This dude is a troll. January 2, 2009 3:58 AM   Subscribe

After 8 years of lurking, Gamien Boffenburg crawls out of the woodwork to ... defend the use of the swastika, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and joke about sexually assaulting a Zionist. And that's it. That's all he brings to the table. Gamien Boffenburg, I hereby invite you to crawl back under whichever rock you came from.
posted by Afroblanco to MetaFilter-Related at 3:58 AM (191 comments total)

What? I don't want to draw the argument out even FURTHER into this thread, but his point that the tormented have now become the tormentors is rather valid- the whole idea of collective punishment of the families of suicide bombers? Come on, Himmler must be snickering up his sleeve ere as we speak.

But really. I like a lot of what you bring to this site, but you're making way too much out of this.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:13 AM on January 2, 2009


This thread is about Boffenburg, not the larger issue of Israel/Palestine. Look at his comment history. It seems that his only purpose in being here is to make offensive and borderline-offensive comments about Israel and swastikas.

It just makes me a little .... suspicious, is all.
posted by Afroblanco at 4:19 AM on January 2, 2009


I hereby invite you to crawl back under whichever rock you came from.

Since that has a terrible history of actually doing anything, I'd like to invite everyone to remember that there are actual people that use the internet and to consider your words carefully, as your intent may be lost when communicated in a heated or outrageous fashion.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:21 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


This seems like a totally hair-trigger call-out. "Defend[ing] the use of the swastika" is a purposeful misreading of that comment. "That's all he brings to the table" is some weak sauce to pull on someone whose account is barely 2 weeks old, especially in the context of two Israel threads in 3 days. Half the people going back in forth on Israel look like trolls if you only look at their comments from those threads.
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:45 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I do not see him defending the use of the swastika (which, in most Western countries, is still a great hot button image for our Two Minute Hate). What I see is him pointing out that our faux outrage seems to be pointed at symbols and words versus actual acts of injustice. I think that's at least reasonable. I find it hard to object to.

Noting something similar to the concept that we do not have the right not to be offended is probably something we need to see popping up on our screen during every discussion involving circumcision, declawing your cats, Palestine, rape, etc. While it's nice to see someone taking the time to type it out, pb could probably do it with some Javascript.

If he was going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, he probably should have started with something concrete, like, hypothetically, a law banning Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs from living in Israel, but the point that the victims can so often turn into the oppressors once they have a whiff of power is psychologically valid. So, I'd probably deduct points on the execution for that one.

I'll probably deduct points for the concept, too. Honestly, unless Israel went so far as to elect a man with a funny little moustache and emo bangs who wanted to lead the country in taking over the world, I don't think many could accept Nazi Germany / Israel comparisons. The cognitive dissonance is too great. So, yeah, I object to that one, but for a different reason.

Tea-bagging is certainly rude, which is definitely the intention, but I would probably draw the line at making it equivalent to rape. So, the crime of imagining said thing is probably not that terrible.

Nope, so far, nothing stone-skittering worthy there. If he did indeed "crawl" out after eight years and makes a total of five comments in a short period of time on three somewhat related posts which are in the news, it sounds like he did it at the prompting of something he cares about.

Who knows? Maybe he'll come out and say something truly awful at some later date, but that's true for pretty much everyone here. Time is the rope we're given with which to hang ourselves, and tongues make a fine knot.
posted by adipocere at 4:50 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Boffenburg sounds like a German porn star name.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:58 AM on January 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


Advocating ripping tongues out and hanging people with them is totally uncool. Consider this my metatalk threadjack call-out for adipocere.
posted by Grither at 4:59 AM on January 2, 2009


Grither, dude, I already had one of those this week, and it didn't go too well.

*considers changing his name to FICTIONAL_VIOLENCE_GUY*
posted by adipocere at 5:03 AM on January 2, 2009


This should help you in future call-outs, Afroblanco.
posted by boo_radley at 5:05 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I once spent a long weekend in Boffenburg. It totally didn't live up to the billing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Afroblanco, you've really really misrepresented Boffenburgs's commmets.

The "sexual assault" is a comment about tea-bagging, not rape, and pretty obviously akin to accusing someone of "wanking off", which while technically about masturbation and thus sex, is really more on an accusative of futile behavior. And your 'assaulting" link is Boffenburg's response to a mefite joking about your "sexual" link. You've left out that cntext.

(And incidentally, the mefite he's responding to made an unambiguously racist comment in that thread; why are you calling out Boffenburg and not the unabashed racist?)

The "comparison" of Israel to the Nazis is is Boffenburg expressing the (now commonplace) observation that abused people grow up to be abusers. You can argue that doesn't apply to Israel, but I don't see how you can argue that the suggestion is too out of line to even be made.

His swastika comment is that some people like to get all het up about any use of swastikas (in a thread about the use of swastika in non-Nazi contexts); it's as if his comment predicted your call-out here.


Lots of people got het up in the recent Israel invades Gaza thread; I got called an antisemite (for comments that got 24 and 63 favorites), despite my pretty long track record of FPPs decrying progroms and antisemitism.

Boffenburg hasn't made any personal attacks, he hasn't really done what you've rather too broadly accused him of. In fact, it seems his main "crime" is disagreeing with you on the sensitive issue of Israel.

Trying to use metatalk to publicly shame people who disagree with your politics isn't what metatalk is for. Doing that by implying the guy is an antisemite because he disagrees with you on Israel, and cherry-picking his comments and over-broadly misconstruing them to do so, really is a misuse of metatalk and beneath you as a person.

You're clearly het up; maybe you should take some time to cool off, Afroblanco.
posted by orthogonality at 5:08 AM on January 2, 2009 [18 favorites]


I guess it's fairly common. Live a normal life. Meet a girl, get married, have some kids, work 9 to 5. A tranquil existence...

Or is it...

Beneath the appearance of tranquility lies a seething mass of hatred. Nobody knows what the trigger will be, unleashing all of that blackness.

And one day, 8 years down the line, a mefi post and SNAP!

THREE CHEERS FOR SWASTIKAS AND NAZIS!

It's a terrible shame. And to look back and think.. "Man... 5 bucks for this?"
posted by Lord_Pall at 5:12 AM on January 2, 2009


His comments are off-putting to me, too, but he just joined - it's too early for callouts. It would take about 10 seconds to flag his whole posting history, if one wanted to.

The rape joke is really out-of-line though.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:15 AM on January 2, 2009


I remember once I made a call-out MeTa post.

I remember someone told me to...what was it? Oh yeah...

