Justice: Blind? July 4, 2007 1:27 PM Subscribe
Are we deletion-worthy sure that this guy is blind based on an anonymous comment on another site? Especially after jourman2's examples showing a bad photographer is likely to blame for the image?
It was amusing and yeah, there's no real proof that the guy is actually blind. Plus, last time I checked, blind people tended to close their eyes rather than going all bug-eyed.
posted by GuyZero at 1:34 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by GuyZero at 1:34 PM on July 4, 2007
Does it really matter? The post sucks either way.
posted by chunking express at 1:36 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by chunking express at 1:36 PM on July 4, 2007
Not a great post reason given, to be sure, but the reason given post seems incredibly flimsy.
posted by horsemuth at 1:38 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by horsemuth at 1:38 PM on July 4, 2007
Doesn't matter. The post sucks either way.
posted by puke & cry at 1:42 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 1:42 PM on July 4, 2007
Hey, delete away if something isn't up to snuff, it contributes to an awareness of site standards. But if that's the case, at least be honest about it so people learn from it.
If the deletion really was based on his "blindness" instead, then I think it's a bad call.
I'm not here to defend that post, just to question the consistency of our policy as it was administered. So I think it does matter.
posted by hermitosis at 1:44 PM on July 4, 2007
If the deletion really was based on his "blindness" instead, then I think it's a bad call.
I'm not here to defend that post, just to question the consistency of our policy as it was administered. So I think it does matter.
posted by hermitosis at 1:44 PM on July 4, 2007
Bah. We went half the day without a MeTa post before this shite hit the grey. I'm more disgusted by this post than the original one on the blue.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:46 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:46 PM on July 4, 2007
well, if we're going to delete 10 minutes of judge judy throwing down we can delete a bad photograph of a lawyer
posted by pyramid termite at 1:46 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 1:46 PM on July 4, 2007
We went half the day without a MeTa post before this shite hit the grey.
Um, big fucking deal? The grey is here for what, exactly, otherwise?
If you simply didn't read MeTa, then you'd be able to live under the blissful illusion that no one EVER posted to it. Why don't you try that?
posted by hermitosis at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Um, big fucking deal? The grey is here for what, exactly, otherwise?
If you simply didn't read MeTa, then you'd be able to live under the blissful illusion that no one EVER posted to it. Why don't you try that?
posted by hermitosis at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Actually, you are defending the post. Just because you say you aren't doesn't make it true. Now you bring up some kind of consistency issue, but you didn't mention that in your post.
posted by puke & cry at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2007
Anonymously making fun of a blind guy's picture is not worthy of a FPP. But that does not necessarily mean that anonymously making fun of a sighted guy's picture is worthy of a FPP.
Do you really want to see more single-link posts to pictures that someone thinks are amusing?
posted by googly at 1:49 PM on July 4, 2007
Do you really want to see more single-link posts to pictures that someone thinks are amusing?
posted by googly at 1:49 PM on July 4, 2007
Heh. hermitosis flying off the rails might save this thread after all. Tell me more about "trying things".
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:49 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:49 PM on July 4, 2007
Do you really want to see more single-link posts to pictures that someone thinks are amusing?
No.... :(
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:51 PM on July 4, 2007
No.... :(
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:51 PM on July 4, 2007
hermitosis, if the guy is blind it's kinda cruel to mock it, if he's not, it's a thin post that is basically "haha everyone look at the funny photo!" and both seem like worthy reasons to delete, cortex just picked the former. If the guy's not blind and it's just a bad photo, the latter reason kicks in.
No matter what the stated reason says, it's a pretty lame post so I'm not sure what standards we're supposed to defend on it. It kind of sucks and it's gone. No biggie.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:52 PM on July 4, 2007
No matter what the stated reason says, it's a pretty lame post so I'm not sure what standards we're supposed to defend on it. It kind of sucks and it's gone. No biggie.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:52 PM on July 4, 2007
Keep the Fark at bay, please. That was probably the worst post in months, perhaps all year. "Ha, ha, look at the ugly guy. Oh, he's blind? Ha, ha look at the ugly blind guy." As someone said in the thread, not even Fark would sink that low.
posted by caddis at 1:55 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by caddis at 1:55 PM on July 4, 2007
If you simply didn't read MeTa, then you'd be able to live under the blissful illusion that no one EVER posted to it.
no ... i can put my hand on top of my computer and sense people posting to meta from the heat ... it's like listening to rats fuck in the walls
posted by pyramid termite at 1:55 PM on July 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Matt. I can totally accept the decision to delete based on the quality of the post. The reason I was surprised (and posted this) is because when I went back to it and saw "Blind people are hilarious" my immediate reaction was: "Uh, he's not blind." If the post could have stood on its own otherwise (as similar ones often do if enough people seem to be amused), then that I would have considered that to be unfair.
