Can't we do any better? December 4, 2001 1:26 PM Subscribe
A troubling thread. Insulting in tone, shallow in content, this thread is an extreme example of a type of behavior that seems to be growing here. More inside.
Insulting in tone, shallow in content
Why, gd, whatever do you mean?
*shudder*
posted by eyeballkid at 1:39 PM on December 4, 2001
Why, gd, whatever do you mean?
*shudder*
posted by eyeballkid at 1:39 PM on December 4, 2001
I didn't see any particular lack of civility in that thread.
posted by anapestic at 1:44 PM on December 4, 2001
posted by anapestic at 1:44 PM on December 4, 2001
I have to admit that I tend to get upset when religion is not addressed seriously
My initial thought is to think that this is the reason for your reaction. I don't think there was anything particularly reprehensible about this thread. We all have to remember that we share this space with those of widely differing views. Just brush it off and move along.
posted by owen at 1:51 PM on December 4, 2001
My initial thought is to think that this is the reason for your reaction. I don't think there was anything particularly reprehensible about this thread. We all have to remember that we share this space with those of widely differing views. Just brush it off and move along.
posted by owen at 1:51 PM on December 4, 2001
I didn't see any particular lack of civility in that thread.
While that is true, there was a fair amount of silliness in the thread that managed to derail what could have been a discussion on religious liberty. However, the discussion took a different course as a result of the early quips and jokes. If anything, I am more displeased with the apparent necessity to make a short quip or jab early in threads that has crept into MeFi lately. There are several users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread, and it is ruining decent threads on occasion.
We all have to remember that we share this space with those of widely differing views.
Well said. Before posting, we should all think very carefully about what this means.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:54 PM on December 4, 2001
While that is true, there was a fair amount of silliness in the thread that managed to derail what could have been a discussion on religious liberty. However, the discussion took a different course as a result of the early quips and jokes. If anything, I am more displeased with the apparent necessity to make a short quip or jab early in threads that has crept into MeFi lately. There are several users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread, and it is ruining decent threads on occasion.
We all have to remember that we share this space with those of widely differing views.
Well said. Before posting, we should all think very carefully about what this means.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:54 PM on December 4, 2001
The thread combines politics, religion, gay rights, etc. Then throws in a pedantic debate about biblical elements most people have never heard of.
Given that, I'd say the thread is surprisingly polite and engaging.
It's not a tea party. Lots of people strongly disagree here. Expecting them to consult Miss Manners before posting to such a topic is asking a bit much. IMHO.
"I tend to get upset when religion is not addressed seriously."
Well I'm highly amused by people who insist religion (or more accurately in this case - dogma) be taken seriously by the general public. For nonbelievers such as myself, Christian dogma is just too hilarious to resist. I respect religious freedom, but don't expect me to not make fun of it when it gets really silly. The majority of the stuff I've read in the Bible is plain goofy. As is Mr Brame.
What sort of thing were you expecting in this thread? Or should we just ban topics that might get out hand?
" I’d like to see us publicly condemn this sort of behavior"
I here by condemn funny retorts, belittling silly people, strong opinions, rude behavior, poorly thought out comments, and things that are "knee jerk" (whatever that is).
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:58 PM on December 4, 2001
Given that, I'd say the thread is surprisingly polite and engaging.
It's not a tea party. Lots of people strongly disagree here. Expecting them to consult Miss Manners before posting to such a topic is asking a bit much. IMHO.
"I tend to get upset when religion is not addressed seriously."
Well I'm highly amused by people who insist religion (or more accurately in this case - dogma) be taken seriously by the general public. For nonbelievers such as myself, Christian dogma is just too hilarious to resist. I respect religious freedom, but don't expect me to not make fun of it when it gets really silly. The majority of the stuff I've read in the Bible is plain goofy. As is Mr Brame.
What sort of thing were you expecting in this thread? Or should we just ban topics that might get out hand?
" I’d like to see us publicly condemn this sort of behavior"
I here by condemn funny retorts, belittling silly people, strong opinions, rude behavior, poorly thought out comments, and things that are "knee jerk" (whatever that is).
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:58 PM on December 4, 2001
I want to disagree with you here, gd779. Really I do. However, while I was composing something on the thread you mentioned, I noticed I lost my IP connection. So I copypasted what I was gonna say so I wouldn't lose it, then rebooted the machine. As the machine was loading back up, I decided to just not post what I was going to, but rather ignore the thread entirely. There was simply no way to word what I wanted to say without contributing to the mess the thread had already been.
So even I was taken aback by this thread. And I'm admittedly part of the opposite extreme which people like Rebecca Blood so despise in here.
The topic is a minefield, first off. Extremists on both sides could let loose. Even if the topic's taken seriously, there'd be Bush haters and Bush lovers, and conservatives and liberals and "I'm not conservative or liberal and I don't even understand the difference" 's battling it out.
However, what I see for the most part early on in the thread is a tangent of shallow, insulting quips. Attempts at humor. Usually I enjoy this. I'm guilty of it myself. Maybe it's because I didn't personally find them funny? "Will someone please insert a Taliban reference now?" or "Paging Margaret Atwood; white courtesy telephone, please..." There's a general lack of interest in the topic (s), other than to make indirect fun of them, and I personally thought it could be more meaty than that. "Glad I haven't eaten mouse lately!" I mean maybe I'm just losing my edge, but this thread doesn't seem entertaining or informative.
Perhaps it's the number of links in the original post thread. Some people are reacting to what they've read in one webpage. Some are reacting to another. The thread's very scattered. People aren't talking to one another but at one another. It's like four conversations going at once, and few are actually listening? Maybe that's it?
posted by ZachsMind at 2:10 PM on December 4, 2001
So even I was taken aback by this thread. And I'm admittedly part of the opposite extreme which people like Rebecca Blood so despise in here.
The topic is a minefield, first off. Extremists on both sides could let loose. Even if the topic's taken seriously, there'd be Bush haters and Bush lovers, and conservatives and liberals and "I'm not conservative or liberal and I don't even understand the difference" 's battling it out.
