It scares me that we can be so mean to each other October 10, 2005 6:19 AM Subscribe
Y2k's latest post has ensued in a well, shitfest, and it scares me that we can be so mean to each other, We accuse each other for having an opinon and backing it up with more ridicule Its supposed to be a "community" working together to find the best of the web, like Matt dreamed siz years ago, instead "does anybody read the comments down here?" has turned into "MeFi members are hyprocrytes." I beg all of you to get over your foolish pride and start having reasonable disccusions. I know I should have said more inside but everybody should read this, its for your own good.
Aaron from Minneapolis
Aaron from Minneapolis
Whatever, Todd Lokken. (I avoided the latest Y2Karl for a reason...)
posted by klangklangston at 6:33 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 6:33 AM on October 10, 2005
The political waters here are far too poisoned for anything other than the kind of toxic slagfest that occurs in this thread. Clearly MetaFilter has moved past being "best of the web" to "leftist politics, plus best of the web." The former has overrun the later and sets the tone for the site. And many users, whose opinions are just as valid as mine, like it that way.
Solutions (for those of us who think this is a problem)? Only two I can see: 1) create a newsfilter.metafilter.com site where those who enjoy this sort of thing can practice it without drowning out the best of the web, or 2) some bright spark starts a new, unaffiliated site, to pursue MetaFilter's original mission of best of the web. Just as MetaChat was created to meet an unfulfilled need for members of the MEFi community.
Matt explicitly ruled out solution 1 yesterday (scroll 3/4ths of the way down). So who here is up to creating a new, old-school MetaFilter?
posted by LarryC at 6:39 AM on October 10, 2005
Solutions (for those of us who think this is a problem)? Only two I can see: 1) create a newsfilter.metafilter.com site where those who enjoy this sort of thing can practice it without drowning out the best of the web, or 2) some bright spark starts a new, unaffiliated site, to pursue MetaFilter's original mission of best of the web. Just as MetaChat was created to meet an unfulfilled need for members of the MEFi community.
Matt explicitly ruled out solution 1 yesterday (scroll 3/4ths of the way down). So who here is up to creating a new, old-school MetaFilter?
posted by LarryC at 6:39 AM on October 10, 2005
I just read that thread and it seems damned good to me.
Person posts about appalling behaviour. Most people appalled. Some people attempt to defend, excuse or minimise appalling behaviour. Such people quite rightly get jumped all over as the torture-excusing scumbags they are.
We need more of that reaction. America, in particular, does.
posted by Decani at 7:00 AM on October 10, 2005
Person posts about appalling behaviour. Most people appalled. Some people attempt to defend, excuse or minimise appalling behaviour. Such people quite rightly get jumped all over as the torture-excusing scumbags they are.
We need more of that reaction. America, in particular, does.
posted by Decani at 7:00 AM on October 10, 2005
Im saying that we should worry less about defining metafilter and more about quality.
posted by wheelieman at 7:02 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 7:02 AM on October 10, 2005
We need more of 20 comments about whether or not one screen name is a sockpuppet for another user or a host of another users?
That discussion was shit. It had the same hyperbole from the usual leftists and the same tu quoques and derails from the usual apologists (they're not actually rightwingers, despite the false dichotomy that this site loves to trot out).
Perhaps this site needs a yelling hole, in which participants can be put to seeth until they're civil enough for society again.
posted by klangklangston at 7:05 AM on October 10, 2005
That discussion was shit. It had the same hyperbole from the usual leftists and the same tu quoques and derails from the usual apologists (they're not actually rightwingers, despite the false dichotomy that this site loves to trot out).
Perhaps this site needs a yelling hole, in which participants can be put to seeth until they're civil enough for society again.
posted by klangklangston at 7:05 AM on October 10, 2005
klangklangston writes "It had the same hyperbole from the usual leftists and the same tu quoques and derails from the usual apologists (they're not actually rightwingers, despite the false dichotomy that this site loves to trot out)."
Sorry to say, but one has to wonder if you read what you yourself write about "the false dichotomy that this site loves to trot out" sometimes, especially when you trot out the same false dichotomy in the very same sentence.
posted by clevershark at 7:13 AM on October 10, 2005
Sorry to say, but one has to wonder if you read what you yourself write about "the false dichotomy that this site loves to trot out" sometimes, especially when you trot out the same false dichotomy in the very same sentence.
posted by clevershark at 7:13 AM on October 10, 2005
The political waters here are far too poisoned for anything other than the kind of toxic slagfest that occurs in this thread.
Speak for yourself, LarryC. Recently there's been quite a few good political and newsfilter threads.
This post actually wasn't that bad at all. I've seen far worse in the blue and except for the personal swipes, it was quite a good discussion.
As for the more general problem, the solution isn't to clone metafilter or introduce a news.metafilter.com (which would quickly devolve into DailyKos instead of actually being Newsfilter). The solution is for mathowie or jessamyn to step up and enforce some basic standards. If people can't be polite to one another--or at least keep the insults few and far between--they should get a timeout to cool down and reflect on their behavior. It's that simple. Then again, I just never understood how adults could end up acting so much like babies in the first place.
posted by nixerman at 7:15 AM on October 10, 2005
Speak for yourself, LarryC. Recently there's been quite a few good political and newsfilter threads.
This post actually wasn't that bad at all. I've seen far worse in the blue and except for the personal swipes, it was quite a good discussion.
As for the more general problem, the solution isn't to clone metafilter or introduce a news.metafilter.com (which would quickly devolve into DailyKos instead of actually being Newsfilter). The solution is for mathowie or jessamyn to step up and enforce some basic standards. If people can't be polite to one another--or at least keep the insults few and far between--they should get a timeout to cool down and reflect on their behavior. It's that simple. Then again, I just never understood how adults could end up acting so much like babies in the first place.
posted by nixerman at 7:15 AM on October 10, 2005
This is what i mean, even in the MeTa threads the fight spills over. I cant stand it, try to post something smart in MeTa and all you get is more of the same. Klang cool it, your not helping anything.
posted by wheelieman at 7:19 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 7:19 AM on October 10, 2005
Personally I thought that the whole "sockpuppet" issue should have been taken to MeTa. Metatalk as a steam valve.
posted by clevershark at 7:20 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 7:20 AM on October 10, 2005
Matt or Jess, I think we need your guidence right about now.
posted by wheelieman at 7:21 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 7:21 AM on October 10, 2005
Clevershark: I don't think there's a false dichotomy between Krrlson or Dhoyt and Y2Karl or Matteo. I just don't think that the dichotomy is leftists vs. rightists.
posted by klangklangston at 7:23 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 7:23 AM on October 10, 2005
Matt has said he's not interested in newsfilter.metafilter.com. A more interesting concept would be a newsfilter thermometer, displayed on the posting page, perhaps. Poster selects whether post is 'news' or 'politics'. Counter calculates ratio of newsfilter to all posts for the day. Red for overload (50%), green for low-incidence (10%). So, for new posters, red means, "hold off!", green means, "go ahead", yellow means, "if it's a quality post". Of course, don't actually need colorcodes. The raw percentage might do.
posted by Gyan at 7:27 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by Gyan at 7:27 AM on October 10, 2005
I don't even see why people bother posting that stuff here. It's not newsfilter (since it's not news) so much as it's dailykosfilter.
posted by smackfu at 7:27 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by smackfu at 7:27 AM on October 10, 2005
smackfu writes "It's not newsfilter (since it's not news) so much as it's dailykosfilter."
Care to expand? I don't see why the specific post being discussed (a personal account by an US Army officer about how he was framed for his religion) would be worth a "dailykosfilter".
Gyan writes "yellow means, 'if it's a quality post'."
So we can forget forever the whole "best of the web" thing, since if there is not enough posts about Britney Spears last boyfriend we can "go ahead" anyway.
posted by nkyad at 7:37 AM on October 10, 2005
Care to expand? I don't see why the specific post being discussed (a personal account by an US Army officer about how he was framed for his religion) would be worth a "dailykosfilter".
Gyan writes "yellow means, 'if it's a quality post'."
So we can forget forever the whole "best of the web" thing, since if there is not enough posts about Britney Spears last boyfriend we can "go ahead" anyway.
posted by nkyad at 7:37 AM on October 10, 2005
I find that some of these threads degenirate in quality the moment easy labels are used to form an arguments, such as branding people leftists or right-wingers, neither of which has naught to do with the content of y2karl's posts, and many others.
It shows a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate when you start your arguments by dismissing people for their supposed stance within the political spectrum. The entire leftist/rightist tactic is lazy and displays a lack of understanding beyond simple labeling. Everything is black and white, and when so, you're just going to get a pissing match.
Unfortunately, the call of "you object to me because of my opinion" is far to strong on this site. Objections are usually based on a persons unwillingness to participate in civil debate.
posted by juiceCake at 7:39 AM on October 10, 2005
It shows a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate when you start your arguments by dismissing people for their supposed stance within the political spectrum. The entire leftist/rightist tactic is lazy and displays a lack of understanding beyond simple labeling. Everything is black and white, and when so, you're just going to get a pissing match.
Unfortunately, the call of "you object to me because of my opinion" is far to strong on this site. Objections are usually based on a persons unwillingness to participate in civil debate.
posted by juiceCake at 7:39 AM on October 10, 2005
klangklangston writes "I just don't think that the dichotomy is leftists vs. rightists."
Yet you pointedly keep using the label "leftists" when it is (really) meaningless when one is denying the very existence of the "rightists" that make up the other part of the equation.
I don't think that's the case at all, frankly. Generally the point of view of those whom I think of as "the usual suspects" is fairly kept to a sort of amoral American nationalist one, and it seems to fit the bill of what one considers to be "to the right" on the political spectrum, just as internationalism is generally seen as being something "to the left".
posted by clevershark at 7:40 AM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
Yet you pointedly keep using the label "leftists" when it is (really) meaningless when one is denying the very existence of the "rightists" that make up the other part of the equation.
I don't think that's the case at all, frankly. Generally the point of view of those whom I think of as "the usual suspects" is fairly kept to a sort of amoral American nationalist one, and it seems to fit the bill of what one considers to be "to the right" on the political spectrum, just as internationalism is generally seen as being something "to the left".
posted by clevershark at 7:40 AM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
Care to expand? I don't see why the specific post being discussed (a personal account by an US Army officer about how he was framed for his religion) would be worth a "dailykosfilter".
I think it was this line: "It's OK to demonize the 'Other' if the Other is a Muslim."
posted by smackfu at 7:46 AM on October 10, 2005
I think it was this line: "It's OK to demonize the 'Other' if the Other is a Muslim."
posted by smackfu at 7:46 AM on October 10, 2005
Clearly MetaFilter has moved past being "best of the web" to "leftist politics, plus best of the web."
Explain how discussion of appalling prisoner treatment is a "left vs. right" issue, please.
1) create a newsfilter.metafilter.com site where those who enjoy this sort of thing can practice it without drowning out the best of the web
Ignoring these posts seems to be the most intelligent way of dealing with it, wouldn't you say? Or can I bitch about all the "Lost" FPPs that waste space in my opinion?
posted by wakko at 7:49 AM on October 10, 2005
Explain how discussion of appalling prisoner treatment is a "left vs. right" issue, please.
1) create a newsfilter.metafilter.com site where those who enjoy this sort of thing can practice it without drowning out the best of the web
Ignoring these posts seems to be the most intelligent way of dealing with it, wouldn't you say? Or can I bitch about all the "Lost" FPPs that waste space in my opinion?
posted by wakko at 7:49 AM on October 10, 2005
I think y2karl's posts are often well thought out and well researched. However, the Iraq posts also tend to have a "you MUST read this so we can all mend our shameful ways" tone which, even though I often agree with it in principle, does nothing to foster discussion on this particular site, and starts potential conversations off on a bad foot.
I agree with smackfu, maybe some of this could have been headed off at the pass without the AgendaFilter line at the end of the post which I think set the tone for the SanctimonyFilter posts which were followed up with the TortureFilter and KosFilter stuff that followed. As Matt has often said MeFi doesn't do politics well, but unless we go on a NewsFilter killing spree, people are going to continue to post and comment on newsy topics. When we do delete more news posts, people have huge issues with that as well since no one wants their own posts deleted.
posted by jessamyn at 8:01 AM on October 10, 2005
I agree with smackfu, maybe some of this could have been headed off at the pass without the AgendaFilter line at the end of the post which I think set the tone for the SanctimonyFilter posts which were followed up with the TortureFilter and KosFilter stuff that followed. As Matt has often said MeFi doesn't do politics well, but unless we go on a NewsFilter killing spree, people are going to continue to post and comment on newsy topics. When we do delete more news posts, people have huge issues with that as well since no one wants their own posts deleted.
posted by jessamyn at 8:01 AM on October 10, 2005
Its not about left vs. right here, its the future of MeFi. Can we forget our opinons?
posted by wheelieman at 8:06 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 8:06 AM on October 10, 2005
Just the way Y2crank likes it.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:09 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:09 AM on October 10, 2005
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
For the love of God, use them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:14 AM on October 10, 2005
For the love of God, use them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:14 AM on October 10, 2005
What the hell is that? One half of a zipper?
posted by loquacious at 8:20 AM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by loquacious at 8:20 AM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
I've always wondered if there was an overall FPP posting editor, whether the thread tones would improve. All poster editorializing would be removed before it hits the blue. It's not going to happen of course but neutral language should be the aim when drafting posts, especially the emotive/controversial kind.
posted by peacay at 8:25 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by peacay at 8:25 AM on October 10, 2005
When we do delete more news posts, people have huge issues with that as well since no one wants their own posts deleted.
The hilarious part is that people here react to having their posts on the Internet deleted the same way they would to seeing #1 shoot their only child in the back of the head with a Colt 1911.
So perhaps it's not NewsFilter that is the problem, it's BeautifulAndUniqueSnowflakeFilter.
posted by darukaru at 8:29 AM on October 10, 2005
The hilarious part is that people here react to having their posts on the Internet deleted the same way they would to seeing #1 shoot their only child in the back of the head with a Colt 1911.