Shut up and get a sense of humor.

posted by allkindsoftime at 5:18 AM on January 2, 2009 [21 favorites]


Please, nobody go delete their accounts over this.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:20 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


By the way, in response to earlier comments, I think you have to read the little "assault" exchange in its entirety:

Gamien Boffenburg: "Right now I feel the thing to get me over the thread I've just witnessed is if I imagine tea-bagging a Zionist troll while he furiously taps away at a keyboard on the call-centre graveyard shift. Sweet Jesus."

bondgirl53001: "I'm not one to judge sexual fetishes here, but whatever turns you on there, sport.."

Gamien Boffenburg: "It's not about sex, it's about power."

It's the last bit that seems questionable to me, anyway, not really the first bit.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:22 AM on January 2, 2009


Grither, dude, I already had one of those this week, and it didn't go too well.

*considers changing his name to FICTIONAL_VIOLENCE_GUY*

posted by adipocere

I was just mocking this thread's call out, no harm intended!
posted by Grither at 5:23 AM on January 2, 2009


Solon and Thanks writes "It's the last bit that seems questionable to me, anyway, not really the first bit."

Yeah, I read that last bit in the context of the discussion as implying that Israel's attack on Gaza was (metaphorically) a rape, and like rape a demostration of a power imbalance. This reading was influenced by bondgirl's racist comment in an earlier thread ("If there's one thing the Palestinians are extremely good at, it's lying.").
posted by orthogonality at 5:32 AM on January 2, 2009


Dude's not a troll, he's just opinionated and fed up with the arguments he's seeing. Kinda describes a helluva lot of us here. Bad callout, Afroblanco.
posted by mediareport at 5:37 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: It's not about sex, it's about power
posted by hermitosis at 5:43 AM on January 2, 2009


Orthogonality, that makes a lot of sense. I was definitely reading the comment too literally, I was wondering why no one else found it strange.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:45 AM on January 2, 2009


Sex: it's about power, not Metafilter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:59 AM on January 2, 2009


Sexpower: it's about meta, not filter.
posted by box at 6:03 AM on January 2, 2009


"Boffenburger and a side of dirty onion rings! That'll be $5, please!"
posted by jonmc at 6:14 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


same as in town.
posted by boo_radley at 6:20 AM on January 2, 2009


same as in town

wie in der burg
posted by Burhanistan at 6:23 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


What mediareport said.
posted by pompomtom at 6:27 AM on January 2, 2009


I agree with Afroblanco. Offended? Just fucking get over it already was not an appropriate answer to the mega-boyzone-discussion threads a year ago, and is not an appropriate answer to ANYTHING. AB is right: saying "If I offend you, it's your own fault" is the very definition of Troll.
posted by waraw at 6:37 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


When I get sick of what someone I disagree with has to say, I think it is good policy to say I am coming over to stick my testicles in their mouth. Nothing trollish about that at all.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:43 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


AB is right: saying "If I offend you, it's your own fault" is the very definition of Troll.

Hmm... and here I thought speaking in hyperbolic absolutes was the troll's hallmark.

Quite often being offended says more about the offended than the offender.
posted by toomuchpete at 6:47 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


And quite often it says a lot about the offender too.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:49 AM on January 2, 2009


Callout feels a bit much here, honestly. Dude may or may not turn out to be trouble, but right now what we have is a handful of varyingly obnoxious comments mostly in what have already been some deeply not-great threads.

If the guy goes from here to a continued tear of aggressive fighty comments, that'll be one thing, and it might happen and we'll be on that shit for sure. Jumping balls-first into an argument and calling people pussies is not a good introduction, that's for goddam sure, and if that's gonna be consistent schtick, we've got a problem.

But if he chills out and displays signs of having read Metafilter for the last eight years for any reason other than liking a fight, not so much a problem. And it's kind of jumping the gun to conclude either way.

Unrelated, but it might not be a bad idea to try dropping him a mefimail to let him know this thread exists if you haven't already.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:58 AM on January 2, 2009


I mean, honestly, you don't comment for eight years, and you're moved to comment by the need to say OFFENDED BY SWASTIKAS? GET OVER IT! and I WANT TO SHOVE MY TESTICLES IN THE MOUTH OF A ZIONIST?

Maybe the dude means no harm, but you can't behave as though Afroblanco has just completely lost his shit by wondering what is up with this guy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:00 AM on January 2, 2009 [11 favorites]


I do agree that a callout is premature.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:01 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sex and power are like coffee and donuts. You can have one without the other, but why bother.
posted by desjardins at 7:13 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


sex is like coffee. it's ok with a donut, but great with some whiskey.
posted by jonmc at 7:15 AM on January 2, 2009


Sex is like whiskey, in that I am addicted to it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:18 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Wow. It appears that your rage over that thread has boiled over into metatalk and you decided to burn the easiest target you could find.

Poor form.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:19 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Trying to use metatalk to publicly shame people who disagree with your politics isn't what metatalk is for.

Agreed. Bad callout, and I hope when the guy finds out about it he doesn't react by getting all fighty. Gamien Boffenburg, if/when you see this, your best play is to either ignore it or say something innocuous/conciliatory. Unless, of course, you are in fact here only for the fights, in which case: it's Thunderdome time!
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on January 2, 2009


but you can't behave as though Afroblanco has just completely lost his shit by wondering what is up with this guy.

Actually you can. When you call someone out, you're setting a tone in what you write and going by what AB wrote, I was expecting a Hitler lovin', Holocaust denyin' fool. Instead there were just a few over the top comments over a sensitive topic that AB wildly distorted (defended the use of the swastika?! Seriously, that's how you interpretated that?!).

If you're going call someone out, fine, but you really need to build a solid case to do so and part of that is not doing it in heated and distorting way, like AB did.

Offended? Just fucking get over it already was not an appropriate answer to the mega-boyzone-discussion threads a year ago, and is not an appropriate answer to ANYTHING.

That's silly, of course it's an appropriate answer if someone is overreacting to something.

On preview:
Sex and power are like coffee and donuts.

Stimulating and sticky?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:28 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wow. It appears that your rage over that thread has boiled over into metatalk and you decided to burn the easiest target you could find.

Seeing that Afroblanco did not participate in that thread, what leads you to that conclusion?
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:32 AM on January 2, 2009


"I've been lurking on this site for at least eight years, and I'd like the very first comment I make to be this: Being offended is for pussies. Genuine outrage at actual injustice? Wonderful. But taking offense seems to always be a completely bullshit display of pretend emotion. People like to be offended about any "inappropriate" appreciation of the feminine form, or *gasp*, use of "I'd Hit It". It gives them a cover for their own brain damage. It's so overdone, obvious, sad and the last refuge of the blowhard angry conformist."