However, what I see for the most part early on in the thread is a tangent of shallow, insulting quips. Attempts at humor. Usually I enjoy this. I'm guilty of it myself. Maybe it's because I didn't personally find them funny? "Will someone please insert a Taliban reference now?" or "Paging Margaret Atwood; white courtesy telephone, please..." There's a general lack of interest in the topic (s), other than to make indirect fun of them, and I personally thought it could be more meaty than that. "Glad I haven't eaten mouse lately!" I mean maybe I'm just losing my edge, but this thread doesn't seem entertaining or informative.
Perhaps it's the number of links in the original post thread. Some people are reacting to what they've read in one webpage. Some are reacting to another. The thread's very scattered. People aren't talking to one another but at one another. It's like four conversations going at once, and few are actually listening? Maybe that's it?
posted by ZachsMind at 2:10 PM on December 4, 2001
While that is true, there was a fair amount of silliness in the thread that managed to derail what could have been a discussion on religious liberty. However, the discussion took a different course as a result of the early quips and jokes. If anything, I am more displeased with the apparent necessity to make a short quip or jab early in threads that has crept into MeFi lately. There are several users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread, and it is ruining decent threads on occasion.
yo, Karl.
personally, i'm tired of sarcasm as a rhetorical device. it's our generational default, to a fault. but there's no counting for taste. allow me to recommend understatement. more of us should try it on. we might like it.
beyond my inconsequential stylistic comment, i don't think there's much chance of maintaining seriousness in such threads. y6y6y6 is one example of this.
Jon, have you read much of the Bible? few thinking people have an opinion arrogant enough to relegate most of it that they've read to 'plain goofy'. even if you're a passionate humanist, materialist, and atheist i would think you'd have enough sense of history that such a book and the people it represents could earn a little of your respect, if not those who find profound meaning in it.
posted by Sean Meade at 2:16 PM on December 4, 2001
yo, Karl.
personally, i'm tired of sarcasm as a rhetorical device. it's our generational default, to a fault. but there's no counting for taste. allow me to recommend understatement. more of us should try it on. we might like it.
beyond my inconsequential stylistic comment, i don't think there's much chance of maintaining seriousness in such threads. y6y6y6 is one example of this.
Jon, have you read much of the Bible? few thinking people have an opinion arrogant enough to relegate most of it that they've read to 'plain goofy'. even if you're a passionate humanist, materialist, and atheist i would think you'd have enough sense of history that such a book and the people it represents could earn a little of your respect, if not those who find profound meaning in it.
posted by Sean Meade at 2:16 PM on December 4, 2001
Or should we just ban topics that might get out hand?
Of course not! That's exactly opposite of my point. I was initially attracted to MetaFilter precisely because I'm conservative and most of you tend to be liberal. I like it when people disagree with me; I just want them to be thoughtful about it. And respectful.
And that's my point. I believe that MetaFilter can be both thoughtful and respectful, even on divisive issues. I've seen it here, it's why I stick around. When we tolerate the sort of behavior found in the thread, and let it pass without comment, we lower the perceived standard of quality.
I'm well aware that this behavior may not be all that abnormal for a discussion of this type. But I believe that my fellow MeFites can do better than this, if challenged to do so by the community at large.
posted by gd779 at 2:20 PM on December 4, 2001
Of course not! That's exactly opposite of my point. I was initially attracted to MetaFilter precisely because I'm conservative and most of you tend to be liberal. I like it when people disagree with me; I just want them to be thoughtful about it. And respectful.
And that's my point. I believe that MetaFilter can be both thoughtful and respectful, even on divisive issues. I've seen it here, it's why I stick around. When we tolerate the sort of behavior found in the thread, and let it pass without comment, we lower the perceived standard of quality.
I'm well aware that this behavior may not be all that abnormal for a discussion of this type. But I believe that my fellow MeFites can do better than this, if challenged to do so by the community at large.
posted by gd779 at 2:20 PM on December 4, 2001
i hope so, Greg (gd), but i don't know...
posted by Sean Meade at 2:22 PM on December 4, 2001
posted by Sean Meade at 2:22 PM on December 4, 2001
"Jon, have you read much of the Bible? few thinking people have an opinion arrogant enough to relegate most of it that they've read to 'plain goofy'.
What, have you already done a survey?
If it's not too late, can you put me down as one of the few thinking people who have read it and is "arrogant" enough to think that most of it is plain goofy.
Good luck with your research, I'd love to see a copy of the stats when you publish them.
posted by Catch at 2:36 PM on December 4, 2001
What, have you already done a survey?
If it's not too late, can you put me down as one of the few thinking people who have read it and is "arrogant" enough to think that most of it is plain goofy.
Good luck with your research, I'd love to see a copy of the stats when you publish them.
posted by Catch at 2:36 PM on December 4, 2001
"But I believe that my fellow MeFites can do better than this"
Well, maybe this would be a good place to bring up my objections to that idea.
I'm a very rude and arrogant person. I've gotten many emails from Metafilter members basically saying, "If you have to be such an asshole then why not just shut up? Because you're hurting Metafilter."
Well, I like Metafilter a lot, so after getting enough of these I decided to just not post at all unless I absolutely can't resist. Daily I write a comment(s) and then don't post. Not because I don't want to, but because it's no fun to try and participate and then get yelled at. I feel like the things I want to say aren't welcome here.
It's not a big deal. My ego is vast enough to take it in stride. I like the place even if I can't post.
But I'll lobby you that you're stifling something important. The discussion here is raw and dynamic. Lots of people telling you how they feel. Things that get you riled up, make you think, piss you off. But we haven't reached Usenet levels of rambling babble and I don't think we ever will.
In the time that I've been here things have frequently been snarky, silly, rude, disruptive, and whatever. It's that kind of place. Condemning people who aren't respectful? I just don't get the value in that for Metafilter. I see value in hearing what people think, even when it's not something I want to hear.
If you limit the discussion to polite, respectful, and well thought out comments then you lose something important.
And frankly there are many opinions and members that I don't respect. Should I shut up in those cases? Should I pretend I do respect them? Or should I limit my comments to cold logic?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:02 PM on December 4, 2001
Well, maybe this would be a good place to bring up my objections to that idea.
I'm a very rude and arrogant person. I've gotten many emails from Metafilter members basically saying, "If you have to be such an asshole then why not just shut up? Because you're hurting Metafilter."
Well, I like Metafilter a lot, so after getting enough of these I decided to just not post at all unless I absolutely can't resist. Daily I write a comment(s) and then don't post. Not because I don't want to, but because it's no fun to try and participate and then get yelled at. I feel like the things I want to say aren't welcome here.
