Must we get all political? September 14, 2008 7:25 PM Subscribe
Must we have questions like this? It comes across as "We're all smart grownups here, and, of course, all smart grownups know that Bush SUCKS! Help me convince my poor, stupid, brainwashed friend that I'm right, which we all know I am."
It's not like I'm trying to defend Bush--I'm not exactly a fan myself--but if I posted a question asking "how can I convince my liberal friend that the Clinton presidency was a total failure?" I would be lambasted, and rightfully so.
I know Metafilter is probably 80% liberal, but I still think we can avoid stuff like this. It makes me not want to visit the site when I think my political views are going to be assaulted. [Insert smart ass comment about how I'm not wanted anyway]
It's not like I'm trying to defend Bush--I'm not exactly a fan myself--but if I posted a question asking "how can I convince my liberal friend that the Clinton presidency was a total failure?" I would be lambasted, and rightfully so.
I know Metafilter is probably 80% liberal, but I still think we can avoid stuff like this. It makes me not want to visit the site when I think my political views are going to be assaulted. [Insert smart ass comment about how I'm not wanted anyway]
Yeah! We totally need more questions like, "Hey AskMe, help me generate ideas on how to relate my feelings to my peers, in order to convince them that this thing here is objectionable while this other thing over here is way better (IMHO)."
On second thought, Jessamyn seems to have things under control over there. At least you came to the right place for a lambasting.
posted by carsonb at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2008
On second thought, Jessamyn seems to have things under control over there. At least you came to the right place for a lambasting.
posted by carsonb at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2008
I don't like questions like that in general but I thought that as they went, that one wasn't too bad. Could have done without the "incoherent rage" part I suppose. The big issue with those threads is that people who don't agree, for whatever reason, can't help but start an "Oh yeah??" response [we saw it in a recent AskMe, the qualifications for VP one] and that turns the thread into a fight when the OP is basically asking for a list of details. We'll nip them in the bud when they start becoming debates, but asking how to win an argument isn't a misuse of AskMe.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:36 PM on September 14, 2008
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:36 PM on September 14, 2008
There have been a few political questions on the Green lately--in fact, the exact inverse of that question, more or less, was posted a few days ago by someone who was all "How can I most effectively support McCain/Palin here in New York?"
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:49 PM on September 14, 2008
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:49 PM on September 14, 2008
I think the problem with this question is not the political aspect, but the "adding too many extra questionable details and editorializing rather than asking a question" thing that happens all the time over there and gets dragged to meta often. And yet that doesn't stop people.
IMO, "I would like a coherent, succinct history of the failures of the Bush Administration, please" would be a perfectly fine ask for all the reasons "My idiot friend watches fox news and I can hardly keep calm around her though I try, how obnoxious, help me prove her wrong" is a terrible one.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:05 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
IMO, "I would like a coherent, succinct history of the failures of the Bush Administration, please" would be a perfectly fine ask for all the reasons "My idiot friend watches fox news and I can hardly keep calm around her though I try, how obnoxious, help me prove her wrong" is a terrible one.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:05 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Sidhedevil, we also have threads like this.
And what's the problem with that question, or the answers?
posted by dogrose at 8:14 PM on September 14, 2008
And what's the problem with that question, or the answers?
posted by dogrose at 8:14 PM on September 14, 2008
I'm saying it's no better or worse than the question sidehedevil referenced, though it's from the opposite side of the spectrum.
posted by Autarky at 8:28 PM on September 14, 2008
posted by Autarky at 8:28 PM on September 14, 2008
IMO, "I would like a coherent, succinct history of the failures of the Bush Administration, please" would be a perfectly fine ask for all the reasons "My idiot friend watches fox news and I can hardly keep calm around her though I try, how obnoxious, help me prove her wrong" is a terrible one.
It's a howl of despair. It shouldn't be ignored.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 PM on September 14, 2008
It's a howl of despair. It shouldn't be ignored.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 PM on September 14, 2008
I'm saying it's no better or worse than the question sidehedevil referenced, though it's from the opposite side of the spectrum.
But your original complaint wasn't about political questions specifically -- just political questions you don't agree with.
Does jessamyn's response above make sense to you?
posted by dogrose at 9:33 PM on September 14, 2008
But your original complaint wasn't about political questions specifically -- just political questions you don't agree with.
