I blame thread deletion April 10, 2008 12:55 PM   Subscribe

I'd like to ask for a reconsideration on this on teh grounds that, well, I was finding bits of the discussion interestign, and though I disagree with the premise of the post (as do a lot of people discussing it) deleting it seems pretty harsh.

(Possibly a bunch of stuff was deleted that I've missed, but really the discussion doesn't seem that bad.)
posted by Artw to Etiquette/Policy at 12:55 PM (68 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Eight of the first ten comments in that thread were non-discussion lulz comments. The post had some flags and, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the person who actually made the post closed his account. So, it seemed like there weren't a lot of compelling leniency reasons to keep it around and plenty of "Oh good now they're making jokes about the greasy hair of the cheerleaders, following on talking about the Trix rabbit fucking you in the ass...." At some level it was an editorializing GYOB type of post that wasn't rejuvenated or redeemed by the discussion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:03 PM on April 10, 2008


Fascinating that an 18K'er waits so long to make a post, makes that post, then leaves immediately.
posted by jbickers at 1:05 PM on April 10, 2008


I have to out my sock puppet account to respond to this. I posted it under another account, which I have closed.

With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstood my premise, Artw.

I really wasn't trying to decry anything, as jessamyn implied. In fact, though I might have made some wry references, I was trying very hard not to editorialize.

There were just a few related stories in the news of late, and thought some of the background bits were pretty interesting, and worked hard to put together a thoughtful collection of links to open it up into a discussion about media hype, impact of vacuous celebrity culture on society, whether or not teen violence is surging (I don't know for certain whether it is or is not), the proposition that it is nothing new, and so on. Instead, what we saw was an over the top, I can outsnark everyone else in the room circle jerk, in essence, Metafilter at its condescending worst.

I take full blame for not framing it appropriately, and not making enough reference to the meatier bits in there. I would have been happy to point those out in the thread, but the response was so overwhelmingly and immediately smug, snarky and condescending that I didn't have the heart to try. So, I deleted my account. Just can't do it anymore.
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:06 PM on April 10, 2008


I flagged it as "breaking the guidelines" without even reading the comments. It just seemed to me like one of those sensational local news stories = national trend stories that we've had the same conversation about many times before. My idea of what is good for Metafilter might differ from yours, so I tend to flag things, trust the mods, and quietly move on.

Also, I believe posts with lots of question marks in them often do not end well.
posted by marxchivist at 1:07 PM on April 10, 2008


Well, he remembered why he closed his earlier MetaFilter account.

Apparently, he doesn't like people disagreeing with him.
posted by yhbc at 1:08 PM on April 10, 2008


Apparently, he doesn't like people disagreeing with him.

I don't mind that all. I just mind when people disagree with me when I'm not taking a position.
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:09 PM on April 10, 2008


I disagree.
posted by found missing at 1:12 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I really hated the tone of the post, that kind of fear mongering goes on way way too much in our society. It didn't occur to me to flag it just because I disagreed with it, though.

Also, I think it had too many links. Too many people think a "great post" is one with as many links larded onto it as possible.

Also, the link in this thread was kind of funny, but the 'via' link had actually been a self link, so the poster got deleted and banned (in case you missed it)
posted by delmoi at 1:12 PM on April 10, 2008


Wait, COME BACK!
posted by found missing at 1:12 PM on April 10, 2008


Whoops, still hear, I now see.

Gervais, besotted, whoever - what you saw as "smug, snarky and condescedning" I saw as people disagreeing with the premises behind your post as well as your presentation of it.
posted by yhbc at 1:12 PM on April 10, 2008


See, I think the post reads like you were taking a position G B-H which was exactly what people picked up on and why it started a "you know what's wrong with kids today...?" sort of joke riff instead of a thoughful discussion. I feel the same way about Mutant's boys vs girls post from a few days ago. He started with a fairly interesting article but then "spiced it up" with other less-interesting throwaway fluff and the post wasn't as good with those links. If you include links to sensationalistic mainstream media nonsense reportting, your post is going to take on some of the tenor of those pieces because they are part of what people are going to be discussing and reacting to.

I think we should rename the site OMGTeenageGirlsAreCrazyFilter and call it a day some weeks. Yes I'm aware that I am oversimplifying.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:13 PM on April 10, 2008


I blame blame.
posted by telstar at 1:14 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


(Ah, apparently the tone was meant to be sarcastic, but failed)
posted by delmoi at 1:15 PM on April 10, 2008


Yes I'm aware that I am oversimplifying.

Be glib! Be glib! Be glib!

Sorry, I'll shut up now.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:15 PM on April 10, 2008


TBH any LULZ were more a disagreement with the premise of the mass media narrative as presented in the post, which we can all recognise a mile off since we've been beaten over the head with it a thousand times, than an attack on the OP. I find that interpretation a little weird.
posted by Artw at 1:16 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


My only premise was that I thought there may have been a couple of issues to discuss behind all the media hype and the hysterical tone (which I was unsuccessfully trying to parody), the NPR piece was pretty interesting, and the Freakonomics abortion/reduction in violence hypothesis is also somewhat interesting.