Doesn't fly. Neither should this.
posted by waraw at 7:41 AM on January 2, 2009


Oops, meant to change that "conformist" to "feminist."
posted by waraw at 7:42 AM on January 2, 2009


I don't really see the comment as defending the Swastika as a Nazi symbol, but rather saying that people shouldn't get offended by the shape itself when used in other cultures, for purposes that pre-date the Nazis. Frankly, I don't see how that's an even remotely unreasonable opinion. Obviously it's something people can disagree about, but it's not an opinion that makes you an unreasonable person.

Also, that thread was older then the Gaza bombing. I think it was just a coincidence.

Seeing that Afroblanco did not participate in that thread, what leads you to that conclusion?

He participated in the Swastika thread, as well as an earlier Gaza thread (iirc)
posted by delmoi at 7:50 AM on January 2, 2009


"I remember someone told me to...what was it? Oh yeah...

Shut up and get a sense of humor."


Pantera - We'll Grind That Axe For A Long Time

Is your MetaFilter breeding Zionists?

I have nothing to add other than that I had a dream last night where a young child had a male lion as his best friend (as one might in a child's cartoon). They were great chums and the partnership was fairly equitable, as while the lion defended the child from physical harm, the child defended the lion from society. But one day, from out of nowhere, the lion pounced on the small child and held him down, just breathing into his face and staring into his eyes. Though the lion did not and could not speak, he seemed to be saying: "Never forget that this world is wild. Death could come at any time, in any form; and whatever we may think or say, our partnership lasts only as long as it is mutually beneficial. There is no social contract, explicit or implied. Your life is mine if I choose to take it." Then the lion removed his heavy frame from the child's, padded a few feet away, and began licking his coat clean.

This is truly and honestly what I dreamt last night, though I have no idea if it pertains to this discussion. I just thought I'd share, in case.
posted by Eideteker at 7:50 AM on January 2, 2009 [11 favorites]


I don't think that gives anyone any reason to impugn Afroblanco's motivations, to assume that he was somehow steaming about the Israel thread and completely lost control and just decided to "burn the easiest target" he could find. That's a hell of an accusation.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2009


"I've been lurking on this site for at least eight years, and I'd like the very first comment I make to be this: Being offended is for pussies. Genuine outrage at actual injustice? Wonderful. But taking offense seems to always be a completely bullshit display of pretend emotion. People like to be offended about any "inappropriate" appreciation of the feminine form, or *gasp*, use of "I'd Hit It". It gives them a cover for their own brain damage. It's so overdone, obvious, sad and the last refuge of the blowhard angry conformist."

It would be more like trying to stop Spanish speakers from using the word "Negro".
posted by delmoi at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


*calls NAACP*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:17 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


*calls NCAA*
posted by jonmc at 8:21 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


That thread is a cesspit. The Deletion threshold for Israel/Palestine FPPs needs to be raised to kill more threads. There's a strong chance that any I/P FPP will result 200+ posts re-examining the whole I/P issue with the usual toolbox of broad brushes, selective reading glasses and flamethrowers - ie the worst of Metaflter. So the inspiration of the thread had better be something genuinely best of the web, not just newsfilter, otherwise I don't see it as a worthwhile use of MeFi. It's seriously horrible watching MeFites who you like and respect in other contexts making horrible arses of themselves. On both sides.
posted by WPW at 8:28 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Three times in the previous Israel/Palestine thread does Afroblanco explicitly complain about the Nazi/Israel comparisons - decrying all those who make it as "trolls." This is after twice making comments to explain that he wouldn't be commenting in the thread.

There is some really interesting research out there regarding nationalism, empire building, the zionist regime and the long-term, psycho-social response to the Nazi's ethnic cleansing of the Jews and the colonization of Palestine. For what it's worth, I think that South Africa makes a much more apt comparison, but nevertheless it's completely unfair to tell people that they are simply "not allowed" to compare the government of Israel to that of Nazi Germany. "You can't do that! Fuck you for doing that! I refuse to even comment on your comments!" is not an appropriate response. And then when people continue to do it, whining to the mods in metatalk about how people are still saying things that make you feel bad so won't somebody please make them stop is utter bullshit.

It drives me mad when people call me an anti-semite for criticizing Israel. I hate the wall and the settlements and the bombings specifically because I'm proud of my Jewish heritage, and Israel terrifies me because it's like gasoline for the the engines of western anti-semitism. People, very, very stupid people, fail to associate the wall with Israel. The associate it with the Jews.

And telling people they're not allowed to make political comparisons between two historical, national entities because one is Jewish does nothing to promote the cause of equality and justice, or counteract the cancer of western anti-semitism (the reason for the holocaust) or do much of anything other than squelch conversation and drive people into darker corners of the internet.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:39 AM on January 2, 2009 [25 favorites]


Gamien Boffenburg, if/when you see this, your best play is to either ignore it or say something innocuous/conciliatory.

This is a lie. A vicious lie you should not believe, Gamien Boffenburg.

Gamien Boffenburg, if you see this, your actual best bet is to send EUR50000 to me, ROU_Xenophobe. I'll take care of any issues for you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


I have nothing to add other than that I had a dream last night where a young child had a male lion as his best friend
Reminded of Liu Zongyuan's 《临江之糜》:
临江之人畋,得麋麑,畜之。入门,群犬垂涎,扬尾皆来。其人怒,怛之。自是日抱就犬,习示之,使勿动,稍使与之戏。积久,犬皆如人意。麋麑稍大,忘己之麋也,以为犬良我友,抵触偃仆,益狎。犬畏主人,与之俯仰甚善,然时啖其舌。
三年,麋出门,见外犬在道甚众,走欲与为戏。外犬见而喜且怒,共杀食之,狼藉道上,麋至死不悟。
A man from Linjiang went hunting and caught a fawn which he took home to raise. As he brought it through his gate, his hounds began to slaver and crowed towards him wagging their tails. The man became angry and admonished the dogs. From then on he would hold the fawn in his arms and bring it near the dogs so that they would get used to it being there but not do anything. He then gradually allowed the hounds to play with the fawn. As time went by, the dogs behaved as the man intended. As the fawn grew it forgot it was a deer and thought the dogs were its good friends. It would bump and wrestle with them in play becoming ever more familiar. The hounds feared their master so they played nicely with the fawn, though from time to time they would lick their lips.
Three years passed and the deer went outside the gate [for the first time]. He saw many dogs on the road outside and ran over wanting to play with them. The outside dogs were both delighted and stirred up by this sight, and together killed and ate the deer, leaving nothing but a bloody mess on the road. Even to its dying moment, the deer was not aware [of its mistake].
posted by Abiezer at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2009 [16 favorites]


Baby_Balrog, perhaps there are parallels that can be made between Israel and Nazi Germany, but you must admit that it's an especially sensitive parallel to be making, and many times the people making them are blind to that and seemingly self-delighted by being able to toss off a "the oppressed have become the oppressors" line.

