Flamebait that says it's flamebait? October 16, 2001 12:25 AM   Subscribe

Flamebait that says it's flamebait? We can debate an issue, but this seems much.
posted by owillis to Etiquette/Policy at 12:25 AM (37 comments total)

But you were drawn to it, 'moth'owillis.
posted by dness2 at 12:43 AM on October 16, 2001

You beat me to it Oliverce. Just coming here to uh. . .


Meet you here in fact--
posted by crasspastor at 12:45 AM on October 16, 2001

Sorry, I was delayed by having to get the kids breakfast. Not flamebait I assure you. I was just expecting the usual abuse. I will get back to that thread now.
posted by worldsystema at 12:57 AM on October 16, 2001

Well that's reassuring. I exult.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:40 AM on October 16, 2001

It's certainly not a comment that's representative of the feelings of many people here (or perhaps not a comment that's representative of the feelings that many here would be comfortable expressing in a public forum) but I'm not sure it is flamebait.

I find the sentiment expressed in worldsystema's first comment in the thread a bit repugnant to be honest, but I've known some people over the years who probably felt the same way during the events of the 11th, and I don't find it shocking. Misguided, yes, but not shocking.

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:53 AM on October 16, 2001

I give up. It's not flamebaiting and it's not trolling but it's obnoxious and tiresome. Isn't there a word for starting a volatile thread that devolves into the same-old same-old bipolar argument when apparently a rehash of the same-old same-old was what they had in mind anyway? I could use the phrase New World Order in a post about a band and they would start talking about plucky Seattle protesters. It's cliche-ing!
posted by dness2 at 3:14 AM on October 16, 2001

We need a New World Pancake.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 AM on October 16, 2001

Voila - New World Pancakes! Well, more or less.
posted by youhas at 3:48 AM on October 16, 2001

he he. You cheered me up youhas.
posted by dness2 at 3:52 AM on October 16, 2001

There are really people who believe embarrassingly loopy shit like this, you know. Why is his arrogance and hatred any less "legitimate" than those two posts from yesterday from the ultraleft claiming this is all a giant Bush conspiracy and that "The Gun Industry" is to blame for Bin Laden. Their statements are just as laughable as worldststema's, but nobody's questioning whether or not they should be able to post them. He just said "flame away" because he knows his viewpoint is shared by almost nobody else in the free world.

Let the guy post, as long as he seems honest about it. I'm sure the responses to such statements will be more than sufficient to take care of it.
posted by aaron at 5:54 AM on October 16, 2001

Scarecrows' convention time already?
posted by holgate at 6:03 AM on October 16, 2001

Even with my limited experience of Mefi I think I've been proved right about expecting abuse.

Aaron: Which bit of "embarrassingly loopy shit" are you referring to? And where have I expressed arrogance or hatred?
posted by worldsystema at 7:19 AM on October 16, 2001

Maybe you didn't mean hatred by it, worldsystema, and maybe it didn't sound arrogant to you but:

...my first reaction to watching the attack live on television was exultation. I thought it was a well deserved smack in the face of the new world order that continues to oppress the majority of humanity and ravage the planet.

expresses to this reader some of both, esp. considering it came without further context. When you say you thought the murder of thousands was worth exulting over, whatever your politics, that shit is pretty loopy.

But aaron was defending your right to say it, yes?
posted by BT at 7:33 AM on October 16, 2001

And where have I expressed arrogance or hatred?

You exulted in mass murder, you worthless piece of shit.
posted by rcade at 7:43 AM on October 16, 2001

BT: My apologies to all. You are right. The lack of context is the problem. I've been giving this a great deal of thought none of which is visible on screen.

I am also finding the Meta and Mefi threads too difficult to deal with together. Can we please take this to the more public Mefi.

Can we please try and reduce the amount of abuse.
posted by worldsystema at 7:49 AM on October 16, 2001

Worldystema: so what was your second reaction? Aren't you confusing "world orders" with actual people? The "world order" might deserve a slap in the face but all those people didn't deserve to die. They aren't pawns in some greater argument. You were misinterpreted because you were careless, OK. But being careless about so many deaths does make you at least have to accept people calling you a worthless piece of shit. At least you're alive.

Also it's obscene how you ask us to reduce the amount of abuse. Did the people who died have the same chance? Ask yourself this, please. Taking it to the "more public Mefi" - are you that desperate for an audience? - was also not am option for the people who died.

So be a man and, when you express yourself, take what's coming to you. It certainly won't hurt.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2001

rcade : No need for that kind of thing.

Miguel's dead wrong in this case - there's no need to call anyone a 'worthless piece of shit' here, no matter how much you find their point of view unacceptable.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:29 AM on October 16, 2001

Miguel: You have not read my second post to that thread.

I think in most cases abuse adds very little to the sum of knowledge. I asked to take it to Mefi as there was more of the actual discussion taking place there and I have just posted another comment there which wil hopefully provide more context.
posted by worldsystema at 9:01 AM on October 16, 2001

I'd like to think I'm sympathetic, at some level, to what worldsystema is feeling, but it seems to me that if you are aware enough of the probably effect of your comment to say "Flame on," and you post it anyway, you really have forfeited the right to complain about "abuse."
posted by rodii at 9:16 AM on October 16, 2001

Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but by 'flame' (and I've closed posts by donning the asbestos suit a few times), I have always understood something less virulent than words that might incline me favorably towards kicking the living shit out of someone if they had said them to my face. Is it not one of our little rules 'round here that those sort of "fightin' words" are to be frowned upon as unworthy?