Does jessamyn's response above make sense to you?
posted by dogrose at 9:33 PM on September 14, 2008
dogrose:
posted by Autarky at 9:55 PM on September 14, 2008
It's not like I'm trying to defend Bush--I'm not exactly a fan myself--but if I posted a question asking "how can I convince my liberal friend that the Clinton presidency was a total failure?" I would be lambasted, and rightfully so.My problem wasn't that I heart Bush and can't stand to see him get criticized, but that I don't think we should have such politically charged questions that are somewhat insulting to all those who disagree with the OP's premise.
posted by Autarky at 9:55 PM on September 14, 2008
My problem wasn't that I heart Bush and can't stand to see him get criticized, but that I don't think we should have such politically charged questions that are somewhat insulting to all those who disagree with the OP's premise.
My take on it is that we can (and have) had questions that are politically charged—some have worked out pretty well, some have been more like riding a tiger, but they aren't off the menu entirely and they shouldn't be. Sometimes, folks will have totally decent questions about politically charged stuff. The same goes for emotionally charged stuff in general, across lots of different vectors.
Keeping the insulting framing out it is a good thing, absolutely, and this one could have been better stated, so I can see where you're coming from and I pretty much agree that it's not how such a question should ideally be asked, though this is (again both within the political sphere and without) a lot better than some things we've seen and deleted over time. I'm pretty much with Jessamyn in that respect on this one—and there's always going to be these hazier middling cases where a question is problematic enough to notice but not enough to necessarily merit deletion. We're stuck searching for a compromise—there are a lot of folks who would like to see less deleted from AskMe as well.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 PM on September 14, 2008
My take on it is that we can (and have) had questions that are politically charged—some have worked out pretty well, some have been more like riding a tiger, but they aren't off the menu entirely and they shouldn't be. Sometimes, folks will have totally decent questions about politically charged stuff. The same goes for emotionally charged stuff in general, across lots of different vectors.
Keeping the insulting framing out it is a good thing, absolutely, and this one could have been better stated, so I can see where you're coming from and I pretty much agree that it's not how such a question should ideally be asked, though this is (again both within the political sphere and without) a lot better than some things we've seen and deleted over time. I'm pretty much with Jessamyn in that respect on this one—and there's always going to be these hazier middling cases where a question is problematic enough to notice but not enough to necessarily merit deletion. We're stuck searching for a compromise—there are a lot of folks who would like to see less deleted from AskMe as well.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 PM on September 14, 2008
So don't answer it.
posted by orthogonality at 10:50 PM on September 14, 2008
posted by orthogonality at 10:50 PM on September 14, 2008
He asked a very specific and non-chatty question. It's fine. So would "How can I convince my friend that Clinton failed as a president?" The question might not get many answers, but it's a valid question.
posted by ignignokt at 11:01 PM on September 14, 2008
posted by ignignokt at 11:01 PM on September 14, 2008
Oh, I don't know -- I think it's a perfectly rational approach to the question. Editorializing aside, it wouldn't raise a red flag if the question were, say, about a person whose friend wanted to buy a house in a location that had lots of earthquakes and hurricanes, and whose friend said "It's as nice a place as anywhere else, so I might as well live there" -- and so the person was seeking a good source of public record information on the bad weather and earthquake activity in that region. That it involves politics (and the accordant personal feelings getting in the way of rational judgement on all sides) doesn't change the fact that the asker is looking for either a good source of public record information on the facts of the Bush presidency, or on a precompiled list of the key highlights.
posted by davejay at 12:56 AM on September 15, 2008
posted by davejay at 12:56 AM on September 15, 2008
So I'm checking out Spore for the first time yesterday. I advance to the tribal level, and find that the only way to advance is to interact with other tribes.
So then I come across this new tribe with tiny skulls and enormous jaws, and I think, 'Aha! I recognize this tribe. I know how to impress them with my fantastic social and diplomatic skills.'
So, can somebody tell me where the button for criminalizing possession of a couple of arbitrary plants is? Also, the button for interfering with the sex life of random members of your tribe while you're at it?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:40 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
So then I come across this new tribe with tiny skulls and enormous jaws, and I think, 'Aha! I recognize this tribe. I know how to impress them with my fantastic social and diplomatic skills.'
So, can somebody tell me where the button for criminalizing possession of a couple of arbitrary plants is? Also, the button for interfering with the sex life of random members of your tribe while you're at it?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:40 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Dear AskMe,
I've been in my current job now for almost 8 years, and I really feel that other people don't respect my work. [MORE INSIDE]
I made a lot of changes when I came in, and really tried to push through some radical approaches to things. But lately, I've noticed that my staff (and ex-staff) are criticising me, and saying that I got a lot of things wrong.