And at no point in that thread to Afroblanco call you an antisemite. That seems like an unrelated bit of axe-grinding. He just found people who use the Nazi parallel to be trollish, and couldn't imagine how it would be a useful comparison when it is so likely to alienate people. His idea of what a troll is seems a little more expansive than mine, but I likewise think such parallels tend to poison a discussion when they are not handled with extreme sensitivity -- in this case because the Nazis destroyed the Jews of Europe, but also in general, because the Nazis are widely understood to be among the worst things ever.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:20 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


And I likewise think that South Africa is a better, and more useful, parallel.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:24 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


OH MY GOD SHUT UP
posted by kbanas at 9:50 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Thanks for the gamienboffenburg tag, though. I can't wait to use it.
posted by swift at 9:59 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


This will not gamienboffenburgwell
posted by Rumple at 10:16 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Comparisons can be useful, but when their somewhat loaded people just fall to arguing about the comparisons and meta-implications of the comparisons. And then you can get some really bizarre implications out of some of these analogies and the arguments about them, like the people who seem to have accidentally argued that if the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto had been able to fire rockets at germany then the holocaust would have been A-OK.

But still, theres nothing inherently wrong with using comparisons, and it’s not like people don’t compare things to nazi germany at the drop of a hat (The US, Iran, pre-war Iraq, Apartiet era South Africa), so I have to Nthing bad callout - the thread as a whole is going to shit, as those threads always do, and blaming one guy for it is just silly.
posted by Artw at 10:34 AM on January 2, 2009


Writing as a Jew who considers Israel almost as much justification as an anti-Semite might want...

It's amusing in a heartbreaking kind of way that we, in our heart of hearts, condescend towards the actors in the Middle East pageant as being somehow too barbaric or morally depraved to find a way of making peace with each other - when I've never seen an American-based internet discussion on the subject fail to draw out the rhetorical worst from all parties.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:51 AM on January 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


FWIW the binary "Israel is NAZIS"/"you is ANTISEMITE" arguments here are less stupid that ones I've seen on other sites. Some places they'd basically be the first two comments, and then would loop from that point onwards.
posted by Artw at 10:58 AM on January 2, 2009


Even reading his first comment about swastikas in the most generous light possible, it's still an incredibly poorly phrased comment. Nothing like delurking for the first time in eight years to call everyone who is offended by things that you yourself don't happen to be bothered by "pussies." And that's really what he's doing with that comment. Yeah, it's in the context of swastikas being used by cultures unrelated to the Nazis, but the essence of the comment is "Genuine outrage at actual injustice? Wonderful. But taking offense seems to always be a completely bullshit display of pretend emotion." He's saying you shouldn't be offended by something that's not an actual injustice. However one would define that.

This callout is indeed a little much at this time, but I won't be surprised if this guy ends up on the banned list within the year. He's not had an auspicious start.
posted by Caduceus at 10:58 AM on January 2, 2009


I had a dream last night where a young child had a male lion as his best friend...

That was more interesting than The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:02 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Thanks for the gamienboffenburg tag, though. I can't wait to use it.

I hope we can get a meme going.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:34 AM on January 2, 2009


Actually the reason why I didn't enter into the recent Israel discussions is because of the Israel=Nazi vs Criticism of Israel= Antisemitism poles of argument. Eventually discussions boil down to these poles of argument. I feel that both are bankrupt. Comparing anything to Nazi Germany is a sure way to make it look like you're over inflating your argument. Saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitism is mostly a tool to stifle argument and really cheapens the term, whereas comparing anything to the Nazis is already cheap. I don't really see there being too many good guys in the current situation in Israel, but a lot of people who just want a fucking end to it all are caught up in the middle.
posted by ob at 11:42 AM on January 2, 2009


swastickles
posted by stinkycheese at 12:00 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Sex and power are like coffee and donuts: somewhere, someone's doing something with both that's Really, Really Not Okay.
posted by mattdidthat at 12:16 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I don't think Gamien Boffenburg is a troll. He's just opinionated and spirited.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:26 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Deletion threshold for Israel/Palestine FPPs needs to be raised to kill more threads.

We're definitely leaning towards that. I/P threads have always had a higher bar to cross because they get so fighty in such an ugly way so quickly. There have been two sort of nasty ones recently and we always have to make a decision between deleting them and dealing with fallout in MeTa or leaving them up and trying to moderate and keep an eye on them. We've leaned towards the latter approach lately and it may be time to lean the other way. I personally (mod hat off) find these threads and people's behavior in them really bringing out the worst parts of MeFi (including the "well I'm being horrible because what's happening to people in the Middle East is DOUBLE PLUS HORRIBLE so it's justified in my bad behavior" which is a fight I don't like to be in the middle of).

We have ways of keeping a mod eye on jerkish behavior; this guy seems like he was being jerkish and we can keep an eye on him.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:26 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Baby_Balrog : And telling people they're not allowed to make political comparisons between two historical, national entities because one is Jewish ...

Straw man.

Baby_Balrog, I am not making that argument. In fact, I don't think that anybody is making that argument. If you look at my comments (including one that you linked to), you'll see what my objection is to the Israel/Nazi comparison - that the Nazis killed 9 to 11 million people, and that the Israelis haven't done anything close to that. By making this comparison, you are off by several orders of magnitude. Myself and others are offended by this comparison because we feel that it trivializes what the Nazis did.

But I think a more salient point is this - by making the Israel/Nazi comparison, you are doing nothing at all for your argument. It will not help you convince or influence anybody. All it will do is inflame the passions of some already pissed-off people. That is, of course, assuming that you're actually trying to convince anybody. I get the feeling that a lot of people take part in these threads just because they're pissed off and want to vent.

In any case, that has nothing to do with Boffenburg. If I were to just call people out because they disagreed with me, I'd be here all day. The fact is that this guy (in his own words) joined the site so that he could make his delightful swastika remark. He then went on to ignore everything else on the site, returning to the fray to contribute some more bile to the Israel/Palestine threads and make an entirely inappropriate rape joke.

If these comments were sprinkled in with an otherwise-normal post history, I wouldn't think to call him out. But the fact that these are his only contributions to the site - no cherrypicking necessary, orthogonality. Stuff like that just sort of pricks my ears up, and triggers my "something ain't right here" alarm.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:32 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm feeling jerkish if anyone wants to keep an eye on me, too.
posted by Rumple at 12:33 PM on January 2, 2009


And why are they called favorites? They should be called boffenburgs.
posted by Kwine at 12:36 PM on January 2, 2009


I don't think Gamien Boffenburg is a troll. He's just opinionated and spirited.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:26 PM on January 2 [+] [!]