It's not a big deal. My ego is vast enough to take it in stride. I like the place even if I can't post.
But I'll lobby you that you're stifling something important. The discussion here is raw and dynamic. Lots of people telling you how they feel. Things that get you riled up, make you think, piss you off. But we haven't reached Usenet levels of rambling babble and I don't think we ever will.
In the time that I've been here things have frequently been snarky, silly, rude, disruptive, and whatever. It's that kind of place. Condemning people who aren't respectful? I just don't get the value in that for Metafilter. I see value in hearing what people think, even when it's not something I want to hear.
If you limit the discussion to polite, respectful, and well thought out comments then you lose something important.
And frankly there are many opinions and members that I don't respect. Should I shut up in those cases? Should I pretend I do respect them? Or should I limit my comments to cold logic?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:02 PM on December 4, 2001
And what in the world is wrong with humor????????
I probably take matters of faith more seriously than just about anybody here -but i don't see the need to check my sense of humor at the door...
I am starting to think that we are all turning into a bunch of complainers....please, please prove me wrong!!!!!!
posted by bunnyfire at 3:10 PM on December 4, 2001
I probably take matters of faith more seriously than just about anybody here -but i don't see the need to check my sense of humor at the door...
I am starting to think that we are all turning into a bunch of complainers....please, please prove me wrong!!!!!!
posted by bunnyfire at 3:10 PM on December 4, 2001
GD, what tone do you suggest people take with an organization that believes in the execution of homosexuals, the oppression of women, and the overthrow of American democracy? I don't really see people being snarky or mean to each other, which would be a problem.
And for the most part I don't even think people are being disrespectful to religion, so much as to the idea of a theocracy, and how absurd it would be if we were forced to live by biblical law.
Maybe I'm being defensive, but I just don't see it as that bad of a thread. I'll give you that it is shallow, although I did learn a lot from Carol Anns links, and the religion discussion with Moz and the rest.
posted by Doug at 3:18 PM on December 4, 2001
And for the most part I don't even think people are being disrespectful to religion, so much as to the idea of a theocracy, and how absurd it would be if we were forced to live by biblical law.
Maybe I'm being defensive, but I just don't see it as that bad of a thread. I'll give you that it is shallow, although I did learn a lot from Carol Anns links, and the religion discussion with Moz and the rest.
posted by Doug at 3:18 PM on December 4, 2001
However, the discussion took a different course as a result of the early quips and jokes. If anything, I am more displeased with the apparent necessity to make a short quip or jab early in threads that has crept into MeFi lately. There are several users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread, and it is ruining decent threads on occasion.
I mentioned this a couple times in the recent past here on MetaTalk, but it really does kill threads. It's a half-assed way to participate. It's so much easier to make up some smart-ass comment when you see a new thread than to actually read the links, compare the views to your beliefs, then distill down your opinion as a comment.
I'm all for fun and games when it makes sense, but one early dumbass comment frequent hijacks threads and discourages serious discussion, and that's the real problem. Someone with a serious opinion about a topic is not as likely to post when they see the first 3 comments are centered around fart jokes. Humor displayed later on in a thread is fine usually, but those early quips kill a lot of threads.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:33 PM on December 4, 2001
I mentioned this a couple times in the recent past here on MetaTalk, but it really does kill threads. It's a half-assed way to participate. It's so much easier to make up some smart-ass comment when you see a new thread than to actually read the links, compare the views to your beliefs, then distill down your opinion as a comment.
I'm all for fun and games when it makes sense, but one early dumbass comment frequent hijacks threads and discourages serious discussion, and that's the real problem. Someone with a serious opinion about a topic is not as likely to post when they see the first 3 comments are centered around fart jokes. Humor displayed later on in a thread is fine usually, but those early quips kill a lot of threads.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:33 PM on December 4, 2001
If you limit the discussion to polite, respectful, and well thought out comments then you lose something important.
I can't think of a whole lot of examples where this is really the case. (Although I wouldn't include the 'polite' modifier.)
I do not think that serious discussion is made better by the presence of disrespectful, inconsiderate posts. I realized recently that what I like about MeFi isn't the links, nor the discussion, but rather the general tone of the site. Like TMN, it is an intelligent place. It values coherent, articulate members, as well as funny ones, and thinks very little of trolls, flamers, pedants and demagogues. I feel (on good days) that I'm in a community of peers.
Matt is (obviously) right. Inane posts, in the context of "serious" threads, hijack the discussion. Similarly, posts that are not "well thought out", by people who give not-a-shit for those they are debating with, damage the heart of MetaFilter - that is, its atmosphere of Renaissance, Erasmus-esque sharing, discussion and community. I'm with you, gd.
posted by Marquis at 3:44 PM on December 4, 2001
I can't think of a whole lot of examples where this is really the case. (Although I wouldn't include the 'polite' modifier.)
I do not think that serious discussion is made better by the presence of disrespectful, inconsiderate posts. I realized recently that what I like about MeFi isn't the links, nor the discussion, but rather the general tone of the site. Like TMN, it is an intelligent place. It values coherent, articulate members, as well as funny ones, and thinks very little of trolls, flamers, pedants and demagogues. I feel (on good days) that I'm in a community of peers.
Matt is (obviously) right. Inane posts, in the context of "serious" threads, hijack the discussion. Similarly, posts that are not "well thought out", by people who give not-a-shit for those they are debating with, damage the heart of MetaFilter - that is, its atmosphere of Renaissance, Erasmus-esque sharing, discussion and community. I'm with you, gd.
posted by Marquis at 3:44 PM on December 4, 2001
However, I still maintain there is a place for alleged "inane" posts. Even if they don't necessarily contribute intelligently to a thread, they indicate the opinion of the "inane" poster, both by what they say and what they don't. It may sometimes harm the tone of the overall site, but helps to color the tone of the thread in question.
Not allowing such posts would be like saying an agnostic has no right to state their opinion of religion. An agnostic does have a valid opinion, and that opinion is "i don't know" or "i don't care." That perspective of the topic is equally as important as someone of extreme and closed-minded opinions.
I like it more when a sarcastic remark is followed up immediately by an attempt to be at least semi-serious about the topic, but then every post would probably be longer than mine.