So perhaps it's not NewsFilter that is the problem, it's BeautifulAndUniqueSnowflakeFilter.
posted by darukaru at 8:29 AM on October 10, 2005
does nothing to foster discussion on this particular site
it's very possibly true, but the question is, why should a post necessarily encourage discussion? most great posts don't need more than a few comments anyway. I love chatty threads, as I've stated in the past, but "does nothing to foster discussion" isn't a bad thing per se.
posted by matteo at 8:29 AM on October 10, 2005
it's very possibly true, but the question is, why should a post necessarily encourage discussion? most great posts don't need more than a few comments anyway. I love chatty threads, as I've stated in the past, but "does nothing to foster discussion" isn't a bad thing per se.
posted by matteo at 8:29 AM on October 10, 2005
I mean, I've posted almost 200 threads in almost five years here, and I guess this is the one that got the most comments and started the longest discussion. I really don't think it's my best thread here.
posted by matteo at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by matteo at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2005
A couple other solutions have been raised here, maybe good ones: 1) More deletions, both of vitriolic comments and of weak political posts. I'm all for it, but it seems every deletion instantly results in a MeTa post. "BeautifulAndUniqueSnowflakeFilter" indeed. 2) Ignore 'em. This used to work better than it does now as the number of political posts seem to be increasing. And there are side effects of the political posts that influence all the others. People who see politics as the reason for the site drag politics into non-political threads. And really great non-political posts, where a serious discussion of say, history or music or literature might have developed, roll right off the front page. 3) Various tagging/rating systems that would enable users not to see certain categories of post. This has the most promise of saving the site, but I am not sure about how practical it is.
Speak for yourself, LarryC.
I do, and I hope I show respect for those who disagree.
LarryC, you're just mad 'cuz nobody wants to hug YOU.
*sobs quietly*
posted by LarryC at 8:54 AM on October 10, 2005
Speak for yourself, LarryC.
I do, and I hope I show respect for those who disagree.
LarryC, you're just mad 'cuz nobody wants to hug YOU.
*sobs quietly*
posted by LarryC at 8:54 AM on October 10, 2005
why should a post necessarily encourage discussion?
Because MetaFilter has a few guidelines, and that is one of them?
"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."
We've all seen great posts to mind-blowing stuff on the web where all people comment is "Wow, that blows my mind" but political and newsy posts rarely fall into this category. Starting off with "This is WHAT I THINK" sentiments (I call it the "suck it, haters" approach, even though that post cracked me up) in a post on a controversial issue rarely goes well here. So, not that you need to have discussion but you might want to try to not stop it before it starts, here on MeFi.
I'm putting my money on BeautifulAndUniqueSnowflakeFilter for now though, good point darukaru.
posted by jessamyn at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2005
Because MetaFilter has a few guidelines, and that is one of them?
"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."
We've all seen great posts to mind-blowing stuff on the web where all people comment is "Wow, that blows my mind" but political and newsy posts rarely fall into this category. Starting off with "This is WHAT I THINK" sentiments (I call it the "suck it, haters" approach, even though that post cracked me up) in a post on a controversial issue rarely goes well here. So, not that you need to have discussion but you might want to try to not stop it before it starts, here on MeFi.
I'm putting my money on BeautifulAndUniqueSnowflakeFilter for now though, good point darukaru.
posted by jessamyn at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2005
LarryC writes "This has the most promise of saving the site"
Is Metafilter dying? I didn't even know it was sick! (well, jrun issues aside)
posted by clevershark at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2005
Is Metafilter dying? I didn't even know it was sick! (well, jrun issues aside)
posted by clevershark at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2005
Eventually there will be a "-filter" complaint for every single front page post in the blue... we're well on our way to that state of things.
posted by clevershark at 9:01 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 9:01 AM on October 10, 2005
I cracked up Jessamyn! I KNEW I WAS A BEAUTIFUL AND UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE! :D
posted by keswick at 9:06 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by keswick at 9:06 AM on October 10, 2005
It shows a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate when you start your arguments by dismissing people for their supposed stance within the political spectrum.
Sorry, that's not the problem.
The problem is that the hypocrites refuse to respond to direct questions they're unable to answer, and instead wait twenty comments for another, easier-to-defend point to be brought up.
If some people would just come out and say, "Yes, I don't care about torture/loss of liberty/degradation of our values because, at my core, I'm deathly afraid for my safety," a lot of these arguments could be avoided altogether. Instead they have to dress up their fears to look like some sort of rational ideology. It's not rational.
They're just cowards, happy encourage the class bully because he's picking on the other kid and not them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:06 AM on October 10, 2005
Sorry, that's not the problem.
The problem is that the hypocrites refuse to respond to direct questions they're unable to answer, and instead wait twenty comments for another, easier-to-defend point to be brought up.
If some people would just come out and say, "Yes, I don't care about torture/loss of liberty/degradation of our values because, at my core, I'm deathly afraid for my safety," a lot of these arguments could be avoided altogether. Instead they have to dress up their fears to look like some sort of rational ideology. It's not rational.
They're just cowards, happy encourage the class bully because he's picking on the other kid and not them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:06 AM on October 10, 2005
jessamyn: I agree with smackfu, maybe some of this could have been headed off at the pass without the AgendaFilter line at the end of the post
peacay: All poster editorializing would be removed before it hits the blue. It's not going to happen of course but neutral language should be the aim when drafting posts, especially the emotive/controversial kind.
I agree. Could we focus more on this issue? I just looked at the guidelines again, and there's no specific mention of neutrality as a goal. It gets mentioned sometimes in MeTa, but I really think this ought to be enforeced more strictly. If you want to share your opinions on the subject, do it in a comment. The front page should be Wikipedia-like in its pursuit of neutrality. I think it would prevent some of the nastier derails/complaints/arguments and help prevent the site from appearing to lean towards a certain political viewpoint.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:08 AM on October 10, 2005
peacay: All poster editorializing would be removed before it hits the blue. It's not going to happen of course but neutral language should be the aim when drafting posts, especially the emotive/controversial kind.
I agree. Could we focus more on this issue? I just looked at the guidelines again, and there's no specific mention of neutrality as a goal. It gets mentioned sometimes in MeTa, but I really think this ought to be enforeced more strictly. If you want to share your opinions on the subject, do it in a comment. The front page should be Wikipedia-like in its pursuit of neutrality. I think it would prevent some of the nastier derails/complaints/arguments and help prevent the site from appearing to lean towards a certain political viewpoint.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:08 AM on October 10, 2005
I'm with Matteo here, sorta: I think it great that some folks join me in disapproving of torture, but I'd hardly call the bulk of those Mefites expressing said disapproval "leftists". "Nice liberals" is more like it.
And luddy, you ask too much of us in this corner of Blogospace.
posted by davy at 9:14 AM on October 10, 2005
And luddy, you ask too much of us in this corner of Blogospace.
posted by davy at 9:14 AM on October 10, 2005
I think it was this line: "It's OK to demonize the 'Other' if the Other is a Muslim."
For the record, I meant to pull that hardly the most incendiary one whole sentence ever written before posting the thing. It was a typing out loud thing I actually thought I had deleted. I should have reread the whole thing. On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here.
As for social conventions for proper address, one member called out another member by given name. That has been hashed out here ad nauseam. The practice is frowned upon. It seemed even wierder when the source was apparently another anonymous poster. Is dhoyt Karl Potente or Darren Hoyt ? I honestly do not know. So, it seemed weird that a person of indeterminate identity first named another member with whom he was in conflict at the time. It wasn't that big a deal to me but I did notice it and I made an ironic allusion concerning it and then an anonymous sock puppet used that to grind once again a well honed Where is the outrage ? ax on what matteo once called Krrrlson.
As for sockpuppets--even after getting tag teamed by a couple of no name buddies, at least one of whom who has gone to the trouble about writing and rewriting and then posting some lame screed about me at another clubhouse, er, site: I mean, talk about your basic Get a Life situation, if there ever was one- I didn't feel like making a MetaTalk post over it or terms of proper address.
For the record, I don't even bother to make comments that much anymore--the same tag team shows up to bring up the same old shit and I just don't feel like trading insults with people. Sometimes I let it get to me but I really try to avoid it.
From that point of view, I urge people to lay off dhoyt. Insulting him just turns the thread into dhoytisthedevilfilter. He has an opinion and he can get hot about it in a not unprovocative way at times. Get over it. It's just words on a screen.
But now that we have this thread, then let these be the topics here:
What is the consensus about whether we address people by their evident given names ? I'm agin it. First naming people with whom you are in conflict comes across as a little patronizing and intentionally rude to me. Emphasis on the little--let it be noted.
I'm agin sockpuppets and anonymous accounts, too. People too often use them to grind axes and carry on grudges in my opinion.
But that's me. YMMV. And you ?
posted by y2karl at 9:15 AM on October 10, 2005
For the record, I meant to pull that hardly the most incendiary one whole sentence ever written before posting the thing. It was a typing out loud thing I actually thought I had deleted. I should have reread the whole thing. On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here.
As for social conventions for proper address, one member called out another member by given name. That has been hashed out here ad nauseam. The practice is frowned upon. It seemed even wierder when the source was apparently another anonymous poster. Is dhoyt Karl Potente or Darren Hoyt ? I honestly do not know. So, it seemed weird that a person of indeterminate identity first named another member with whom he was in conflict at the time. It wasn't that big a deal to me but I did notice it and I made an ironic allusion concerning it and then an anonymous sock puppet used that to grind once again a well honed Where is the outrage ? ax on what matteo once called Krrrlson.
As for sockpuppets--even after getting tag teamed by a couple of no name buddies, at least one of whom who has gone to the trouble about writing and rewriting and then posting some lame screed about me at another clubhouse, er, site: I mean, talk about your basic Get a Life situation, if there ever was one- I didn't feel like making a MetaTalk post over it or terms of proper address.
For the record, I don't even bother to make comments that much anymore--the same tag team shows up to bring up the same old shit and I just don't feel like trading insults with people. Sometimes I let it get to me but I really try to avoid it.
From that point of view, I urge people to lay off dhoyt. Insulting him just turns the thread into dhoytisthedevilfilter. He has an opinion and he can get hot about it in a not unprovocative way at times. Get over it. It's just words on a screen.
But now that we have this thread, then let these be the topics here:
What is the consensus about whether we address people by their evident given names ? I'm agin it. First naming people with whom you are in conflict comes across as a little patronizing and intentionally rude to me. Emphasis on the little--let it be noted.
I'm agin sockpuppets and anonymous accounts, too. People too often use them to grind axes and carry on grudges in my opinion.
But that's me. YMMV. And you ?
posted by y2karl at 9:15 AM on October 10, 2005
I'm agin sockpuppets and anonymous accounts, too.
How are we defining "anonymous" here? I really don't give a shit if there's no real world information on a member's user page, but maybe you meant something else.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2005
How are we defining "anonymous" here? I really don't give a shit if there's no real world information on a member's user page, but maybe you meant something else.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2005
On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here.
?!
The subject of torture and effectively equating the US government with terrorism for these alleged abuses is a "hair trigger issue"? Such disingenuousness deserves to be followed by a slew of personal attacks and an otherwise shitty thread. People reap what they sow in those threads and bringing it here (MeTa) only makes it worse, because in MeTa comments can get deliberately personal without any recourse (such as an allegation of being off-topic).
Stop asking for civility from these "usual suspects". It falls upon deaf ears and only frustrates those who are trying to enjoy this site. If Matt ever decides to step up, so be it, but until then, leave these jackals be.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:23 AM on October 10, 2005
?!
The subject of torture and effectively equating the US government with terrorism for these alleged abuses is a "hair trigger issue"? Such disingenuousness deserves to be followed by a slew of personal attacks and an otherwise shitty thread. People reap what they sow in those threads and bringing it here (MeTa) only makes it worse, because in MeTa comments can get deliberately personal without any recourse (such as an allegation of being off-topic).
Stop asking for civility from these "usual suspects". It falls upon deaf ears and only frustrates those who are trying to enjoy this site. If Matt ever decides to step up, so be it, but until then, leave these jackals be.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:23 AM on October 10, 2005
Because MetaFilter has a few guidelines, and that is one of them?
yeah, and you have the grim job of trying to enforce them, and I sincerely feel for you. but this is a site that started when a guy posted about cats being scanned
posted by matteo at 9:28 AM on October 10, 2005
yeah, and you have the grim job of trying to enforce them, and I sincerely feel for you. but this is a site that started when a guy posted about cats being scanned
posted by matteo at 9:28 AM on October 10, 2005
Such people quite rightly get jumped all over as the torture-excusing scumbags they are.
What exactly is the difference between you and those who rave about "traitors" and "terrorist apologists?"
On another note, this is by far not the worst newsfilter-spawned shiftest we've had.
Metafilter: You are quite free to disagree if you don't mind the title of "fuckwit" that comes with it.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:32 AM on October 10, 2005
What exactly is the difference between you and those who rave about "traitors" and "terrorist apologists?"
On another note, this is by far not the worst newsfilter-spawned shiftest we've had.
Metafilter: You are quite free to disagree if you don't mind the title of "fuckwit" that comes with it.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:32 AM on October 10, 2005
On the other hand, it was one whole sentence.
I think y2karl is minimizing the impact of that "one sentence" in setting the SanctimonyFilter tone that ruined the thread for me. It wasn't the only thing, but it was in the top three.
posted by mediareport at 9:39 AM on October 10, 2005
I think y2karl is minimizing the impact of that "one sentence" in setting the SanctimonyFilter tone that ruined the thread for me. It wasn't the only thing, but it was in the top three.
posted by mediareport at 9:39 AM on October 10, 2005
you and those who rave about "traitors"
because it's very hard to prove that liberals commit treason. you guys, instead, never found an American war crime you couldn't defend by saying "but teh Muslims are worse blah blah blah".
so much for being the self-appointed Light of Civilization, I guess
posted by matteo at 9:45 AM on October 10, 2005
because it's very hard to prove that liberals commit treason. you guys, instead, never found an American war crime you couldn't defend by saying "but teh Muslims are worse blah blah blah".
so much for being the self-appointed Light of Civilization, I guess
posted by matteo at 9:45 AM on October 10, 2005
On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here.
But karl, there's a bigger issue with putting something like that on the front page, as I was alluding to earlier. MeFi is a community site, and it happens to be one where an apparent majority of users hold leftist/progressive viewpoints, but we should not create the impression that MeFi as an entity is expressing a certain political viewpoint.