So yeah, it was my bad. I failed to structure it in a way that inspired a good conversation, and I suppose I deserved what I got.
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:16 PM on April 10, 2008


Also I blame Chyna, the WWF wrestler and Celebrity Rehab Star.
posted by Artw at 1:16 PM on April 10, 2008


TIZZY!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:17 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


it started a "you know what's wrong with kids today...?" sort of joke riff instead of a thoughful discussion.

Yeah, I know... but I thought that we'd all seen the "get off my lawn" saw so many thousands of times in MeFi, that it's no longer a joke (hell, I even put it in the post title in order try to pre-empt it). It's a joke about a joke about a joke, and it stopped being funny right about the time that the second person recycled it.

But yeah, I'll take my beating and be done with it.
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:19 PM on April 10, 2008


OMGTeenageGirlsAreCrazyFilter

Not even -- just monsterfilter jr. Thanks for nuking it, Jessamyn.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:21 PM on April 10, 2008


What beating? You had a post deleted...hardly the end of the world.
Undelete your account and grow a thicker skin.
posted by rocket88 at 1:22 PM on April 10, 2008


But yeah, I'll take my beating and be done with it.

I think possibly you are overplaying the martyr card just a little bit now. Your thread had LOLZ in it. You or others shouted "OMG! LOLZ! Delete it, delete it, delete it!" and it was done. That was mildly questioned. No one is hitting you with sticks.
posted by Artw at 1:23 PM on April 10, 2008


or what rocket88 said.
posted by Artw at 1:24 PM on April 10, 2008


It's a joke about a joke about a joke, and it stopped being funny right about the time that the second person recycled it.

Actually, it never stopped being funny.

Mostly because it never started.
posted by dersins at 1:24 PM on April 10, 2008


Just to clarify:
"The Silly Rabbit fucks up the asshole kids who kept the Trix away!"
Does not equal:
talking about the Trix rabbit fucking you in the ass...."

Other than that, I have no opinion on this subject.
posted by Floydd at 1:25 PM on April 10, 2008


What beating?

Sorry bad pun... had to do with the subject matter.

Undelete your account and grow a thicker skin.

Now that's just cruel. You know that I have Recklinghausen syndrome don't you?

ok. that was bad
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:25 PM on April 10, 2008


TBH any LULZ were more a disagreement with the premise of the mass media narrative as presented in the post ... than an attack on the OP.

Yeah, that was my read too. The post came off to me as "these incidents mean something! (Or do they? !!!) Discuss!" followed by a thread full of people kind of going "seriously, that's...no. No, they don't."

I also realize I'm oversimplifying, but that's the essential dynamic I saw there. If that's not how the post was meant to read, I can understand your frustration, but I think it was the presentation itself causing the problem.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:27 PM on April 10, 2008


I would like to apologize for casting aspersions on the non-assfucking rabbit.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:32 PM on April 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


"The Silly Rabbit fucks up the asshole kids who kept the Trix away!"

It is precisely this kind of sloppy grammar that makes the Second Amendment so open to debate.
posted by found missing at 1:35 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Always with the small animals. Always with the small animals.
posted by dersins at 1:36 PM on April 10, 2008


You have the right to arm bears. Tiny bears who live in drainpipes.
posted by Artw at 1:37 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


but I think it was the presentation itself causing the problem.

I think that's exactly right and I couldn't agree more. I kind of got carried away with lampooning the too easily lampoonable media coverage, that it distracted me from my effort to create something a little more meaningful, as well as communicate anything of substance. If I had it to do over again I would have made more of an effort to say something to the effect that, yes, essentially, the media is turning this into a hype festival, which should surprise no one, but is there something to it?

Those of us old enough to remember the Central Park jogger attack in the late 80s, and other scattered (overreported perhaps) reports of "wilding" around that same time, also remember the media hype heralding the appearance of Droog-like "superpredators". My interest is not so much in whether or not these reports are correct, it is tracing this kind of media hype, whether it is cyclical or not or tracks to to economic conditions, recessions, perceived decline in national self-image etc.

Still, it probably wouldn't have been a great post, but definitely a lot better than the one that got deleted.
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 1:38 PM on April 10, 2008


please don't ban me again

or, if you do, please send me a screenshot of my disabled account


posted by dersins at 1:39 PM on April 10, 2008


You're taking this pretty well, Gervais Brooke-Hamster. Top-hole, old chap.
posted by languagehat at 1:42 PM on April 10, 2008


top hole?
posted by found missing at 1:43 PM on April 10, 2008


if you do, please send me a screenshot of my disabled account

Not quite the same, but here's a nice photo of her banning you. Good times!

top hole?