Upon reflection, I think the problem with the original post was that it wasn't focused enough, and the users each approached it from remarkably different vantage points.
Each separate link could have been a separate thread initiator all to itself. Bush's choice of Brane. Conservative opinons of women's rights. Homosexual persecution. Brane's prior record with the NLRB. Ultra-right wing political activity in general. It's all related, and yet easily treated as separate. The only unifying factor is Brane, and obviously not many wanted to talk directly about him.
The problem may not be inane quips in general, but that the quips weren't on topic. It's like reciting haiku when everyone was expecting knock knock jokes.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:12 PM on December 4, 2001
Not allowing such posts would be like saying an agnostic has no right to state their opinion of religion. An agnostic does have a valid opinion, and that opinion is "i don't know" or "i don't care." That perspective of the topic is equally as important as someone of extreme and closed-minded opinions.
I like it more when a sarcastic remark is followed up immediately by an attempt to be at least semi-serious about the topic, but then every post would probably be longer than mine.
Upon reflection, I think the problem with the original post was that it wasn't focused enough, and the users each approached it from remarkably different vantage points.
Each separate link could have been a separate thread initiator all to itself. Bush's choice of Brane. Conservative opinons of women's rights. Homosexual persecution. Brane's prior record with the NLRB. Ultra-right wing political activity in general. It's all related, and yet easily treated as separate. The only unifying factor is Brane, and obviously not many wanted to talk directly about him.
The problem may not be inane quips in general, but that the quips weren't on topic. It's like reciting haiku when everyone was expecting knock knock jokes.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:12 PM on December 4, 2001
gd and Marquis: Yes. But I do think that everyone has the same right to comment as they see fit. If there are a lot of negative comments why should it deter others? I've seen many examples of members bravely sailing through seas of snarkiness and posting regardless.
Sometimes courage works the other way and you get a lot of well-thought-out stuff being admirably deflated by someone who sees through it.
I really admire thread-savers, back-to-topickers and heckle-resisters. But I also admire the contras, who keep this from getting too churchy and polite.
So I really don't think anyone need be repressed, as long as the spirit of freedom continues.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:19 PM on December 4, 2001
Sometimes courage works the other way and you get a lot of well-thought-out stuff being admirably deflated by someone who sees through it.
I really admire thread-savers, back-to-topickers and heckle-resisters. But I also admire the contras, who keep this from getting too churchy and polite.
So I really don't think anyone need be repressed, as long as the spirit of freedom continues.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:19 PM on December 4, 2001
gd779 - what exactly in that thread were you taking objection to? You're early comment seemed intended to steer rory away from a misconception that Christians follow some kind of dietary restrictions (as an aside, I note that Catholics for a long time didn't eat meat on Fridays which doesn't seem too different from don't eat shell fish, so I'm not sure I get the distinction there).
Granted, there were several parallel tones in that thread, and it certainly lacked focus, but most of the negativity seemed to be objecting to a Christian forcing their views onto those that don't share those beliefs. Granted, you'll get plenty of posters here who object to religion without much consideration or respect for somebody else's beliefs, but generally what I see is an attitude that says believe what you want, just don't try to preach it or force on to me.
I expect we've had some interesting, respectful discussions on religions in the past. I would certainly be interested in seeing more of those discussions in the future, but conservative president wants to appoint somebody that thinks Americans should be forced to follow biblical law is going to get a whole lot of negative reaction given the sensibilities of a large portion of MeFi's current member base. I just don’t see how it could possibly have gone any other way.
posted by willnot at 6:56 PM on December 4, 2001
Granted, there were several parallel tones in that thread, and it certainly lacked focus, but most of the negativity seemed to be objecting to a Christian forcing their views onto those that don't share those beliefs. Granted, you'll get plenty of posters here who object to religion without much consideration or respect for somebody else's beliefs, but generally what I see is an attitude that says believe what you want, just don't try to preach it or force on to me.
I expect we've had some interesting, respectful discussions on religions in the past. I would certainly be interested in seeing more of those discussions in the future, but conservative president wants to appoint somebody that thinks Americans should be forced to follow biblical law is going to get a whole lot of negative reaction given the sensibilities of a large portion of MeFi's current member base. I just don’t see how it could possibly have gone any other way.
posted by willnot at 6:56 PM on December 4, 2001
So even I was taken aback by this thread. And I'm admittedly part of the opposite extreme which people like Rebecca Blood so despise in here.
I've never seen RCB despise anything but intolerance, incivility, or cruelty. She certainly doesn't despise people with whom she disagrees.
And does anyone else think it bizarre that people are surprised that a discussion which involves the persecution of minorities became impolite?
posted by anildash at 6:59 PM on December 4, 2001
I've never seen RCB despise anything but intolerance, incivility, or cruelty. She certainly doesn't despise people with whom she disagrees.
And does anyone else think it bizarre that people are surprised that a discussion which involves the persecution of minorities became impolite?
posted by anildash at 6:59 PM on December 4, 2001
Before posting, we should all think very carefully about what this means.
And about what it DOESN'T mean, which I would hope included feeling pressure to censor our thoughts or participation simply because certain others may find them objectionable. I can guarantee you that there is something about EACH of you that I would find objectionable; if I were to insist upon such a standard in posting, silence would reign. Ditto for the rest of you.
Respect is something to be earned, not granted willy-nilly without cause. It's too important to be cheapened so.
Of course there are things that are inappropriate in this forum. When they appear, it is quickly made clear that they are not wanted (and often will not be tolerated by Matt). I would hope that pointing out inconsistencies, falsehoods, and dangerous absurdities would never be counted among them, though.
There are many ways to make a point. So long as someone IS trying to make a point, I for one don't feel the need to dictate style and form to them. Humor? Sarcasm? Hyperbole? Counter-example? Reasoned point-by-point argument? Allegory? Allusion? Anecdote? It's all good, so long as people are THINKING about the topics.
I understand the call for civility, gd779, but I think you're off base on this one.
I agree with what y6y6y6 posted, except that I think he/she/it should post more often, as he/she/it seems quite aware of the potential for counterproductiveness allegedly inherent in his/her/its posting style, and therefore is probably quite capable of tempering it and contributing usefully.
posted by rushmc at 7:34 PM on December 4, 2001
And about what it DOESN'T mean, which I would hope included feeling pressure to censor our thoughts or participation simply because certain others may find them objectionable. I can guarantee you that there is something about EACH of you that I would find objectionable; if I were to insist upon such a standard in posting, silence would reign. Ditto for the rest of you.