Well, I don't know what to make of that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:38 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


If these comments were sprinkled in with an otherwise-normal post history

The guy's been here less than two weeks and made five (5) comments. Why don't you give him time to have a history?
posted by languagehat at 12:47 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


You know who else didn't give people time to have a history?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:52 PM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Francis Fukuyama?
posted by Rumple at 12:53 PM on January 2, 2009 [28 favorites]


Correct.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:55 PM on January 2, 2009


I'm just waiting for the Gaza/Downfall mash-up.
posted by Artw at 12:56 PM on January 2, 2009


aaaaand the award for "First Mefite to Make Scody Snort Hot Coffee Through Her Nose in 2009" goes to Rumple.
posted by scody at 1:06 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Well, I don't know what to make of that.

How do you mean? To me, a troll is someone who takes positions that they don't actually hold, in order to be inflammatory.

I have no reason to believe that Gamien Boffenburg is being any less than honest. He appears to think that getting upset over the use of symbols is ridiculous when it merely serves to distract attention away from actual underlying injustice, and he likewise appears to think the current Israeli regime bears some resemblance to Nazi Germany. Neither of these positions are so unreasonable that we are justified in concluding that he can't really hold them, and he's said nothing inconsistent with either of them.

He hasn't been totally civil, but people are uncivil around her all the time. If he sticks around, he'll eventually learn that Metafilter requires a super-civility from people expressing opinions outside the Metafilter mainstream.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:09 PM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Two words: crunchy pudding.
posted by phaedon at 1:13 PM on January 2, 2009


What a trainwreck.
posted by jason's_planet at 1:25 PM on January 2, 2009


MPDSEA: that is FUCKING BULLSHIT, you STUPID MORON
posted by waraw at 1:30 PM on January 2, 2009


I'm feeling jerkish if anyone wants to keep an eye on me, too.

Can it be a googly eye? I have a baggie around here somewhere.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 2:07 PM on January 2, 2009


I also have googly eyes.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 2:07 PM on January 2, 2009


To me, a troll is someone who takes positions that they don't actually hold, in order to be inflammatory.

Whatever it takes for the lulz, right?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:16 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sex, power, coffee, donuts, whiskey and metafilter. What, no cigarettes? Don't you peoples know how to sin?
posted by From Bklyn at 2:30 PM on January 2, 2009


I notice a suspicious lack of Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash, as well.
posted by scody at 2:31 PM on January 2, 2009


If cigarettes go on the main sin list, you can't take cigarette breaks from your sinning.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:39 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Whatever it takes for the lulz, right?

I hope it's the lulz that drive your pitiful vendetta.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:49 PM on January 2, 2009


This thread is a great example of troll callout fail.
posted by mullingitover at 2:52 PM on January 2, 2009


Does every thread have to have at least one "straw man!" or "no, that's an ad hominem argument AMIRITE"?

I feel I must do my part, so I would label most of these claims argumentum ad nauseam.
posted by HopperFan at 2:59 PM on January 2, 2009


If cigarettes go on the main sin list, you can't take cigarette breaks from your sinning.

Well now we know who doesn't snort.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:18 PM on January 2, 2009


I hope it's the lulz that drive your pitiful vendetta.

Even if that sort of thing is what you come here for, that's not what I come here for, sorry.

When reading your passive-aggressive attacks on members of the site, such as the one above, it is worthwhile to point out that this is what you contribute to this site, on the whole.

I hope whatever motivates you to come here causes you to burn out and leave. That's about the extent to which I care about your presence here, honestly. I enjoy contributing to the rest of Metafilter too much, frankly, and will only look forward to your leaving to the extent that it will be even better off without you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:19 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


When reading your passive-aggressive attacks on members of the site, such as the one above, it is worthwhile to point out that this is what you contribute to this site, on the whole.

Seriously, what are you talking about? I typically figure that your total inability to deal with anything resembling reality is just performance art, but you seem kind of earnest now. What did you interpret as a "passive-aggressive attack"?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:36 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I typically figure that your total inability to deal with anything resembling reality is just performance art

You are so oblivious to your own bad behavior that you repeat it again and again, as demonstrated with the aforementioned statement. It only underscores why your departure will be welcome.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:47 PM on January 2, 2009


Where did this "9 to 11 million" thing come from? Have the estimates been revised upwards by two million? Or are we counting soldiers too now?
posted by bingo at 3:48 PM on January 2, 2009


bingo - if you think that's variance you should see Stalins numbers, all over the place they are.
posted by Artw at 3:52 PM on January 2, 2009


jessamyn writes "We have ways of keeping a mod eye on jerkish behavior; this guy seems like he was being jerkish and we can keep an eye on him."

This is tremendously disappointing, jessamyn.

Afroblanco manufactures a baseless call-out of this Boffenburg, disliberately misconstruing Bioffenburg's comments as "anti-semitism", and your response to this smearing abuse of process is that you'll subject Boffenburg's future comments to a heightened level of scrutiny?

This just invites any old-woman-in-skirts who is too easily offended, to use Metatalk to SLAPP* down anyone whose opinions they disagree with; because even if a most mefites agree that the call-out was premature or poorly motivated, the call-out maker will still have succeeded in creating a situation in which their target now has an "official record" and is accorded less leeway by the mods.
*A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.
That's just fundamentally unfair.
posted by orthogonality at 4:19 PM on January 2, 2009


I'd nominate afroblanco as the trolliest troll in that Gammadion thread, TBH. I'm not entirely sure that someone who signs up purely to respond to the trolliest troll comments in the trolly troll thread isn't entirely worthy of keeping an eye on though.
posted by Artw at 4:35 PM on January 2, 2009


Please point out where Afroblanco accuses anyone of antisemitism in this callout, orthogonality.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:46 PM on January 2, 2009


Happy New Year everyone!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:47 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


That's just fundamentally unfair.

How exactly? Saying we'll keep an eye on someone who may have a tone deafness problem seems to be a decent response. No one is being sanctioned in any outward way. A user seems to have an issue with another user and we said "hey we'll keep an eye on him."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:52 PM on January 2, 2009


The wording of the callout does rather paint a picture...
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on January 2, 2009


> This just invites any old-woman-in-skirts who is too easily offended

*sharp intake of breath*
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:53 PM on January 2, 2009 [11 favorites]


I am sure if afroblanco had felt the guy was an antisemite he would have used that word. It doesn't really help the discussion to insist that charges were made that weren't.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:54 PM on January 2, 2009


Where did this "9 to 11 million" thing come from? Have the estimates been revised upwards by two million? Or are we counting soldiers too now?