This one ex-employee - let's call him Scott - was particularly rude about some of my strategies - even though he told everyone he thought they were great, back when he worked for us! I've also had a lot of close colleagues leave, like this one guy, let's call him Karl.
Now there are two other guys on the scene, and I know they're angling for my job. Both of them are always going 'round telling people that THEY should be in charge of the place, instead of me. I guess they've both got a right to say what they want, but it's really starting to hurt inside.
I don't want to stress too much about this, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts on coping strategies for difficult work environments. At the moment, I'm trying to de-stress by taking more cardiovascular exercise, using lavender bath-oil (which has good relaxing properties) and spending quality time with my family.
However, my deputy - let's call him Dick - has been suggesting that I declare martial law and entrench my position as President-for-Life by tearing down the Constitution and punishing all perceived dissidents with torture and exile, before we unlease an apocalyptic nuclear war on our enemies and found a new theocracy in which I am worshipped as the only rightful representative of God upon the Earth, and then my semen is forcibly injected into every woman of child-bearing age to produce a race of utterly obedient clone-slaves that will dominate humanity throughout a thousand-year reign.
What approach do you think is best?
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:30 AM on September 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
I've been in my current job now for almost 8 years, and I really feel that other people don't respect my work. [MORE INSIDE]
I made a lot of changes when I came in, and really tried to push through some radical approaches to things. But lately, I've noticed that my staff (and ex-staff) are criticising me, and saying that I got a lot of things wrong.
This one ex-employee - let's call him Scott - was particularly rude about some of my strategies - even though he told everyone he thought they were great, back when he worked for us! I've also had a lot of close colleagues leave, like this one guy, let's call him Karl.
Now there are two other guys on the scene, and I know they're angling for my job. Both of them are always going 'round telling people that THEY should be in charge of the place, instead of me. I guess they've both got a right to say what they want, but it's really starting to hurt inside.
I don't want to stress too much about this, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts on coping strategies for difficult work environments. At the moment, I'm trying to de-stress by taking more cardiovascular exercise, using lavender bath-oil (which has good relaxing properties) and spending quality time with my family.
However, my deputy - let's call him Dick - has been suggesting that I declare martial law and entrench my position as President-for-Life by tearing down the Constitution and punishing all perceived dissidents with torture and exile, before we unlease an apocalyptic nuclear war on our enemies and found a new theocracy in which I am worshipped as the only rightful representative of God upon the Earth, and then my semen is forcibly injected into every woman of child-bearing age to produce a race of utterly obedient clone-slaves that will dominate humanity throughout a thousand-year reign.
What approach do you think is best?
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:30 AM on September 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
....if I posted a question asking "how can I convince my liberal friend that the Clinton presidency was a total failure?" I would be lambasted, and rightfully so.
Your underlying assumption is that different ideologies are all equally useful/good/correct/whatever. This is historically false.
posted by DU at 4:49 AM on September 15, 2008
Your underlying assumption is that different ideologies are all equally useful/good/correct/whatever. This is historically false.
posted by DU at 4:49 AM on September 15, 2008
I know Metafilter is probably 80% liberal, but I still think we I can avoid stuff like this.
There. Wasn't that simple?
posted by Sailormom at 5:38 AM on September 15, 2008
There. Wasn't that simple?
posted by Sailormom at 5:38 AM on September 15, 2008
Must we get all political?
You're asking this on Metafilter? Metafilter?!?! Dude. That's like walking into the Vatican and asking, "Must we get all religious?"
posted by orange swan at 5:52 AM on September 15, 2008
You're asking this on Metafilter? Metafilter?!?! Dude. That's like walking into the Vatican and asking, "Must we get all religious?"
posted by orange swan at 5:52 AM on September 15, 2008
I kind of agree with the OP here...the last eight years notwithstanding, this kind of question (and the previous VP one) seems like nothing more than a clever way of doing "AMIRITE"Filter.
posted by sjuhawk31 at 5:54 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by sjuhawk31 at 5:54 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Autarky-
I completely agree, which is why I responded twice with "answers are noise" posts. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I do believe that, by and large, the difference between this presidency and ANY in the past is the level of publicity and active reporting, and that there won't be an actual legitimate discussion of scholars or even people with good ideas, because it's too fun to be ANTI or PRO.