Respect is something to be earned, not granted willy-nilly without cause. It's too important to be cheapened so.
Of course there are things that are inappropriate in this forum. When they appear, it is quickly made clear that they are not wanted (and often will not be tolerated by Matt). I would hope that pointing out inconsistencies, falsehoods, and dangerous absurdities would never be counted among them, though.
There are many ways to make a point. So long as someone IS trying to make a point, I for one don't feel the need to dictate style and form to them. Humor? Sarcasm? Hyperbole? Counter-example? Reasoned point-by-point argument? Allegory? Allusion? Anecdote? It's all good, so long as people are THINKING about the topics.
I understand the call for civility, gd779, but I think you're off base on this one.
I agree with what y6y6y6 posted, except that I think he/she/it should post more often, as he/she/it seems quite aware of the potential for counterproductiveness allegedly inherent in his/her/its posting style, and therefore is probably quite capable of tempering it and contributing usefully.
posted by rushmc at 7:34 PM on December 4, 2001
So I really don't think anyone need be repressed ...
I'm not advocating that we "repress" anyone.
Not allowing such posts would be like saying an agnostic has no right to state their opinion of religion.
I'm not even advocating that we "not allow" such posts.
What I am advocating is that people respect the company they are in, and, if they are posting, that they do so in such a way that it's clear they "give a shit" about the discussion. I don't think we should censor or "repress", but rather that we should encourage the behaviour we want people to emulate, and yes, criticize the behaviour that should cease and desist.
I don't think that the thread gd pointed us to is a particular example of the behaviour I'm criticizing here; the tone of the thread was one of silliness, and although it's possibly unfortunate that the level of discussion isn't higher, there's something to be said for good-natured mockery of bigwigs. There have, however, been other threads (both on MeFi and MeTa) that crossed the line from free-for-all comedy-routine to public stoning.
Do you really think that inflammatory, trollish posts (the authors of which demonstrate little-to-no respect for their audience) are a good thing? This seems like a no-brainer to me.
posted by Marquis at 7:59 PM on December 4, 2001
I'm not advocating that we "repress" anyone.
Not allowing such posts would be like saying an agnostic has no right to state their opinion of religion.
I'm not even advocating that we "not allow" such posts.
What I am advocating is that people respect the company they are in, and, if they are posting, that they do so in such a way that it's clear they "give a shit" about the discussion. I don't think we should censor or "repress", but rather that we should encourage the behaviour we want people to emulate, and yes, criticize the behaviour that should cease and desist.
I don't think that the thread gd pointed us to is a particular example of the behaviour I'm criticizing here; the tone of the thread was one of silliness, and although it's possibly unfortunate that the level of discussion isn't higher, there's something to be said for good-natured mockery of bigwigs. There have, however, been other threads (both on MeFi and MeTa) that crossed the line from free-for-all comedy-routine to public stoning.
Do you really think that inflammatory, trollish posts (the authors of which demonstrate little-to-no respect for their audience) are a good thing? This seems like a no-brainer to me.
posted by Marquis at 7:59 PM on December 4, 2001
And about what it DOESN'T mean, which I would hope included feeling pressure to censor our thoughts or participation simply because certain others may find them objectionable.
No one is asking for people not to post their viewpoints, just to do it in a nice way.
Let's imagine I met you on the street and started talking. I could a satanist and you could be a born-again christian, and we could choose to have an intelligent discussion where either party can state their point while respecting others, or I could put you in a headlock and scream "you dumbass!!!"
Which one is preferable? Does asking for people to be more civil mean any loss in terms of freedom to express your views? Is the way you choose to express your view part of what you don't want stifled?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2001
No one is asking for people not to post their viewpoints, just to do it in a nice way.
Let's imagine I met you on the street and started talking. I could a satanist and you could be a born-again christian, and we could choose to have an intelligent discussion where either party can state their point while respecting others, or I could put you in a headlock and scream "you dumbass!!!"
Which one is preferable? Does asking for people to be more civil mean any loss in terms of freedom to express your views? Is the way you choose to express your view part of what you don't want stifled?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2001
I agree with you, mathowie. If your goal is to either inform or persuade the other party as to your opinion, then you have to be both reasoned and civil. If your goal is to score points and to make the other person refuse to listen to you, then by all means, you should act however you want.
posted by EatenByAGrue at 1:29 AM on December 5, 2001
posted by EatenByAGrue at 1:29 AM on December 5, 2001
marquis: two people in one thread posted the same stupid 'punch-a-pacifist' routine we'd all seen before. i then feigned admiration for one of them for at least saving some screen space. two months later you chose this as an example of crossing the line into public stoning because ?
i'm sorta with you guys on the shallowness ... my comment in main thread in question certainly added little profoundity to MeFi. (tho i enjoy reading occasional quips.) but if my reaction to 'punch-a-pacifist' was unduly snarky, i guess yr right: i am in the wrong place.
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:43 AM on December 5, 2001
i'm sorta with you guys on the shallowness ... my comment in main thread in question certainly added little profoundity to MeFi. (tho i enjoy reading occasional quips.) but if my reaction to 'punch-a-pacifist' was unduly snarky, i guess yr right: i am in the wrong place.
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:43 AM on December 5, 2001
Marquis, the point of your examples is lost on me too.
posted by rodii at 7:20 AM on December 5, 2001
posted by rodii at 7:20 AM on December 5, 2001
"Do you really think that inflammatory, trollish posts (the authors of which demonstrate little-to-no respect for their audience) are a good thing? This seems like a no-brainer to me."
It's a no-brainer to me too. Lenny Bruce. George Carlin. Sam Kinison. Richard Pryor. There is something to being disrespectful. Sometimes it gets powerful points across in a provacative way.
What I saw wrong with the thread is that it was not focused enough and some of the quips just weren't funny. I agree that no one should censor, and that it's important for each poster to be cognizant of their audience. I think we're all pretty much agreeing here, but we're lost in semantics.