Six million Jewish victims, plus victims who were Roma, ethnic Poles, Russians, gay people, the disabled, etc.

That's where the nine to eleven million figure comes from.
posted by jason's_planet at 4:55 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Astro Zombie writes "Please point out where Afroblanco accuses anyone of antisemitism in this callout, orthogonality."

I think that's the unmistakable implication of Afroblanco's callout. We can play word games if you want, but why bother with that?
Unarguably, Afroblanco implies that Boffenburg is less than human, an insect who shouldn't be allowed to comment here: "Gamien Boffenburg crawls out of the woodwork.... Gamien Boffenburg, I hereby invite you to crawl back under whichever rock you came from."
posted by orthogonality at 4:56 PM on January 2, 2009


Because he didn't make that charge. No word games. He said the guy engaged in some troubling behavior. That's quite a bit different from saying the guy hates Jews.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:57 PM on January 2, 2009


If someone said that about me that's the implication I'd draw, and I'd be mighty pissed.
posted by Artw at 4:59 PM on January 2, 2009


I know it seems like a subtle difference, but I really think there is a difference between addressing what is actually said and what you infer is meant.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:59 PM on January 2, 2009


You may be far more charitable in your interpretations than me. Rather ironically, the guys you dislike for throwing the around the term so casually seem to trade on making the worst possibly inferences possible.
posted by Artw at 5:04 PM on January 2, 2009


This just invites any old-woman-in-skirts who is too easily offended

The English language includes many ways to express disdain for the professional offense-taker that do not insult women.

Just thought I'd mention it.
posted by jason's_planet at 5:04 PM on January 2, 2009 [20 favorites]


"professional offense-taker" would seem like the most exact and damning way of doing it.
posted by Artw at 5:05 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


(and there are certainly no lack of those)
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on January 2, 2009


Well, I guess my issue is that I also think it is troubling that the guy jumps in to call people who are offended by swastikas "pussies" and says he wants to teabag zionists. That doesn't mean I think he hates Jews. It does mean that it is possible the guy is exactly what afroblanco calls him in the headline of this thread: a troll.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:07 PM on January 2, 2009


Maybe, but if you sat down and tried to come up with a way to troll that swastika thread it'd be pretty much impossible to come up with something that someone hadn't already posted, so who knows.

(barring non sequitors and just flat out accusing people of donkey sex, of course)
posted by Artw at 5:10 PM on January 2, 2009


Well, I'm not sure the guy is a troll; it's possible he's just blunt and not very sensitive and made a few unfortunate choices in his first posts. But I also think it is fair for the mods to keep their eye on him to figure that out. Which is why, as I said earlier, I think this callout is a little premature.

But, as you know, I take issue with people insisting there have been charges of antisemitism when the actual charge hasn't been leveled. Afroblanco calls him a troll. That was his charge.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:13 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


No argument there.

Of course all of this was caused by a conspiracy by bankers.
posted by Artw at 5:17 PM on January 2, 2009


That goes without saying.

Anyway, I have made my point, and don't wish to belabor it. Orthogonality is free to disagree with me, and I don't care to butt heads about it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:19 PM on January 2, 2009


« Older Vegas, baby! Meetup for CES a... | Yesterday I made this post whi... Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments by order of the Elders of Zion.
posted by Eideteker at 5:22 PM on January 2, 2009


Ooh, dirty pool, Haughey. You gobbled my whitespace, but good!
posted by Eideteker at 5:23 PM on January 2, 2009


Terrorists 1 Afroblanco 0
posted by phaedon at 5:27 PM on January 2, 2009


There's a bar in NY that I used to frequent quite a bit, where in the mens room, above the single urinal, was the graffiti statement, "Israel is rape! Read your Noam Chomsky - you know it's true!" For years that thing was there.

Personally, what I took away most from repeatedly reading this message scrawled on a bathroom wall was that "Read your Noam Chomsky - you know it's true" is the perfect way to win any argument about anything, ever, particularly if your definition of success is to look like a gigantic douche who's read one book and thinks himself an intellectual as a result of it.

Don't know if that has anything to do with anything or not.

Additionally: suck my balls.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:35 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


you've already butted heads, astro zombie, and orthogonality isn't the only one to think that this is a thinly veiled ANTISEMITE!!!!!!!!!! finger point. and i'm not the only one who thinks this is a shitty callout.
posted by msconduct at 5:35 PM on January 2, 2009


I mean, honestly, you don't comment for eight years, and you're moved to comment by the need to say OFFENDED BY SWASTIKAS? GET OVER IT! and I WANT TO SHOVE MY TESTICLES IN THE MOUTH OF A ZIONIST?


Well, we seem to have gotten a bit beyond this, but I assumed he meant teabagging in the Halo sense, not in the porn sense. A small point, but there is a bit of a difference, in that no one is naked and no one has anything put in their mouth.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:38 PM on January 2, 2009


Well said.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:38 PM on January 2, 2009


Here's to many more uses of the 'gamienboffenburg' tag in 2009.
posted by dgaicun at 5:39 PM on January 2, 2009


Oops, that was to msconduct.

I am not familiar with the Halo sense. But if nobody is naked, I am not sure I am interested in it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:39 PM on January 2, 2009


Stuff like that just sort of pricks my ears up, and triggers my "something ain't right here" alarm.

so you were looking for an excuse to overreact in a way that would have made ashcroft weep. they look guilty, throw them all into cells!

much ado about...
posted by krautland at 5:40 PM on January 2, 2009


Every year this is what comes of people spending way too much time with their horrible families: rampant post-holiday pissiness.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:48 PM on January 2, 2009


I assumed he meant teabagging in the Halo sense

Will no-one think of the children?
posted by Artw at 5:59 PM on January 2, 2009


The English language includes many ways to express disdain for the professional offense-taker that do not insult women.

Seconded.
posted by stet at 6:04 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure that teabagging in the Halo sense only happens in Halo and similar video games, where it is simply a stand in for actual teabagging. No one who says they want to teabag someone in real life actually means by that "crouch up and down quickly over the head area of their murdered bodies."

Oh, and also, teabagging in the Halo sense requires that you have killed them first, so there's that.

(Yes, I know I'm deliberately twisting your comment, but really, "Teabagging in the Halo sense"? Talk about a weaksauce justification for someone's statement.)
posted by Caduceus at 6:11 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I assumed he meant teabagging in the Halo sense

Also, I had an awkward pre-caffeine conversation with my wife this morning wherein I tried (and failed) to explain that I hate leaving the teabag in my tea because, when it slaps my face, I think of teabagging. And I've got no problem with the occaisional scrotum to the face, it's just that when I'm drinking my morning beverage I've got no desire to be reminded or teabagging in the John Waters or the Halo sense.

