deliberately, repeatedly posted a stupid image you thought was clever specifically to annoy people - can by any stretch of your own imagination consider yourself the one to do this kind of callout.
Jesus, get a grip on yourself/selves, would you?
posted by mediareport at 10:06 AM on May 9, 2005
Jesus, get a grip on yourself/selves, would you?
posted by mediareport at 10:06 AM on May 9, 2005
wow, i thought my ears were burning....
sorry so many people objected to the image, but that's metafilter.
jacquilynne nailed it: it was all about shock value.
setting one's self afire for the shock value shows true commitment to a political cause and does not harm anyone else - setting cars on fire for the shock value only destroys property and risks the lives of others (like the firefighters that have to put it out). it is a childish prank worthy of a prison sentence.
that being said, complaints that i should have only posted a hyperlink to the image instead of the image itself are well taken.
posted by three blind mice at 10:18 AM on May 9, 2005
sorry so many people objected to the image, but that's metafilter.
jacquilynne nailed it: it was all about shock value.
setting one's self afire for the shock value shows true commitment to a political cause and does not harm anyone else - setting cars on fire for the shock value only destroys property and risks the lives of others (like the firefighters that have to put it out). it is a childish prank worthy of a prison sentence.
that being said, complaints that i should have only posted a hyperlink to the image instead of the image itself are well taken.
posted by three blind mice at 10:18 AM on May 9, 2005
I removed the image from the comment. This type of small complaint is exactly what the flagging system was for.
Flag it, I'll see it, and deal with it. Not really worthy of another 40 comment back and forth on god knows what.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2005
Flag it, I'll see it, and deal with it. Not really worthy of another 40 comment back and forth on god knows what.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2005
« Older Error Occurred While Processing Request | That deleted thread had an interesting Q&A... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jonmc at 6:47 AM on May 9, 2005