Overall the thread was a dud, but not for any reason that can be resolved with rules. We should just each examine for ourselves what works and what doesn't and hopefully it'll help each of us be better participants.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:26 AM on December 5, 2001
It's a no-brainer to me too. Lenny Bruce. George Carlin. Sam Kinison. Richard Pryor. There is something to being disrespectful. Sometimes it gets powerful points across in a provacative way.
What I saw wrong with the thread is that it was not focused enough and some of the quips just weren't funny. I agree that no one should censor, and that it's important for each poster to be cognizant of their audience. I think we're all pretty much agreeing here, but we're lost in semantics.
Overall the thread was a dud, but not for any reason that can be resolved with rules. We should just each examine for ourselves what works and what doesn't and hopefully it'll help each of us be better participants.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:26 AM on December 5, 2001
No one is asking for people not to post their viewpoints, just to do it in a nice way.
Not everyone defines "nice" in the same way. All nice, all the time can equal total blandness.
Does asking for people to be more civil mean any loss in terms of freedom to express your views?
I think it can when "be more civil" is used as a disingenuous plea for all debate to cease on a particular subject because a person is overly sensitive or feels threatened by the IDEAS being discussed or is unable to adequately defend their own perspective without resorting to a call for cessation.
I'm all for civility, as a general rule--I've said as much elsewhere here. But I don't think that every time someone cries "be civil!" there was necessarily incivility--I think everyone has to use their own good judgement on that on a case-by-case basis. I think the best way to handle incivility, most of the time, is through how we choose to respond to it in-thread. Rather than try to silence people, I prefer to simply support the kinds of posts I prefer by responding to or noting them, and to ignore (or occasionally object to) the other sort.
posted by rushmc at 7:30 AM on December 5, 2001
Not everyone defines "nice" in the same way. All nice, all the time can equal total blandness.
Does asking for people to be more civil mean any loss in terms of freedom to express your views?
I think it can when "be more civil" is used as a disingenuous plea for all debate to cease on a particular subject because a person is overly sensitive or feels threatened by the IDEAS being discussed or is unable to adequately defend their own perspective without resorting to a call for cessation.
I'm all for civility, as a general rule--I've said as much elsewhere here. But I don't think that every time someone cries "be civil!" there was necessarily incivility--I think everyone has to use their own good judgement on that on a case-by-case basis. I think the best way to handle incivility, most of the time, is through how we choose to respond to it in-thread. Rather than try to silence people, I prefer to simply support the kinds of posts I prefer by responding to or noting them, and to ignore (or occasionally object to) the other sort.
posted by rushmc at 7:30 AM on December 5, 2001
I think it can when "be more civil" is used as a disingenuous plea for all debate to cease on a particular subject because a person is overly sensitive or feels threatened by the IDEAS being discussed or is unable to adequately defend their own perspective without resorting to a call for cessation.
It's certainly true that people can use a request for civility as an excuse to make people stop, but I think it's the extremes are pretty obvious and worth calling people for.
<example class="facetious">
Muted: I think Dr Pepper is the best soft drink. It is so tasty, even if it is flavored with prune juice!
Emotional: I just don't understand why people would drink anything other than Dr Pepper! Coke tastes like battery acid to me, whereas Dr Pepper is sweet and delicious. It's the perfect thing on a hot summer day, and I'm confused why so few people outside the South don't drink it. Are they confused?
Angry: Frankly, I think that Coke drinkers are bad people. Their continued insistance on drinking Coke baffles me. Do they not understand the superiority of Dr Pepper? Do they not understand what they are doing to the rest of us? Every time I see a Coke drinker, I am disgusted. Coke drinkers do not understand what America is all about. They are insensitive clods who are unconcerned with the feelings of others. I'm supposed I couldn't have expected much more from you and your hopelessly knee-jerk pro-Coke compadres, Rushmc.
Not civil: I think that we should take Coke drinkers out back and force Dr Pepper down their throats. If they continue to drink Coke, we should find them and lock them up. You, Rushmc, are a loathsome Coke drinker. I hope you get cavities and die, you worthless dynamic-ribbon-worshipping scum. I'll dance on your grave and drink a Dr Pepper.
</example>
Fortunately, most instances of rudeness stop around the third level, which I think is acceptable if not ideal. But I can think of instances where people have crossed that line.
posted by snarkout at 7:50 AM on December 5, 2001
It's certainly true that people can use a request for civility as an excuse to make people stop, but I think it's the extremes are pretty obvious and worth calling people for.
<example class="facetious">
Muted: I think Dr Pepper is the best soft drink. It is so tasty, even if it is flavored with prune juice!
Emotional: I just don't understand why people would drink anything other than Dr Pepper! Coke tastes like battery acid to me, whereas Dr Pepper is sweet and delicious. It's the perfect thing on a hot summer day, and I'm confused why so few people outside the South don't drink it. Are they confused?
Angry: Frankly, I think that Coke drinkers are bad people. Their continued insistance on drinking Coke baffles me. Do they not understand the superiority of Dr Pepper? Do they not understand what they are doing to the rest of us? Every time I see a Coke drinker, I am disgusted. Coke drinkers do not understand what America is all about. They are insensitive clods who are unconcerned with the feelings of others. I'm supposed I couldn't have expected much more from you and your hopelessly knee-jerk pro-Coke compadres, Rushmc.
Not civil: I think that we should take Coke drinkers out back and force Dr Pepper down their throats. If they continue to drink Coke, we should find them and lock them up. You, Rushmc, are a loathsome Coke drinker. I hope you get cavities and die, you worthless dynamic-ribbon-worshipping scum. I'll dance on your grave and drink a Dr Pepper.
</example>
Fortunately, most instances of rudeness stop around the third level, which I think is acceptable if not ideal. But I can think of instances where people have crossed that line.
posted by snarkout at 7:50 AM on December 5, 2001
I'm confused why so few people outside the South don't drink it. Are they confused?
I sure am. :)
posted by rodii at 8:05 AM on December 5, 2001
I sure am. :)
posted by rodii at 8:05 AM on December 5, 2001
I sure am.
Coke-drinking scum. I'll dance on your grave too.
As an added benefit, when people MetaTalk things for supposed incivility, people will generally say whether or not they they think it's bad. It's a useful feedback mechanism to find out if you, as a reader, are being more sensitive about certain things than MeFi users as a whole. (And it generally prevents people from being stifled, as people are happy to speak up when they think something ins't that bad.)
posted by snarkout at 8:10 AM on December 5, 2001
Coke-drinking scum. I'll dance on your grave too.