I now return you to your smooth, blank grey.
posted by hermitosis at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2007
I now return you to your smooth, blank grey.
posted by hermitosis at 1:59 PM on July 4, 2007
“it's like listening to rats fuck in the walls”
Mmm. Rats fucking in the walls. That, my friends, is what life is all about.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:01 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Mmm. Rats fucking in the walls. That, my friends, is what life is all about.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:01 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: it's like listening to rats fuck in the walls.
I'm sorry.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:07 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:07 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: I'm sorry
posted by GuyZero at 2:19 PM on July 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:19 PM on July 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
As someone said in the thread, not even Fark would sink that low.
And, indeed, the idea of this guy's picture being gut-bustingly hilarious is amply covered on countless other websites. Websites where a person can either register and comment, or comment anonymously. Posting it here serves what purpose, exactly? Whether it's deleted due to the fact that he's blind or due to the fact that it's just a shit post doesn't really come into it.
Plate of beans.
posted by Nabubrush at 2:24 PM on July 4, 2007
And, indeed, the idea of this guy's picture being gut-bustingly hilarious is amply covered on countless other websites. Websites where a person can either register and comment, or comment anonymously. Posting it here serves what purpose, exactly? Whether it's deleted due to the fact that he's blind or due to the fact that it's just a shit post doesn't really come into it.
Plate of beans.
posted by Nabubrush at 2:24 PM on July 4, 2007
I linked to my comment accidentally instead of the top of the thread.
Actually, you linked to louche mustachio's post. Or at least that's how it shows up for me.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:38 PM on July 4, 2007
Actually, you linked to louche mustachio's post. Or at least that's how it shows up for me.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:38 PM on July 4, 2007
Isn't there a hot dog with your name on it that needs some attention today?
posted by phaedon at 2:49 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by phaedon at 2:49 PM on July 4, 2007
Metafilter: Metafilter:
posted by evinrude at 3:07 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by evinrude at 3:07 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
If the crappy post was pulled out of someones ass, why shouldn't the reason for deletion be too?
posted by snsranch at 3:40 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by snsranch at 3:40 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Many people will tell you that shouldn't make fun of the disabled. They may be right.
Still others will tell you that you can't make fun of the disabled. They're wrong. Because they haven't heard the one about Helen Keller falling into a well and breaking three fingers calling for help.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:07 PM on July 4, 2007
Still others will tell you that you can't make fun of the disabled. They're wrong. Because they haven't heard the one about Helen Keller falling into a well and breaking three fingers calling for help.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:07 PM on July 4, 2007
It was a shit post, hands down. There are times when I think a flippant deletion reason could be a problem, but this isn't one of 'em. Whether or not the guy is actually blind seems immaterial, and if the message received was that his purported blindness was the reason I nuked it, I apologize for the confusion. I could have gone with something like "Ha! Just a single link to a bad photo of some lawyer is funny!", or "I think that this is insufficient content for a post" instead, I admit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:09 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:09 PM on July 4, 2007
Hey cortex, I know it's a holiday and all and you shouldn't be expected to do much moderating stuff, but could you just take a quick look at this over here? (Totally unrelated)
posted by carsonb at 4:44 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by carsonb at 4:44 PM on July 4, 2007
Holy cow, If I knew it was that easy to be a FPP link, I would have had someone post this similar photo of me. Or maybe that would have fleshed out the post enough to avoid deletion.
posted by The Deej at 5:05 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by The Deej at 5:05 PM on July 4, 2007
Yeah well, self-link and all. That would get be bann--- HEYYY!!!!!!!
posted by The Deej at 5:09 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by The Deej at 5:09 PM on July 4, 2007
Rather than being blind, I thought Brandon the bug-eyed lawyer guy displayed the classic signs of hyperthyroidism: bugged out eyes, kinda thin, whispy hair, intense expression indicating the nervousness that accompanies the condition.
But it was still a stupid post.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:23 PM on July 4, 2007
But it was still a stupid post.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:23 PM on July 4, 2007
I didn't see the post. Then again, maybe he didn't either.
