why conservatives tend to have a negative view of MeFi August 31, 2001 11:19 PM Subscribe
Statements like this are part of the reason why conservatives tend to have a negative view of MeFi (more)
OW, I am with you on this point. Dude, i don't like your politics, but I am with you 100% on this subject.
yes, we can do a little better. yes we can do alot frigging better. thank you for bringing this up. rock on mofo.
j-
posted by tp3wen at 11:49 PM on August 31, 2001
yes, we can do a little better. yes we can do alot frigging better. thank you for bringing this up. rock on mofo.
j-
posted by tp3wen at 11:49 PM on August 31, 2001
Thank you for bringing this up, owillis. This is something that I'd really like to see change. For the record, though, we conservatives do our share of screaming from time to time too; we'll work on it if you will.
posted by gd779 at 6:39 AM on September 1, 2001
posted by gd779 at 6:39 AM on September 1, 2001
owillis--"liberal reactionary" is an oxymoron. The standard political spectrum runs: reactionary-conservative-mainstream-liberal-radical. The reactionary wants to turn back the clock to an earlier political environment (say, make abortion illegal), the conservative wants to maintain the political climate (big military), mainstream has few political desires and accepts only very slow change, the liberal wants faster change within the political system (such as the passage of new laws to stop environmental pollution), and finally the radical wants to replace the system with a new system (anarchists and communists). All of those roles and examples are relative, specifically here in relation to the status quo as found in America.
If that seemed pedantic or condescending, owillis, I apologize, but that combination is pretty nonsensical to me.
And has there ever been a liberal in here that has frothed with the sustained disdain, condescension, and outright abuse that Spanktacular has regularly displyed? I haven't seen it. I'd welcome some links to dispel my ignorance, if that's what it is.
posted by NortonDC at 10:07 AM on September 1, 2001
If that seemed pedantic or condescending, owillis, I apologize, but that combination is pretty nonsensical to me.
And has there ever been a liberal in here that has frothed with the sustained disdain, condescension, and outright abuse that Spanktacular has regularly displyed? I haven't seen it. I'd welcome some links to dispel my ignorance, if that's what it is.
posted by NortonDC at 10:07 AM on September 1, 2001
Apologies if I offended...but I just have little tolerance for people whom I consider ill-informed or, worse, kinda evil.
Next time I'll keep my trap shut, as this lot appears a bit thin-skinned.
posted by mapalm at 11:08 AM on September 1, 2001
Next time I'll keep my trap shut, as this lot appears a bit thin-skinned.
posted by mapalm at 11:08 AM on September 1, 2001
I think O meant reactionary not in the political sense, he just meant they 'react' to bait.
posted by chaz at 11:41 AM on September 1, 2001
posted by chaz at 11:41 AM on September 1, 2001
Exactly. You have little tolerance. Not a good thing around anyone, thin-skinned or no. Think before you hit Post.
k
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:13 PM on September 1, 2001
k
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:13 PM on September 1, 2001
darukaru--I read the first several pages of links to nofundy's comments. He frequently attacks things conservative members may hold dear, but he does not attack conservative members. That is a part of the difference between challenging the community and abusing the community. Maybe there are comments by nofundy to rival the personal abuse of members that Spanktacular has spewed out, but I haven't seen it yet.
posted by NortonDC at 12:22 PM on September 1, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 12:22 PM on September 1, 2001
I call comparing fellow users to Nazis personal abuse. But that's just me. Or is it not abusive if it doesn't contain one or more of the seven dirty words?
But anyway. Let's not turn this into another pecking-party thread. What bothers me lately is the automatic assumption I'm seeing that right-wing/conservative == Evil Which Must Be Stopped At All Costs. It's like watching Captain Planet around here--the villains are all broadly caricatured and unrealistic and the heroes are always doing the right thing.
posted by darukaru at 12:40 PM on September 1, 2001
But anyway. Let's not turn this into another pecking-party thread. What bothers me lately is the automatic assumption I'm seeing that right-wing/conservative == Evil Which Must Be Stopped At All Costs. It's like watching Captain Planet around here--the villains are all broadly caricatured and unrealistic and the heroes are always doing the right thing.
posted by darukaru at 12:40 PM on September 1, 2001
He didn't call UncleFes a Nazi, he called attention to a historical fact (?) about the Nazi's, while in the immediately prior comment UncleFes actually called everyone opposed to him "commies." It's a fine line, but boundaries frequently are. This doesn't support your case, especially when the you pay attention to the tone of the exchange at that time.
posted by NortonDC at 12:47 PM on September 1, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 12:47 PM on September 1, 2001
OK, ok...just for the record...mapalm swallows his pride, admits he over-reacted...and wants to move on back into the good healthy debate/exploration that brought me to MeFi in the first place.
Hey, we all have bad days. Thanx.
posted by mapalm at 8:14 PM on September 1, 2001
Hey, we all have bad days. Thanx.
posted by mapalm at 8:14 PM on September 1, 2001
UncleFes actually called everyone opposed to him "commies."