History isn't about trashing someone or being on a side, it's about figuring out WTF happened and how it happened, and what the results were.
IMO it's a bandwagon post.
posted by TomMelee at 5:56 AM on September 15, 2008
I completely agree, which is why I responded twice with "answers are noise" posts. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I do believe that, by and large, the difference between this presidency and ANY in the past is the level of publicity and active reporting, and that there won't be an actual legitimate discussion of scholars or even people with good ideas, because it's too fun to be ANTI or PRO.
History isn't about trashing someone or being on a side, it's about figuring out WTF happened and how it happened, and what the results were.
IMO it's a bandwagon post.
posted by TomMelee at 5:56 AM on September 15, 2008
I'm saying it's no better or worse than the question sidehedevil referenced, though it's from the opposite side of the spectrum.
I think you're paying too much attention to the part of these questions that refers to a spectrum, and not enough to the part that asks a question. The green-card holder's question wasn't about supporting Obama as much as it was about the limits on a green-card holder's political activity.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:27 AM on September 15, 2008
I think you're paying too much attention to the part of these questions that refers to a spectrum, and not enough to the part that asks a question. The green-card holder's question wasn't about supporting Obama as much as it was about the limits on a green-card holder's political activity.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:27 AM on September 15, 2008
We really shouldn't have questions like this. All they do appeal to the masses here on Mefi. Besides everyone knows that you can't reason with the poor that are stupid enough to vote republican. Because gay marriage, abortions, and liberal thinking are the devil! BUT somehow wars, shipping jobs overseas, poor economics, and spending money we don't have, is God's plan?!?!?!?!? I'm sorry my head hurts, I need to sit down.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 8:34 AM on September 15, 2008
posted by Mastercheddaar at 8:34 AM on September 15, 2008
I like this girl, and I'm pretty sure she likes me, but i just don't know what to do. Approach her directly? That might be too forward. Ohhhhhhh, hive mind, please hope me. Also, my cat is not well and although I know you are not a vet, what do you think it might be? I'm developing a rash on my left...
posted by fixedgear at 9:00 AM on September 15, 2008
posted by fixedgear at 9:00 AM on September 15, 2008
Dear AxMe, My friends are idiots, why can't I convince them of that? I keep telling them over and over "You are an idiot" but they just seem to get angry with me! What gives?
posted by blue_beetle at 9:13 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 9:13 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm saying it's no better or worse than the question sidehedevil referenced, though it's from the opposite side of the spectrum.
But you implied in your post that a question about "How can I be an effective advocate for the right?" would turn into a shitfest. Clearly, that is not the case. Now, I think that the post about "How can I best support McCain/Palin" was a better-worded post than this one, but I don't think people are incapable of having reasonable conversations about politics on the Green just because some people don't do a good job with making posts about politics on the Green.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:43 AM on September 15, 2008
But you implied in your post that a question about "How can I be an effective advocate for the right?" would turn into a shitfest. Clearly, that is not the case. Now, I think that the post about "How can I best support McCain/Palin" was a better-worded post than this one, but I don't think people are incapable of having reasonable conversations about politics on the Green just because some people don't do a good job with making posts about politics on the Green.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:43 AM on September 15, 2008
this kind of question (and the previous VP one) seems like nothing more than a clever way of doing "AMIRITE"Filter.
That might explain it. It might not. If it isn't completely clear-cut, let's be a bit questionable about our OP ESP and let those who want to respond in good faith do so. If they're wasting their effort on AMIRITE-filter, it's their choice to do so. They skeptics, as usual, can keep out, since they are not being constructive. And as always, the admins can be the judge of whether the questin is legit and nuke it with extreme prejudice if they consider it so.
Any problem with this?
I don't think we should have such politically charged questions that are somewhat insulting to all those who disagree with the OP's premise.
And the movement to regulate offence marches on.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:48 PM on September 15, 2008
That might explain it. It might not. If it isn't completely clear-cut, let's be a bit questionable about our OP ESP and let those who want to respond in good faith do so. If they're wasting their effort on AMIRITE-filter, it's their choice to do so. They skeptics, as usual, can keep out, since they are not being constructive. And as always, the admins can be the judge of whether the questin is legit and nuke it with extreme prejudice if they consider it so.
Any problem with this?
I don't think we should have such politically charged questions that are somewhat insulting to all those who disagree with the OP's premise.