I've run into this before; I'll be talking about an issue with someone elsewhere on the internet, and I'll link them to a MeFi post solely for the information contained in the links, to which they'll reply: "I'm not going to go there, it's an anti-Bush site," or something similar. When you put editorial content on the front page, it creates that appearance, and strengthens the desire of certain members to respond excessively in the opposite direction, in order to create the appearance of "balance."
On the issue of the thread in question, however, I think it's pretty clear-cut. When a thread is about an action taken by actor X, coming in to say "You're all hypocrites for not directing this much rage at actor Y" is derailing, plain and simple. Yes, you may have a point about actor Y, but that's not what the thread was about. Go make your own thread. Your job isn't to make sure that every discussion is balanced and that all outrage is evenly distributed. No one is stopping you from bringing other issues to light. Bitching about it in unrelated threads is inappropriate.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:46 AM on October 10, 2005
But karl, there's a bigger issue with putting something like that on the front page, as I was alluding to earlier. MeFi is a community site, and it happens to be one where an apparent majority of users hold leftist/progressive viewpoints, but we should not create the impression that MeFi as an entity is expressing a certain political viewpoint.
I've run into this before; I'll be talking about an issue with someone elsewhere on the internet, and I'll link them to a MeFi post solely for the information contained in the links, to which they'll reply: "I'm not going to go there, it's an anti-Bush site," or something similar. When you put editorial content on the front page, it creates that appearance, and strengthens the desire of certain members to respond excessively in the opposite direction, in order to create the appearance of "balance."
On the issue of the thread in question, however, I think it's pretty clear-cut. When a thread is about an action taken by actor X, coming in to say "You're all hypocrites for not directing this much rage at actor Y" is derailing, plain and simple. Yes, you may have a point about actor Y, but that's not what the thread was about. Go make your own thread. Your job isn't to make sure that every discussion is balanced and that all outrage is evenly distributed. No one is stopping you from bringing other issues to light. Bitching about it in unrelated threads is inappropriate.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:46 AM on October 10, 2005
There was the link, there was a long-ass quote that most people don't read, and there was the "just one sentence". When that's your posting style, your non-quote words take on greater significance.
posted by smackfu at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by smackfu at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2005
because it's very hard to prove that liberals commit treason.
Ah, so now that treason is out, it's "torture-excusing scumbags" vs. "terrorist apologists." But then again it seems you prefer that kind of political discourse, so who am I to argue about personal tastes.
you guys, instead, never found an American war crime you couldn't defend by saying "but teh Muslims are worse blah blah blah".
s/American war crime/Islamist terrorist act
s/Muslims are worse/Americans are ultimately responsible
And so on. We've obviously been here before.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on October 10, 2005
Ah, so now that treason is out, it's "torture-excusing scumbags" vs. "terrorist apologists." But then again it seems you prefer that kind of political discourse, so who am I to argue about personal tastes.
you guys, instead, never found an American war crime you couldn't defend by saying "but teh Muslims are worse blah blah blah".
s/American war crime/Islamist terrorist act
s/Muslims are worse/Americans are ultimately responsible
And so on. We've obviously been here before.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on October 10, 2005
That FPP was no more than a single-link op-ed filled with anecdotal allegations. In the past, such FPPs were deleted for no other reason. It doesn't even reach the standard of being NewsFilter. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 10:03 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by mischief at 10:03 AM on October 10, 2005
Decani : "We need more of that reaction. America, in particular, does."
I would argue that we (Metafilter) need less of that reaction, and America needs more.
y2karl : "On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here."
You just love the hot nigger cum, and should be killed along with all the fucken jews.
(The author does not actually support the above sentence in any way, shape, or form. It is meant purely as an example of why people getting angry at 'one whole sentence' is not particularly odd, and doesn't indicate that the hair-triggerness of issues is necessarily wrong. You can appreciate that if the above sentence had been said in earnest, people would go off, and that blatant racism and desire for genocide are hair trigger issues in whose case hair-triggerness is not necessarily a bad thing. Now, your argument may be that your particular sentence was unworthy of such great reaction, or that the hair trigger is unnecessarily sensitive, but if that is the case, say so, don't say the reaction was too great for the number of periods (full-stops) used.)
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on October 10, 2005
I would argue that we (Metafilter) need less of that reaction, and America needs more.
y2karl : "On the other hand, it was one whole sentence. Jesus. People have some hair trigger issues here."
You just love the hot nigger cum, and should be killed along with all the fucken jews.
(The author does not actually support the above sentence in any way, shape, or form. It is meant purely as an example of why people getting angry at 'one whole sentence' is not particularly odd, and doesn't indicate that the hair-triggerness of issues is necessarily wrong. You can appreciate that if the above sentence had been said in earnest, people would go off, and that blatant racism and desire for genocide are hair trigger issues in whose case hair-triggerness is not necessarily a bad thing. Now, your argument may be that your particular sentence was unworthy of such great reaction, or that the hair trigger is unnecessarily sensitive, but if that is the case, say so, don't say the reaction was too great for the number of periods (full-stops) used.)
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on October 10, 2005
The subject of torture and effectively equating the US government with terrorism for these alleged abuses is a "hair trigger issue"?
Huh? That is reading a very lot into a very little.
As for the anti-Bush site jazz, I see a dozen posts a day ragging on Bush. Most of which get a pass. Nobody bothers to wax eloquent over each and every one of these but if I write one little sentence, it ruins it it for this and that John Q. Sensitive. Bitch about the Bush bashing all you want--but leave me out of that. I can count the times I have mentioned Bush by name here on one and a half hands. I have roughly the same opinion of him as a certain wonderchicken but I don't belabor anyone with it.
On review: as we already went over it in the blue, it was an article excerpting a first person account from a recently written book, mischief--not an editorial. It is an ostensible statment of fact. There is a big difference between a first account from the person concerned and an op-ed page opinion piece, no matter how much you try to spin it.
posted by y2karl at 10:11 AM on October 10, 2005
Huh? That is reading a very lot into a very little.
As for the anti-Bush site jazz, I see a dozen posts a day ragging on Bush. Most of which get a pass. Nobody bothers to wax eloquent over each and every one of these but if I write one little sentence, it ruins it it for this and that John Q. Sensitive. Bitch about the Bush bashing all you want--but leave me out of that. I can count the times I have mentioned Bush by name here on one and a half hands. I have roughly the same opinion of him as a certain wonderchicken but I don't belabor anyone with it.
On review: as we already went over it in the blue, it was an article excerpting a first person account from a recently written book, mischief--not an editorial. It is an ostensible statment of fact. There is a big difference between a first account from the person concerned and an op-ed page opinion piece, no matter how much you try to spin it.
posted by y2karl at 10:11 AM on October 10, 2005
But then again it seems you prefer that kind of political discourse, so who am I to argue about personal tastes.
yes. taste.
it's all about taste, isn't it.
thanks for your little lecture. be proud of yourself:
;)
posted by matteo at 10:14 AM on October 10, 2005
yes. taste.
it's all about taste, isn't it.
thanks for your little lecture. be proud of yourself:
Arguing with you is pointless - only your own body parts, unexpectedly separated from each other by terrorist explosives, can ever serve to shake your hypocrisy. At least if you cared enough to ever act in support of your militant bullshit. By then, however, it will be too late - and another raving hippie will take your place to disrespect *your* corpse by hoisting it up on the battlements of his political agenda.and konolia, want to count the comments in one of the many bunny flameout threads?
posted by Krrrlson at 5:13 PM PST on March 14 [!]
;)
posted by matteo at 10:14 AM on October 10, 2005
bugbread, can I get you an electron microscope ? It might make that hair on a gnat's ass splitting easier.
posted by y2karl at 10:15 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by y2karl at 10:15 AM on October 10, 2005
Nope, y2k, you're wrong. It's filled with his opinion, the op- part of op-ed. It's also an obvious propaganda piece; it's existence is the -ed part.
posted by mischief at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by mischief at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2005
Why is it that the phrase "jumping the shark" keeps coming up in my mind as I read this thread?
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2005
I am NOT going to "jump" you.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2005
y2karl : "bugbread, can I get you an electron microscope ? It might make that hair on a gnat's ass splitting easier."
Look, y2k, I respect you, but you're taking cheap and inaccurate shots at opposition, and that's something that bugs me. You're arguing that a single sentence shouldn't be enough to set people off, and that's horsecrap logic. Me calling you on horsecrap logic is not splitting hairs.
Though, admittedly, the part about "hair-triggers not being bad" may have been kinda hairsplitty. Sorry about that part
(And probably the reason I'm calling you on horsecrap logic, and not the billion other folks who also use it, is that I know you can do better, so it bugs me more when you don't.)
posted by Bugbread at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2005
Look, y2k, I respect you, but you're taking cheap and inaccurate shots at opposition, and that's something that bugs me. You're arguing that a single sentence shouldn't be enough to set people off, and that's horsecrap logic. Me calling you on horsecrap logic is not splitting hairs.
Though, admittedly, the part about "hair-triggers not being bad" may have been kinda hairsplitty. Sorry about that part
(And probably the reason I'm calling you on horsecrap logic, and not the billion other folks who also use it, is that I know you can do better, so it bugs me more when you don't.)
posted by Bugbread at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2005
[backs away slowly]
posted by clevershark at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2005
That sentence wasn't such a totally unwarranted sumup of Yee's own account of why he was arrested and treated the way he was, if you actually read the whole article. That's what he is talking about, being demonised, arrested, maltreated, harassed, only because of being a Muslim. Whether you accept that or want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that's his own account.
I do understand the criticism about it being "editorialising", but maybe there's a risk of obsessing about style over content here? If you think the post was an excuse for "sanctimonyfilter" then you must think that's what Yee's story itself is all about. I just don't understand how that single phrase after the quote changed how you view the contents of the article really.
posted by funambulist at 10:21 AM on October 10, 2005
I do understand the criticism about it being "editorialising", but maybe there's a risk of obsessing about style over content here? If you think the post was an excuse for "sanctimonyfilter" then you must think that's what Yee's story itself is all about. I just don't understand how that single phrase after the quote changed how you view the contents of the article really.
posted by funambulist at 10:21 AM on October 10, 2005
From that point of view, I urge people to lay off dhoyt. Insulting him just turns the thread into dhoytisthedevilfilter. He has an opinion and he can get hot about it in a not unprovocative way at times.
I appreciate that, karl. And sure, I lose my temper when it's unncessary at times. I'm not sure I get your point about usernames. You made a point I shouldn't have mentioned Tom's—which I did mainly because it's listed on his userpage, but also because we've corresponded before—and yet TWICE you brought out my name. I think some folks here post "anonymously" to avoid getting in trouble with employers. Some don't have that concern. But I'm still confused why you'd condemn discussing real names here and then deliberately attempt to Google info about my real name immediately after — did you not get indignant months ago when I googled riviera to find out what other forums he posted on? How is what you did any more appropriate? Let's revisit the talk of 'rank hypocrisy'.
And, too, karl, your post was an one-link, first-person excerpt about a story we've discussed many times before with a bonus of a sanctimonious intro--surely you KNOW by now it doesn't make for a great post. The source was not interesting, and your presentation was haughty and reeked of "I'm imparting wisdom & a grand lesson here". Why are you suprised threads like that turn into shitfests? Why do you feel you're the only one who can post endlessly about the same polarizing topic and create going-nowhere-fast discussions with impunity? Bringing hotbutton political issues to a non-political site over and over will eventually turn this place into the world's most boorish, polarized dinner party that everyone wants to vacate. Or, if it's anything like Kos, want to join up & jizz over.
and konolia, want to count the comments in one of the many bunny flameout threads?
yes. taste.
it's all about taste, isn't it.
posted by dhoyt at 10:22 AM on October 10, 2005
I appreciate that, karl. And sure, I lose my temper when it's unncessary at times. I'm not sure I get your point about usernames. You made a point I shouldn't have mentioned Tom's—which I did mainly because it's listed on his userpage, but also because we've corresponded before—and yet TWICE you brought out my name. I think some folks here post "anonymously" to avoid getting in trouble with employers. Some don't have that concern. But I'm still confused why you'd condemn discussing real names here and then deliberately attempt to Google info about my real name immediately after — did you not get indignant months ago when I googled riviera to find out what other forums he posted on? How is what you did any more appropriate? Let's revisit the talk of 'rank hypocrisy'.
And, too, karl, your post was an one-link, first-person excerpt about a story we've discussed many times before with a bonus of a sanctimonious intro--surely you KNOW by now it doesn't make for a great post. The source was not interesting, and your presentation was haughty and reeked of "I'm imparting wisdom & a grand lesson here". Why are you suprised threads like that turn into shitfests? Why do you feel you're the only one who can post endlessly about the same polarizing topic and create going-nowhere-fast discussions with impunity? Bringing hotbutton political issues to a non-political site over and over will eventually turn this place into the world's most boorish, polarized dinner party that everyone wants to vacate. Or, if it's anything like Kos, want to join up & jizz over.
and konolia, want to count the comments in one of the many bunny flameout threads?
yes. taste.
it's all about taste, isn't it.
posted by dhoyt at 10:22 AM on October 10, 2005
And you know, matteo, if I never have to read about KKKrrlson or that quote above again, I will be thankful. People get hot under the collar and say things they would not say under other circumstances. I wish I could disappear several I have made. If we keep bringing up stuff from the past, we enable other people to keep bringing up things from the past. I get tired of reading other people's over the top remarks over and over and over--let alone my own. I suspect I am not alone in feeling this.
posted by y2karl at 10:22 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by y2karl at 10:22 AM on October 10, 2005
I'm just getting the feeling that increasingly any sort of real discussion is becoming downright impossible here -- the same is true of other online forums, but I guess I've noticed it more here than, for example, at Fark, where discussion has always been more or less limited to one-liners and hackneyed cliches -- although, as many will tell you, there are many subjects for which that sort of commenting is perfectly appropriate and, frankly, entertaining.
posted by clevershark at 10:25 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 10:25 AM on October 10, 2005
Person posts about appalling behaviour. Most people appalled. Some people attempt to defend, excuse or minimise appalling behaviour. Such people quite rightly get jumped all over as the torture-excusing scumbags they are.
I'm all for lively discussion, but that dosn't mean we need to personaly insult people. All that crap about who's sock puppet was who's was idiotic, IMO.