Maybe that's just me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:27 AM on October 16, 2001

No, no, I completely agree that calling people a worthless piece of shit = bad. I'm just saying if you invite a response, don't be surprised when you get a response.
posted by rodii at 9:34 AM on October 16, 2001

Worldsystema: I despise the Taliban, and have since well before 9/11. This doesn't mean I ENJOY seeing innocent Afghan civilians accidentally catching the business end of US bombs. Now, if you're only intending to aim your comments at the US government in general, that's different. Although, given current circumstances, I don't think that's going to gain you too many supporters here either.
posted by aaron at 9:57 AM on October 16, 2001

The people in Seattle were 90% bored slackers with nothing better to do than cause property damage.

I think this part of your comment owillis from that thread precludes you from judging others' comments in the same thread. Your statement is not truthful and I saw it as insulting bait for an argument.
posted by chrismc at 10:31 AM on October 16, 2001

Abuse? "Worthless piece of shit," is being charitable for that comment. He does go on to explain what he meant, and its considerably less bugfuck, but still...
A very good example of a very poor post. If you're going to say something completely insane, and you realize it's completely insane, maybe you should take the time to explain your position, so you aren't known as the "insane guy."
And I even agree with some of what you're saying, worldsystema, in that thread. But man, nobody is going to take you seriously now.
posted by Doug at 11:22 AM on October 16, 2001

I shouldn't have responded the way I did. I apologize to the community here.

However, I don't think it's any better to engage someone in discussion after he confesses a feeling of triumphant joy while watching 5,600 people die. Does someone like that deserve anything but contempt, regardless of the context in which the love of mass murder is supposed to be understood? Some ideas are simply beyond the pale, and to offer any charity in response is to give respect that is entirely undeserved.
posted by rcade at 12:54 PM on October 16, 2001

"I think in most cases abuse adds very little to the sum of knowledge."

Tough shit asshole. Why don't you pass on your "sum of knowledge" on the WTC attack to the kids of the people murdered?

When you cheer inside as thousands of innocent civilians are murdered, you out yourself as a shallow, callus jerk. When you come to a public forum a month later and repeat that, it only proves that you value symbolic victories for your politics more than you value human life.

As long as you act like pond scum in public, people will treat you like pond scum.

Take your sum of knowledge, fold it till it's all sharp edges, and ram it straight up your cruel, unfeeling ass.

"I've been giving this a great deal of thought none of which is visible on screen."

Then get your shit together before you dump it on the world. If you know it's bullshit then why post it?
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:04 PM on October 16, 2001

Gosh y6y6y6, that's the worst post I have ever seen on MeTa (or MeFi, for that matter)! Nice work there, chief.

So look: by tacking "Flame on" to the end of his post, worldsystema was either trying to do one of two things:

a) Acknowledge, in advance, that he knew that the sentiment he had just expressed was going to cause some people to go apeshit. In which case you confirmed his suspicions spectacularly. Or

b) Actually encourage flames. In which case you have been duped spectacularly.

Most people in America had never seen anything remotely like the WTC attacks (except in cinema) until the moment that actually occurred. It's therefore understandable (at least to me) that "first reactions" were varied. Some probably immediately recognized the import of the event and were horrified. Other may have seen the explosions and thought "cool!"; Others may have saw the WTC get hit and thought it a "a well deserved smack in the face of the new world order". First thoughts are funny that way. When confronted with a completely new situation it takes a while ("a while", in this context, perhaps meaning "half a second) for the brain to cycle through all the relevant details -- like "wait: there were people in that plane and in the building!). So to excoriate someone for what were admittedly "first thoughts" strikes me as pretty useless. It's subsequent thoughts that matter.

posted by Shadowkeeper at 1:51 PM on October 16, 2001

chrismc: 'twas and is my opinion. Whereas I felt "flame on" was a dare of some sort.
posted by owillis at 3:24 PM on October 16, 2001

The rabid emotional reactions of some Metafilter users to any post or perspective that strays the least bit from what they evidently perceive to be the prescribed societal norm fascinates and disturbs me greatly. I won't say more, as I would merely be inviting flamage myself, except that it really seems unnecessary, unreasonable, and unflattering to those who display it.
posted by rushmc at 5:29 PM on October 16, 2001

Usually when I come accross bonehead comments like this, I pass them buy with a rolling of the eyes, discounting any credibility to the author and briefly exulting in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong.
posted by tomorama at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2001

I'm using Mac OS X, so I can't get that eye-rolling peripheral to work yet.
posted by rodii at 8:24 PM on October 16, 2001

We're leaving the f-me out of the fu-fme. More's the pity.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on October 16, 2001

...people in Seattle...90%...cause property damage...

Don't you see what is wrong with that?

posted by chrismc at 10:33 PM on October 16, 2001

posted by owillis at 10:36 PM on October 16, 2001

I think chrismc and owillis are going to fall in love, like in the movies.
posted by Doug at 10:51 PM on October 16, 2001

Can we please take this to the more public Mefi.

No, no. It’s ‘Take it to MetaTalk!’ Say it with me...
posted by gleemax at 6:01 AM on October 17, 2001

I think chrismc and owillis are going to fall in love, like in the movies

While You Were Linking
You've Got Flame
Linkless In Seattle
posted by owillis at 11:43 PM on October 17, 2001

« Older New information with plenty of evidence to back it...   |   Bad posts are.... Newer »

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