Alternately, I could switch back to coffee. Or plates of beans. Either way.
posted by stet at 6:11 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I am not familiar with the Halo sense.

You can crouch in Halo, to get behind cover and whatnot. When done over the head of a prone (dead) enemy, it looks like they're being tea-bagged. It's a stupid "You lose. I win. Ha-ha, my balls are in the general vicinity of your face!" thing.
...likely inspired by Halo, "in which players can perform a posturing move over a defeated enemy,"
Which, considering that the teabag maneuver probably wasn't the original intent of the crouch, is about as honest as saying "Lego blocks, a type of toy with which children can build 3D penises..."
posted by CKmtl at 6:18 PM on January 2, 2009


I don't have much to add to all this. I just think it's interesting and a little silly that 20th-century westerners see regimes as a binary between Hitler and freedom.

I mean, sure, it's over-the-top and offensive to draw parallels between Nazi Germany and latter-day Israel, and I'll sure as shit make sure my kids don't talk that way, but isn't it weird that when Israel commits admittedly brutal acts all we can think to say is 'Hitler?' It seems to me that there are more productive things to do than draw parallels that are bound to be painful to one side and which only serve as some kind of demonization. It might well be that Israel has no exact parallel in history. They could still be wrong. In fact, I don't see what good having a parallel in history does; it just seems like a stone one which people can leap by connecting a difficult current situation with a past situation which they think they understand perfectly clearly.

And it also could be that the two poles - fascism and democracy - aren't really the only two sides to the game that we should be worrying about. Seems to me that leaves out a whole lot of important things, not least of all justice.
posted by koeselitz at 6:43 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


No one who says they want to teabag someone in real life actually means by that "crouch up and down quickly over the head area of their murdered bodies."

Since when is a snarky MeFi comment "in real life"? However, if you're familiar with the youth of New Jersey, that is in fact what they mean by it.

Oh, and also, teabagging in the Halo sense requires that you have killed them first, so there's that.

(Yes, I know I'm deliberately twisting your comment, but really, "Teabagging in the Halo sense"? Talk about a weaksauce justification for someone's statement.)


I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying what I got from that statement, and it certainly wasn't 1) presuming that Gamian Boffenburg was talking about a real-life fantasy involving Zionists, keyboards, and call-centers; and 2) that he'd like to stick his dangly bits into mouth of said imaginary Zionist, seeing as how that seems inherently dangerous. But whatevs, if you want to get all handwavy re: the Real Meaning of Teabagging as Used by Boffenburg, you should probably go straight to the source. My point is that what he meant, and what other people have construed as sexual assault may not be the same thing.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:51 PM on January 2, 2009


good heavens koeselitz, Haughey's Lament had kicked in:

"As a MetaTalk discussion grows longer, the probability of the final comments turning to mention of testicles and the penis, any penis, approaches one."

all we can think to say is 'Hitler?'
wanna bet?
posted by de at 7:05 PM on January 2, 2009


Since when is a snarky MeFi comment "in real life"?

The highest aspiration for metafilter, and one to which I cleave, is to be a subset of real life. YMMV. No more and no motherfucking less.

Also, has anybody email the subject of this callout? Just asking.
posted by stet at 7:06 PM on January 2, 2009


jason's_planet: Six million Jewish victims, plus victims who were Roma, ethnic Poles, Russians, gay people, the disabled, etc.

That's where the nine to eleven million figure comes from.


Oh, golly gee. I'm sorry that I didn't spell it out more clearly.

Having been raised Jewish and forced to endure countless hours of documentaries and lectures on the holocaust of WWII, I was subjected to the numbers 6 and 9 quite a bit in this context. Six million Jews, three million non-Jews. Never, and this includes a pretty good secular public school and university education, did I hear the number "eleven million" in reference to Holocaust victims.

So when I was asking where the number comes from, I wasn't asking what it referred to, I was asking why the number being bandied about has changed.

I'm really sorry (for you) that this explanation was necessary. I think you should ask yourself if you really didn't understand the question, and if not, what you were actually trying to gain with your weirdly snide and obtuse answer.
posted by bingo at 7:15 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


p.s. I suppose Afroblanco got his "nine to eleven million" from Wikipedia, where the footnote explains that the number is very unclear, and depends on how broadly you choose to count "victims," but I still don't see where the number "eleven million" comes from. There are some estimates that are much higher, however.
posted by bingo at 7:21 PM on January 2, 2009


Not much to add here, but this:

Orthogonality: I got called an antisemite (for comments that got 24 and 63 favorites)...

What?

Is the idea that there aren't that many antisemites on Metafilter, so those comments couldn't possibly have been favorited (entirely) by antisemites, so the comments weren't actually antisemitic?

I mean, I didn't even look at the comments, I don't really care one way or the other. But the logic of drawing on the number of times the comments were favorited as defense against accusations of antisemitism is asinine.
posted by voltairemodern at 8:11 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think that's the unmistakable implication of Afroblanco's callout.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I did not accuse anyone of antisemitism. I did, however, accuse Gamien Boffenburg of being a troll, and I stick by that.

Trolls often pick pet issues. This guy has only talked about swastikas and Israel. I don't know him personally, so I cannot say that he's an antisemite. However, I do have evidence that he likes to get a rise out of people by being purposefully belligerent about controversial issues, without adding anything substantive to the discussion.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:35 PM on January 2, 2009


Gamien Boffenburg is clearly not a troll. Trolls have names like Grim Snarltooth and Fang Gnash. Gamien Boffenburg is probably a halfling or gnome. I'm guessing gnome. They like the whole cutesy "G___ the gnome". And you know, demi-humans never quite figure out the etiquette of humankind.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:55 PM on January 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


You win this round, Gamien Boffenburg!!!

*Shakes fist at imaginary hot air balloon with a huge GB monogram on the envelope*

If cigarettes go on the main sin list, you can't take cigarette breaks from your sinning.

I could alternate between filtered and un-.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:04 PM on January 2, 2009


I think you should ask yourself if you really didn't understand the question, and if not, what you were actually trying to gain with your weirdly snide and obtuse answer.

*shrugs*

I would call it a sincere misunderstanding of your question. I meant nothing snide by that at all.

I'll enter a guilty plea here to being human and fallible.