Nope, y2k, you're wrong. It's filled with his opinion, the op- part of op-ed. It's also an obvious propaganda piece; it's existence is the -ed part.
It's a first-hand account of being imprisoned and treated in an inhumane manner, so it's not too surprising that he would have an opinion about it. I have a feeling you'd consider Elie Wiesel's Night an op-ed as well and consider it's linking verboten, but your opinion isn't really all that important.
posted by delmoi at 10:37 AM on October 10, 2005
I'm all for lively discussion, but that dosn't mean we need to personaly insult people. All that crap about who's sock puppet was who's was idiotic, IMO.
Nope, y2k, you're wrong. It's filled with his opinion, the op- part of op-ed. It's also an obvious propaganda piece; it's existence is the -ed part.
It's a first-hand account of being imprisoned and treated in an inhumane manner, so it's not too surprising that he would have an opinion about it. I have a feeling you'd consider Elie Wiesel's Night an op-ed as well and consider it's linking verboten, but your opinion isn't really all that important.
posted by delmoi at 10:37 AM on October 10, 2005
I'm still confused why you'd condemn discussing real names here and then deliberately attempt to Google info about my real name immediately after — did you not get indignant months ago when I googled riviera to find out what other forums he posted on? How is what you did any more appropriate? Let's revisit the talk of 'rank hypocrisy'.
As I pointed out in the thread in the blue, I happened to read the AskMetaFilter thread in question, dhoyt, when it was posted. And I was not indignant about you Googling riviera's name. That struck me as a bit obsessive at the time and I teased you about it. Then mwhybark sent me a Gogglepage of his name and you hopped all over me for mentioning the Googlepage he sent as if it were some big deal. And you keep bringing it up. Talk about obsessive.
I don't get into it with you or anyone else all that much anymore. You, on the other hand, get into it with plenty of other people all the time. And you all too often mention people in thread after thread who have never made a comment in that particular thread. It is a most unattractive habit. You don't have to respond to every remark, you know, and you sure as hell don't have to bring up names of people who have said nothing in the thread in question. This place is not about your personal shit list. Get over yourself. We know who you don't like without you reposting the list every so often.
posted by y2karl at 10:39 AM on October 10, 2005
As I pointed out in the thread in the blue, I happened to read the AskMetaFilter thread in question, dhoyt, when it was posted. And I was not indignant about you Googling riviera's name. That struck me as a bit obsessive at the time and I teased you about it. Then mwhybark sent me a Gogglepage of his name and you hopped all over me for mentioning the Googlepage he sent as if it were some big deal. And you keep bringing it up. Talk about obsessive.
I don't get into it with you or anyone else all that much anymore. You, on the other hand, get into it with plenty of other people all the time. And you all too often mention people in thread after thread who have never made a comment in that particular thread. It is a most unattractive habit. You don't have to respond to every remark, you know, and you sure as hell don't have to bring up names of people who have said nothing in the thread in question. This place is not about your personal shit list. Get over yourself. We know who you don't like without you reposting the list every so often.
posted by y2karl at 10:39 AM on October 10, 2005
People get hot under the collar and say things they would not say under other circumstances
then what's the point of having open comment history? Matt could disable it in a few minutes. see, I have very little fun occasionally twisting people's ears around here, it's a joyless task. I just think we're supposed to be responsible for our own statements. sorry if that's somehow shrill because we're supposed to hug our difficult children instead of scolding them.
it's all about taste, isn't it
come on, we've decided to let you rant in peace and stop hurting your feelings. be a big boy and don't abuse this thing just now.
posted by matteo at 10:40 AM on October 10, 2005
then what's the point of having open comment history? Matt could disable it in a few minutes. see, I have very little fun occasionally twisting people's ears around here, it's a joyless task. I just think we're supposed to be responsible for our own statements. sorry if that's somehow shrill because we're supposed to hug our difficult children instead of scolding them.
it's all about taste, isn't it
come on, we've decided to let you rant in peace and stop hurting your feelings. be a big boy and don't abuse this thing just now.
posted by matteo at 10:40 AM on October 10, 2005
Then be a 'big boy' and admit to employing the same aggressive, personally insulting, hyperbolic & disruptive rhetorical tactics as the people you condemn. Of all the people who brawl in political threads, you're the one person who a) gets a free ride, and b) never apologizes for anything.
You expect others to change their tone but for yours to remain the same?
posted by dhoyt at 10:46 AM on October 10, 2005
You expect others to change their tone but for yours to remain the same?
posted by dhoyt at 10:46 AM on October 10, 2005
surely you KNOW by now it doesn't make for a great post. The source was not interesting
Ok then, that settles it, message to all the people who appreciated and thanked y2karl for the link: you have bad taste in links. Please go back to listen to your Coldplay and whinge about torture in private.
Why do you feel you're the only one who can post endlessly about the same polarizing topic and create going-nowhere-fast discussions with impunity?
Ahem...
posted by funambulist at 10:47 AM on October 10, 2005
Ok then, that settles it, message to all the people who appreciated and thanked y2karl for the link: you have bad taste in links. Please go back to listen to your Coldplay and whinge about torture in private.
Why do you feel you're the only one who can post endlessly about the same polarizing topic and create going-nowhere-fast discussions with impunity?
Ahem...
posted by funambulist at 10:47 AM on October 10, 2005
And just so we are clear, dhoyt, it is my understanding that it is considered poor form to address people here by a name other than their screen name. Most people consider it rude for rank strangers to address them by their given name. We have gone over this time after time in the gray, the consensus is pretty clear. Why do you choose to ignore this particular Mefi social convention ? Call people out by their given names, mention people in threads in which they do not comment--for a guy who likes to preach a lot about the proper things to post and comment you sure have a special understanding of what rules apply to you personally here.
posted by y2karl at 10:52 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by y2karl at 10:52 AM on October 10, 2005
Sorry, that's not the problem.
The problem is that the hypocrites refuse to respond to direct questions they're unable to answer, and instead wait twenty comments for another, easier-to-defend point to be brought up.
Sure, I would add that that is yet another aspect of those who show a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate. The example I used wasn't meant to be the only and exclusive reason.
posted by juiceCake at 10:53 AM on October 10, 2005
The problem is that the hypocrites refuse to respond to direct questions they're unable to answer, and instead wait twenty comments for another, easier-to-defend point to be brought up.
Sure, I would add that that is yet another aspect of those who show a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate. The example I used wasn't meant to be the only and exclusive reason.
posted by juiceCake at 10:53 AM on October 10, 2005
You expect others to change their tone but for yours to remain the same?
!
posted by y2karl at 10:54 AM on October 10, 2005
!
posted by y2karl at 10:54 AM on October 10, 2005
I don't even know who dhoyt is talking about when he used a name in that thread, it could have been any of a dozen different peoople, though I bet leftcoastbob's name is Bob.
posted by jessamyn at 10:58 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 10:58 AM on October 10, 2005
I wonder if y2karl has realized that dhoyt has, yet again, succeeded in making himself the issue.
posted by clevershark at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2005
Most people consider it rude for rank strangers to address them by their given name.
Most don't always respond within the rules when called an "awful, horrible human being", and an "[expletive deleted] moron." Sometimes you give what you get. And I don't think "lupus yonderboy" deserves much better after the comments he made.
posted by dhoyt at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2005
Most don't always respond within the rules when called an "awful, horrible human being", and an "[expletive deleted] moron." Sometimes you give what you get. And I don't think "lupus yonderboy" deserves much better after the comments he made.
posted by dhoyt at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2005
You are quite free to disagree if you don't mind the title of "fuckwit" that comes with it.
I will again point out that this was a response to your "...if you don't mind the title of "hypocrite" that comes with it."
And will tell you again, flat out: You. Are. A. Fuckwit.
And, clearly, a hypocrite.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:04 AM on October 10, 2005
I will again point out that this was a response to your "...if you don't mind the title of "hypocrite" that comes with it."
And will tell you again, flat out: You. Are. A. Fuckwit.
And, clearly, a hypocrite.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:04 AM on October 10, 2005
You expect others to change their tone but for yours to remain the same?
comedy gold.
no, I don't expect anything. I simply don't care. I don't care about you, about your tone, about your comments -- you, as in "dhoyt", are just pixels on a screen to me, nothing more. I mean, snoop around my comments -- unlike you, I don't call people "douchebag". I don't care enough, the only occasional reaction you can get from me is a little sad laughter.
and I actually look forward to you and all the other Islam-is-bad boys to go on and on and on -- the cruder you guys get, the happier I'll be. I'll just point out how lame your pro-Bush arguments are, every once in a while. and (maybe) enjoy the squealing.
posted by matteo at 11:05 AM on October 10, 2005
comedy gold.
no, I don't expect anything. I simply don't care. I don't care about you, about your tone, about your comments -- you, as in "dhoyt", are just pixels on a screen to me, nothing more. I mean, snoop around my comments -- unlike you, I don't call people "douchebag". I don't care enough, the only occasional reaction you can get from me is a little sad laughter.
and I actually look forward to you and all the other Islam-is-bad boys to go on and on and on -- the cruder you guys get, the happier I'll be. I'll just point out how lame your pro-Bush arguments are, every once in a while. and (maybe) enjoy the squealing.
posted by matteo at 11:05 AM on October 10, 2005
Sure, I would add that that is yet another aspect of those who show a lack of willingness to participate in respectful debate.
I've implied this before, but generally, when the first punch is thrown, the time for respectful debate is over. I don't know you people. You're not "real" in the sense that we will ever have any kind of contact outside the confines of MeFi. If someone makes a personal attack against me, I will respond and escalate it. No, I don't care if this helps to fan the flames. I consider such a response completely appropriate. It's not an issue of losing one's temper so much as defending one's honour.
If someone doesn't start any, there won't be any. Y'know?
I mean, for eff's sake, Krrrlson couldn't even let it go in the thread and had to bring it here. So I threw it back at him.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:11 AM on October 10, 2005
I've implied this before, but generally, when the first punch is thrown, the time for respectful debate is over. I don't know you people. You're not "real" in the sense that we will ever have any kind of contact outside the confines of MeFi. If someone makes a personal attack against me, I will respond and escalate it. No, I don't care if this helps to fan the flames. I consider such a response completely appropriate. It's not an issue of losing one's temper so much as defending one's honour.
If someone doesn't start any, there won't be any. Y'know?
I mean, for eff's sake, Krrrlson couldn't even let it go in the thread and had to bring it here. So I threw it back at him.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:11 AM on October 10, 2005
Can I have my 5 bucks back now please?
posted by wheelieman at 11:16 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 11:16 AM on October 10, 2005
From now on im not going to read the comments unless its non political or breaking major news. My attempts were pointless so Ill just ignore the yelling and move on.
posted by wheelieman at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2005
"Yet you pointedly keep using the label "leftists" when it is (really) meaningless when one is denying the very existence of the "rightists" that make up the other part of the equation."
I tend to believe that the "rightists" that exist on the other end of the spectrum are those folks at LGF and Freep. I think that the folks we have tend to be liberals of a democratic socialist bent (myself included), and that the folks that you're labelling "rightists" tend to be neoliberals, mostly. I think that you're basing your comparisons on the rather monocultural ideological ecosystem of Metafilter, and I think that makes for an apparent equivalence that doesn't really exist.
But I'd also like to note that the "torture apologists" were generally derailing, not apologizing for US torture. Dhoyt was pretty open about condemning it. But both he and Krrlson like the "but you do it too" argument a little too much, and it wasn't really germane.
posted by klangklangston at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2005
I tend to believe that the "rightists" that exist on the other end of the spectrum are those folks at LGF and Freep. I think that the folks we have tend to be liberals of a democratic socialist bent (myself included), and that the folks that you're labelling "rightists" tend to be neoliberals, mostly. I think that you're basing your comparisons on the rather monocultural ideological ecosystem of Metafilter, and I think that makes for an apparent equivalence that doesn't really exist.
But I'd also like to note that the "torture apologists" were generally derailing, not apologizing for US torture. Dhoyt was pretty open about condemning it. But both he and Krrlson like the "but you do it too" argument a little too much, and it wasn't really germane.
posted by klangklangston at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2005
It's not an issue of losing one's temper so much as defending one's honour.
Which only matters to you and whoever else involved. The rest of us could care less and consider it a bore and a waste of time to read about your--or their--honor. Keep that in mind. You can control how you feel about what other people say about you a whole lot better than what they say about you. It's not easy, lord knows, but it is something to strive for.
posted by y2karl at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2005
Which only matters to you and whoever else involved. The rest of us could care less and consider it a bore and a waste of time to read about your--or their--honor. Keep that in mind. You can control how you feel about what other people say about you a whole lot better than what they say about you. It's not easy, lord knows, but it is something to strive for.
posted by y2karl at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2005
and no I dont need that 5 bucks back, Put it to good use Matt
posted by wheelieman at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by wheelieman at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2005
"If someone makes a personal attack against me, I will respond and escalate it."
Posted by "solid-one-love."
posted by klangklangston at 11:21 AM on October 10, 2005
Posted by "solid-one-love."
posted by klangklangston at 11:21 AM on October 10, 2005
Thing is, Wheelie, MeFi is not a community in any meaningful sense of the word. It may label itself as a community, but it isn't. I can look at a tree and call it a plastic fork, but that doesn't make it so.
We have no unity of interests or colocation. We're not a distinct segment of society. We are not bound by fellowship. There is no common ownership. We have no agreed-upon goals. If even one of the above were true, this would be a community. But none of them are (except perhaps that we all have the common interest in visiting sites like MetaFilter, but that's so much of a stretch than I wouldn't be willing to grant it as evidence).
We're not a community. And pride is not foolish.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:24 AM on October 10, 2005
We have no unity of interests or colocation. We're not a distinct segment of society. We are not bound by fellowship. There is no common ownership. We have no agreed-upon goals. If even one of the above were true, this would be a community. But none of them are (except perhaps that we all have the common interest in visiting sites like MetaFilter, but that's so much of a stretch than I wouldn't be willing to grant it as evidence).
We're not a community. And pride is not foolish.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:24 AM on October 10, 2005
We have no agreed-upon goals.