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on July 4, 2007
Reasons for deletion aren't really intended to be all-inclusive "This is why this post was deleted, for future reference. If you read all of these you will finally understand exactly how this site runs and can create a comprehensive list of what is and is not allowed on MetaFilter." The more obvious we think a post's deletion will be, the less obvious the reason for deletion may be.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on July 4, 2007
Even a blind man could see that post was shit.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:33 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:33 PM on July 4, 2007
Ah... now I get it!
From this point on, my every post will be stellar!!!
(starting after this)
posted by The Deej at 7:33 PM on July 4, 2007
From this point on, my every post will be stellar!!!
(starting after this)
posted by The Deej at 7:33 PM on July 4, 2007
the idea of this guy's picture being gut-bustingly hilarious is amply covered on countless other websites.
I'm 99% sure that the lawyer's pic has been posted in-thread here before; that's where I saw it a year or so ago, when he made the rounds the first time. So the idea that MeFites are above laughing at this sort of thing doesn't really hold water. Never thought anyone would've considered it worth posting to the front page, though.
posted by mediareport at 7:50 PM on July 4, 2007
I'm 99% sure that the lawyer's pic has been posted in-thread here before; that's where I saw it a year or so ago, when he made the rounds the first time. So the idea that MeFites are above laughing at this sort of thing doesn't really hold water. Never thought anyone would've considered it worth posting to the front page, though.
posted by mediareport at 7:50 PM on July 4, 2007
So the idea that MeFites are above laughing at this sort of thing doesn't really hold water. Never thought anyone would've considered it worth posting to the front page, though.
Sorry, I didn't communicate that well. I just meant there is very little content here and what content there is has been done to death. I mean, I can understand posting the Scooter Libby thing here after it's been everywhere else, but this is like making a FPP out of the Rickroll and saying "hey guys, isn't this hilarious?"
posted by Nabubrush at 8:04 PM on July 4, 2007
Sorry, I didn't communicate that well. I just meant there is very little content here and what content there is has been done to death. I mean, I can understand posting the Scooter Libby thing here after it's been everywhere else, but this is like making a FPP out of the Rickroll and saying "hey guys, isn't this hilarious?"
posted by Nabubrush at 8:04 PM on July 4, 2007
Since you brought it, rickrolls are dead now. See here.
posted by puke & cry at 8:09 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 8:09 PM on July 4, 2007
brought it up
posted by puke & cry at 8:09 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 8:09 PM on July 4, 2007
The real problem is that the post is a double, and it's old.
Can't seem to find the original post. It was probably also deleted...? Doesn't anybody else remember it?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:21 PM on July 4, 2007
Can't seem to find the original post. It was probably also deleted...? Doesn't anybody else remember it?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:21 PM on July 4, 2007
Post stank. Thanks for deleting it.
posted by trip and a half at 9:10 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by trip and a half at 9:10 PM on July 4, 2007
Just as your public service anouncement for today, there are many types of blindness, and I don't believe that you can tell whether a person is legally blind or not from a photograph.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:11 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:11 PM on July 4, 2007
Just as your public service anouncement for today, there are many types of blindness, and I don't believe that you can tell whether a person is legally blind or not from a photograph.
I am going to err on the side of caution and assume that everyone is blind in photos.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:25 PM on July 4, 2007
I am going to err on the side of caution and assume that everyone is blind in photos.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:25 PM on July 4, 2007
I just got back from lighting off fireworks. We can still do that here in Tennessee. What did I miss?
posted by nola at 10:07 PM on July 4, 2007
posted by nola at 10:07 PM on July 4, 2007
I'm going to err on the side of common sense, and suggest that a lawyer should be presumed to have decent eyesight unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
Law involves a heavy amount of reading, and lawyers must be able to quickly access all kinds of legal tidbits. That seems a very tall order for a blind person. Are all those thick legal books transliterated into braille? Are timely updates available? What about reading court documents?
I'm not saying that a blind person couldn't practice, but they'd have to be pretty damn special to do so.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:26 PM on July 4, 2007
Law involves a heavy amount of reading, and lawyers must be able to quickly access all kinds of legal tidbits. That seems a very tall order for a blind person. Are all those thick legal books transliterated into braille? Are timely updates available? What about reading court documents?