OED: top-hole = top-notch; attrib. first-rate, ‘tip-top’ (slang)
posted by languagehat at 1:46 PM on April 10, 2008


I'm pretty sure this is the photo you meant, languagehat.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:47 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


That was just before she banned him. Ooh, what a naughty dersins!
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on April 10, 2008


top hole?

I said that once and my mother slapped me.
posted by found missing at 1:54 PM on April 10, 2008


if you do, please send me a screenshot of my disabled account

check your gmail.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:56 PM on April 10, 2008


That second picture is crying out for either black magic lightning streaming from the fingertips, or lasers from the eyes. But not both... that'd be overkill.
posted by CKmtl at 2:04 PM on April 10, 2008


check your gmail.

I'm with the banned!
posted by dersins at 2:11 PM on April 10, 2008


I'm with The Banned!

Goth.
posted by Artw at 2:28 PM on April 10, 2008


"I would like to apologize for casting aspersions on the non-assfucking rabbit."

In the interest of quibbling hermeneutics, we do not know that the rabbit does not ass fuck. Additionally, I would not necessarily consider being known to fuck others in the ass as an aspersion.
posted by klangklangston at 2:29 PM on April 10, 2008


Of course, the trivial manner of this disagreement could easily be termed "bottom-hole."
posted by klangklangston at 2:30 PM on April 10, 2008


Goth.

Hellz yeah.

(Well, 20-odd years ago, anyway.)

20 very odd years.

posted by dersins at 2:31 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I bet people would pay money for porn of Jessamyn banning their accounts. $5 a pop, in fact.
posted by Eideteker at 2:40 PM on April 10, 2008


^ Does that count as a counter reset?
posted by Burhanistan at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2008


Top-hole, old chap.

I say, this thread is utterly duff without candid photography, what?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:53 PM on April 10, 2008


If you include links to sensationalistic mainstream media nonsense reportting, your post is going to take on some of the tenor of those pieces because they are part of what people are going to be discussing and reacting to.

MetaFilter Rule #8023.4: No matter how well-crafted your multi-link FPP, people will by and large respond to the link that is (a) least pertinent, or (b) most inflammatory, or (c) has the highest chance of causing a derail, or (d) all of the above.

Leave those links out. (Difficulty: sometimes you don't know what those links are until it's too late.)
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 3:02 PM on April 10, 2008


I blame Guy Ritchie for this outbreak of British gangster slang.

Toodle-pip motherfuckers!
posted by Artw at 3:04 PM on April 10, 2008


If explaining Pterodactyl porn to my mom would have n degree of difficulty, explaining Eideteker's idea to my mom would have n^2 degree of difficulty. Not that I am likely to attempt either explanation.
posted by everichon at 3:04 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I stopped after trying to explain 'ZOMG'.
posted by everichon at 3:06 PM on April 10, 2008




*whistles long and slow*
posted by nola at 3:48 PM on April 10, 2008


explaining Pterodactyl porn to my mom

Why explain? Just send her the link. Everyone's mom should be dinodickrolled.
posted by dersins at 4:24 PM on April 10, 2008


Jesus, I think I just remembered why I closed my last MetaFilter account.

hey wait, are you the 'sick of the doom pornography' dude?
posted by quonsar at 4:33 PM on April 10, 2008


No, I'm the 'sick of doom pornography' dude!

[NOT DOOM PORNOGRAPHIST]
posted by scrump at 5:00 PM on April 10, 2008


It's a joke about a joke about a joke, and it stopped being got really funny right about the time that the second person recycled it.

Ok, that's better.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 5:07 PM on April 10, 2008


Why explain? Just send her the link.

That is my sister's job. It would violate my contract as first-born do-no-wrong.
posted by everichon at 6:38 PM on April 10, 2008


outbreak of British gangster slang
Only if Bertie Wooster is your idea of of a hardman crime-lord; though to be fair, that's about as credible as Guy Ritchie.
posted by Abiezer at 6:56 PM on April 10, 2008


Oi you crumpet, don't get all twiglet with me marmite tardis!
posted by Artw at 7:18 PM on April 10, 2008


Um, dersins, which goth were you?
posted by yhbc at 7:24 PM on April 10, 2008


The one on the right.
posted by dersins at 8:17 PM on April 10, 2008


dersins, you are the cross-dressing, bloodsucking incubus from Maggot Death!

Awesome. Color me impressed!
posted by psmealey at 8:00 AM on April 11, 2008


No one is hitting you with sticks.

Wait. Was that an option? Are we hitting people with sticks? Because I have a stick.

*waves stick*
posted by quin at 8:07 AM on April 11, 2008


I have to out my sock puppet account to respond to this.
posted by flabdablet's sock puppet at 8:35 AM on April 11, 2008


Bollocks.
posted by flabdablet at 8:36 AM on April 11, 2008


Bollocks.

Never mind them.
posted by dersins at 11:08 AM on April 11, 2008


« Older New York Comic Con 08 "Wooo!"   |   Four People Beating Up On Someone (YT): For the... Newer »

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