As an added benefit, when people MetaTalk things for supposed incivility, people will generally say whether or not they they think it's bad. It's a useful feedback mechanism to find out if you, as a reader, are being more sensitive about certain things than MeFi users as a whole. (And it generally prevents people from being stifled, as people are happy to speak up when they think something ins't that bad.)
posted by snarkout at 8:10 AM on December 5, 2001
Note to Sean Meade: From now on when you address someone by their 'real name,' do include the handle, too--I don't have everybody here memorized by profile. I thought you were referring to me and not iceberg273.
posted by y2karl at 10:24 AM on December 5, 2001
posted by y2karl at 10:24 AM on December 5, 2001
The thing with this thread is that it involves Jesus and Bush. Religion and politics. So you're already inviting a knee-jerk reaction from godless unbelievers/Democrats and Greens. ;)
But to top it off, you have the notion of someone who has publicly advocated executing homosexuals being appointed to a government position. I think that regardless of religious/political belief, the idea that someone calling for murder could have a government position is absurd and offensive.
Humor is in part a defense mechanism. We laugh, so that we do not cry. I think in large part the snarkiness level has escalated because from the perspective of a lot of people, The Real World has suddenly gotten so much worse. How do people deal with the events of 9/11 and all the attendant horror and insanity that followed? By laughing, because thinking about it too deeply will either send you into anger or plunge you into despair. Shallowness is a survival mechanism.
And really, this was a bad link in that it could not generate any interesting discussion. I mean, was someone going to try to defend this guy's positions? And while religion and its history is a fascinating subject, eventually you hit the Wall of Faith/No-Faith where it boils down to "you're going to Hell/you're an idiot for believing."
So I don't necessarily see in this thread another symptom in The Decline of Metafilter, but I do see more evidence that if you want thoughtful discussion, don't make the post so incendiary as to destroy the possibility.
posted by solistrato at 10:25 AM on December 5, 2001
But to top it off, you have the notion of someone who has publicly advocated executing homosexuals being appointed to a government position. I think that regardless of religious/political belief, the idea that someone calling for murder could have a government position is absurd and offensive.
Humor is in part a defense mechanism. We laugh, so that we do not cry. I think in large part the snarkiness level has escalated because from the perspective of a lot of people, The Real World has suddenly gotten so much worse. How do people deal with the events of 9/11 and all the attendant horror and insanity that followed? By laughing, because thinking about it too deeply will either send you into anger or plunge you into despair. Shallowness is a survival mechanism.
And really, this was a bad link in that it could not generate any interesting discussion. I mean, was someone going to try to defend this guy's positions? And while religion and its history is a fascinating subject, eventually you hit the Wall of Faith/No-Faith where it boils down to "you're going to Hell/you're an idiot for believing."
So I don't necessarily see in this thread another symptom in The Decline of Metafilter, but I do see more evidence that if you want thoughtful discussion, don't make the post so incendiary as to destroy the possibility.
posted by solistrato at 10:25 AM on December 5, 2001
Wow, 'thread-hijacker' at last. Sorry I couldn't respond to this straight away, I was in a meeting yesterday being un-thoughtful and un-prominent.
A general point. If you want informed and lengthy discussion about a minor figure in American politics, don't post at 1:01 AM PST, when everyone in the US is asleep or about to go to bed. You are leaving your thread in the hands of (mostly) Australians and Brits - or, in my case, an Australian living in Britain.
Since few non-Americans know the first thing about Brame, all that we had left to respond to in that thread was its main point: that someone who believed that "Non-Christians would not be forced to become Christians, but they would have to obey laws that came from the Bible" was up for appointment to high office.
My comment about Biblical dietary laws was directly aimed at this point, as I later reiterated: 'anyone who looks to the Bible as a one-stop-legal-shop for the 21st century deserves to be mocked'. I stand by that.
This was not being disrespectful towards Christians in general, because as everyone knows perfectly well, Christians in general don't observe every 'law' that comes from the Bible or expect that all non-Christians should toe their particular line. But I absolutely reserve the right to be disrespectful towards religious extremists who do expect such things, and Brame's religious extremism was the very reason that he was being discussed.
Now, if we do have any religious extremists here on MeFi who believe that the United States should be turned into a theocracy of any stripe, I heartily not-apologise to those members in person. I completely not-respect your plans to restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of people who live in a country I like very much, and solemnly not-promise to sit quietly by should you ever proclaim such views here.
As for bemoaning the 'shallowness' of the thread in those early posts - again, remembering the time-zone differences, you're bemoaning that Brits and Aussies are in no real position to make lengthy, thoughtful posts (and in the case of the Brits and yours truly, to write those during work hours) about the NLRB, Robert Brame, and extremist groups like American Vision - all of which are, thankfully, American phenomena with which we non-Americans are only passingly familiar. Seriously: if you want lengthy discussion about a minor figure in American politics, don't post at 1:01 AM PST (and I know you didn't post the thread, gd779).
This time-zone issue affects us non-Americans again and again, so it's amusing to see it turned around like this. I can't help thinking of all those weeks of lurking while hundreds of American MeFites screamed themselves hoarse about the WTC and Afghanistan, which like everyone else on the planet I had deeply-felt views about - but never felt it appropriate to express because the threads were always exhausted by the time 9 a.m. GMT rolled around. (Well, that was one of the reasons.)
A couple of our most thoughtful and prominent members have stopped posting recently, commenting that they felt bullied off the board.
Thanks for implying that anyone who chooses to make the occasional humorous (or even, gasp, sarcastic) comment isn't 'thoughtful'. May we also assume that anyone who says anything serious has no sense of humour? Or that humour is an illegitimate way of expressing intelligence?
[iceberg273:] users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread
I assume that you wouldn't say this about someone with an overall posting rate of 8.25 MeFi+MeTa posts+comments per month since May 2000, only a few of which were 'early in a thread' - in which case this is yet another case of reading general trends into cases that don't warrant such generalisation. I'm starting to detect a trend here, and frankly, this thread is an extreme example of a type of behavior that seems to be growing...
[gd779's] early comment seemed intended to steer rory away from a misconception that Christians follow some kind of dietary restrictions.