Darn commies, always twisting my words around... :)
The commie comment was in jest. I thought that was pretty clear (hell, that whole post was in jest). And the nazi thing, I called nofundy on it, he asssured me that it wasn't a personal attack, and I believe him. No biggie there.
But this one was an obvious personal attack. They do occur, but what are you going to do? Calling me a "bloodthirsty barbarian" doesn't get me too sniffly. In general, when it gets to that point, it means the person doing the labelling has run out of arguments. I don't sweat it, but I can see where some might take these things personallyy. JRomanoff used to take a LOT of grief around here - he earned some of it, but a bunch of it was just gratutitous attacks - and you don't see him around anymore. And that ain't great, if it's indicative of a larger phenomena.
In the end, there's those who are polite and argue the points for their side, and those that don't. The ones that don't, they're pretty easy to either ignore or satirize. Freedom to speak means that some people are going to call you names. But sticks and stones, right?
posted by UncleFes at 8:38 PM on September 1, 2001
Darn commies, always twisting my words around... :)
The commie comment was in jest. I thought that was pretty clear (hell, that whole post was in jest). And the nazi thing, I called nofundy on it, he asssured me that it wasn't a personal attack, and I believe him. No biggie there.
But this one was an obvious personal attack. They do occur, but what are you going to do? Calling me a "bloodthirsty barbarian" doesn't get me too sniffly. In general, when it gets to that point, it means the person doing the labelling has run out of arguments. I don't sweat it, but I can see where some might take these things personallyy. JRomanoff used to take a LOT of grief around here - he earned some of it, but a bunch of it was just gratutitous attacks - and you don't see him around anymore. And that ain't great, if it's indicative of a larger phenomena.
In the end, there's those who are polite and argue the points for their side, and those that don't. The ones that don't, they're pretty easy to either ignore or satirize. Freedom to speak means that some people are going to call you names. But sticks and stones, right?
posted by UncleFes at 8:38 PM on September 1, 2001
The commie comment was in jest.
Yeah, I kinda figured: This doesn't support your case, especially when the you pay attention to the tone of the exchange at that time.
You are 100% correct in calling the post you highlighted "an obvious personal attack," but even after reading the first several pages of doug's comments, I don't see a history of "sustained disdain, condescension, and outright abuse" directed at members.
posted by NortonDC at 9:54 PM on September 1, 2001
Yeah, I kinda figured: This doesn't support your case, especially when the you pay attention to the tone of the exchange at that time.
You are 100% correct in calling the post you highlighted "an obvious personal attack," but even after reading the first several pages of doug's comments, I don't see a history of "sustained disdain, condescension, and outright abuse" directed at members.
posted by NortonDC at 9:54 PM on September 1, 2001
OK, ok...just for the record...mapalm swallows his pride, admits he over-reacted...and wants to move on back into the good healthy debate/exploration that brought me to MeFi in the first place.
Thanks.
JRomanoff used to take a LOT of grief around here - he earned some of it, but a bunch of it was just gratutitous attacks - and you don't see him around anymore. And that ain't great, if it's indicative of a larger phenomena.
Let's hold off on his martyrdom, please -- people leave and show up again at MetaFilter all the time. Besides, he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would be chased off.
posted by rcade at 5:30 AM on September 2, 2001
Thanks.
JRomanoff used to take a LOT of grief around here - he earned some of it, but a bunch of it was just gratutitous attacks - and you don't see him around anymore. And that ain't great, if it's indicative of a larger phenomena.
Let's hold off on his martyrdom, please -- people leave and show up again at MetaFilter all the time. Besides, he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would be chased off.
posted by rcade at 5:30 AM on September 2, 2001
Nine out of ten times, political posts ("Bush/Clinton/Hillary/Helms acts like a moron - again!" type) are the most useless of all. They rarely generate any kind of meaningful discussion and seem to leave many people pissed.
To some extent, this is because it's hard to make a decent argument in the few minutes (if that) that most people spend on composing their comments. Furthermore, this is hardly the forum to persuade someone that they are obviously wrong and you are obviously right, which is what most people try to do. And given that threads die pretty quickly here, everyone simply tries to make a quick, witty remark before the topic dies and we move on to another post.
posted by Witold at 4:25 PM on September 9, 2001
To some extent, this is because it's hard to make a decent argument in the few minutes (if that) that most people spend on composing their comments. Furthermore, this is hardly the forum to persuade someone that they are obviously wrong and you are obviously right, which is what most people try to do. And given that threads die pretty quickly here, everyone simply tries to make a quick, witty remark before the topic dies and we move on to another post.
posted by Witold at 4:25 PM on September 9, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I mean, we have had an abundance of "frothing liberals" on this site for a good long time now - and I'm sometimes on that side of the debate, but on several issues I've come down on the more conservative side of things and seen the "liberal reactionary response" - which I classify as screaming/name calling as opposed to healthy debate (and no, I'm not innocent - I've done it too).
I think we can do a little better than that.
posted by owillis at 11:25 PM on August 31, 2001