Yes, we do, ostensibly; to find and share the best of the web.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:28 AM on October 10, 2005
Yes, we do, ostensibly; to find and share the best of the web.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:28 AM on October 10, 2005
Which only matters to you and whoever else involved. The rest of us could care less and consider it a bore and a waste of time to read about your--or their--honor. Keep that in mind.
Don't especially care if it doesn't matter to you. My instinct is that it is not a worthy goal to turn the other cheek, and that you do have the choice not to read something if it bores you or wastes your time.
Klang: not sure why you pulled that out. I have made controversial posts in a number of threads and then been attacked personally for it; the threads have then devolved into flamefests. I want my attitude to be transparently clear: I will escalate hostilities if they are initiated. I make no apologies for it.
My attitude is identical to many other MeFites who would not make such an admission. With me, you should all know where you stand. If you don't like what I write, that's your prerogative. But if you attack me for it, the thread will get hot.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:31 AM on October 10, 2005
Don't especially care if it doesn't matter to you. My instinct is that it is not a worthy goal to turn the other cheek, and that you do have the choice not to read something if it bores you or wastes your time.
Klang: not sure why you pulled that out. I have made controversial posts in a number of threads and then been attacked personally for it; the threads have then devolved into flamefests. I want my attitude to be transparently clear: I will escalate hostilities if they are initiated. I make no apologies for it.
My attitude is identical to many other MeFites who would not make such an admission. With me, you should all know where you stand. If you don't like what I write, that's your prerogative. But if you attack me for it, the thread will get hot.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:31 AM on October 10, 2005
Yes, we do, ostensibly; to find and share the best of the web.
That is a stated goal, but not an agreed-upon goal, I think. I paid my five bucks because I was tired of not being able to respond to AskMe threads.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:33 AM on October 10, 2005
That is a stated goal, but not an agreed-upon goal, I think. I paid my five bucks because I was tired of not being able to respond to AskMe threads.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:33 AM on October 10, 2005
You are each exceptional, remarkable and accomplished members, outstanding additions to the Site. When you post to the Front Page, I am confident that all Mefites will see what I see every day: You are members of intelligence, strength, and conviction. And when your posts are confirmed by the membership, I am confident that you will leave a lasting mark on the Site and will be a members who make all Mefites proud.
Thank you for listening.
posted by George W. Bush at 11:36 AM on October 10, 2005
Thank you for listening.
posted by George W. Bush at 11:36 AM on October 10, 2005
Without saying anything about the level of conversation going on: wheelieman, dude, enough with the histrionics.
posted by fleacircus at 11:37 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by fleacircus at 11:37 AM on October 10, 2005
And just so we are clear, dhoyt, it is my understanding that it is considered poor form to address people here by a name other than their screen name. Most people consider it rude for rank strangers to address them by their given name. We have gone over this time after time in the gray, the consensus is pretty clear. Why do you choose to ignore this particular Mefi social convention ?posted by y2karl at 10:52 AM PST on October 10 [!]
Are you fucking kidding me? This goes on all the time. If not addressing people by their real-life names is supposed to be a "convention" here, this place is Hypocrite HQ.
posted by Rothko at 11:47 AM on October 10, 2005
Are you fucking kidding me? This goes on all the time. If not addressing people by their real-life names is supposed to be a "convention" here, this place is Hypocrite HQ.
posted by Rothko at 11:47 AM on October 10, 2005
Rothko : "Are you fucking kidding me? This goes on all the time."
I dunno, the only people I can recall offhand as being called by their actual names are you, primarily because you used to use your actual name as your handle, and EB occasionally, probably due to the fact that he goes by kmellis on other sites. And I guess Jonmc, because his name is part of his handle. Who else do you have in mind?
posted by Bugbread at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2005
I dunno, the only people I can recall offhand as being called by their actual names are you, primarily because you used to use your actual name as your handle, and EB occasionally, probably due to the fact that he goes by kmellis on other sites. And I guess Jonmc, because his name is part of his handle. Who else do you have in mind?
posted by Bugbread at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2005
With all respect, don't play semantical games and think you're being clever. If it's supposed to be a convention, then it isn't followed.
posted by Rothko at 11:53 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 11:53 AM on October 10, 2005
MetaFilter: Hypocrite HQ
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:57 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:57 AM on October 10, 2005
Don't be a dick, Alex.
posted by George W. Bush at 11:59 AM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 11:59 AM on October 10, 2005
Bugbread has a point, Rothko. Do you have any other examples of common non-handle name usage, or not? You could be a lot more sensitive about it than the average user simply because you're one of the rare cases.
posted by cortex at 12:01 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by cortex at 12:01 PM on October 10, 2005
"I hope I show respect for those who disagree."
You don't. if you think you do someday I might get around to showing you a long list of examples.
Don't bother doing that with me however: I know damn well I'm not a Nice Person amd have no plans to consider trying to be.
So what IS this thread about anyway? And what ARE the canonical words to "Kumbaya"?
posted by davy at 12:01 PM on October 10, 2005
You don't. if you think you do someday I might get around to showing you a long list of examples.
Don't bother doing that with me however: I know damn well I'm not a Nice Person amd have no plans to consider trying to be.
So what IS this thread about anyway? And what ARE the canonical words to "Kumbaya"?
posted by davy at 12:01 PM on October 10, 2005
By the way, how many people have figured out what MY real given first name is?
posted by davy at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by davy at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2005
Kumbaya, Dude, Kumbaya
Kumbaya, Dude, Kumbaya
Kumbaya, Dude, Kumbaya
Oh, Dude, Kumbaya
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
Kumbaya, Dude, Kumbaya
Kumbaya, Dude, Kumbaya
Oh, Dude, Kumbaya
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
cortex : "Bugbread has a point, Rothko."
Waitaminute, don't get me wrong, I don't have a point because I'm not trying to say anything: my question was a real question.
I think the gods of grammar have to outlaw the rhetorical question. It seems like half the time I ask a question, people take it as a statement. Languagehat, get on the horn with your bosses and see if we can't get this legislation through committee pronto.
posted by Bugbread at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
Waitaminute, don't get me wrong, I don't have a point because I'm not trying to say anything: my question was a real question.
I think the gods of grammar have to outlaw the rhetorical question. It seems like half the time I ask a question, people take it as a statement. Languagehat, get on the horn with your bosses and see if we can't get this legislation through committee pronto.
posted by Bugbread at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
aw for chrissakes. If the discussion is headed this way, I might as well be commenting on Fark.
posted by clevershark at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by clevershark at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2005
MetaFilter: I might as well be commenting on Fark
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:05 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:05 PM on October 10, 2005
Don't be a dick, Alex.
posted by George W. Bush at 11:59 AM PST on October 10 [!]
Don't shoot the messenger, George.
posted by Rothko at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 11:59 AM PST on October 10 [!]
Don't shoot the messenger, George.
posted by Rothko at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2005
Well, if karl had only linked to something else credible that substantiated Yee's allegations, perhaps then his post would rise above the standard of being deletable.
Nah, favoritism is what this is, favoritism. The PTB would have yanked karl's post if it had come from anyone else.
Jessamyn! This is all your fault. ;-P
Now, back to the regularly scheduled horseshit...
posted by mischief at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2005
Nah, favoritism is what this is, favoritism. The PTB would have yanked karl's post if it had come from anyone else.
Jessamyn! This is all your fault. ;-P
Now, back to the regularly scheduled horseshit...
posted by mischief at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2005
"When the first punch is thrown, the time for respectful debate is over. I don't know you people. You're not 'real' in the sense that we will ever have any kind of contact outside the confines of MeFi. If someone makes a personal attack against me, I will respond and escalate it. No, I don't care if this helps to fan the flames. I consider such a response completely appropriate. It's not an issue of losing one's temper so much as defending one's honour."
Sir or ma'am, I agree. I just wish that quote weren't too fucking long to plagiarize for a T-shirt.
posted by davy at 12:09 PM on October 10, 2005
Sir or ma'am, I agree. I just wish that quote weren't too fucking long to plagiarize for a T-shirt.
posted by davy at 12:09 PM on October 10, 2005
With all respect, don't play semantical games and think you're being clever. If it's supposed to be a convention, then it isn't followed.
posted by Rothko at 11:53 AM PST on October 10 [!]
Woah there, partner. "Don't be a dick" is good advice.
posted by Stauf at 12:10 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 11:53 AM PST on October 10 [!]
Woah there, partner. "Don't be a dick" is good advice.
posted by Stauf at 12:10 PM on October 10, 2005
I think that's a really unfair thing to say, mischief. I don't believe it is a personal thing for a second.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:10 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:10 PM on October 10, 2005
shut up shut up shut up
posted by angry modem at 12:11 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by angry modem at 12:11 PM on October 10, 2005
Woah there, partner. "Don't be a dick" is good advice.
posted by Stauf at 12:10 PM PST on October 10 [!]
What do you mean, "Woah there, partner"? If it's a convention, some people here deliberately break it, often to pick a fight, which makes some people here disgusting hypocrites.
posted by Rothko at 12:16 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Stauf at 12:10 PM PST on October 10 [!]
What do you mean, "Woah there, partner"? If it's a convention, some people here deliberately break it, often to pick a fight, which makes some people here disgusting hypocrites.
posted by Rothko at 12:16 PM on October 10, 2005
WORLD CONTAINS DISGUSTING HYPOCRITES! SOME FOUND HERE! FILM AT ELEVEN!
posted by George W. Bush at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2005
Bugbread: Rothko's name also gets trotted out as an attack against him pretty regularly, so there's another reason for him to be more sensitive than the average poster.
But the only reason that I don't use my real name is that someone else registered it first. So I don't have a problem.
But I also remember Decani getting offended when I called him "Jack," me thinking it was like calling someone "Buddy," not realizing it was his actual name.
Honestly, one of those nice things about communities is that when they generally get going, people despite their handles are known by their real names...
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2005
But the only reason that I don't use my real name is that someone else registered it first. So I don't have a problem.
But I also remember Decani getting offended when I called him "Jack," me thinking it was like calling someone "Buddy," not realizing it was his actual name.
Honestly, one of those nice things about communities is that when they generally get going, people despite their handles are known by their real names...
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2005
"...though I bet leftcoastbob's name is Bob."
posted by jessamyn
How much are you willing to bet?
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:18 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by jessamyn
How much are you willing to bet?
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:18 PM on October 10, 2005
It's "left".
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2005
Fair?! Fair?! Since when does 'fair' have anything do with this place?
posted by mischief at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by mischief at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2005
Hypocrisy and honor are pernicious distortions in understading of integrity. Integrity is worth fighting for; lack of it is worth condemning. Hypocrisy and honor are pale shadows of integrity; fighting for one's honor is a great deal like fighting for one's shadow. Condemning a person for hypocrisy based on what they post here is a great deal like diagnosing Stephen Wright as psychotic because the laugh track got mixed under.
It wasn't a great post, by the "best o f the web" standard, though that had more to do with it being thin than lacking objectivity. It's possible that it stuck around because of who posted it. More likely, though, it failed to be ignored because of who posted it: The "cabal" would have stayed away in droves from a poor-quality poly-/news-filter post that wwas put up by some high-numbered noob (or by, say, me, for example), thus preventing any serious dustup.
But they didn't. Hence, this.
Perhaps it really is getting harder to have discussions. If I had the time I'd go back and revisit the meTa threads from just before open registration, to see what the predictions were. Did we know it would get nasty? If so, did we understand why?
posted by lodurr at 12:22 PM on October 10, 2005
It wasn't a great post, by the "best o f the web" standard, though that had more to do with it being thin than lacking objectivity. It's possible that it stuck around because of who posted it. More likely, though, it failed to be ignored because of who posted it: The "cabal" would have stayed away in droves from a poor-quality poly-/news-filter post that wwas put up by some high-numbered noob (or by, say, me, for example), thus preventing any serious dustup.
But they didn't. Hence, this.
Perhaps it really is getting harder to have discussions. If I had the time I'd go back and revisit the meTa threads from just before open registration, to see what the predictions were. Did we know it would get nasty? If so, did we understand why?
posted by lodurr at 12:22 PM on October 10, 2005
Fair?! Fair?! Since when does 'fair' have anything do with this place?
Well, site standards aren't always "fair" and are sometimes inconsistent, but I think you are impugning our good editors without cause.
Smyopenyun.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:25 PM on October 10, 2005
Well, site standards aren't always "fair" and are sometimes inconsistent, but I think you are impugning our good editors without cause.
Smyopenyun.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:25 PM on October 10, 2005
WORLD CONTAINS DISGUSTING HYPOCRITES! SOME FOUND HERE! FILM AT ELEVEN!
posted by George W. Bush at 12:17 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Dubya, your unfunny overreaction doesn't make what I said any less true.
posted by Rothko at 12:25 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:17 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Dubya, your unfunny overreaction doesn't make what I said any less true.
posted by Rothko at 12:25 PM on October 10, 2005
It's okay--a logical mistake.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:28 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:28 PM on October 10, 2005
Dubya, your unfunny overreaction doesn't make what I said any less true.
WORLD CONTAINS DISGUSTING HYPOCRITES! SOME FOUND HERE! ALEX RECOGNIZES THE FACT! FILM AT ELEVEN!
posted by George W. Bush at 12:30 PM on October 10, 2005
The PTB control the puppet editors. I think it's the Malkavians this week.
posted by mischief at 12:32 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by mischief at 12:32 PM on October 10, 2005
Still shrill and unfunny. Whose sock puppet are you, just curious?
posted by Rothko at 12:33 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 12:33 PM on October 10, 2005
I abandoned my sockpuppet, quonsar, when I realized I had political capital to spend.
posted by George W. Bush at 12:34 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:34 PM on October 10, 2005
Karl Rove's, of course. Haven't you been paying attention these past seven years?