Which, as gd779 himself accurately assumed, were misconceptions I was not labouring under. So why the need to 'correct' me on that point? Was gd779 worried that some misguided MeFites might come away from my obviously tongue-in-cheek comments feeling all confused about whether or not the dominant religion in Western culture prohibits the eating of lobster? Who exactly was being 'insulting in tone' here?
So thanks, gd779, for lumping me in by implication with the countless hawk-and-peacenik squabbles and the camgirl shout-outs, when I've been keeping out of such threads so as not to add more noise to MeFi. Clearly, it doesn't matter whether or not one restrains oneself on countless occasions from taking cheap shots at tempting targets (restraint that no one ever notices anyway, unless perhaps you're 'prominent', i.e. someone who by definition doesn't restrain from posting). No, what matters is that you treat religious extremists with the serious and sombre tones of respect they patently don't deserve.
(Not that I object to your posting about the thread in MeTa. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to discuss such issues here, and this has been a good MeTa thread. So, unsarcastically this time, thanks!)
posted by rory at 5:56 AM on December 6, 2001
A general point. If you want informed and lengthy discussion about a minor figure in American politics, don't post at 1:01 AM PST, when everyone in the US is asleep or about to go to bed. You are leaving your thread in the hands of (mostly) Australians and Brits - or, in my case, an Australian living in Britain.
Since few non-Americans know the first thing about Brame, all that we had left to respond to in that thread was its main point: that someone who believed that "Non-Christians would not be forced to become Christians, but they would have to obey laws that came from the Bible" was up for appointment to high office.
My comment about Biblical dietary laws was directly aimed at this point, as I later reiterated: 'anyone who looks to the Bible as a one-stop-legal-shop for the 21st century deserves to be mocked'. I stand by that.
This was not being disrespectful towards Christians in general, because as everyone knows perfectly well, Christians in general don't observe every 'law' that comes from the Bible or expect that all non-Christians should toe their particular line. But I absolutely reserve the right to be disrespectful towards religious extremists who do expect such things, and Brame's religious extremism was the very reason that he was being discussed.
Now, if we do have any religious extremists here on MeFi who believe that the United States should be turned into a theocracy of any stripe, I heartily not-apologise to those members in person. I completely not-respect your plans to restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of people who live in a country I like very much, and solemnly not-promise to sit quietly by should you ever proclaim such views here.
As for bemoaning the 'shallowness' of the thread in those early posts - again, remembering the time-zone differences, you're bemoaning that Brits and Aussies are in no real position to make lengthy, thoughtful posts (and in the case of the Brits and yours truly, to write those during work hours) about the NLRB, Robert Brame, and extremist groups like American Vision - all of which are, thankfully, American phenomena with which we non-Americans are only passingly familiar. Seriously: if you want lengthy discussion about a minor figure in American politics, don't post at 1:01 AM PST (and I know you didn't post the thread, gd779).
This time-zone issue affects us non-Americans again and again, so it's amusing to see it turned around like this. I can't help thinking of all those weeks of lurking while hundreds of American MeFites screamed themselves hoarse about the WTC and Afghanistan, which like everyone else on the planet I had deeply-felt views about - but never felt it appropriate to express because the threads were always exhausted by the time 9 a.m. GMT rolled around. (Well, that was one of the reasons.)
A couple of our most thoughtful and prominent members have stopped posting recently, commenting that they felt bullied off the board.
Thanks for implying that anyone who chooses to make the occasional humorous (or even, gasp, sarcastic) comment isn't 'thoughtful'. May we also assume that anyone who says anything serious has no sense of humour? Or that humour is an illegitimate way of expressing intelligence?
[iceberg273:] users who have been making it a habit to make some sarcastic or [marginally] funny remark early in a thread
I assume that you wouldn't say this about someone with an overall posting rate of 8.25 MeFi+MeTa posts+comments per month since May 2000, only a few of which were 'early in a thread' - in which case this is yet another case of reading general trends into cases that don't warrant such generalisation. I'm starting to detect a trend here, and frankly, this thread is an extreme example of a type of behavior that seems to be growing...
[gd779's] early comment seemed intended to steer rory away from a misconception that Christians follow some kind of dietary restrictions.
Which, as gd779 himself accurately assumed, were misconceptions I was not labouring under. So why the need to 'correct' me on that point? Was gd779 worried that some misguided MeFites might come away from my obviously tongue-in-cheek comments feeling all confused about whether or not the dominant religion in Western culture prohibits the eating of lobster? Who exactly was being 'insulting in tone' here?
So thanks, gd779, for lumping me in by implication with the countless hawk-and-peacenik squabbles and the camgirl shout-outs, when I've been keeping out of such threads so as not to add more noise to MeFi. Clearly, it doesn't matter whether or not one restrains oneself on countless occasions from taking cheap shots at tempting targets (restraint that no one ever notices anyway, unless perhaps you're 'prominent', i.e. someone who by definition doesn't restrain from posting). No, what matters is that you treat religious extremists with the serious and sombre tones of respect they patently don't deserve.
(Not that I object to your posting about the thread in MeTa. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to discuss such issues here, and this has been a good MeTa thread. So, unsarcastically this time, thanks!)
posted by rory at 5:56 AM on December 6, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I think that this thread, taken as a whole, represents MetaFilter (and internet discussion generally) at it’s worst: snarky, dismissive, and shallow. I’d like to see us publicly condemn this sort of behavior and make a collective effort to do better in the future.
Read through the thread, for crying out loud! Am I the only one to think that, by and large, it's knee-jerk and snarky first-rate crap, on par with the level of intelligence you'll typically find on plastic.com? Isn't MetaFilter supposed to be more than this?
Can't we do any better?
As you all know, I'm not the first to notice that the level of civility on MetaFilter has recently declined. A couple of our most thoughtful and prominent members have stopped posting recently, commenting that they felt bullied off the board. With that decline in civility has come a corresponding decline in quality. Threads like this lower the overall level of intelligence on MetaFilter, and I, for one, think that it has to stop.
That said, I have to admit that I tend to get upset when religion is not addressed seriously. As a result, I may be overreacting here. If that's the case, and I’m just pissing in the pool here, let me know. I'll be sure to apologize.
posted by gd779 at 1:30 PM on December 4, 2001