I'm not saying that a blind person couldn't practice, but they'd have to be pretty damn special to do so.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:26 PM on July 4, 2007
I'm not saying that a blind person couldn't practice, but they'd have to be pretty damn special to do so.
posted by UbuRoivas 48 minutes ago
oh, that is so wrong, and when it comes to choosing your gladiator, so irrelevant. If the blind guy will smite your enemies who cares whether he can see the blood or not?
posted by caddis at 12:17 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by UbuRoivas 48 minutes ago
oh, that is so wrong, and when it comes to choosing your gladiator, so irrelevant. If the blind guy will smite your enemies who cares whether he can see the blood or not?
posted by caddis at 12:17 AM on July 5, 2007
Law involves a heavy amount of reading
Everything in the law, well, 99.99 percent of everything in the law, is digital. Which means that SCREEN READERS can read them outloud. Lawyers who are blind or who have other disabilities that limit their ability to read printed text use screen readers. You can control the speed of screen readers, and make them go, like, wicked fast.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:33 AM on July 5, 2007
Everything in the law, well, 99.99 percent of everything in the law, is digital. Which means that SCREEN READERS can read them outloud. Lawyers who are blind or who have other disabilities that limit their ability to read printed text use screen readers. You can control the speed of screen readers, and make them go, like, wicked fast.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:33 AM on July 5, 2007
I love it when I get favourites in a deleted thread. That is all.
posted by Jofus at 1:00 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by Jofus at 1:00 AM on July 5, 2007
Ubu:
Professor McCallum commenced his five year term as Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Sydney. Ron is the first totally blind person to be appointed to the Deanship of a Law School in Australia or New Zealand.
If a blind dude can be Home Secretary of the UK, a blind dude can practice law.
posted by goo at 1:59 AM on July 5, 2007
Professor McCallum commenced his five year term as Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Sydney. Ron is the first totally blind person to be appointed to the Deanship of a Law School in Australia or New Zealand.
If a blind dude can be Home Secretary of the UK, a blind dude can practice law.
posted by goo at 1:59 AM on July 5, 2007
I expected as much. When I did my law thingummijiggy, it was all books, updated with pamphlets, updated by A4 bulletins. In those days, the intarwebs could only be accessed by a kind of retinal scan of the onion that you wore on your belt. You couldn't get the brown onions because of the war...
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:00 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:00 AM on July 5, 2007
Judge David Tatel, a federal appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit and often considered to be a possible Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic president, is blind. He is supposed to have a phenomenal memory, plus I believe that he gets a lot of reading-out-loud help from his clerks. Maybe now he has a screen reader, too.
In a way, this supports Uburoivas's general point, though.
posted by chinston at 7:05 AM on July 5, 2007
In a way, this supports Uburoivas's general point, though.
posted by chinston at 7:05 AM on July 5, 2007
Judge David Tatel, a federal appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit and often considered to be a possible Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic president, is blind. He is supposed to have a phenomenal memory, plus I believe that he gets a lot of reading-out-loud help from his clerks. Maybe now he has a screen reader, too.
I thought of DareDevil first, but yours is a good example too.
posted by Nabubrush at 7:45 AM on July 5, 2007
I thought of DareDevil first, but yours is a good example too.
posted by Nabubrush at 7:45 AM on July 5, 2007
I don't believe that you can tell whether a person is legally blind or not from a photograph.
Empty eye sockets would be a clue in some cases.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:00 AM on July 5, 2007
Empty eye sockets would be a clue in some cases.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:00 AM on July 5, 2007
I thought of DareDevil first, but yours is a good example too.
In fact, Judge Tatel delivers his opinions by affixing a rope to a nearby lamppost, then swinging up to the courthouse roof and declaiming them in a stentorian voice. It's the oddest sight in the federal judiciary, that's for sure.
posted by chinston at 8:00 AM on July 5, 2007
In fact, Judge Tatel delivers his opinions by affixing a rope to a nearby lamppost, then swinging up to the courthouse roof and declaiming them in a stentorian voice. It's the oddest sight in the federal judiciary, that's for sure.
posted by chinston at 8:00 AM on July 5, 2007
This FPP was a site for sore eyes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:50 AM on July 5, 2007
Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter: Metafilter:
posted by quin at 10:22 AM on July 5, 2007
posted by quin at 10:22 AM on July 5, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Not a great post, to be sure, but the reason given seems incredibly flimsy.
posted by hermitosis at 1:34 PM on July 4, 2007