Please, Rothko, you have some things to say, but the obsession with sock puppets hurts your credibility overall.
posted by lodurr at 12:36 PM on October 10, 2005
Please, Rothko, you have some things to say, but the obsession with sock puppets hurts your credibility overall.
posted by lodurr at 12:36 PM on October 10, 2005
We need an appearance by pot and kettle. Those guys are fucking hillarious.
posted by mystyk at 12:40 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by mystyk at 12:40 PM on October 10, 2005
thanks for your little lecture. be proud of yourself:
Thanks to you, I've grown quite fond of that quote, matteo - it's your own little white flag that you wave frantically whenever you lose an argument.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:41 PM on October 10, 2005
Thanks to you, I've grown quite fond of that quote, matteo - it's your own little white flag that you wave frantically whenever you lose an argument.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:41 PM on October 10, 2005
I abandoned my sockpuppet, quonsar, when I realized I had political capital to spend.
posted by George W. Bush at 12:34 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Oh, so it's Lord Almighty Himself, stooping from His Beatific Perch to look down upon the masses with Holy ALL CAPS Lecturing. Awesome. So do you have any more wonderfully stoopit emails to send me or are you really that fucking pathetic?
posted by Rothko at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:34 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Oh, so it's Lord Almighty Himself, stooping from His Beatific Perch to look down upon the masses with Holy ALL CAPS Lecturing. Awesome. So do you have any more wonderfully stoopit emails to send me or are you really that fucking pathetic?
posted by Rothko at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2005
It's not newsfilter (since it's not news) so much as it's dailykosfilter.
There was a time a majority of News.Filter posts were news:
You read the subject here first being days prior to the media outlets telling it. Now it seems I read or hear the real story on CNN first, then days later read the news posted here again. And, worse if tied into a thread, it’s all baited hyperbole postings which may lead false conclusion, ymmv.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2005
There was a time a majority of News.Filter posts were news:
You read the subject here first being days prior to the media outlets telling it. Now it seems I read or hear the real story on CNN first, then days later read the news posted here again. And, worse if tied into a thread, it’s all baited hyperbole postings which may lead false conclusion, ymmv.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2005
Don't be a dick, Alex
posted by George W. Bush at 12:43 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:43 PM on October 10, 2005
"it’s all baited hyperbole postings which may lead false conclusion"
I blame the leftists.
posted by mischief at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
I blame the leftists.
posted by mischief at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
Wrong-o. I am Karl Rove's sockpuppet.
posted by TurdBlossom at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by TurdBlossom at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
(Uh, so, uhm, guys? And gals? Anyone have some more examples of people's names being used instead of handles all the time? Because I asked that question so that I don't form a wrong opinion about the issue, so I wanted to get some evidence...but if nobody says anything, I'm gonna have to go with the info I've got, which is that realnamers are pretty much confined to Rothko, EB, and Jonmc, and Decani by accident (in an amusing way). So, any conflicting or supporting evidence, or should I go ahead and form my opinion now?)
posted by Bugbread at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2005
bugbread said: Waitaminute, don't get me wrong, I don't have a point because I'm not trying to say anything: my question was a real question.
I didn't get you wrong, and apologize for seeming to have done so. I meant "bugbread has a point" to suggest that "the question bugbread asked is a valid one worth answering, and I hope it doesn't get conveniently dismissed by the person from whom we could most reasonably expect an answer". I just didn't type all that out the first time. Again, apologies for seeming to implicate your question in any sort of agenda.
I suspect that, on the non-handle name use issue, Rothko is more sensitive by some orders of magnitude than just about anyone else here. I could be wrong. I also can't think of any other common non-handle name being thrown around besides those mentioned, but there might several and I just haven't noticed.
Rothko: are there several more examples floating around?
posted by cortex at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2005
I didn't get you wrong, and apologize for seeming to have done so. I meant "bugbread has a point" to suggest that "the question bugbread asked is a valid one worth answering, and I hope it doesn't get conveniently dismissed by the person from whom we could most reasonably expect an answer". I just didn't type all that out the first time. Again, apologies for seeming to implicate your question in any sort of agenda.
I suspect that, on the non-handle name use issue, Rothko is more sensitive by some orders of magnitude than just about anyone else here. I could be wrong. I also can't think of any other common non-handle name being thrown around besides those mentioned, but there might several and I just haven't noticed.
Rothko: are there several more examples floating around?
posted by cortex at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2005
I hate to be the first to tell you this after all this time, but Metafilter isn't a police procedural.
posted by selfnoise at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by selfnoise at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2005
Weird synchronicity. Are you sure you're not my sockpuppet?
posted by cortex at 12:53 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by cortex at 12:53 PM on October 10, 2005
bugbread, I mean. Not selfnoise. I am positive that selfnoise is my sockpuppet.
posted by cortex at 12:54 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by cortex at 12:54 PM on October 10, 2005
What do you mean, "Woah there, partner"?
I mean your response to bugbread with:
"With all respect, don't play semantical games and think you're being clever." seems rather dick-ish to me. I dunno... maybe I misread?
posted by Stauf at 12:55 PM on October 10, 2005
I mean your response to bugbread with:
"With all respect, don't play semantical games and think you're being clever." seems rather dick-ish to me. I dunno... maybe I misread?
posted by Stauf at 12:55 PM on October 10, 2005
Fucking mind control! (makes cortex toast, vacuums his rug)
posted by selfnoise at 12:56 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by selfnoise at 12:56 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko: are there several more examples floating around?
posted by cortex at 12:52 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Probably, but it doesn't matter. You can hem and hew all you damn well like with semantics but if it's supposed to be a convention of etiquette, it isn't followed. Period.
posted by Rothko at 12:56 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by cortex at 12:52 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Probably, but it doesn't matter. You can hem and hew all you damn well like with semantics but if it's supposed to be a convention of etiquette, it isn't followed. Period.
posted by Rothko at 12:56 PM on October 10, 2005
realnamers are pretty much confined to Rothko,
How is calling Rothko "Alex" any different than calling Konolia "Bunny"? I have no idea if it's his real first name or not.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2005
How is calling Rothko "Alex" any different than calling Konolia "Bunny"? I have no idea if it's his real first name or not.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2005
Don't be a dick, Alex
posted by George W. Bush at 12:43 PM PST on October 10 [!]
And don't be a sad, pathetic loser, quonsar, sending people insulting emails personally just to get your fucking rocks off.
posted by Rothko at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 12:43 PM PST on October 10 [!]
And don't be a sad, pathetic loser, quonsar, sending people insulting emails personally just to get your fucking rocks off.
posted by Rothko at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2005
"With all respect, don't play semantical games and think you're being clever." seems rather dick-ish to me. I dunno... maybe I misread?
posted by Stauf at 12:55 PM PST on October 10 [!]
What part of "with all respect" do you not want to understand, simply because I said it?
posted by Rothko at 1:00 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Stauf at 12:55 PM PST on October 10 [!]
What part of "with all respect" do you not want to understand, simply because I said it?
posted by Rothko at 1:00 PM on October 10, 2005
What part of "Don't be a dick" do you not want to understand, just because everybody says it?
posted by George W. Bush at 1:05 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 1:05 PM on October 10, 2005
Tell you what, Godquonsar, write it up in another one of your charming emails and I'll take it under advisement.
posted by Rothko at 1:06 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 1:06 PM on October 10, 2005
AlexReynolds is called AlexReynolds instead of Rothko because that was his username. It has nothing to do with the fact that his name is, in fact, Alex Reynolds. Thus, if his previous username had been emo_niggler before he changed it to Rothko, people would be referring to him as emo_niggler or emo instead of AlexReynolds or Alex.
It is clear that it is the convention here to refer to people by their username. It is not the convention to refer to people by their real life name for the purpose of calling me their real life name. That being said, if you make your username your real life name then (surprise, surprise!) people will call you your real life name. What else could they do?
This whole argument seems rather jejune.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on October 10, 2005
It is clear that it is the convention here to refer to people by their username. It is not the convention to refer to people by their real life name for the purpose of calling me their real life name. That being said, if you make your username your real life name then (surprise, surprise!) people will call you your real life name. What else could they do?
This whole argument seems rather jejune.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on October 10, 2005
Is Rothko actually a shared #mefi / #tapes sockpuppet used to inject dadaist humor into boring, routine MeTa callouts?
I'm just wondering, 'cause sometimes it seems that's the only possible explanation.
posted by dersins at 1:07 PM on October 10, 2005
I'm just wondering, 'cause sometimes it seems that's the only possible explanation.
posted by dersins at 1:07 PM on October 10, 2005
"Kettle is a sockpuppet.
posted by Pot at 12:45 PM PST on October 10 [!]
POT IS SHRILL AND UNFUNNY!
posted by Kettle at 12:46 PM PST on October 10 [!]"
It's exactly this sort of exchange that makes me upset that reading MeTa is free, because I can't use the occasion to say "HAHAHAHAHA, IT WAS WORTH FIVE BUCKS TO READ THAT".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:07 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Pot at 12:45 PM PST on October 10 [!]
POT IS SHRILL AND UNFUNNY!
posted by Kettle at 12:46 PM PST on October 10 [!]"
It's exactly this sort of exchange that makes me upset that reading MeTa is free, because I can't use the occasion to say "HAHAHAHAHA, IT WAS WORTH FIVE BUCKS TO READ THAT".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:07 PM on October 10, 2005
It is not the convention to refer to people by their real life name for the purpose of calling me their real life name.
I'll try to refrain from calling you their real life name.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:08 PM on October 10, 2005
I'll try to refrain from calling you their real life name.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:08 PM on October 10, 2005
What part of "with all respect" do you not want to understand, simply because I said it?
posted by Rothko at 1:00 PM PST on October 10
"Semantical games"... Oh the irony...
Was bugbread trying to be clever or something? Semantical games? I totally missed that... Really, you're being overly confrontational/aggressive Rothko.
posted by Stauf at 1:10 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 1:00 PM PST on October 10
"Semantical games"... Oh the irony...
Was bugbread trying to be clever or something? Semantical games? I totally missed that... Really, you're being overly confrontational/aggressive Rothko.
posted by Stauf at 1:10 PM on October 10, 2005
Kettle is a sockpuppet.
posted by Pot at 12:45 PM PST on October 10 [!]
POT IS SHRILL AND UNFUNNY!
posted by Kettle at 12:46 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Somebody spent $10 for that.
posted by jefbla at 1:12 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Pot at 12:45 PM PST on October 10 [!]
POT IS SHRILL AND UNFUNNY!
posted by Kettle at 12:46 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Somebody spent $10 for that.
posted by jefbla at 1:12 PM on October 10, 2005
Hmm. Can't decide whether to spend this $5.00 on "jejune," "semantical games," or "their real life name?"
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 1:12 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 1:12 PM on October 10, 2005
Y2k's latest post has ensued in a well, shitfest, and it scares me that we can be so mean to each other, We accuse each other for having an opinon and backing it up with more ridicule Its supposed to be a "community" working together to find the best of the web, like Matt dreamed siz years ago, instead "does anybody read the comments down here?" has turned into "MeFi members are hyprocrytes." I beg all of you to get over your foolish pride and start having reasonable disccusions. I know I should have said more inside but everybody should read this, its for your own good.
Just in case anyone was wondering what this MeTa was originally about...
Are you folks trying to prove that Aaron from Mpls is right?
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:14 PM on October 10, 2005
Just in case anyone was wondering what this MeTa was originally about...
Are you folks trying to prove that Aaron from Mpls is right?
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:14 PM on October 10, 2005
Oh Dios, you're simply too much of a hypocrite to speak on this topic:
The complaint against Dreier is obvious. Some of the people here think that all other gay people must think alike. It is intellectual fascism. The assumption being that unless Dreier supports all the policies that the Alex Reynolds of the world support, then he must be a hypocrite or hate gays. That argument is bad form and it smacks of demonization of someone who doesn't follow the party line. Dreier may well be an apostate, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. So tone down the rhetoric.
posted by dios at 5:45 PM EST on September 28 [!]
Fucking hypocrite.
posted by Rothko at 1:15 PM on October 10, 2005
The complaint against Dreier is obvious. Some of the people here think that all other gay people must think alike. It is intellectual fascism. The assumption being that unless Dreier supports all the policies that the Alex Reynolds of the world support, then he must be a hypocrite or hate gays. That argument is bad form and it smacks of demonization of someone who doesn't follow the party line. Dreier may well be an apostate, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. So tone down the rhetoric.
posted by dios at 5:45 PM EST on September 28 [!]
Fucking hypocrite.
posted by Rothko at 1:15 PM on October 10, 2005
Thing is, Wheelie, MeFi is not a community in any meaningful sense of the word. It may label itself as a community, but it isn't. I can look at a tree and call it a plastic fork, but that doesn't make it so.
Well, maybe I'm just doing my "view the past through rose colored glasses" trick, but once upon a time, MeFi actually was a community. But, it was a much smaller place then, and everyone pretty much knew all the major players. Sure, there were still squabbles, it's not like it was all Peace and Love and Bong hits for everyone, but it was nowhere near the acrimonious, venom-filled threads we see now.
You kids today. We just can't have anything nice if you keep behaving like that.
Seriously, I don't know what changed. I mean, I have my opinion, but I don't have facts. I do know that at some stage, we stopped being friendly, and started being adversarial, and I surely wish I knew a way to fix that.
I miss the old MetaFilter. I miss the old timers that have wandered away. I miss the brilliant finds, the stimulating posts, the researched links. There used to be very little newsfilter. Any of you guys remember Miguel, and his amazing posts? That, my friends, that was often the best of the web. Matteo still does that sort of post, y2karl does that sort of post... a handful of others still do those amazingly researched, "connections" type of posts.
But the rest, often...it's like unedited Plastic, or in worse cases, like a poorly written Fark without the boobies tags.
We can be a community, if we leave the bullshit at the door, and go back to trying to outdo one another with our astounding abilities to find, create, and document connections, places, things, people. I'm not suggesting that every post has to be a Proustian masterpiece, but I'd like to suggest that if you think something has to be posted immediately, so you can beat someone else to the punch...it probably doesn't need to be posted here at all. If it's a race to get the content on the page, then everyone will have that same content: CNN, Yahoo, Google News, BBC, ad infinitum.
We are not (most of us) journalists, and this is not the AP Wire. Get back to context, content, depth. Let yourself show through your work, your words, your passion. That is how we form a good site, and a caring community.
posted by dejah420 at 1:18 PM on October 10, 2005
Well, maybe I'm just doing my "view the past through rose colored glasses" trick, but once upon a time, MeFi actually was a community. But, it was a much smaller place then, and everyone pretty much knew all the major players. Sure, there were still squabbles, it's not like it was all Peace and Love and Bong hits for everyone, but it was nowhere near the acrimonious, venom-filled threads we see now.