I hope that someday you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
posted by jason's_planet at 9:07 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


He can't be a troll... He hasn't attacked any billy goats yet (that we know of).
posted by amyms at 9:15 PM on January 2, 2009


FWIW, not that my opinion matters any more than anyone else's, but I read jason's_planet's earlier answer as a sincere attempt to answer the question regarding the 11 million figure. I didn't perceive anything snide or obtuse in it at all.
posted by amyms at 9:20 PM on January 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


And you know, demi-humans never quite figure out the etiquette of humankind.

*flash of insight*

posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:26 PM on January 2, 2009


I mean, honestly, you don't comment for eight years, and you're moved to comment by the need to say OFFENDED BY SWASTIKAS? GET OVER IT! and I WANT TO SHOVE MY TESTICLES IN THE MOUTH OF A ZIONIST?

Some things are just worth waiting for.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:22 PM on January 2, 2009


You did it. The first bad callout of 2009. Hooray for you.
posted by GuyZero at 10:31 PM on January 2, 2009


This callout is wrong.

Read your Noam Chomsky - you know it's true.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 AM on January 3, 2009 [6 favorites]


I wonder if "Read your X - you know it's true" works with all authors. There are certain obvious examples where it does:

Read your Ayn Rand - you know it's true.
Read your Milton Friedman - you know it's true.
Read your Huntington - you know it's true.

But doesn't it kinda work for everything? Wouldn't it be just as annoying if someone said earnestly:

Read your Danielle Steel - you know it's true.
Read your Grisham - you know it's true.
Read your J. K. Rowling - you know it's true.

I suppose it comes down to the wire on the best ones... I can't decide if it would be just as annoying if I said:

Read your Aristotle - you know it's true.
Read your sagas - you know it's true.
Read your Shakespeare - you know it's true.
posted by Kattullus at 7:12 AM on January 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


Okay, I just realized what would be single most annoying X in that formulation for me:

Read your Harold Bloom - you know it's true.

Oh, my kingdom for a t-shirt that says: Harold Bloom is an odious windbag.
posted by Kattullus at 7:13 AM on January 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


Google your Ron Paul!
posted by orthogonality at 8:43 AM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Read your Dr. Seuss - you know it's true.
posted by amyms at 9:30 AM on January 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Read your V.C. Andrews -- you know it's a brother and sister locked in an attic exploring incest!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:34 AM on January 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Read your Vanilli. Girl, you know it's true.
posted by box at 9:39 AM on January 3, 2009 [14 favorites]


Yo dawg, we heard you like to read so we put a book in your book so you can know it's true while you know it's true.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:41 AM on January 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Read Adolf Hitler's diary - you know it's not true.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:30 AM on January 3, 2009


Yo dawg, we heard you like memes so we put a meme in your meme so you can lol while you lol.
posted by mullingitover at 10:35 AM on January 3, 2009


Oh, my kingdom for a t-shirt that says: Harold Bloom is an odious windbag.

$20, SAIT.
posted by ersatz at 11:12 AM on January 3, 2009


Read your Gillian McKeith - she knows your poo!
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on January 3, 2009


Kattullus, you're being incredibly unfair to odious windbags everywhere. Harold Bloom is so much worse.
posted by Caduceus at 11:54 AM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Read your Spandau Ballet. You know this much is true.
posted by FelliniBlank at 12:03 PM on January 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


So who won?
posted by maxwelton at 12:56 PM on January 3, 2009


So who won?

Clearly not the internet.
posted by ob at 3:00 PM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Predalien.
posted by Artw at 3:50 PM on January 3, 2009


Gamien Boffenburg is clearly not a troll. Trolls have names like Grim Snarltooth and Fang Gnash. Gamien Boffenburg is probably a halfling or gnome. I'm guessing gnome. They like the whole cutesy "G___ the gnome". And you know, demi-humans never quite figure out the etiquette of humankind.

The gnome would certainly be my guess, with that Alpine surname and reticent demeanor. Someone throw him some uncut gems and he'll be busy with them for a while.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:02 PM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Read your Lovecraft -- You know it's goo
posted by waraw at 5:59 PM on January 3, 2009


Read your Penthouse Forum. You never thought this would happen to you...
posted by Johnny Porno at 6:11 PM on January 3, 2009


Read your Pyrrho — you know it's true.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:18 PM on January 3, 2009


Read your Hubbard — you know it was Xenu.
posted by CKmtl at 8:16 PM on January 3, 2009


Read your MetaFilter -- you know it's blue.
posted by K.P. at 10:05 PM on January 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Read your biography — you know it's you.
posted by philomathoholic at 12:33 AM on January 4, 2009


Read your vowels -- a e i o u
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:29 AM on January 4, 2009


Read your Dinty Moore -- you know it's stew.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:59 AM on January 4, 2009


Read your book -- you magnificent bastard, you.
posted by kosher_jenny at 6:23 AM on January 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Read your advertisements — you know they aren't funded and approved by Disco Stu.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:02 AM on January 4, 2009


Sing your Spandau Ballet — you know this much is true.
posted by Eideteker at 9:15 AM on January 4, 2009


Read your William S. Burroughs - you know it's OH MY GOD WHAT
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Eat your vegetables.
posted by longsleeves at 1:53 PM on January 4, 2009


Listen to the Jam -- there's a thousand things they want to say to you.
posted by scody at 2:15 PM on January 4, 2009


Current I/P thread is loaded to the gills with people saying trollish things, FWIW. Some of them (gasp!) who signed up just for that thread.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on January 4, 2009


Some of them ... signed up just for that thread

Well, color me shocked!
posted by Afroblanco at 9:43 PM on January 4, 2009


Why would anyone pay $5 just to beat that really dead horse? Isn't craigslist rant free?

Read your Heinlein -- you grok it's true.
posted by schyler523 at 10:12 PM on January 4, 2009


Well, I only just realized this discussion had happened, so I guess it's too late- and ridiculous- to point out I had no idea teabagging had anything to do with balls going into a mouth. (I can't even believe I said that- or that I'm going to say this.) I thought teabagging referred to a drunken blokey practice of dropping one's balls onto a fellow drunkard's forehead. Oh God.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 8:02 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


I thought teabagging referred to a drunken blokey practice of dropping one's balls onto a fellow drunkard's forehead. Oh God.

Don't feel bad - this was what I thought it was too. I made the mistake of saying it in a bar once, and I still haven't lived it down.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:00 AM on January 9, 2009


IIRC That’s the definition given in the movie Pecker and the one I was previously most familiar with.
posted by Artw at 10:04 AM on January 9, 2009


Oh, and welcome to metafilter!
posted by Artw at 10:06 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


« Older Vegas, baby! Meetup for CES attendees and locals?   |   Fair and Balanced. Newer »

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