And the movement to regulate offence marches on.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:48 PM on September 15, 2008
they skeptics?
questin?
What an odd mental accent I have today.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:49 PM on September 15, 2008
questin?
What an odd mental accent I have today.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:49 PM on September 15, 2008
Tilting at windmills. There's nothing wrong with the question, aside from editorializing a little, but this is why we have guidelines. If you don't believe Bush is a failure, then you have no answer for the question - move on. If you do have some ideas for the OP, you can offer them.
There are analogues from outside the world of politics. Questions involving polyamory, for instance, tend to bring out the ire of people who just don't believe it's a good way to conduct relationships. Over and over we've seen that answers that attack the OP's basic premise (we are in a polyamorous relationship and are both consensual and completely OK with it) rather than the problem (now s/he is disregarding a primary tenet of our agreement; now someone is trying to play outside the boundaries; now my sister won't talk to me) are regarded as not useful and, usually, removed. You don't have to agree with the premise of every question. If you have nothing to offer, do everyone a favor and don't answer.
I don't agree that you'd be "lambasted" if you asked what the failures of the Clinton presidency were; I can think of a few pretty significant ones, and I'm a total liberal. If you editorialized to the degree that this OP did, it might get my goat and you might do better to phrase it differently, but it would still be a legitimate question and a legitimate use of Ask, and your editorializing would not really affect whether or not I have something to contribute. I do, or I don't. If you don't accept the premise, you won't have a useful answer. Move on.
posted by Miko at 12:52 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
There are analogues from outside the world of politics. Questions involving polyamory, for instance, tend to bring out the ire of people who just don't believe it's a good way to conduct relationships. Over and over we've seen that answers that attack the OP's basic premise (we are in a polyamorous relationship and are both consensual and completely OK with it) rather than the problem (now s/he is disregarding a primary tenet of our agreement; now someone is trying to play outside the boundaries; now my sister won't talk to me) are regarded as not useful and, usually, removed. You don't have to agree with the premise of every question. If you have nothing to offer, do everyone a favor and don't answer.
I don't agree that you'd be "lambasted" if you asked what the failures of the Clinton presidency were; I can think of a few pretty significant ones, and I'm a total liberal. If you editorialized to the degree that this OP did, it might get my goat and you might do better to phrase it differently, but it would still be a legitimate question and a legitimate use of Ask, and your editorializing would not really affect whether or not I have something to contribute. I do, or I don't. If you don't accept the premise, you won't have a useful answer. Move on.
posted by Miko at 12:52 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Original poster here. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration that my post got both in AskMe and here, and I appreciate Jessamyn's moderation.
I was definitely not intending an "AMIRITE" post. I only recently had a political conversation with this friend and was quite shocked to find out her views. I want to have a respectful and rational conversation with her and my attempts so far have not been successful, which has been very frustrating.
I'm sure my original post could have been better worded. I really am not suffering from "incoherent rage", but have been merely flummoxed that someone who I considered to be intelligent and thoughtful could not be aware of at least some of the failures of the past eight years. I've seen very thoughtful and intelligent posts on politics here on both sides of the spectrum and was hoping for some of those.
I did want substantive facts and not noise, and didn't feel like I had those at my disposal as easily as I could.
Thanks again for everyone's contributions.
posted by idb at 1:56 PM on September 15, 2008
I was definitely not intending an "AMIRITE" post. I only recently had a political conversation with this friend and was quite shocked to find out her views. I want to have a respectful and rational conversation with her and my attempts so far have not been successful, which has been very frustrating.
I'm sure my original post could have been better worded. I really am not suffering from "incoherent rage", but have been merely flummoxed that someone who I considered to be intelligent and thoughtful could not be aware of at least some of the failures of the past eight years. I've seen very thoughtful and intelligent posts on politics here on both sides of the spectrum and was hoping for some of those.
I did want substantive facts and not noise, and didn't feel like I had those at my disposal as easily as I could.
Thanks again for everyone's contributions.
posted by idb at 1:56 PM on September 15, 2008
Must we get all political?
Everything is so political.
posted by GuyZero at 3:19 PM on September 15, 2008
Everything is so political.
posted by GuyZero at 3:19 PM on September 15, 2008
Metafilter is not only meta, but a filter. Discuss.
posted by premortem at 11:08 PM on September 15, 2008
posted by premortem at 11:08 PM on September 15, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by puke & cry at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2008