You kids today. We just can't have anything nice if you keep behaving like that.
Seriously, I don't know what changed. I mean, I have my opinion, but I don't have facts. I do know that at some stage, we stopped being friendly, and started being adversarial, and I surely wish I knew a way to fix that.
I miss the old MetaFilter. I miss the old timers that have wandered away. I miss the brilliant finds, the stimulating posts, the researched links. There used to be very little newsfilter. Any of you guys remember Miguel, and his amazing posts? That, my friends, that was often the best of the web. Matteo still does that sort of post, y2karl does that sort of post... a handful of others still do those amazingly researched, "connections" type of posts.
But the rest, often...it's like unedited Plastic, or in worse cases, like a poorly written Fark without the boobies tags.
We can be a community, if we leave the bullshit at the door, and go back to trying to outdo one another with our astounding abilities to find, create, and document connections, places, things, people. I'm not suggesting that every post has to be a Proustian masterpiece, but I'd like to suggest that if you think something has to be posted immediately, so you can beat someone else to the punch...it probably doesn't need to be posted here at all. If it's a race to get the content on the page, then everyone will have that same content: CNN, Yahoo, Google News, BBC, ad infinitum.
We are not (most of us) journalists, and this is not the AP Wire. Get back to context, content, depth. Let yourself show through your work, your words, your passion. That is how we form a good site, and a caring community.
posted by dejah420 at 1:18 PM on October 10, 2005
Someone needs a time-out.
posted by dhoyt at 1:12 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Yeah, someone's sock puppet did need a time-out. That was the fourth in a series of really tiresome and cowardly comments that week coming from complete strangers for no reason at all.
posted by Rothko at 1:19 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 1:12 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Yeah, someone's sock puppet did need a time-out. That was the fourth in a series of really tiresome and cowardly comments that week coming from complete strangers for no reason at all.
posted by Rothko at 1:19 PM on October 10, 2005
Thanks for the reset bob.
I found y2karl's comment more odd than offensive. Lamenting the acceptability of demonizing The Other when The Other is Muslims on this website seems rather odd given the frequency (and acceptablity) of the demonization of The Other when The Other is Christians (as It's Raining Florence Henderson noted up thread). If we are looking for inconsistency and a need for decorum, one could look at that.
posted by dios at 1:20 PM on October 10, 2005
I found y2karl's comment more odd than offensive. Lamenting the acceptability of demonizing The Other when The Other is Muslims on this website seems rather odd given the frequency (and acceptablity) of the demonization of The Other when The Other is Christians (as It's Raining Florence Henderson noted up thread). If we are looking for inconsistency and a need for decorum, one could look at that.
posted by dios at 1:20 PM on October 10, 2005
If it's supposed to be a convention, then it isn't followed.
Especially not in your case and especially by dhoyt--with this I will agree. It seems obviously a taunt when he does it with you--getting a little dig in. It's been an obsession for him.
I wonder, too, when he randomly throws in a crack about the gays in a thread in which you participate--especially since he usually puts the gay members at the top of his shit list and brings their names up in a threads in which no one listed has yet said a thing. Little digs at you by your former handle and then the occasional crack about teh gays--it's like he's getting a little lick in on you personally on one hand and that he really does have a thing about gays on another and the recurrent all-gay shit list-- that sort of thing just stands out to me as a recurrent theme at times. I have had my run ins with him in the past so maybe my filter is set to see these things but the repetition puts a dent in the giving the benefit of the doubt position. I can't read his mind but I will tell you this--I assume it's a tacit fuck you when he calls you out by name and I assume it's little shot across the bows when he made a crack like that drama queen dig at digaman. Vendettas--you have them, too: coughdioscough--and repeated little button pushing fuck yous in calling you repeatedly by your first name are one thing. Little button pushing fuck yous about drama queens made in the direction of yet another gay member is another. That pushes personal insult uphill towards gay baiting in general. I don't like the idea of that at all. That should not be cool.
Upon review: well, I've been away from the fray, I see. Ah, well. Rothko, your kneejerk tendency to respond to each and every remark people on your shit list make does not serve you well. People will just keep poking--especially those with a hard on over you. It's boring for everyone else, though.
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2005
Especially not in your case and especially by dhoyt--with this I will agree. It seems obviously a taunt when he does it with you--getting a little dig in. It's been an obsession for him.
I wonder, too, when he randomly throws in a crack about the gays in a thread in which you participate--especially since he usually puts the gay members at the top of his shit list and brings their names up in a threads in which no one listed has yet said a thing. Little digs at you by your former handle and then the occasional crack about teh gays--it's like he's getting a little lick in on you personally on one hand and that he really does have a thing about gays on another and the recurrent all-gay shit list-- that sort of thing just stands out to me as a recurrent theme at times. I have had my run ins with him in the past so maybe my filter is set to see these things but the repetition puts a dent in the giving the benefit of the doubt position. I can't read his mind but I will tell you this--I assume it's a tacit fuck you when he calls you out by name and I assume it's little shot across the bows when he made a crack like that drama queen dig at digaman. Vendettas--you have them, too: coughdioscough--and repeated little button pushing fuck yous in calling you repeatedly by your first name are one thing. Little button pushing fuck yous about drama queens made in the direction of yet another gay member is another. That pushes personal insult uphill towards gay baiting in general. I don't like the idea of that at all. That should not be cool.
Upon review: well, I've been away from the fray, I see. Ah, well. Rothko, your kneejerk tendency to respond to each and every remark people on your shit list make does not serve you well. People will just keep poking--especially those with a hard on over you. It's boring for everyone else, though.
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2005
Matteo still does that sort of post,
posted by dejah420 at 1:18 PM PST on October 10
I agree that often matteo makes excellents posts. It makes it all the more incongruous when you see posts like he made today or when you compare his excellent posts to his behavior within political threads, which is as often as atrocious as it gets.
Seriously, I don't know what changed.
I can't say, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with your prior acknowledgement:
But, it was a much smaller place then.
posted by dios at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by dejah420 at 1:18 PM PST on October 10
I agree that often matteo makes excellents posts. It makes it all the more incongruous when you see posts like he made today or when you compare his excellent posts to his behavior within political threads, which is as often as atrocious as it gets.
Seriously, I don't know what changed.
I can't say, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with your prior acknowledgement:
But, it was a much smaller place then.
posted by dios at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2005
Jesus Christ. Rothko, if you don't want people to use your real name, then don't make it your original moniker.
posted by Falconetti at 1:32 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Falconetti at 1:32 PM on October 10, 2005
it's your own little white flag that you wave frantically whenever you lose an argument.
yeah, I lose arguments because arguing with me is pointless - only my own body parts, unexpectedly separated from each other by terrorist explosives, can ever serve to shake my hypocrisy. At least if I cared enough to ever act in support of my militant bullshit. By then, however, it will be too late - and another raving hippie will take my place to disrespect *my* corpse by hoisting it up on the battlements of his political agenda.
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 1:32 PM on October 10, 2005
yeah, I lose arguments because arguing with me is pointless - only my own body parts, unexpectedly separated from each other by terrorist explosives, can ever serve to shake my hypocrisy. At least if I cared enough to ever act in support of my militant bullshit. By then, however, it will be too late - and another raving hippie will take my place to disrespect *my* corpse by hoisting it up on the battlements of his political agenda.
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 1:32 PM on October 10, 2005
Your posting research seems a little......obsessive, karl. I mean get a life, will you?
posted by dhoyt at 1:34 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by dhoyt at 1:34 PM on October 10, 2005
Well, cortex and bugbread, dhoyt and dios are two more who have demonstrated in this thread that they're happy to break the apparently unwritten, community-established "convention" about not using names. So do you need more examples or are you going to spew more semantical logorrhea?
posted by Rothko at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2005
All I expect, really, from this site is nothing but callouts and demagogues.
posted by Falconetti at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Falconetti at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2005
"YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE! AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!!!"
posted by scarabic at 1:43 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by scarabic at 1:43 PM on October 10, 2005
posts like he made today or
what, you don't like Stephen Baldwin? or do you have a problem with Christian fundys?
;)
I don't know, the community seems to enjoy that thread quite a bit. it sparked a discussion and all that. guidelines, you know.
also, we don't live of all Furtwängler 24/7, thank God. but there's a Beethoven post in the works for tomorrow, if you didn't enjoy the Baldwin thing.
to his behavior within political threads, which is as often as atrocious as it gets.
yeah, I'm not nearly as polite as you rightwing guys, you're right. I'll try to scream more in all caps.
just to be clear, I care about your opinion re: my posts exactly as much as I care about your opinion re: my politics, which is not much. well, less than not much, but whatever. since we're doing reviews, for what it's worth (which is nothing, of course) I don't like neither your posts nor your ideas, dios. but I'm occasionally touched by the Bush love against all enemies, there's a strange kamikaze pride in the way you crash yourself into reality. I just hope you're not serious and you just do it to piss off the evil MeFi liberals. but again, I don't care either way.
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on October 10, 2005
what, you don't like Stephen Baldwin? or do you have a problem with Christian fundys?
;)
I don't know, the community seems to enjoy that thread quite a bit. it sparked a discussion and all that. guidelines, you know.
also, we don't live of all Furtwängler 24/7, thank God. but there's a Beethoven post in the works for tomorrow, if you didn't enjoy the Baldwin thing.
to his behavior within political threads, which is as often as atrocious as it gets.
yeah, I'm not nearly as polite as you rightwing guys, you're right. I'll try to scream more in all caps.
just to be clear, I care about your opinion re: my posts exactly as much as I care about your opinion re: my politics, which is not much. well, less than not much, but whatever. since we're doing reviews, for what it's worth (which is nothing, of course) I don't like neither your posts nor your ideas, dios. but I'm occasionally touched by the Bush love against all enemies, there's a strange kamikaze pride in the way you crash yourself into reality. I just hope you're not serious and you just do it to piss off the evil MeFi liberals. but again, I don't care either way.
posted by matteo at 1:45 PM on October 10, 2005
*throws bucket of water on combatants*
Guys, will you chill? I can't even keep straight who is who, who did/said what, etc. Which to me means it probably doesn't matter.
Go get some coffee or something. I promise the Internet will be here when you get back.
posted by konolia at 1:47 PM on October 10, 2005
Guys, will you chill? I can't even keep straight who is who, who did/said what, etc. Which to me means it probably doesn't matter.
Go get some coffee or something. I promise the Internet will be here when you get back.
posted by konolia at 1:47 PM on October 10, 2005
If Kettle were wound any tighter, he would move backwards through time. Which would probably suit him just fine, since he can't seem to move on from the past.
posted by Pot at 1:48 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Pot at 1:48 PM on October 10, 2005
Pot just can't ever let it rest, can he? I think he has an unhealthy obsession with me.
posted by Kettle at 1:49 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Kettle at 1:49 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko, the question was about additional users whose names are used, not users who use another's name.
You are a very special case -- you name was your original handle, and you are by MeFi standards pretty goddam famous, for whatever that is worth. I strongly suspect your stated issue with people using others' non-handle names is actually an issue with people using your former-handle name.
I was hoping you would answer bugbread's query -- are there significantly more users than have been mentioned who also have their non-handle name invoked with any frequency?
And, to answer your question early on the assumption that you were being straightforward: starting a statement with "With all due respect" connotes absolutely zero respect when the following statement is not respectful. It's not a magical wand. It doesn't make snark go away, and it does not bolster the integrity of an otherwise nasty response.
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
You are a very special case -- you name was your original handle, and you are by MeFi standards pretty goddam famous, for whatever that is worth. I strongly suspect your stated issue with people using others' non-handle names is actually an issue with people using your former-handle name.
I was hoping you would answer bugbread's query -- are there significantly more users than have been mentioned who also have their non-handle name invoked with any frequency?
And, to answer your question early on the assumption that you were being straightforward: starting a statement with "With all due respect" connotes absolutely zero respect when the following statement is not respectful. It's not a magical wand. It doesn't make snark go away, and it does not bolster the integrity of an otherwise nasty response.
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM on October 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
I simply don't care. I don't care about you, about your tone, about your comments
just to be clear, I care about your opinion re: my posts exactly as much as I care about your opinion re: my politics, which is not much. well, less than not much, but whatever.
Most Unconvincing Faux-Blasé Attitude Ever.
"I don't care, but don't get me wrong, I'll argue about it til the end of time and respond to every comment in every thread you're in. I'll ramp up the hyperbole and focus tightly on your comments and call you every name in the book. But make no mistake: I sooooo don't care about you."
What a phony. How about you tell us some trumped up fantasies about how you're from a long line of Fascism resistance and how'd totally pop a cap in some Fascist ass if Mussolini's ghost were to, like, come through your window one night. At least those drunken flights of fancy were entertaining.
posted by dhoyt at 1:58 PM on October 10, 2005
just to be clear, I care about your opinion re: my posts exactly as much as I care about your opinion re: my politics, which is not much. well, less than not much, but whatever.
Most Unconvincing Faux-Blasé Attitude Ever.
"I don't care, but don't get me wrong, I'll argue about it til the end of time and respond to every comment in every thread you're in. I'll ramp up the hyperbole and focus tightly on your comments and call you every name in the book. But make no mistake: I sooooo don't care about you."
What a phony. How about you tell us some trumped up fantasies about how you're from a long line of Fascism resistance and how'd totally pop a cap in some Fascist ass if Mussolini's ghost were to, like, come through your window one night. At least those drunken flights of fancy were entertaining.
posted by dhoyt at 1:58 PM on October 10, 2005
no, my family was in the Resistenza, that's a proven fact. what about yours?
posted by matteo at 2:05 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by matteo at 2:05 PM on October 10, 2005
but then, some of us still take pride in anti-Fascism. I know it flies over your head.
posted by matteo at 2:06 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by matteo at 2:06 PM on October 10, 2005
dhoyt's family were in the French Tickler Resistence?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:07 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:07 PM on October 10, 2005
And, to answer your question early on the assumption that you were being straightforward: starting a statement with "With all due respect" connotes absolutely zero respect when the following statement is not respectful.
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Your opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I think your question (and bugbread's) is using semantics to be deliberately disingenious. It doesn't matter at all how many people it is done to, and even if it did matter, it apparently happens a lot as you've see above.
The point you can't argue with is that it is done, and when it is done it is often done out of spite. If there's unwritten convention here, few really bother to follow the "rules" when it is convenient to get those kicks in.
So instead you and bugbread find it necessary to invent some imaginary semantical constraint, as if it really matters. To be frank, the deliberately dishonest tone of your question makes it a disrespectful and nasty response.
posted by Rothko at 2:07 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Your opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I think your question (and bugbread's) is using semantics to be deliberately disingenious. It doesn't matter at all how many people it is done to, and even if it did matter, it apparently happens a lot as you've see above.
The point you can't argue with is that it is done, and when it is done it is often done out of spite. If there's unwritten convention here, few really bother to follow the "rules" when it is convenient to get those kicks in.
So instead you and bugbread find it necessary to invent some imaginary semantical constraint, as if it really matters. To be frank, the deliberately dishonest tone of your question makes it a disrespectful and nasty response.
posted by Rothko at 2:07 PM on October 10, 2005
Christ. Could reading the original post and then the "conversation" that has followed be any more depressing?
posted by Stunt at 2:11 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Stunt at 2:11 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko, I don't know who you are, don't know why your other name is known, don't think it matters-but dang, I'm handing over the Bunnyfire crown to you. You've earned it.
posted by konolia at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by konolia at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko : "Well, cortex and bugbread, dhoyt and dios are two more who have demonstrated in this thread that they're happy to break the apparently unwritten, community-established 'convention' about not using names. So do you need more examples or are you going to spew more semantical logorrhea?"
Uh, you stated something. I asked for examples. What the fuck makes that "semantical logorrhea"?
A: "There are a lot of types of trees in this forest."
B: "What types are there?"
A: "Firs, for one. Are you going to spew more semantical logorrhea?"
Dude, I'm just asking a simple, straightforward question. I don't even know what semantics I'm apparently going on about. "Thing A is common." "What are some examples of Thing A?" how is this a semantics question?
Anyway, if you really want to get into semantics, my question was "Who gets called by their real names?" You said dhoyt and dios call others by their real names. That wasn't my question. Making answers match questions isn't a matter of semantics, otherwise we'd spend all day with exchanges like:
A: "Welcome to McDonald's. What is your order?"
B: "My mom went to the grocery store."
A: "Would you like fries with that?"
B: "The man next to me would like fries with his meal."
Making sense ? semantic squabbling.
Anyway, let's start over. The question that follows this has no semantics, no hidden meanings, no layers beyond layers, no submeanings, no anything... It's just a question that means nothing else besides the words in it. Consider it to be independent of anything anyone has ever said, so that it is free of all possible semantical connections. Imagine that it was uttered 2 months ago, out of the blue, on AskMe. Imagine that it was posted in a universe where this thread never existed. It is free of all connections to all other discussions. It is alone in nirvana, and it just wants answers that directly answer it, not answers to other related questions or answers to other semantical similarities. It is pure.
The Zen Question: Who else, besides Rothko, EB, Jonmc, and maybe Decani, get called by their real names?
posted by Bugbread at 2:17 PM on October 10, 2005
Uh, you stated something. I asked for examples. What the fuck makes that "semantical logorrhea"?
A: "There are a lot of types of trees in this forest."
B: "What types are there?"
A: "Firs, for one. Are you going to spew more semantical logorrhea?"
Dude, I'm just asking a simple, straightforward question. I don't even know what semantics I'm apparently going on about. "Thing A is common." "What are some examples of Thing A?" how is this a semantics question?
Anyway, if you really want to get into semantics, my question was "Who gets called by their real names?" You said dhoyt and dios call others by their real names. That wasn't my question. Making answers match questions isn't a matter of semantics, otherwise we'd spend all day with exchanges like:
A: "Welcome to McDonald's. What is your order?"
B: "My mom went to the grocery store."
A: "Would you like fries with that?"
B: "The man next to me would like fries with his meal."
Making sense ? semantic squabbling.
Anyway, let's start over. The question that follows this has no semantics, no hidden meanings, no layers beyond layers, no submeanings, no anything... It's just a question that means nothing else besides the words in it. Consider it to be independent of anything anyone has ever said, so that it is free of all possible semantical connections. Imagine that it was uttered 2 months ago, out of the blue, on AskMe. Imagine that it was posted in a universe where this thread never existed. It is free of all connections to all other discussions. It is alone in nirvana, and it just wants answers that directly answer it, not answers to other related questions or answers to other semantical similarities. It is pure.
The Zen Question: Who else, besides Rothko, EB, Jonmc, and maybe Decani, get called by their real names?
posted by Bugbread at 2:17 PM on October 10, 2005
konolia, you can't hand over the crown by yourself. that's like a retard calling someone a moron! it has to be done by someone else.
posted by angry modem at 2:18 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by angry modem at 2:18 PM on October 10, 2005
Konolia, with all due respect, I don't know what your Bunnyfire crown is, nor am I all that interested. No disrespect intended, really. My point is aimed squarely at the people who behave that way: those people know precisely who they are and why they keep doing it.
posted by Rothko at 2:19 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Rothko at 2:19 PM on October 10, 2005
Cuz yer bein' a dick?
posted by George W. Bush at 2:20 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 2:20 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko : "To be frank, the deliberately dishonest tone of your question makes it a disrespectful and nasty response."
AAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was just a fucking QUESTION!!!!! The "tone" of my question?! What the hell?! It was just a straightforward question!!!! It meant nothing more than the words in it!!! Nothing!!! Just. What. It. Said. I wanted some evidence before I chose to either agree or disagree with your statement that it happened all the time. If a few more names came up, I'd probably agree. If no more names came up, I'd probably disagree. I hadn't even reached to point of having an opinion on the subject, and now I'm being "deliberately dishonest" for trying to get enough information to have an opinion!
It feels like this all the time in Mefi (this part isn't directed at you, Rothko, it's a general statement): if you don't have a very strong opinion, you suck. If you want a bit more evidence before making up your mind, you suck. The only people who count are people who already know everything and neither need nor want evidence before deciding. And the only person worse than someone who disagrees with you is someone who changes their opinion on a subject.
/rant
I feel like a guy being interrogated for saying something innocuous that the police think is a code word for a criminal activity.
posted by Bugbread at 2:23 PM on October 10, 2005
AAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was just a fucking QUESTION!!!!! The "tone" of my question?! What the hell?! It was just a straightforward question!!!! It meant nothing more than the words in it!!! Nothing!!! Just. What. It. Said. I wanted some evidence before I chose to either agree or disagree with your statement that it happened all the time. If a few more names came up, I'd probably agree. If no more names came up, I'd probably disagree. I hadn't even reached to point of having an opinion on the subject, and now I'm being "deliberately dishonest" for trying to get enough information to have an opinion!
It feels like this all the time in Mefi (this part isn't directed at you, Rothko, it's a general statement): if you don't have a very strong opinion, you suck. If you want a bit more evidence before making up your mind, you suck. The only people who count are people who already know everything and neither need nor want evidence before deciding. And the only person worse than someone who disagrees with you is someone who changes their opinion on a subject.
/rant
I feel like a guy being interrogated for saying something innocuous that the police think is a code word for a criminal activity.
posted by Bugbread at 2:23 PM on October 10, 2005
Bugbread, your question is complete bullshit, because:
"If not addressing people by their real-life names is supposed to be a "convention" here, this place is Hypocrite HQ."
Does not equal:
"There are a lot of types of trees in this forest."
I know you just have to disagree with me for disagreement's sake, but I'm finally calling bullshit on your wild, semantical reinventions of everything that I say. Enough already.
posted by Rothko at 2:23 PM on October 10, 2005
"If not addressing people by their real-life names is supposed to be a "convention" here, this place is Hypocrite HQ."
Does not equal:
"There are a lot of types of trees in this forest."
I know you just have to disagree with me for disagreement's sake, but I'm finally calling bullshit on your wild, semantical reinventions of everything that I say. Enough already.
posted by Rothko at 2:23 PM on October 10, 2005
I'll take "dick" for $500, Alex.
posted by George W. Bush at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2005
Rothko : "If not addressing people by their real-life names is supposed to be a 'convention' here, this place is Hypocrite HQ."
Huh? I didn't say that.
Rothko : "I know you just have to disagree with me for disagreement's sake, but I'm finally calling bullshit on your wild, semantical reinventions of everything that I say."
I. AM. NOT. DISAGREEING. WITH. YOU.
I. AM. TRYING. TO. GET. ENOUGH. INFORMATION. TO. FORM. AN. OPINION.
posted by Bugbread at 2:26 PM on October 10, 2005
Huh? I didn't say that.
Rothko : "I know you just have to disagree with me for disagreement's sake, but I'm finally calling bullshit on your wild, semantical reinventions of everything that I say."
I. AM. NOT. DISAGREEING. WITH. YOU.
I. AM. TRYING. TO. GET. ENOUGH. INFORMATION. TO. FORM. AN. OPINION.
posted by Bugbread at 2:26 PM on October 10, 2005
Angrymodem, you are welcome to do the presentation. ;-)
posted by konolia at 2:27 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by konolia at 2:27 PM on October 10, 2005
Cuz yer bein' a dick?
posted by George W. Bush at 2:20 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Awesome. That's the third or fourth time you've said it, quonsar, and since my old account was given a time-out for much, much less, I'm certain that management will do the fair and right thing and give you the vacation you have so rightly earned.
posted by Rothko at 2:28 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 2:20 PM PST on October 10 [!]
Awesome. That's the third or fourth time you've said it, quonsar, and since my old account was given a time-out for much, much less, I'm certain that management will do the fair and right thing and give you the vacation you have so rightly earned.
posted by Rothko at 2:28 PM on October 10, 2005
I'm surprised it took me this long to "get" MeCha and Monkeyfilter.
posted by bardic at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by bardic at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2005
My Vice President is also a Dick, Alex.
posted by George W. Bush at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2005
The answer is that it never happens on a regular basis, with the obvious exception of those whose real names are part of their monikers or once were part of their monikers. When it does happen, people get upset because their anonymity is being breached against their will. Anyone who puts their real name in their moniker has forsaken the right to get mad if people know their real name.
posted by Falconetti at 2:30 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by Falconetti at 2:30 PM on October 10, 2005
Huh? I didn't say that...
I. AM. TRYING. TO. GET. ENOUGH. INFORMATION. TO. FORM. AN. OPINION.
posted by bugbread at 2:26 PM PST on October 10 [!]
So what's worse, bugbread, reinventing what I said into something completely different, or NOT. EVEN. CARING. TO. KNOW. WHAT. I. SAID. BEFORE. REINVENTING. WHAT. I. SAID? Disgusting and dishonest.
posted by Rothko at 2:33 PM on October 10, 2005
I. AM. TRYING. TO. GET. ENOUGH. INFORMATION. TO. FORM. AN. OPINION.
posted by bugbread at 2:26 PM PST on October 10 [!]
So what's worse, bugbread, reinventing what I said into something completely different, or NOT. EVEN. CARING. TO. KNOW. WHAT. I. SAID. BEFORE. REINVENTING. WHAT. I. SAID? Disgusting and dishonest.
posted by Rothko at 2:33 PM on October 10, 2005
I'm surprised it took me this long to "get" MeCha and Monkeyfilter.
All depends on how you look at it (.wav), my friend ;)
posted by dhoyt at 2:33 PM on October 10, 2005
All depends on how you look at it (.wav), my friend ;)
posted by dhoyt at 2:33 PM on October 10, 2005
Your posting research seems a little......obsessive, karl. I mean get a life, will you?
No research needed--I remembered two things you wrote in the last couple of months, dhoyt. You have a thing about insultingly calling people out by name--towards Rothko, for the most part--and making insultingly sly digs about gays--towards Rothko, for the most part, but towards digaman, too, as in the example provided. You bring gay members up by name in threads in which they have not made a comment. These things tend to stand out.
This whole tendency you seem to have for taking digs at gay members over their being gay is something I have never addressed before this. I did so here in hopes that it might make you tone them down. At least for awhile.
For all your protestations--as in when you made a whole post about it here--about not being homophobic, you sure like to go out of your way to push those buttons with the self-identiifed gay members. In accumulation, they make for creepy things to read and do your reputation no service.
Let's review. You like to call people names. That is frowned upon here. You like to call people by their first name--that is frowned upon here as well. In fact, you insist on calling people by their first name, quite often to get a little dig in, even though you know this is frowned upon. What makes your taking little digs by first naming people even wierder is that you don't seem to give your own real world name. So what is up with that ? Insults and proper tems of address--evidently those are the rules for the undermen.. but not you. It seems a little... sociopathic.
Nothing obsessive about my noting it here--it's what Metatalk is for, after all: self-policing.
posted by y2karl at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2005
No research needed--I remembered two things you wrote in the last couple of months, dhoyt. You have a thing about insultingly calling people out by name--towards Rothko, for the most part--and making insultingly sly digs about gays--towards Rothko, for the most part, but towards digaman, too, as in the example provided. You bring gay members up by name in threads in which they have not made a comment. These things tend to stand out.
This whole tendency you seem to have for taking digs at gay members over their being gay is something I have never addressed before this. I did so here in hopes that it might make you tone them down. At least for awhile.
For all your protestations--as in when you made a whole post about it here--about not being homophobic, you sure like to go out of your way to push those buttons with the self-identiifed gay members. In accumulation, they make for creepy things to read and do your reputation no service.
Let's review. You like to call people names. That is frowned upon here. You like to call people by their first name--that is frowned upon here as well. In fact, you insist on calling people by their first name, quite often to get a little dig in, even though you know this is frowned upon. What makes your taking little digs by first naming people even wierder is that you don't seem to give your own real world name. So what is up with that ? Insults and proper tems of address--evidently those are the rules for the undermen.. but not you. It seems a little... sociopathic.
Nothing obsessive about my noting it here--it's what Metatalk is for, after all: self-policing.
posted by y2karl at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2005
PEOPLE ARE DISGUSTING AND DISHONEST! EXCEPT ALEX! FILM AT ELEVEN!
posted by George W. Bush at 2:38 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 2:38 PM on October 10, 2005
I'm closing this thread in the name of mathowie's birthday
posted by jessamyn at 2:39 PM on October 10, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 2:39 PM on October 10, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by wheelieman at 6:21 AM on October 10, 2005